Thursday, July 17, 2014

D'Souza's America: Imagine...

Mrs ERJ and I went to a movie in a theater

We picked D'Souza's America: Imagine the World Without Her.  It came highly recommended by Mrs ERJ's brother.


D'Souza gets an A for effort and for the sound track.  There are things I would have done a little bit differently, primarily on the "You did not build that" theme.

We lose when we allow the opposition to define the argument.  The Obamas and Warrens of the world frame their argument as if money/resources simply sprang into being as though it had tunneled into this universe from a distant, parallel universe that is veiled from view.

(Proof reading "A-ha!".  The world of productive labor is a distant, veiled universe to many so it is a particularly apt metaphor.)

In fact, the money in my pocket is there because a mutual agreement was made between myself and an on-going commercial enterprise.  I joined my efforts with those people who were already in place.  We shepherded ideas from brain, to mylar (or computer), to prototypes and then built tools to productionize and take to mass market.  Those tools were purchased with money (capital) borrowed from the savings of legions of other workers.  Some of those savings were in the form of pension obligations.  Other savings accumulated due to insurance premiums collected in excess of immediate payouts.  Other savings was the old fashioned, "I whittled down my purchases so I have a little extra to squirrel away."

The government did not put that money in my pocket.  That money landed in my pocket due to the joined effort, and savings, of many man and women (including my own) engaged in free enterprise. 

There was a time when enterprise was recognized as the seed corn that led to future harvests.  Indeed, the Interstate system was built for the purposes of National Defense and to advance commerce, not so community organizers could travel from Chicago to St Louis and Detroit with greater convenience.  Even today, States compete for large factories with promises of infrastructure improvements to support them. States recognize that revenue, ultimately, comes from productive citizens

The Politics of Envy and Resentment

Envy and Resentment are ancient evils.  The Biblical account of Genesis has the Devil convincing Adam and Eve to eat from "The Tree of Knowledge".  At first Eve argues against the sin.  Adam was presumable present in body but did not verbalize any objections.  The Devil persuaded them with the argument that eating from The Tree of Knowledge would elevate them from "less than God" to be "as God."  The first sin? Envy!

The second sin recorded in the Bible is when Cain murdered his brother Abel. Cain murdered his brother because he was resentful of the favor shown to Abel.

Two of the Ten Commandments (20% of the Ten Commandments!) start out "Thou shall not covet..."

Many contemporary people are ambivalent about the Divine nature of the Bible.  Most of those people will readily agree that the Bible has proven a robust rule-set for moral behavior that leads to a civil and productive society.  A salient feature of that rule-set involves the prominence of the codes prohibiting "Envy" and "Resentment".

The evil of "Envy" and the poison of "Resentment" are being cultured in America today.  D'Souza points to Saul Alinsky as the fountainhead of these toxins.  His disciples are pushing the Alinsky agenda into the farthest reaches of America. 

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.


  1. Hey, Joe, interesting post. It feels"like you gave the movie at least "One thumb up" or maybe even two. While reading this post I was reminded of the two essential rules of civilized society, promoted by author "Uncle Eric":
    1. Do everything that you have agreed to do
    2. Do not encroach on other persons or their property.

    Uncle Eric suggests that most all religions agree with these Laws. If you are not familar with his series of books, I will suggest that you will really enjoy them. Whatever happened to penny candy; and Whatever happened to Justice are two titles that come to mind.

    1. Our basic assumption is 100% wrong. The radicals do no want "civil" they do not want "society" as we know it.

      Think of the crassest, used car salesman imaginable. He bullies. He insults the husband's manhood. He insinuates friction competition between the woman and the man.

      The used car salesman does not want harmonious marital relationships because that stands in the way of his commission.

      Rather few used car salesmen use these techniques but those techniques are wholeheartedly embraced by the radicals.