Review: "America: Imagine The World Without Her"

Posted by BradHarrington 9 years, 9 months ago to Politics
34 comments | Share | Flag

This piece ran first in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle a few months ago, but I like the Parcbench post better because it has the picture too. <smile>

I sent a copy of this to Mr. D'Souza; never heard back from him, however...

Brad Harrington
brad@bradandbarbie.com

********************

January 5, 2015

“America: Imagine The World Without Her”

By Bradley Harrington

“That’s how we see you around the world, as one of the greatest ideas in human history... This country was the first to claw its way out of darkness, and put that on paper.” - Bono, U2 lead singer, Georgetown University speech, 2012 -

In “America: Imagine the World Without Her,” film producer and noted conservative activist Dinesh D’Souza gets right to the point: “In America,” he states, “you get to write your own script.”

This film, a rousing defense of uniquely American values, catalogues the transgressions of early American society - conquest, theft, murder, land-grabbing and slavery - and answers the charges head-on.

By discussing and sometimes interviewing several of the more influential commentators on the “hate America” scene, such as Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky, Mr. D’Souza then demolishes their claims by placing them in their proper historical and ideological contexts.

Those transgressions, as Mr. D’Souza demonstrates, have been around since the dawn of time - but it was America, not the rest of the world, who fought to abolish such practices.

It was not the caste system of India (which Mr. D’Souza himself escaped from), nor the monarchical follies of Europe, nor the ant-heap collectivisms of the Far East, that America acted to create and glorify, but the Rights of Man instead.

It’s not how we started, Mr. D’Souza is saying, but what we made ourselves into, that tells the true tale. In the same sense that we are still somewhat free to “write our own scripts,” we chose - as a nation - to abandon such transgressions and create a radically different form of political organization instead.

In the United States, in essence, we chose to “write our own script” socially as well as personally. And, although it is, unfortunately, never stated explicitly, the movie’s dramatizations lead the viewer to the obvious conclusion: That it’s the former which makes the latter possible, i.e., that social and political liberties are the absolute prerequisite for pursing one’s own personal dreams of self-realization.

America, in other words, as an originally essentially voluntarist nation, along with all that this has led to, strips bare all the lies of the academic wing-nuts who proclaim her history to be nothing more than institutionalized thuggery.

That is what makes America, both as a country and as the movie, so exceptional: That, here, for the most part, you really do get to still “write your own script.”

And that, precisely, is why the “progressives” hate both: For the Left - and, sadly enough, much of the Right as well - seeks to write your script for you instead. Such enemies of freedom recognize that in order to take America down politically it must first be taken down ideologically.

And that, in its turn, brings us to the major failing of the movie “America” - that it just doesn’t take its own thesis far enough.

Yes, Mr. D’Souza is correct in slamming the point home that it’s the educational institutions that drive the culture and set the leitmotif for American society. He flounders, however, when it comes to properly identifying the source of that educational rot: Philosophy.

If our colleges and universities, today, preach that reason and reality are in contradistinction to one another - that American thought conflicts with the dictates of existence - we have the philosopher Immanuel Kant to thank for that.

And if our students are being taught that “theory” doesn’t matter - that America’s limitations on political power are nothing more than arbitrary social constructs - we have the philosopher William James to thank for that.

And if many of our teachers teach that nothing is provable - that one can’t actually demonstrate that all human beings are entitled to their individual rights - we have the philosopher David Hume to thank for that.

And if our kids’ minds are being swamped with the idea that ethics is nothing more than illusion - that it doesn’t really matter whether you live as a producer or as a thief - we have the philosopher Georg Hegel to thank for that.

Far from being the mere “ivory tower” intellectual gymnastics that most people consider philosophy to be, it is philosophy in its widest, most systemic sense - i.e., the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence - that drives ideas, and it is then those ideas that drive the world.

In order to properly reclaim America, therefore, it is the realm of philosophy that must be reclaimed first. It was the philosophies of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment that created the ideas of America to begin with, and it is only with the resurrection of reason, individualism and capitalism that the remaking of America can ever begin again.

In that regard, however, let’s cut Mr. D’Souza a little slack: For that’s going to take more than a two-hour movie to bring about.
SOURCE URL: http://www.parcbench.com/2015/01/07/dinesh-dsouzas-america-imagine-the-world-without-her/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 9 years, 9 months ago
    Hear hear, Mr.Harrington! It is enormously refreshing and exciting to watch your mind put ideas together and frame them in succinct, lucid text.

    If we recognize that ideas are like living things and that they need human brains through which to propagate, we get an inkling of how rare and precious, how splendid a breakthrough in the Universe's 13 billion years of evolution it was for a philosophy of reason and rational ethics to have emerged. It is an idea we must not let die, for our own sake if not for the fate of all mankind.

    The first step must be to stop the killing, Realize that the aim of killing people is to destroy the brains in which ideas live, and thus to attempt to eradicate ideas that are different.

    But there is no conflict of interest between rational men. There is richness in the diversity of ideas, provided they are rooted in the principle of voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. The genocidal violence must stop, and the fraudulent rationalizations for it must end.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 9 months ago
      now p'lady, there are people whose net-present-value
      is negative. . there is no way that they could improve
      their lives enough to become good. . like the person
      who might, someday, get caught raping my wife.
      he will die. . killing stops the continuation of negative
      and prevents the good from having to finance the
      optimism that good will emanate from negative.

      though I hate it desperately, killing has a purpose. -- j

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ puzzlelady 9 years, 9 months ago
        So -- are you advocating preemptive genocide?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 9 months ago
          No Ma'am! . pre-emptive self defense. . stop them
          before they get to our home -- like stopping ISIS
          now, and stopping Iran from nuking up. . Yes? -- j

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ puzzlelady 9 years, 9 months ago
            No. Paranoia is a self-fulfilling prophesy. You cannot stop them short of eliminating them and all those who come to take their place, in an endless procession of people fighting to defend their own homeland against our attacks. Killing innocents is not "stopping them"; it provides greater cause for greater resistance and creates enemies were there were none before. It is a prescription for genocide. And who is to judge which individuals have "negative value"? By what proof? Or is this a case of "kill 'em all and let God sort them out"?

            Iran is not "nuking up". More paranoia. http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/t...

            Are you still concerned about 9/11? Those were Saudis, our close buddies. Why are we knocking over all those other countries who were never a threat to us? Because George Bush said so?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 9 months ago
              okay, I'll bite.

              none of my close neighbors is funding war on my family;;;
              Iran is funding war on Israel. . I'm not jewish, but Israel
              is still my family.

              none of my close neighbors is beheading close friends
              of the family;;; ISIS is beheading Egyptian Christians.
              and reporters. . and aid workers. . and Yazidis.

              if I cannot trust Iran's use of 6500 centrifuges to
              make UF6 for power (I spent 33 years in the nuke
              "industry") when they are sitting on trillions of barrels
              of oil (= power), then I can estimate that they can
              use those centrifuges for nukes. . they work well
              for that purpose, though they're not fast at it.

              the principle is this::: a person's past is prologue. -- j

              p.s. thanks for the link; it is an interesting view.

              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ puzzlelady 9 years, 9 months ago
                "... a person's past is prologue." That sounds like determinism. But humans have volitional consciousness, free will, and can learn and change their minds, individuals as well as societies. Look at Germany and Japan.

                A wide man once told me, "Treat people as though they already were the way you'd like them so be, and they will become that." That works with individuals and nation states as well.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by MinorLiberator 9 years, 9 months ago
                  I would not presume to speak for anyone but myself, and I agree that "a person's past is prologue" is at best a cliche and hardly a principle. As far as Iran, the better analogy would be of an unfaithful or abusive spouse who keeps swearing that it will never happen again, until it does. In that scenario Obama and Kerry are in the position of the abused spouse, and the lie keeps working.

                  However, and I reserve the right to correct myself: I don't believe my previous analogy truly fits. Obama and Kerry are not that naive as to really believe Iran. They simply want an agreement, any agreement, that they can point to as a triumph, part of their damn 'legacy' and something the Dem candidate in 2016 can point to as 'a good thing', as of course the bad consequences will have once again been kicked down the road into the future.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 9 years, 9 months ago
                    In U.S. relations with Iran, the U.S. was the abusive spouse. We staged a coup in 1953 to overthrow the legitimately elected government and install the Shah, our puppet. We helped set up and train his secret police, the Savak. We sicced Saddam Hussein to attack Iran and helped Hussein conduct an 8-year war against Iran, including supplying him with WMD's to use against Iran. And we imposed sanctions on Iran, including locking them out of their foreign bank accounts. All for revenge against the 1979 revolution to kick out their tyrant.

                    Notice also that they never harmed the 52 hostages, and even released two of them for health reasons.

                    There is no reason to think Iran would not abide by its treaty on nuclear development. Why would you think so? Because Iran is next on our list of Middle Eastern countries to overthrow, and demonizing them is part of that plan?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 9 months ago
                  and I swore by "expect the best" when managing
                  a department of 121 individuals;; only one seriously
                  disappointed me. . yet, if I had beaten my first wife,
                  I doubt that my second -- had she known -- would have
                  married me. -- j

                  p.s. first and I split up because she didn't want kids
                  and I did.

                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 9 months ago
    Imagine America at the beginning of the 20th century in the condition it's in today. What would the world look like now? So...have we progressed or declined? Without the example of the USA as a free Capitalist Republic, but a mixed up jumble of some freedoms, some semi-freedom, and partly no freedom, being governed by whim, with rules made by fiat, what would the world be? A morass of mixed ideology, or no ideology. A world where the Hun rules, and the state is the only allowable religion. Stick around -- we're heading there now. If you don't like it, jump off or change the direction.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 9 years, 9 months ago
    Thank you for the great review. I've heard about the movie and it was on my list, but I needed the reminder.

    And I've always enjoyed U2's music, but Bono's quote certainly put him way ahead of most rock musicians/celebrities in terms of intelligence. I wonder if that cost him an invite to the White House? (Hey, maybe Boehner can get him to address Congress!)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 9 months ago
    Hello Bradharrington,
    Yes, it is an excellent movie/documentary. I have loaned out my copy and will continue to pass it around as well as encourage others to do the same.
    "Hume" Generally yes. He offered a mixed bag of contradictions. He suggested that apart from mathematics we could be sure of nothing without empirical evidence. So far so good. Unfortunately, he would also offer contradictory,inconsistent notions such as causality being nothing more than a result of what philosophers called inductive reasoning. His example of some people observing only white swans would lead them to the conclusion that no black swans could exist was a generality and that no matter how many times one observed this it was inconclusive and illogical. Thus he concluded that we could not be sure of anything... I would say this was a contradiction born of stopping short in the development of a philosophy of objective reality. Naturally some things will be sufficiently known to draw proper conclusion, while others may need to be reassessed, but this does not negate the fact that some things can be known/concluded as axiomatic. "Georg Hegel" Yes again! The Hegelian dialectic: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis... nonsense... a compromise... a surrender/ending of the mental investigation ... not a fact based objective conclusion of reality. Two examples of poor incomplete epistemology.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 9 months ago
    Thanks for the review, Bradley, of an enjoyable and thought-provoking movie by Dinesh D'Souza. D'Souza has had to deal with a Rearden-like trial, so I will pardon him for a lot right now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 9 months ago
    Great article! Great movie!

    Why imagine, we are seeing a world without America right now. Nothing about this country is what is should be, from the American people, to the government, the military and our role in the world. This nation has lost its soul and, as a consequence, lost its moral compass and the effects are seen throughout everything,a nd almost everyone, about it today.

    While I do not want us to become the world police ...if we don't come to aid of those in need (ISIS captive, the slaves taken in Africa, those butchered in a country by a totalitarian government, if we don't stand up to genocide) who will? If we don't stand, does that make us complicit?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 9 months ago
      Sigh. I agree. I would like to just let the rest of the world swim (/sink) on its own...but then I think to myself, "So. What if we had thought that for the whole duration of WWII? What if the Japanese had never attacked us and made it personal?...And what if we had gotten into the War earlier: How many more lives would have been saved?"

      So then I conclude that we need to be world police. And, according to Pinker's stats, it apparently does some good to do this.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 9 months ago
    Gorgeous review, Brad, and Thank You! . maybe,
    eventually, the nation will come around to the
    realization that it took a Russian immigrant to show
    how philosophy works for the U.S. -- Ayn Rand. -- j

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 9 months ago
    Human nature seems to be really defective as a whole. Our Constitution, as deficient as it is in many ways, forced people to overcome some of these defects. But, in the end democracy is not a good thing- as it means eventually these human defects (not being educated and not considering morality as a "thinking" thing) overcome the constitution and get us where we are today.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 9 months ago
      but how about a representative republic like ours?
      some of the aspects (like the 17th amendment)
      which have turned democratic have begun to sour. -- j

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 9 years, 9 months ago
        I think that the US constitution was borne out of the experiences with the english monarchy at the time. But as new generations came along with different experiences, the understanding and allegiance to the constitution has changed. Now, the majority of people seem to want socialism and they have forgotten how we build up such a great country. In many ways, we have pretty much forgotten the major tenets of the constitution, like private property and being secure in ones home...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 9 months ago
          Yes! . and yet, I see human nature much like I think
          that Rand did -- trying to find truth through reason,
          trying to avoid pitfalls, and wanting to enjoy life
          individually, gregariously, freely. . we need to remember
          the "self-evident truths" as a whole!!! -- j

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo