For some reason today I found myself reading a transcript of an interview with Dinesh Dsouza. It’s utterly ridiculous in some aspects, reasonable in others. Though I thought how illustrative it is of human nature’s relentless inclination to view the world from a me-liocentric perspective: What’s Right For Me is Right. And intellectual endowment seems to offer no refuge. Smart, dumb, or ordinary, the viewpoint is well represented across society's strata. I doubt the recognition of this will find purchase within the mainstream. Though if it did, I would caution of the tendency in a multi-kult society for each of its constituent parts to regard what is best for the whole as a function of what is best for them specifically: a perspective congenitally rejected by their neighboring petri-dish protozoa. Of course pointing out that what’s best for thee is not what’s best for me and thus we have an intractable conflict that will conclude only with definitive dominance and submission, is hate and extremism. And so what is observable human behavior remains off the table for discussion, and we are left instead to orbit the only question that may be asked: who’s racist? It is, of course, a question that whites themselves are only too keen to investigate, and so dreariness settles again comfortably into desolation.
But that is for another time. A time I like to call…10:00pm tonight. For now I’ll discuss Mr. Dsouza’s ruminations…
Now if we look at American history, who are the people who moved West and displaced the Indians? The immigrants. Who are the people who benefited from slavery? Well everybody who bought a cotton shirt. Who are the people who defeated the Mexicans in the Mexican War? Ordinary immigrants and settlers.
Did you enjoy that? The immigrants, that’s who. That’s who founded America. The immigrants. The Immigrant people. United not by blood, culture, language, or religion, but by a commonality that binds men much more deeply yet: having moved from one place to another. Which is odd, since the so-called “Indians” were only earlier immigrants and so not displaced by the nominal Immigrants at all–merely joined by more of their fellow Immigrants. The constructed social conflict that was alleged to have occured between these “white men” and “Indians” was in reality a joyous reunion of Immigrants–and scalps.
And who defeated the Mexicans? Immigrants and settlers–though I don’t see the need for the superfluous second term. Immigrants defeated the Mexicans. Which is another egregious historical fallacy, since we now know that Mexicans are immigrants and so were not defeated at all since there were no distinct peoples in conflict.
And this is why globalism is so morally just. Because if you or your ancestors ever moved from one location to another, then you too are of The Immigrant People and thus of the same tribe as Wi Xiang who, it is rumored, recently relocated from Shandong to Gwangju. He is of your nation. The Immigrant People…and The Consumer People (the Technology CEO council would like to remind).
But back to Mr. Dsouza…
So the point is that the critique of America is not one that is aimed at wealthy aristocrats who had beautiful cottages or mansions on the East Coast. The progressive critique is an attack on the immigrants themselves – it’s an attack on people like me.
Well now we have a real problem. See it’s one very natural thing to attack the WASP segment of the Immigrant People, but…but now they’re attacking the IMMIGRANT Immigrant People. And that is obviously foul bigoted hate. I mean I know I just said three seconds ago that we are all of the same Immigrant People. But well, there’s some of us more migranty than others. And the more migranty a person is, the more ungood it is criticize them. And as I am very migranty indeed, attacking me…Will. Not. Stand.
And on the following points, Mr. Dsouza is my copacetic Immigrant brother…
Now, Obama I believe is a global redistributionist. Most Democrats think he’s a domestic redistributionist, and he is. But he also wants to redistribute wealth away from America and to the rest of the world.
Now, to answer your question – what does this mean for the little guy – well, remember that the little guy in America is rich by world standards. If you made a global division of wealth, the guy at the bottom in America would be in the top quintile, the top fifth of affluent people in the world. So if you’re a global redistributionist, you recognize, or you believe that even the poor guy in America has got to pay because if we’re going to have global redistribution, wealth has to be transferred even away from the American poor toward even poorer people in other countries.
And so I think what we’re going to see under progressive rule is the impoverishment of America across the board. And as for the guy at the bottom, he’s going to discover that there are floors below the ground floor in America – there’s a basement that he hasn’t yet experienced and that will not be present to live in.
How true this is. Poverty has a long tail that very few Americans comprehend. Though I have no idea of Obama’s contemplations on the subject, it’s certainly the intention of those who write the campaign checks. Growth. Always understand the power of this impetus for the corporate elite. And growth requires extracting wealth from those who may accumulate it, and giving it to those who will…consume. And if an ancient people and their civilization is consumed alongside…well how exactly will that impact quarterly revenues?
Back to my Immigrant countryman…
America was never built on the idea that prosperity was its own justification. The prosperity is a means, the abundance is a framework for people to enjoy the American Dream. And the American Dream is not just a dream about individuals, it’s a dream about individuals and families and community and faith and country, and even making the world a better place. America was always intended to be an example to the world. So, I would not argue that our free-market system is the only distinctive thing about America. Certainly when Jefferson sat down to write the basis of human dignity and human equality, he located it in the Creator, so there is a transcendent basis for rights in America, and that comes right out of our Judeo-Christian foundation.
Well, I’m very pro-immigrant. And I’m very pro-immigration. But I have no sympathy for illegal immigration
Just a few final points:
* Agreed, gratuitous wealth is pointless. It is a means not an end, or should be.
* “So, I would not argue that our free-market system is the only distinctive thing about America.” Well I wouldn’t argue that either, but one has to laugh at even feeling obliged to say it. Perhaps he’ll offer this next time: “I wouldn’t argue that our prison complex is the only distinctive thing about America.”
* American Dream: Individuals, families, community, faith, and country. Almost. Did you notice what was omitted?
* America was always intended to be an example to the world? I don’t think the example to the world that was intended by the founders is quite the one he imagines.
*Our Judeo-Christian foundation: What is this? What does this term mean? The mutual foundation of one group that embraces Christ and another that rejects him? The question is not intended as insult. But simply to wonder how it came to be understood that notions in conflict could form a mutual foundation. Is Israel steadied by its Judeo-Muslim foundation?
* He’s very pro-immigrant. But against illegal immigration. Well Mr. Dsouza, there’s a simple solution to that friction. And the democrats and republicans are working hard to see it happen.