America: Imagine The World Without Her

[Rob W. Case]

Imagine, if you will, George Washington leading troops into battle against the British, only to be hit by a sniper, killed, and leaving his soldiers without direction, and nowhere else to go but back into the hands (and mercy) of the British. There would be no America, no symbols and monuments (like Mount Rushmore, the Lincoln Memorial, the Statue of Liberty, and so forth), and thus nothing to inspire future generations to carry forth the progress of Liberty, equality, and justice for all. That said, imagine if the very spirit, convictions, and principles that led to struggle, bloodshed, and sacrifice, which eventually amounted to a standard of living, and thus a standard of government to guarantee every individual residing in this country the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were vanquished. Should that spirit have been vanquished early on, the very victories that have defined our greatness as a country may not have ever happened if that scenario involving George Washington would have taken place. That story, no doubt, would have yielded an entirely different outcome.

From Dinesh D’Souza, and Gerald R. Molen, the Academy-award winning producer of Schindler's List (who also produced the film 2016: Obama’s America) comes a fresh and unique look at America, its history, its spirit, and what sets it apart from any and every other nation before it. That said, without America’s distinct qualities, its internal battles, and individuals yearning for a life that is better than what society and the culture confined people to, the world today would not know freedom from slavery on such a grand scale it knows today, equality on a variety of levels, and the value of possessing the ability to write one’s success and future from their own creativity, skill, and abilities, rather than rely on conquest, and a Kingdom to be submissive to, without (for most people anyway) a standard of living higher than “peasant.”

Yet alongside these truths lies an alternate “story” in which theft, plunder, and oppression defines the history of America. That said, while D’Souza does not, in any way circumvent the flaws and shortcomings within America’s heritage, he does a very good job of defining the down-to-earth truth within our heritage, and how it contrasts with the alternate story, setting apart two very different views and attitudes towards America, one of which represents our current point of view.

And while we are introduced to ideas and individuals that most Americans are not even aware of (like Madame C.J. Walker, who, due to developing a line of beauty products for black women became the first black female millionaire), they are not even considered in the alternate story. Then, we are given a look into the background of the alternate story, where it came from, who developed it, and how it has led to the development of a political movement for which our ability to be free and independent is under the threat of a growing form of government that is controlling and intrusive.

I really enjoyed this film on a variety of levels. It is very informative in that you will learn things that you most likely never learned in History class. It effectively uses dramatic and epic reenactments of earlier wars and speeches. It questions leaders who are driven by the unstable foundations of the alternate story (interviewing ideological “products” of its movement such as Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, and others), and it sharply exposes how they fuel the modern left wing political movements, using their own words as their own source. We look at Howard Zinn, a former member of the Communist Party whose book “A People’s History of the United States” helped to lay the foundations for these modern day movements rooted in the alternate story. Then, we look at Saul Alinsky, whose community organizing efforts led to utilizing the alternate story for the purpose of influencing, energizing, and mobilizing the youth of the 1960’s to radicalism, with the purpose of tearing down the “old America” (where the citizens direct the course of Government) and replace it with a “new America” (where the Government “directs” the course of its citizens), by convincing people (the "have-nots") to focus their anger and frustration out on those who are successful (the "haves").

These influences (as we are shown) are what shaped the worldviews of prominent politicians such as President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and many others on the left wing spectrum of American politics. This film yields to the viewer a chance to see if the road that America is heading down is really the best one for us, or if the America that leads to renewal, growth, and opportunity is the one we should be pursuing.

This film works in the interests of our civic well-being as it seeks to preserve and strengthen our inalienable rights (as well as our understanding of them), and needs to be viewed by everyone who realizes that the direction of the country largely determines the destiny you have mapped out for you and your family. Moreover, the film’s points need to be contemplated, and from that, a position must be taken. America is once again at a crossroads, but this time, the stakes couldn’t be higher, and the probability of losing control of the destiny we choose for ourselves couldn’t be any stronger. This film is more than just a documentary. It challenges what we think America is, and sharply defines what it was truly intended to be. Between these two influences, a set of “battle lines” are drawn.

The film is rated PG-13 and runs 1 hour and 43 minutes.

To view a trailer for the film, please click below.



For more information on the movie, visit:

www.americathemovie.com/

[joanie]

Well, that was an eye full. What do you mean "freedom from slavery"?, America has become a prison. "Our government" has become "the government" America has more people in prison and jail than the rest of the world combined. And don't get me started on the police. Meaning (city cops, county sheriffs, and state highway patrol) Corrupt agencies staffed with sadistic people. So much so that it boggles the mind of anyone who actually is willing to open their eyes to it.

Even the founders said that whatever becomes of America will be up to the people and seems to me the people overwhelmingly condone support and endorse their own slavery.

Here are some names you can look up, if you are so inclined.. Kelly Thomas, John T Williams, Timar Rice, Sam DeBose, and last, a police officer who was fired for pulling another cop off of someone they were beating up. Regina Taska. Do Youtube searches, or whatever. you will see more that supports the sad reality. Just have to be willing to open your eyes and mind to the harsh truth

[new guest]

The world has existed without America for all but 239 years. And I don't think anyone can accurately describe this as a world without slavery. D'Souza doesn't really know what he's talking about, he's brown so conservatives push him out there and promote his books/films. We don't need to keep repeating half truths about our country, we need to include and recognize the bad or imperfections. For most of our 239 years we have had people like D'Souza telling a feel; good half truth filled story and because of that, we arteeembroiled in mess all over the world. And that mess was started long before Obama.

[Rob W. Case]

Oct 6, 2015 19:42:44 GMT -6 new guest said:

The world has existed without America for all but 239 years. And I don't think anyone can accurately describe this as a world without slavery. D'Souza doesn't really know what he's talking about, he's brown so conservatives push him out there and promote his books/films. We don't need to keep repeating half truths about our country, we need to include and recognize the bad or imperfections. For most of our 239 years we have had people like D'Souza telling a feel; good half truth filled story and because of that, we arteeembroiled in mess all over the world. And that mess was started long before Obama.

Please explain what some of these half truths are, and we can go from there.

I do, however, disagree with your comment regarding D' Souza's notability in conservative circles because of his skin color. Dinesh D' Souza is a very smart person, very knowledgeable in history, politics, and so forth, and is a seasoned debater. The debates he engages in attest to all of this, and as a result, people (with the exception of those who have their minds made up, and are stubborn willed to keep it in the place that they favor) begin to think. What's fascinating to me is that, for example, in this movie, he cites a lot of information and facts that aren't common knowledge, and the reason why they aren't common knowledge is because if they became common knowledge, it would take a lot of energy out of many of the political narratives that are in fact crafted out of half-truths. So if you think about it, he is exposing the other side to lies and half truths that are documented in public school textbooks, taught by teachers, and cited endlessly by politicians, the media, entertainment industry, and practically everyone else with influence who shapes the culture.

And so, if we go with what Joanie said, in the sense that people seem to endorse and condone their own slavery, it is more or less ideological slavery. And in order to initiate ideological slavery, all that is required by social engineers is to craft political narratives with the intent to influence attitudes and social behaviors on a mass scale though the narratives built on the half truths that they use. And if the average person is beholden to believing the half truths that are propagated on a massive scale, and completely ignorant of the truths that are hidden, then the half truths become likelier to be more accepted by the collective, and in turn rile up positive and negative emotions (depending on the angle used) within it. This is but a reason why every controlled society has a ministry of propaganda. In socialist "democracies" in particular, ideological slavery and government coercion are key to keeping a large body of influence leaning one way.

And yet, if you actually see the film, you will see that D' Souza is not trying to paint a picture of America's past with rose colored glasses. Instead he acknowledges that our country's past, (though not perfect) despite its imperfections, is not as evil as it is portrayed to be. So we see then how the agenda driven nit picks and obsesses over certain points, and cites them over and over again, which overall suggests on a massive scale ideas that, for example, all African Americans were slaves, and that most white people were racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes. Every social movement rests on whatever group they represent as victims of oppression in some form or another. Then, come election time, the politician (normally a Democrat) mobilizes a coalition through the influence of those social movements, and the media, to serve the interests of that politician who needs those who believe the message of those movements to come out for them on election day. Fascinating stuff.

[new guest]

A half truth is for example that our nation was founded with a belief in the equality of all humans.

Sorry, but conservatives will trot out almost any non white person who says what they want to hear in order to try dispelling the assumption of racism. D'Souza is not really all that bright. There is no agenda in this film but his and conservatives. For example no one ever said that all African Americans were slaves, but the reality if you look at the population is that more than 80 percent of all blacks here at that time were not free. So then we are to ignore the 8 slaves and celebrate the 2 free black persons and that makes things OK. Most white people during those times were racists. Most were sexists, women did not get to vote until 1920 and still today the ERA has not passed.

www.blackiowa.org/education/black-history-moments/sketch-of-african-american-poulation/

This is what I'm talking about when I say half truth. Conservatives want everyone to ignore everything but certain truths, but other truths about this country do exist. All the other nation on this planet know they exist and will not ignore them, therefore we should not. Vladimir Putin mentioned police brutality and Ferguson in a recent interview, but of course this is just part of some agenda by democrats/liberals to harp on certain points over and over again. BS!If we address our imperfections instead of denying them, we improve. D'Souza and other conservative con men or women want us to ignore all wrongs, pass off legitimate complaints as playing some kind of victim until someone white starts whining about how unfair things arte for them.

D'Souza is full of garbage.

[Rob W. Case]

I’ve been meaning to reply to this post, but had to shelve it due to a torrent of circumstances that consumed more time than I ever would have thought. And so, at this time, I would like to once again reopen this conversation.

Now, you mentioned.....

Oct 9, 2015 18:27:12 GMT -6 new guest said:

A half truth is for example that our nation was founded with a belief in the equality of all humans.

I disagree. A half-truth is telling a story using only the components required to aid (by means of persuasion) the fulfillment of an agenda.

Unfortunately in America today, we have too many people in powerful positions who, driven by agenda, are quick to craft narratives, and people at the domestic level who are quick to clamor to clichés and slogans that are not true, nor bear any reason or logic to them if one really sits down and takes the time to comprehend them. In that, you have a dynamic in the works in which many are quick to believe things that contribute greatly to their own impoverishment, and shoot down substantiated ideas that would aid them in their pursuit to advance themselves out of their current situation.

At any rate, I don't quite think that the notion that America was founded with a belief in the equality of all humans would qualify as a half-truth. It would however qualify as an ideal that would see significant advancements over time. Equality was a genuinely intended ideal at the founding of this country, particularly after living under a monarchial rule that used and abused their subjects without adequate representation; however there was a rebellion against the most powerful empirical force at that time, and deep divisions of opinion regarding slavery in the years after its foundation was formed (though not completely solid). And in the decades when the foundation of this nation was in development, you had politicians running on platforms that were either for or against slavery. Now having said that, to suit their own agendas (and appeal to a majority of the voting public) they would craft narratives that were suited to accommodate their own constituency groups. And when they got in, they would enact laws that would favor their own positions and enable setbacks towards the opposition party. Think, for example, in a political sense, how close the Dred Scott decision was to the Civil War. Anxieties ran high at that time, and with every victory for one side, the other side became more enraged and engaged. I think that is why the Civil War was one of the bloodiest wars in human history.

Oct 9, 2015 18:27:12 GMT -6 new guest said:

Vladimir Putin mentioned police brutality and Ferguson in a recent interview, but of course this is just part of some agenda by democrats/liberals to harp on certain points over and over again. BS! If we address our imperfections instead of denying them, we improve.

Okay, so then how has the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Maxine Waters, Jeremiah Wright, and so forth addressed these imperfections to improve not only race relations in this country, but the standard of living of those they supposedly represent? Last I checked, these people continue to talk the same way they’ve always talked, and get big bucks in the process. But where does that place the people they allegedly represent? Where is the improvement?

Dinesh D’ Souza basically introduces us to a reality that we are not accustomed to, because the facts that have been buried for some time would raise questions that, if discovered and repeated over and over again in front of a microphone, might cause a revolt and disrupt the benefits that the agenda that is advanced on a daily basis offers them.

Oct 9, 2015 18:27:12 GMT -6 new guest said:

D'Souza and other conservative con men or women want us to ignore all wrongs, pass off legitimate complaints as playing some kind of victim until someone white starts whining about how unfair things arte for them.

Living in this country, with as many who advance their own agendas by exploiting these imperfections it is absolutely impossible to ignore all wrongs because A. these wrongs are highlighted in our education system, the media, the entertainment industry, and common knowledge in our culture as a whole, and B. on account of what I just mentioned, there is too much money to be made, and power to be won on account of them. For decades legitimate matters, concerns, and complaints have led to some very strict laws on discrimination (and not only racial discrimination either). And yet, with so much progress that has been made in spite of the ills of the past, you wouldn’t necessarily know it because the agenda driven (who have the most influence) want people to believe, with the help of the media, that these ills are still continuing on a regular basis, and will continue if you don’t DEPEND on them, when such is not the case.

Think of how many people advanced their own lives and circumstances because they know and embrace for themselves the power of the U.S. Constitution and what it offers them. You have another story of adequate self-sufficiency, advancement, and success.

And one more thing. You mentioned….

Oct 9, 2015 18:27:12 GMT -6 new guest said:

For example no one ever said that all African Americans were slaves, but the reality if you look at the population is that more than 80 percent of all blacks here at that time were not free.

The assumption that all African Americans were slaves is more or less implied because you hear the slavery component trumpeted more than anything else. You rarely if ever, hear the other half of the truth of what occurred after the slaves were set free. After reconstruction, another beast emerged, a beast that would more or less exile blacks in the South, which would eventually change its mask after the War on Poverty. This beast continues to function to this day, and works in conjunction with the agenda I just laid out for you in this post. And yet only a handful who have fled its subjective power are wise to it, because they carry a forward thinking, positive attitude rather than a negative one that thrives off of the sins of the past.