Recent successes emboldened the main man of the terrorist
network to issue an ultimatum to the chief judge of the struggling government,
whose capital city was called Zarahemla:
give up or we will destroy you.
As forward as was the substance of the demand, it was surpassed by the
pitch. Until recent years I had not come
across anything like it in my own experience for twisted assertions and sheer
hypocrisy. One of the great values of The Book of Mormon is how again and
again the experiences of its people and societies foretell parallel
developments in our time. This was one
more example.
Consider this pitch from the robber leader, Giddianhi. It starts out merely audacious, saying
surrender before we kill the lot of you, in language you might hear from any
pirate:
Therefore I write unto you, desiring
that ye would yield up unto this my people, your cities, your lands, and your
possessions, rather than that they should visit you with the sword and that
destruction should come upon you. (3
Nephi 3:6)
Apparently constant raiding was becoming too tiring. They wanted it all, pronto. What follows, though, is a rather astounding justification, but one that sounds all of a sudden very familiar to 21st century Americans:
Or in other words, yield yourselves up
unto us, and unite with us and become acquainted with our secret
works, and become our brethren that ye may be like unto us—not our slaves, but
our brethren and partners of all our substance.
(3 Nephi 3:7)
In short, the demand was, give us everything you have, join
with us, embrace our philosophy of want-and-take, and we will share with you
all of our stuff (which was once your stuff, but no need to fuss about that). Then we will all be one big happy society, no
more conflict, “partners of all our substance”, a socialist utopia. The takers were inviting the makers to join
the society of takers. Certainly you see
the flaw in the proposition. When all
are takers—including the makers—whom will the takers take from?
It feels like Giddianhi would be quite at home in the recent
“Occupy” movement. He demanded to occupy
Zarahemla, and all would then be fine. Modern
occupiers’ demands for pricy downtown real estate to squat on, money to pay for
food, shelter, bedding, clothing, health care, legal bills, publicity, and
other wants and needs, are to be met by the prosperous whose prosperity makes
all this possible. And the occupiers
will continue to occupy wherever they are until the government ends all
inequities by raising taxes on the people who are already paying 70% of all
taxes. The prosperous must be still holding
back from the rest.
The occupiers claim to represent everyone (well, 99% of
everyone) already, if people would just recognize that and admit that they are
one with the occupiers. Y’all come. And together we will tax everyone to death
and take their stuff, and share it with one another, and then all will be
great, no more problems.
Fortunately for the people of Zarahemla, they refused to buy it. They built a wall around their land and kept all of the takers out, until the takers were faced with famine. What if America’s makers ultimately insisted that they would not support the takers anymore? What if the takers were forced to get jobs and work for what they ate? They would howl, at least as long as they thought someone was listening. Now that is utopia we can believe in.
1 comment:
Very striking comparison, Dad. This is good stuff, definitely worth sharing.
Post a Comment