Essays

Dinesh D’Souza is a Big Liar

D’Souza in 2014. The frauds that he commits with his books are unfortunately legal.

by Hadding Scott

I LISTENED to some of Dinesh D’Souza’s recent speeches and interviews about his new book, called The Big Lie, which was published a few days ago (on 31 July 2017). I do not have the book, but I assume that what he has been saying in his recent appearances resembles what he has written.

Last year in Hillary’s America, D’Souza used significant omissions to make its argument (“the Democrats are the ‘real racists'”) seem tenable, omitting many significant facts — like the fact that the Ku Klux Klan endorsed Republican Calvin Coolidge for president in 1924, and the fact that the Jewish takeover of the Democratic Party caused Southern segregationists in huge numbers to switch to the Republican party in the 1960s and ’70s, corresponding to what was called Nixon’s Southern strategy.

D’Souza’s relationship with the truth does not seem to have improved in the past year.

Broadly speaking, D’Souza’s new work seems to be a repeat performance of Hillary’s America, the message of which boils down to “Democrats are the Real Racists,” except that now it’s “Democrats are the Real Nazis.”

D’Souza refers to violence of Antifa and “the irony of using fascist tactics to fight fascism.”

There is nothing ironic here, unless one begins by accepting the leftist and Jewish premise that “Nazis” and Fascists invented political violence. In fact the paramilitary Brownshirts organization was created to protect National-Socialist meetings against attacks by leftists.

In general, like the rest of the National Review crowd, D’Souza proceeds from assumptions that are Jew-approved.

An important point of dishonesty in D’Souza’s presentation is his reference to images from concentration camps supposedly proving the Holocaust. Those images are really the foundation of the general demonization of Adolf Hitler and National-Socialism, with Fascism being demonized mainly by association with that. But in fact those images do not prove anything. The fact that D’Souza leans on this shows again that he is pandering to popular misconceptions and basically lacks seriousness.

D’Souza summarizes Hitler’s description of the Big Lie — without bothering to mention that Hitler was accusing the Jews of using the Big Lie. This has to be deliberate dishonesty and a deliberate omission on D’Souza’s part.

As examples of the leftist “Big Lie,” D’Souza points to the accusation that Trump is a fascist, and the accusation that Trump is a “racist.”

In fact, Trump’s movement does resemble a less than fully developed fascism, insofar as its message is nationalist and populist. It is also certain that Trump gets a lot of support from White people based on the perception that he represents the interests of White people. That is what those on the left call “racist.” So what? I don’t see Trump doing back flips to avoid such labels.

In general, D’Souza’s presentation is about fear of labels, and about applying those feared labels to others instead of bringing reason to bear. For an educated person, this is on its face not a very convincing kind of argument. Nonetheless I shall dismantle some of D’Souza’s major claims.

Eugenic Sterilization

Since Jews have created in the mind of the public a spurious link between eugenic sterilization and the Holocaust, D’Souza would like to identify the movement for eugenic sterilization in the United States with “progressives.” By the same token, however, D’Souza definitely does not want to identify it with Republicans.

Republican Governor of Indiana J. Frank Hanly

Perhaps D’Souza never bothered to find out that the first American states to enact forced eugenic sterilization laws were all Republican states.

James Franklin Hanly, the governor of Indiana who signed the first eugenic sterilization bill into law in 1907, was a Republican.

In 1909 Washington, California, and Connecticut all had eugenic sterilization bills signed into law by Republican governors. In 1911 eugenic sterilization was signed into law by Iowa’s Republican governor Beryl F. Carroll. The first five states to adopt eugenic sterilization had it signed into law by Republican governors.

The Southern and Democratic states were slower to adopt the practice, possibly because of the influence of Christianity in those states.

Dinesh D’Souza calls Madison Grant, author of The Passing of the Great Race, a progressive, and maybe he was — but Madison Grant was also a Republican and a friend of President Theodore Roosevelt (who called himself a progressive).

Unlike Roosevelt, however, Madison Grant was unequivocally a racist. Can we really say that a man who advocates racism is on the left? From one perspective, maintaining a race is the most profound form of conservatism. From the perspective of the followers of Ayn Rand, however, racism is “collectivism” and therefore on the left. That is the kind of pigeonholing that Dinesh D’Souza promotes.

What is Conservative?

It goes back to a semantic question about what is “right,” what is “left,” and what is “conservative.” These terms do not mean the same today as they meant 100 years ago.

During the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, the meaning of the word “liberal” changed drastically. Westbrook Pegler, a dogged critic of the New Deal, wrote this in his column of 21 September 1953:

The truth is that our entire people have been brainwashed by the Roosevelt-Truman administrations for the last 20 years. The result is that today most of us don’t even know what our constitutional rights really are. We are afraid to say that Hitler was right about communism and Soviet Russia. Words which formerly had honest meanings now mean exactly the reverse to most of us. Those few who stubbornly insist on using the word “liberal” in its old, genuine meaning, are almost totally misunderstood. We even know we will be misunderstood when we use it. […]

I am one of the most liberal liberals in the country. But those who use the name “liberal” as their designation of a line of thought put me down as a reactionary. Well, I am. I hit back when I am hit. That is my reaction to abusive action. Suppose then that we say I am a reactionary liberal. These two political clichés are supposed to be mutually contradictory, although they really are not as any person must admit who knows the meanings of plain American words. [Westbrook Pegler, Reading Eagle, 21 September 1953]

Westbrook Pegler

Pegler tells us that before FDR, a liberal was somebody who wanted free markets and less interference from government. That political orientation today is called conservative.

So, if what now passes for conservative used to be liberal, what was conservative? I will give you a clue. Being conservative 100 years ago was not about less government. Conservatives 100 years ago used to recognize that individual freedom had a downside to it.

From Tory Socialism to National-Socialism

In the UK, in fact, there was a concept known as Tory Socialism. You could be a Tory, which is to say a member of the Conservative Party, and also a socialist.

Niles Carpenter wrote in 1922 that Tory Socialism was a form of “political mediaevalist reaction” that was also known in the 19th century as the Young England movement, and its most prominent advocate was Benjamin Disraeli.

… Young England started among a group of Oxford students. Disraeli became the leader, and although the group went to pieces in 1845, the more vital of its principles have carried on to the present day. Disraeli and his followers sought “to reconcile the working classes to the Throne, the Church, and the Aristocracy”; that is, to restore feudalism at its best. This theory was supported by a practical policy, at once progressive and reactionary. [Niles Carpenter, Guild Socialism, 1922: p. 41]

Carpenter says that the Tory Socialists claimed to be the real “friends of the people” unlike the liberal free-traders. The general idea was an alliance of the traditional institutions of Britain with the working class, against the bourgeoisie, which had dominated politics since 1832.

At the turn of the 20th century, a prominent advocate of Tory Socialism was the writer G.S. Street, who authored an essay by that name.

During the 20th century, the British prime ministers Stanley Baldwin (1935-1937) (who was nominally opposed to socialism but called moderate in policy) and Harold MacMillan (1957-1963) have been characterized by others as practitioners of Tory Socialism.

In Germany, the modern welfare state was invented in the 1880s, not by a red socialist Jew like Ferdinand Lasalle but by a military man, Count Otto von Bismarck-Schoenhausen, who was not a member of any party but had been relying on the support of the Conservative Party since 1873. The introduction of the welfare state in Germany brought the working class into the conservative fold, forming an effective coalition against the commercial class (as well as the far left) just as Tory Socialism had intended in England.

A German Communist member of the Reichstag named Karl Korsch, who left Germany in 1933 and ended up in the United States, teaching at Tulane University, referred to Bismarck’s policies as “a kind of Tory Socialism.”

I have pointed out in an earlier installment of What Would Hitler Do? that Adolf Hitler in some ways walked in Bismarck’s footsteps, doing the same kind of thing as Bismarck but more of it.

The fact that such a thing as Tory Socialism could exist, and the fact that Hitler’s movement can be categorized in this way, is important, because Dinesh D’Souza takes for granted that socialism and conservatism are never the same thing. D’Souza follows the customs of National Review, using only political concepts from the postwar period, after the period of brainwashing under Roosevelt and Truman that Westbrook Pegler described in 1953.

National-Socialism and the Crisis of Marxism

In his speech at Trinity University earlier this year, Dinesh D’Souza claims that Italian Fascism grew out of the “Crisis of Marxism” that happened after the First World War. Most of us who have heard of this Crisis of Marxism know it as the event that spawned Cultural Marxism, a mutant branch of Marxism that no longer made its appeal to the workers but to discontented minorities of every possible kind, and also made an issue of sexual repression.

D’Souza does not even mention the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism as a product of this Crisis of Marxism. Instead, he says:

And out of that Crisis of Marxism came two new variations of Marxism…. The first was Leninist Bolshevism, and the other was Italian Fascism. This is the undisputed truth of history. [D’Souza, Speech at Trinity University, 2017]

Of course D’Souza is wrong when he says that it is an undisputed truth of history. He immediately contradicts himself on that point when he goes on to say that there was “a very important progressive coverup project” after the Second World War, “to camouflage the close associations of the political left with Fascism and Nazism, and to move Fascism and Nazism from the left, where they were always understood to be, into the right-wing column.”

Whether National-Socialism and Fascism are to be called left or right is a question of definition. Since D’Souza is working with National Review‘s definitions, and cannot conceive how an expansion of government could be used for essentially conservative ends, of course he tags National-Socialism and Fascism as leftist.

The fomentors of proletarian class-struggle, however, always understood Fascism and National-Socialism, with their goal of class-reconciliation, as something fundamentally different from what they were trying to do.

Karl Korsch, the German Communist I mentioned earlier, wrote about the products of the Crisis of Marxism in 1931, and what he says is probably more accurate than what D’Souza says. Mind you, D’Souza has said that it was undisputed — or at least undisputed until after the Second World War — that Fascism was one of the two products of the Crisis of Marxism.

First, Korsch wrote in 1931 that there were two movements within Marxism that had continued since before the First World War. These were “the reformist state socialism of the social democratic parties” and “communist anti-imperialism.”

Korsch also named three new movements, resulting from the Crisis of Marxism, that rejected Marx’s eschatology. These three innovative movements Korsch identified as: “unionist reformism, revolutionary syndicalism, and Leninist Bolshevism.”

In Karl Korsch’s account of the products of the Crisis of Marxism, from 1931, Fascism and National-Socialism do not appear.

In 1940, Korsch went on to explain that Fascism and National-Socialism were, from his Communist perspective, counterrevolutionary. He favored the summation of Italian Marxist Ignazio Silone who said, “Fascism is a counterrevolution against a revolution that never took place.”

In other words, Fascism consists of measures taken to secure the loyalty of the workers (including removal of incorrigible troublemakers from society) so that a proletarian revolution cannot happen. That might not be a right-wing thing to do, but in the big picture it is certainly conservative, in the most important conceivable way.

Verdict

The kind of argument that D’Souza presents seems to be directed primarily to stupid and cowardly people who live in fear of being tarred with some taboo label. Republican status-seekers who live in fear of having anyone know their true racial attitudes might be excited over a production like Hillary’s America or The Big Lie that allows them to deflect the accusation that they most fear at somebody else.

In other words, Dinesh D’Souza is not making a contribution to rational public discourse at all.

Beyond that, he is suggesting to people who need to get over the stigma of being called “racist” or “Nazi” that instead they should cherish that stigma as they apply it to somebody else. Thus they become ever more deeply entrenched in their own cowardice and dishonesty.

D’Souza is himself a very dishonest man. In 2014, he was convicted of fraud. As a writer, Dinesh D’Souza is still committing fraud.

D’Souza comes to us from a highly corrupt society that has also given us storekeepers who systematically overcharge customers by small increments, anticipating that few will complain. These people are opportunists and crooks.

Allowing an Indian to come to the United States and to tell our people what to think about political matters is almost as unwise, I would suggest, as allowing a Somali to become a policeman.

* * *

Source: National-Socialist Worldview

For Further Reading

Previous post

Russia Blocks Major Pornography Sites, Tells Citizens "Meet People in Real Life"

Next post

Escalated in Some Way

4 Comments

  1. August 15, 2017 at 2:49 am — Reply

    Spot on about D’souza. I knew he was a fraud from the day I discovered him. In Hillary’s America, I’d heard he trashes Andrew Jackson pretty badly, one of our greatest presidents. The fact that he uses the terms Nazi and fascist as pejoratives proves he has no idea what he’s talking about and is wholly ignorant at best and controlled opposition at worst. In either case, he should be abandoned by all serious Whites.

    I loved the last sentence of this piece. What right does this Hindu have coming to America and ‘splaining our own history to us? The gall of these brown people is astounding sometimes. This should prove that brown people, regardless how they present or what they say, are not and can never really be our allies. Regardless of the good things Indian, Frank Raymond, has had to say about the White race, he could never work fully in our interest either. Blood runs thicker than water. Our inspired leaders must be White.

  2. James Clayton
    August 15, 2017 at 8:54 am — Reply

    Lutz Kaelber, Associate Professor at the University of Vermont, presentation about 50-state “eugenic sterilizations” at the 2012 Social Science History Association, that “led to the Holocaust.”

    https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/

  3. August 15, 2017 at 12:25 pm — Reply

    Speaking of Eugenic Sterilization Bills, Wikipedia reminds us:

    Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute [Virginia] permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, “for the protection and health of the state” did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating “defectives” from the gene pool. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell.

    How can eugenics, which literally means good breeding, be seen as “negative?”

    “Three generations of imbeciles Are enough.” So wrote the wise Justice Holmes, Jr. in Buck v. Bell.

    • Anthony Collins
      August 16, 2017 at 3:14 am — Reply

      The literature on eugenics commonly makes a distinction between negative eugenics, which aims to reduce the reproduction of the unfit, and positive eugenics, which aims to increase the reproduction of the fit. Of course, negative eugenics is seen and portrayed negatively by opponents of eugenics, who are hostile to any measures designed to improve the genetic quality of a people. I find their criticisms of eugenics in general, and negative eugenics in particular, to be dishonest and hypocritical. As one might expect, feminist opponents of eugenics are especially egregious: they condemn the sterilization of women who are so defective that they should never have children (we are told that this would violate their sacrosanct “reproductive rights”), but they condone the effective sterilization of healthy women through feminist institutions, policies, and conditioning. (“My body, my choice” is a catchphrase among feminists, but their choice has been largely made by Jews.)

      The words of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. — “three generations of imbeciles are enough” — are often characterized by opponents of eugenics as “chilling.” Actually, they are an understatement — three generations of imbeciles are more than enough — and people should find the reproduction of the defective far more disturbing than their sterilization.

      Opponents of eugenics have no problem with people urinating or even defecating into the gene pool. Preventing such pollution is seen as an intolerable restriction of “freedom” and a violation of “human rights.” This is truly insane.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.