Talking Points for Demolishing Dinesh D’Souza

by Hadding Scott

DINESH D’SOUZA’S narrative about how the Democrats are “the real racists” or, lately, “the real fascists” or even “the real nazis,” is so full of holes, and so easily refuted, that it can be hard to understand why anyone could really be taken in by it.

At least, it is hard to conceive of how somebody with a memory extending back to the 1970s could be taken in by it. In the 1970s, before Trotskyite Jews calling themselves “Neoconservatives” had acquired much influence, conservatism had not yet been entirely redefined as the demand for free markets and less government (which is actually liberalism, not conservatism). The pro-White motive in conservatism, therefore, was much more conspicuous a few decades ago. For anybody who remembers that, D’Souza’s contention that Segregationists were leftists is such obvious balderdash that it requires no refutation. Certainly, Rush Limbaugh, born in 1951, knows enough that he cannot genuinely take D’Souza seriously in this — yet he plays along.

Nonetheless, there are sincere people, all of them I suppose too young to remember politics before Reagan, who are not just playing along but really have been deceived by D’Souza. Because they are sincere, they can be persuaded.

I have had some success in convincing followers of Dinesh D’Souza on Twitter that he has been lying to them. If somebody says that D’Souza’s book is excellent or interesting, I respond that it is a stupid book. Alternately one could say that it is a very dishonest book. Thereupon there is a reaction of incredulity and a demand for an explanation. Now a discussion begins. These are the points that I have used. (I believe that these blurbs are all short enough to be copied and pasted on Twitter.)

1

D’Souza hides the fact that eugenic sterilization was promoted mainly by Republicans: the first five governors to sign eugenic sterilization into law in 1907-1911 (in IN, CA, WA, CT, IA) were all Republicans.

2

D’Souza selectively avoids calling pro-eugenic Republicans by their party-affiliation and calls them “progressives” instead. When D’Souza talks about “progressives” he is usually talking about Republicans.

In fact, the label “progressive” was particularly associated with Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt. D’Souza carefully avoids mentioning this.

At this point, after showing some supporting documentation, you may get a concession that maybe there were progressive Republicans, an admission that paves the way for the third point.

3

There used to be conservative Democrats. D’Souza pretends that segregationist Democrats were “progressives” when in fact figures like Senator James Eastland (Democrat, Mississippi) were regarded as extremely conservative.

4

White Southern Democrats started voting for the GOP because Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972 seemed to oppose forced busing. This method of winning the Segregationist vote for the GOP, called Nixon’s “southern strategy,” was devised by Kevin Phillips.

Very few segregationist politicians changed parties, because the Democratic Party continued to be dominant until 1980. Politicians like Senator James Eastland (who died in 1979) would have been less influential in the GOP. But those segregationists were conservative!

5

As it turns out, what D’Souza calls “the nazi roots of the American left”are, on the one hand, “progressive” Republicans, and, on the other hand, conservative Democrats that have now migrated almost entirely to the GOP.

D’Souza pretends that those “progressive” Republicans and conservative Democrats were the same group. Furthermore, he wants us to believe that they were all left-wing Democrats. Clearly, none of them were left-wing Democrats!

This is a good stand-alone criticism to post whenever the incompetent foreigner is mentioned:

Dinesh D’Souza’s attack on Andrew Jackson as a “racist” would instantly be recognized and reviled as Cultural Marxist propaganda if it were not clothed in Republican partisanism.

These are points that any sincere person should be able to grasp without much difficulty.

One could also dispute D’Souza’s assertions about fascism, but because it is a more obscure subject your interlocutors will find the argument harder to follow. Therefore it is better just to point out the misrepresentations about American political history.

One young woman asked me if there were another book that I could recommend to her, perhaps one that refutes D’Souza. I told her that I was writing that book.

* * *

Source: National-Socialist Worldview