Essays

Dinesh D’Souza’s Holocaust Propaganda

“Hitler Didi,” about a young Indian woman with the strict, righteous, and forceful character of Adolf Hitler, was a soap opera produced by Zee TV in Dinesh D’Souza’s hometown of Bombay.

by Hadding Scott

DISCRIMINATION based on ancestry is traditional and normal in India. Indians cannot believe in equality, and they tend to be somewhat sympathetic toward Adolf Hitler, since he was the enemy of their enemy. Therefore it is natural that Dinesh D’Souza, as an immigrant from India, would feel no affinity for the kind of propaganda that has been used to cow the White man in the West.

D’Souza’s early work reflects that kind of inegalitarian outsider’s perspective. With Illiberal Education (1991) he criticized unreasonable behavior by uppity minorities at universities. With The End of Racism (1995) he explained that Blacks in the United States have only themselves to blame for their misfortunes. As late as 2014 D’Souza declared that there was no “genocide” of the Red man in North America.

Then came a change. There were always touches of distortion and exaggeration in D’Souza’s work, but with his arrest and incarceration for campaign finance fraud in late 2014 he seems to have come unhinged.

By 2016 D’Souza had taken a sharp turn toward dishonesty. He decided, instead of attacking the holy myths of leftist history, to make tenuous, hairsplitting arguments about who is to blame for those alleged crimes. Much of this new rhetoric from Dinesh D’Souza relates in some way to the Holocaust, which is of course the most powerful of the anti-White accusations.

Unfortunately for D’Souza’s followers, the most important arguments that D’Souza uses to try to link real and alleged phenomena of Hitler’s Germany to the Democratic Party turn out, on closer examination,  to show much more influence from Republicans. Eugenicists Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, and Paul Popenoe were all Republicans. The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act restricting immigration, which Hitler admired, was enacted mainly by Republicans. A man like Adolf Hitler, if a citizen of the United States in the 1920s, would much more likely have been a Republican than a Democrat.

D’Souza’s argument that Hitler was a socialist and therefore more like the Democrats than the Republicans entirely misses the point, because Hitler’s economic policy is not the point of comparison. (Incidentally, Republicans would do well to learn from Hitler’s economic policy as a way to keep working-class support. Republicans are foolish to hold their noses at Hitler’s economics.)

After Republicans and conservatives have endorsed the playing of the Holocaust Card in American political discourse, only to find that it applies mainly to themselves, what defense can they make?

Republicans and conservatives who parrot Dinesh D’Souza’s arguments undermine their own cause.

* * *

Source: National-Socialist Worldview

Previous post

The Wild, Stoic Youth of Colonial Virginia

Next post

Trump Deserves a Serious Comeuppance

11 Comments

  1. 29 May, 2019 at 10:55 pm — Reply

    That short article is really only a promotion for this much longer piece. https://codoh.com/library/document/6713/?lang=en

  2. JM/Iowa
    31 May, 2019 at 8:04 pm — Reply

    I found this interesting in that Republicans are destroying their own arguments by associating with those rhetoric-filled claims of D’Souza:

    “Nonetheless, D’Souza’s rhetoric is damaging the Republican cause, not just by the obvious fact that he is making Republicans look foolish, but in another way that is more insidious. He is persuading Republicans and conservatives to endorse and to promote historical claims that they should, for their own good, regard with skepticism.”

    Should we interfere with Republicans, who generally sell out Whites to the highest bidder nearly all the time, as they become laughingstocks? Of course it’s not for their own good that this happens, but ours when it does! The smart Whites among them, seeing the process of White genocide unfold before their eyes, may look for alternatives, perhaps at the National Alliance…

    • 31 May, 2019 at 11:33 pm — Reply

      This is the most confused comment, the most counterproductive thinking posing as cleverness, that I have ever seen.

      What a misfortune that so many of our people are habituated to dishonesty.

      • JM/Iowa
        1 June, 2019 at 1:02 pm — Reply

        You’re right, I withdraw the comment

      • 1 June, 2019 at 6:19 pm — Reply

        I don’t know, Hadding, as NA Chairman, I optimistically agree with Jim in Iowa that when the smarter White Republicans begin seeing the process of White genocide unfold before their eyes, they may look for alternatives to the GOP, perhaps at the National Alliance.

        Nothing dishonest there, just hope that White Republicans will dismiss unctuous snake oil salesmen like Dinesh and look around at some point for who has been telling them the truth all along, like on the subject of Martha Lucifer Koon: https://nationalvanguard.org/2019/06/degenerate-communist-mlk-national-alliance-proved-right-again/

        Mr. Hitler and the Holocaust aside, you’ll appreciate Dinesh’s old girlfriend Laura Ingraham’s interview with him four nights ago on her Fox News show about why American controlled media cover up the truth about the Negro reprobate MLK, and why the swarthy, late-to-the truth-about-MLK, so-called “far-right author and film-maker” says the left hates some notable African-Americans because all the great ones were Republicans: https://www.newsweek.com/dinesh-dsouza-martin-luther-king-frederick-douglass-ida-b-wells-booker-t-1437784


        Dinesh D’Souza has claimed left-wing politicians and voters “hate” great black Americans because “they were Republicans.”

        The far-right author and filmmaker suggested the likes of Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Booker T. Washington and Harriet Tubman, pivotal figures of the abolitionist and anti-slavery movements, were ignored and not celebrated because of their political beliefs.

        “All of these were Republicans, they were conservatives, they were celebrators of self-help and of what Douglass called ‘the self-made men.’ The left hates them. The left doesn’t want to teach them.”

        D’Souza then went on to claim that Martin Luther King was the only famous black American figure that left wing politicians and voters were happy to promote.

        “The only guy that they have been able to push to the front is Martin Luther King. He’s the only guy that they, in a sense, can cling on to. If they lost King, they would have lost the one claim to be a champion of African American rights.”

        Dinesh’s transparent attempt to convince some of the 95% of the Black bloc that vote Democrat to leave the plantation and come over to vote Republican. That’s all.

        • 2 June, 2019 at 11:37 am — Reply

          To clarify, and upon further consideration, Dinesh certainly wants a percentage of the Negro bloc vote to come over and vote Republican, like him. Unfortunately, most of the “smarter” Republicans have already left the “stupid” GOP, so it’s more likely that any who may look around for an alternative to the Republicrat duopoly have style themselves Independents these days, or have given up on electoral politics entirely.

          Anyone still voting Democrat these days, unless they are simply reactionary Never-Trumpers, are not likely to give a second thought to the National Alliance. There may still be some Republicans who visit NV.org but it’s doubtful anyone with any sense of racial consciousness who is reading these words still considers himself a Democrat.

          • 2 June, 2019 at 5:00 pm

            In 2016 David Duke promoted the idea of getting involved in Trump’s presidential campaign.

            A lot of the kinds of people who might join the National Alliance voted for Trump and listen to Ann Coulter.

            The election of Donald Trump was not irrelevant. If nothing else, as a loose cannon he greatly broadened the conversation in ways that make many Jews uncomfortable.

            If he ends up not keeping his main promises, he still will have stirred up an expectation and a reaction to its non-fulfillment.

            Some like Patrick Slattery are currently enthusiastic for Tulsi Gabbard as a critic of Zionist foreign policy. She makes some very good points. It would not be surprising if some judaeocritical White people registered Democratic just to vote for her, but she probably will not be allowed to get the nomination.

  3. JasonStrange
    2 June, 2019 at 5:02 pm — Reply

    “D’Souza’s argument that Hitler was a socialist and therefore
    more like the Democrats than the Republicans entirely misses
    the point”

    True statement.
    Also possibly the gayest boomer talking point in all of human history.

  4. Skylar
    4 June, 2019 at 7:37 pm — Reply

    dinesh d’souza is a joke, nothing but propaganda by that clown. I wish he would go back to India and work for a call center instead.

  5. Anthony Collins
    4 June, 2019 at 11:42 pm — Reply

    “D’Souza’s early work reflects that kind of inegalitarian outsider’s perspective. With Illiberal Education (1991) he criticized unreasonable behavior by uppity minorities at universities. With The End of Racism (1995) he explained that Blacks in the United States have only themselves to blame for their misfortunes. As late as 2014 D’Souza declared that there was no ‘genocide’ of the Red man in North America.

    “Then came a change. There were always touches of distortion and exaggeration in D’Souza’s work, but with his arrest and incarceration for campaign finance fraud in late 2014 he seems to have come unhinged.

    “By 2016 D’Souza had taken a sharp turn toward dishonesty. He decided, instead of attacking the holy myths of leftist history, to make tenuous, hairsplitting arguments about who is to blame for those alleged crimes. Much of this new rhetoric from Dinesh D’Souza relates in some way to the Holocaust, which is of course the most powerful of the anti-White accusations.”

    Perhaps D’Souza took stock of the seemingly infinite and incorrigible stupidity of many American “conservatives” and adapted his efforts to his market accordingly.

    Judging by Jared Taylor’s 1995 article, “The ‘Tainted’ Sources of The End of Racism,” linked below, there appear to have been much more than “touches of distortion and exaggeration in D’Souza’s work.”

    https://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/november-1995/#article2

    Srdja Trifkovic’s 2007 article, “Dinesh the Charlatan,” indicates that D’Souza knows practically nothing about the things he writes about, even when he claims to have spent years researching them.

    http://carnageandculture.blogspot.com/2007/03/srdja-trifkovic-dinesh-charlatan.html

    I remember hearing of one forger — it may have been Han van Meegeren — whose later work was of inferior quality to his early work. It may have been the case that this forger concluded from experience that he didn’t need to put as much effort into deceiving his marks as he previously did. In any case, forgers and liars regard their audiences and the truth with contempt.

  6. 6 June, 2019 at 5:21 pm — Reply

    “Srdja Trifkovic’s 2007 article, “Dinesh the Charlatan,” indicates that D’Souza knows practically nothing about the things he writes about….”

    It doesn’t seem that Dinesh D’Souza even really reads the books that he alleges as his sources. I first noticed this when I read Steve Inskeep’s Jacksonland last year, and I saw the same thing again when I read James Q. Whitman’s Hitler’s American Model. D’Souza regularly attributes to his alleged sources claims that they do not make.

    I am well aware that D’Souza’s work has always been faulty. During a 1991 Firing Line Debate he was the only member of William F. Buckley’s team to be accused of dishonesty by the other side. Paul Gottfried also had extensive criticism of D’Souza’s 1995 book The End of Racism. I linked to that 1995 issue of American Renaissance in my article on CODOH. So, I am well aware of all this.

    Still, if you look at D’Souza’s work from 2014 and earlier, the recklessness was less obvious than it has now become. In the older work you could suppose that D’Souza believed most of what he was saying. It wasn’t pure crap as it is now.

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.