kosher conservatives – National-Socialist Worldview

Dinesh D’Souza misjudges his audience’s opinion of MLK

Hadding — Thu, 23 Apr 2020 01:22:00 +0000

Somebody tells Dinesh D’Souza to go back to India, citing his conviction for campaign-finance fraud as a reason why his presence is undesirable. D’Souza responds by rhetorically asking his interlocutor, who most likely is a Democrat, if he would have said the same to Martin Luther King — obviously relying on MLK’s status as a sacred cow who was arrested many times, and assuming that he could analogize his victimhood to that of MLK and induce the Democratic critic to relent.

Bad move.

That particular interlocutor, the Democrat, easily dismisses the comparison by pointing out that MLK was born in the USA and D’Souza was not.

What is striking however is that, contrary to what D’Souza must have anticipated, the responses from other readers of his Twitter page are overwhelmingly in the affirmative. You can check it for yourself on Twitter. Yes, the overwhelming majority of Dinesh D’Souza’s followers on Twitter would send Martin Luther King back to Africa!

It confirms my explanation of D’Souza’s success, which is that he has been valued mostly as a non-White exponent of White grievances. D’Souza is more than anything else a stalking horse for conservative Whites who are afraid of being called racist. I suggested in 2018 that he should make a movie exposing all the dirt about MLK. We see here that such a movie would have been highly popular with D’Souza’s following.

D’Souza however will probably claim that these people cheering a proposed deportation of MLK were all Democrats, if he ever has to say anything about it.

Here is a sample of the responses:

Facts don’t care about Ben Shapiro’s Holocaust

Hadding — Sat, 07 Dec 2019 06:20:00 +0000

This redacted clip from the Radical Agenda show of 2 December 2019 contains foul language and adult references.

At Stanford University on 7 November 2019 Ben Shapiro quoted a document from the Communist legal system of post-war Poland, a deposition attributed to a former concentration-camp inmate named Henryk Tauber, to the effect that 2500 corpses per day were cremated by a crew working in Birkenau’s Krema II. According to information from the manufacturer of the crematory ovens used at Birkenau, Topf und Söhne, this is simply impossible.

There were 15 crematory retorts in Krema II and each could cremate (on average) one body per hour. In 24 hours of continuous operation, then, 360 bodies could be cremated. All the 38 retorts in Birkenau operating continuously for 24 hours could cremate 912 bodies.

It’s really worse than that, because the ovens had to be out of service for 3 or 4 hours each day to be cleaned. In that case the maximum possible numbers are 315 for Krema II and 798 for Birkenau as a whole.

The idea that cremations could be accomplished faster by piling in bodies seems to be based on the assumption that a crematorium functions like an open fire, where the energy released as heat is mostly wasted. In fact a crematorium, especially the kind used at Auschwitz-Birkenau, functions more like an oven for baking food, where the temperature is controlled and waste of energy is minimized. It is a well known fact that in a household oven the time required for cooking a piece of meat is roughly proportional to the mass. This rule also applies to crematory ovens.

Apart from false testimonies like Tauber’s, there is no reason to believe that Birkenau’s crematoria were operated to the maximum extent possible. A document discovered by Carlo Mattogno refers to a “twelve-hour workday” in relation to fuel-consumption. Also, some of Birkenau’s crematoria spent considerable time out of service needing repairs, which surely would not have been allowed if the full capacity for cremation had been needed at all times.

The impossibly high rate of cremation claimed in Tauber’s deposition seems to have been calculated to support the old Soviet line, that 4 to 5 million died in Auschwitz-Birkenau. The Auschwitz Museum’s current claim (still a gross exaggeration) is that only about 1.1 million died there.

Indisputably, that document from the Communist legal system of post-war Poland makes absurdly inflated claims about how fast corpses could be cremated in Birkenau concentration camp, and Ben Shapiro was a fool to trust it.

Shapiro felt the need to try to demonstrate the factuality of the Holocaust because of Nick Fuentes’ mockery of it in a video-clip from last January, which had been dredged up and publicized as a way of attacking Fuentes after his followers humiliated the representatives of a phony conservative organization called Turning Point USA. A discussion of the conflict around Nick Fuentes can be read here: America First vs. Holocaustian Mind-Control.

Dinesh D’Souza’s Holocaust Propaganda

Hadding — Mon, 27 May 2019 19:44:00 +0000

“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.

Discrimination based on ancestry is traditional and normal in India. Indians do not 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 the unreasonable arrogance of uppity minorities at universities. With The End of Racism (1995) he explained that Blacks in the United States had 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 is nugatory, because economic policy is not the point of comparison. (Incidentally, Republicans are foolish to disdain Hitler’s economics. They would do well to recognize Hitler’s economic policy as a way to keep working-class support.)

After Republicans and conservatives have loudly 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.

Read the article at CODOH.com

Was the Civil Rights Movement opposed to Identity Politics? Balderdash!

Hadding — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:15:00 +0000

The self-proclaimed conservatives of the Republican Party have a sickening tendency to try to minimize controversy by not challenging the sacred cows that the anti-White left sets up for us all. Thus we hear, for example, Rush Limbaugh speaking in reverential tones of “Dr. King” and “what Dr. King had in mind.”

Has everyone forgotten that the Republican presidential candidate of 1964 opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that the Republican president elected in 1968 had campaigned on opposition to forced busing — meaning continuation of de facto segregation?

Amnesia is the great enemy of conservatism. If we fail to remember where we were, if we fail to keep in mind what we were trying to preserve and what we were trying to prevent, we end up gradually adopting all the positions of our persistent enemies.

This has been the story of so-called conservatism since the Second World War and it is a tendency evident even in Tucker Carlson.

Last night I heard something very stupid on Tucker Carlson’s show. Tucker and his guest lamented the growth of “identity politics” and together declared that identity politics was never what the Civil Rights Movement was about.

Well, let me give you this red pill.

The NAACP — the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — is more than 100 years old. It has identity-politics in its name.

The term “Black Power” was coined in the 1960s.

In the 20th century, the so-called Civil Rights Movement was ALWAYS accompanied by identity-politics. It was about achieving gains for specific groups.

First the Blacks were mobilized against Southern Whites within the infamous Black-Jewish alliance, then Northern Whites were targeted too. Jewish Cultural Marxists would mobilize any group with a conceivable grievance against straight White males, and even create such groups by proselytizing deviance.

When I hear Tucker Carlson agree with Tammy Bruce that the Civil Rights Movement was opposed to identity-politics, it makes me think either that he is weak, or that he has no memory.

All of this genuflecting toward the Revrun Docta Martin Loofa King — the figurehead of the Civil Rights Movement — should be coming to an end now, with all the information that has been published about him.

We used to have identity-politics for White people in the USA, and we were not ashamed of it. We wanted to maintain a White majority and the Immigration Act of 1924 reflected that. A real conservatism would try to defend that status quo. It is the reason why Donald Trump was elected. The fact that we cannot even openly declare this purpose, and our acceptance of the premise that there is something shameful about it, makes this preservation of our country and our people very much harder to accomplish.

The real threat to the future of the United States is not from identity-politics but from the failure of the White population to practice identity-politics with sufficient vigor as to retain control.

Bill O’Reilly’s Terrible Book about the SS — Part One

Hadding — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 05:37:00 +0000

Killing the SS by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, although number one on the New York Times’ hardcover nonfiction list for many weeks, is very possibly the worst book on the subject ever written.

Despite O’Reilly’s image as an arch-conservative, this book’s perspective is more leftist than conservative, more Jewish than Christian, more Soviet than American. That is no exaggeration!

It is a consequence of the fact that O’Reilly’s “conservatism” is based in the new normal that was established during the Carter Administration and then allowed to stand by subsequent Republican administrations under Neoconservative influence. The older conservatives like William F. Buckley, Patrick J. Buchanan, and Senator Robert Taft were skeptical about the Soviet-style justice meted out by postwar tribunals, did not believe that the Soviet Union was better than Hitler’s Germany, and saw that so-called Nazi-hunting did not serve American interests.

The book is loaded with flaws, ranging from careless mistakes to what appear to be tendentious misrepresentations. Here is an example. You decide whether this was a mere blunder or a deliberate misrepresentation.

In Chapter Three O’Reilly and Dugard present what they claim is an exchange between Otto Ohlendorf and prosecutor James Heath at the Einsatzgruppen Trial (October 1947 to April 1948). They call it “a classic courtroom Q and A” where “James Heath destroys the SS killer.”

In fact, the exchange is not from the Einsatzgruppen Trial at all, but from the International Military Tribunal about two years earlier, where Ohlendorf was being questioned, not by American prosecutor James Heath but by a Soviet judge, General Iona Nikitchenko.

The misidentification of the source is not the only problem. The exchange includes these statements:

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): And in what category did you consider the children? For what reason were the children massacred?

OHLENDORF: The order was that the Jewish population should be totally exterminated.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Including the children?

OHLENDORF: Yes. (IMT transcript, 3 January 1946)

At the Einsatzgruppen Trial two years later Ohlendorf consistently repudiates the proposition that there was any order to kill all Jews:

Q. Did you know about plans or directives which had as their goal the extermination on racial and religious grounds?

A. I expressly assure you that I neither knew of such plans nor was I called on to cooperate in any such plans. (Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals, Vol. IV, p. 245)

Why did Ohlendorf make admissions in 1946 that he rejected two years later? Perhaps because he had been tortured.

This misrepresentation of Ohlendorf’s exchange with a Soviet judge during the IMT as an exchange with an American prosecutor during the Einsatzgruppen Trial is highly consequential. It allows O’Reilly and Dugard to pretend that the accusations against the SS are incontrovertible when in fact there is plenty of reason for doubt.

Is this a blunder or a deliberate misrepresentation? I posted something about it on Bill O’Reilly’s Twitter page several months ago but he has never responded.

Read more of my criticisms of this book from CODOH.

A Few Words about “The Deep State”

Hadding — Wed, 19 Sep 2018 09:36:00 +0000

There is a general tendency among conservative Republicans to focus their ire on people who are not the real problem. People who run for office, or who work for the government, even violent Antifa, and others who make a lot of noise, are not the real problem, because they are pawns in a game played by others.

James O’Keefe has begun releasing undercover videos that purport to expose “the deep state.” In fact, that is not what he is doing. Instead he is exposing holdovers from the Obama Administration who do not agree with what President Trump is trying to accomplish. We already knew that those people were there, and they are not the deep state, properly speaking.

The term DEEP STATE does not properly refer to people in the government. Peter Dale Scott imported the term from Turkey, where it referred to a criminal syndicate that effectively controlled the elected government of Turkey. It refers to entities outside of the government that are sufficiently powerful to control the government. In the American context, Peter Dale Scott specifically refers to Wall Street as part of the deep state.

I am inclined to make the meaning of “deep state” within the American context even more specific, to point out that the deep state has a particular ethnic coloration. One can see, for example, that the largest political donors are overwhelmingly Jewish billionaires (many of them connected to Wall Street). Mass-media in the United States also have been dominated by Jews since broadcasting began. It is clear that enormous extra-governmental power is in the hands of Jews. Peter Dale Scott however does not venture that degree of clarity. In fact “deep state” seems to be essentially a way to avoid talking explicitly about Jews.

Nonetheless, even as Scott uses the term, it has some usefulness. It means the powers that be, fundamentally outside of the government but penetrating and controlling the government.

It was probably through Peter Dale Scott’s appearances on Infowars that the term gained some currency.

When Reagan cultists like Rush Limbaugh got hold of the term, however, they tried to make it fit their preconceived notion about where the source of trouble must always be. Since Ronald Reagan said, “Government is the problem,” it was more comfortable to assume that the deep state meant people within the government.

Limbaugh really should know better. The concept represented by the term deep state is not entirely new to him. In November 2014 Limbaugh noticed and admitted that wealthy people outside of the government — “the donor class” — were in fact the real problem, at least in regard to the push for illegal immigrant amnesty. This observation posed a great problem for Limbaugh’s ideology, which is disposed to regard billionaires as benevolent “job-creators” who help the country, rather than as greedy monsters who will destroy the country if not curbed. More recently, Limbaugh has also come to regard mass-media as a malevolent power unto itself.* These observations are entirely corrosive to the “classical liberal” ideology that Limbaugh has been espousing since the late 1980s, but he still has not embraced the anti-liberal implications. He continues, hypocritically, to spout the old Reaganite cant.

Consequently, when Rush Limbaugh heard “deep state,” he seems to have fallen into his old ruts and assumed that it meant people entrenched within the government — which is fundamentally not what it means.

James O’Keefe follows the example of Rush Limbaugh in misapplying the term DEEP STATE to refer only to people in government.

Now I hear that a Jew named Jason Chaffetz has opportunistically written a book called The Deep State, which perpetuates and reinforces the already prevalent error, calling the deep state “an army of bureaucrats.”

With their incorrect use of the term deep state, O’Keefe and Limbaugh and the Jew Chaffetz are letting the important culprits off the hook. Of course, some of this could be intentional.

The image above represents the allegory of the cave, from Plato’s Republic. It represents the fact that most people are unaware of the real powers behind events. They are focused on shadows on the wall, which could represent the public actions of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and are unaware of the puppetmasters behind them that manipulate those shadows. James O’Keefe by invoking the term deep state pretends to be exposing the puppetmasters, when in fact he is still focused on the shadows on the cave’s wall, and also keeping others focused there.

Whenever you hear somebody using this term deep state to mean entrenched bureaucrats, you should point out that, according to Peter Dale Scott who introduced the term, this is not what it means; that it refers to the real power, which is outside of the government.

___________________________________________________
* “You know, I still chuckle when I see stories talking about how, ‘The media, following the lead of Democrat Party leaders…’ Give me a break. It’s the other way around.” — Rush Limbaugh, 2 July 2018

What kind of “dogwhistle” was that?

Hadding — Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:04:00 +0000

The gubernatorial nominee of the Republican Party of Florida stated during the speech following his nomination that it was important not to “monkey this up,” meaning that Florida’s economy should not be burdened with the kinds of massive social programs and other changes advocated by the Democratic nominee, a Negro named Andrew Gillum.

Some are saying that this was a “dogwhistle” to appeal to White racist voters.

A dogwhistle is something that a political candidate says or does to make White racist voters believe that he’s their man, or at least preferable to the other candidate. In 1988 George Herbert Walker Bush engaged in dogwhistling with his advertisements featuring a Negro murderer named Willie Horton, who had been allowed out of prison and thus given the opportunity to commit more crimes — assault, armed robbery, and rape — by Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, who was Bush’s opponent in that election. With that advertisement, voters were given to believe that Bush was not soft on Negroes the way Dukakis was.

Back before I heard the term dogwhistle, I used to call this practice winking, which I think is really a better metaphor. A wink is a signal that implies, “I’m on your side,” without clarifying what benefit if any that is supposed to confer. The term dogwhistle has become so widespread, though, that there seems no point in fighting it.

The great master of the dogwhistle was Republican campaign strategist Lee Atwater. In a 1981 interview, Atwater described how overt racism became sublimated into talk about tax-cuts:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”: that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now. You’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is, Blacks get hurt worse than Whites. [Lee Atwater, 1981]

Atwater then tries to backtrack from what he has said, and suggests that “tax-cuts” may have had merely a subconscious racial appeal, but as I recall there was nothing subconscious about it. The “Black welfare queen” and Affirmative Action were familiar to everyone, and tax-cuts and less government seemed as if they might be ways to attack these problems indirectly, while avoiding overt discussion about race. Did it work? No. The main effect of this general approach was to lull White people into avoiding conflict, into thinking that racial preservation would be accomplished indirectly while in fact the cause was not advanced at all.

For the voter, the problem with choosing a candidate based on dogwhistles is that whatever is conveyed by the dogwhistle carries no obligation, because it was never actually said — and we know that there has been calculated dishonesty in this kind of racial signaling.

George H. W. Bush needed to mobilize the racial feeling in White voters, because otherwise there was not much enthusiasm for him as a candidate. It was a dishonest manipulation, however. Although Bush won White votes with the Willie Horton ads, he was anything but pro-White. It was he who signed the calamitous Diversity Lottery into law, which among other deleterious effects has certainly increased the number of murders in our country.

DeSantis’ utterance makes no sense as a dogwhistle. Why? Because everybody already knew that Gillum was a Negro, and a rather dark one at that. There was no point to dropping hints about it. By the way, did you notice that my opponent is a Negro? That is what the “monkey this up” comment was supposed to convey, according to the dogwhistle-theory. But there was no need to say that, and nothing was to be gained by saying it, because everybody could see it.

The idea that DeSantis’ “monkey this up” comment somehow functioned as a dogwhistle is very stupid.

The mention of “socialism” could be seen as a kind of dogwhistle, insofar as Southern White voters tend to think of socialism as redistribution of wealth from Whites to Blacks — an interpretation of socialism that will immediately spring to mind when a Black is advocating it, especially amid the influence of recent reports from South Africa. Republican media always euphemistically explain the dispossession of Whites under Black rule as an effect of “socialism.”

“Socialism” is not a correct explanation of what causes things to go wrong when Blacks take power, but this is how Republicans have become accustomed to talk. Racial concerns are cloaked entirely in non-racial terms. One just hopes that the original thought behind all this dissimulating rhetoric has not been forgotten.

If DeSantis ran advertisements discussing the disastrous effects of “socialism” while showing scenes from South Africa, thereby associating Gillum with anti-White violence through being a “socialist” — that could be an effective form of dogwhistle. People would hear socialist and think criminal Negro parasite.

But DeSantis doesn’t have to go that far. It seems highly unlikely that Florida, a state that doesn’t even have an income-tax, would elect a far-left Negro governor — at least, not yet. If demographic change continues unabated, however, many bad things will become possible.

Things being as they are now, all the wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth over the monkey-comment won’t hurt DeSantis, and may to some extent help him, if he just follows the example of Donald Trump by not acting overly concerned about it.

All Standards of Intelligent Discussion have been Waived to Accommodate Brown-Skinned Immigrant Dinesh D’Souza

Hadding — Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:05:00 +0000

The French Ministry of Biases and Sophisms issues Godwin Points like this one, to be awarded to the likes of Dinesh D’Souza,”for having capably brought the discussion to the ultimate comparison.”

Reductio ad Hitlerum is a ubiquitous feature of Dinesh D’Souza’s recent work. The past couple of days he has been garnering support — including more shilling from American Thinker — by attacking some poorly considered utterance from Web Hubbell’s daughter, Chelsea Clinton, about supposed economic benefits of abortion.

She did not explicitly say that abortion added wealth to the U.S. economy, but even Snopes admits that she seems to have implied that abortion added $3½ trillion of production by enabling women to work instead of raising children.

The Clinton girl’s utterance was originally reported by Craig Bannister of CNS. One week later, however, Dinesh D’Souza decided that he could make the story suitable for his readership by adding a completely untenable Hitler-comparison.

As foolish as Chelsea’s utterance may have been, Dinesh D’Souza’s invocation of Godwin’s Law was even worse.

American Thinker however continues to shill for D’Souza. American Thinker‘s article declares:

Score one for Dinesh D’Souza….

By all means, “score one” for the insolent immigrant, because he is certainly not scoring many points with his latest silly movie. It was a good idea for him to find something else to discuss. Attacking Clintons always gets applause. A Clinton championing abortion? That is an irresistible target!

The comparison to eugenic sterilizations in 1934 Germany was quite a stretch, however. Obviously, abortion and eugenic sterilization are not the same thing.

In fact, Hitler’s government used the tax-code to promote marriage and begetting of children. There was a tax on all unmarried persons, amounting to 3/8 of the unmarried person’s total income. Women were encouraged to be housewives and mothers and NOT to work. Abortion was illegal in Germany under Hitler’s government. They wanted German women to marry, and to have German children, and to stay home and raise them.

That is completely the contrary of Chelsea’s idea. If intelligent women abort their children to pursue careers, that is the opposite of eugenics. That is the elimination of some of the most desirable heredity from the genepool.

Furthermore, it certainly would not have occurred to a German National-Socialist, during the early phase of Hitler’s rule when eugenic sterilization was proposed, that bringing women into the workforce would be good for the economy. The chief problem that Germany, like most of the world, faced at that time was an excess of workers and a deficiency of consumers. (You can read Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism, for more about that.) Let the men have all the jobs and keep the women at home to create more consumers: it’s a win-win solution!

I gave Dinesh D’Souza a Godwin Point for stretching so hard to make such a nonsensical comparison to Hitler.

How does Dinesh D’Souza get away with it?

Hadding — Sun, 19 Aug 2018 12:43:00 +0000

It has been amazing to see how much Dinesh D’Souza gets away with. I have yet to see any of his movies, but I have his books, and I’ve listened to interviews and watched his speeches.

Nobody seems to come to D’Souza’s presentations prepared, and that’s a problem.* It is difficult to argue history extemporaneously. You have to be able to point to a source. In D’Souza’s case, you can point to his own sources and show how he has misrepresented them. But nobody does that.

Nobody catches his crooked rhetoric either, like when he sidetracks an important objection to his thesis onto some trivial point. The obvious point that Southern segregationist voters en masse migrated to the GOP — which blasts a giant hole in D’Souza’s thesis — is obfuscated with a trivia-quiz about politicians who supported Strom Thurmond’s third-party presidential campaign in 1948.

Nobody catches the fact that he pretends that there were always only two political parties in US history, and that everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican. He is able to call the Democrats “the party of slavery” because Whigs and Federalists and NPAs do not exist in D’Souza’s narrative. Somebody pointed out that Ulysses S. Grant had owned a slave before he became president. D’Souza’s comeback is that Grant had not yet become a Republican and was therefore a Democrat at the time. While it is true that Grant had not yet become a Republican, I see no indication that he was ever a Democrat; he seems to have had no party-affiliation until he was drafted to run for president. The point is, MANY non-Democrats — like George Washington! — owned slaves, and did so long before the Democratic Party even existed, so that it is not correct to call the Democrats the party of slavery. This should be extremely OBVIOUS.

How does he get away with it?

Somebody has suggested to me that there has been hesitation to take Dinesh D’Souza to task because he is not White. I don’t know.

I have been especially disappointed that Republican talkshow hosts like Rush Limbaugh take no trouble to stifle dangerous nonsense being propagated among the GOP faithful. Limbaugh certainly knows better, because I’ve been sending him information about D’Souza for the past year. Even without such advice, Limbaugh surely knows that the Ku Klux Klan were not “progressives,” but he lets D’Souza get away with that on his show.

In Limbaugh’s case, the profit motive seems to be a corrupting factor, because D’Souza has bought wall-to-wall advertising for his movie on Limbaugh’s show. Last year Limbaugh was touting D’Souza’s book The Big Lie, declaring, “It’s all true!” — but that was before I started sending him information, and maybe back then he didn’t know what he was endorsing, but he knows now, and is doing it anyway.

D’Souza’s material is dangerous to Republicans because it can easily boomerang against them. For example it was Republicans first and foremost who supported eugenic sterilization. It was a Republican Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” And then there’s the plain fact that D’Souza shows that a significant number of Republicans will believe, or pretend to believe, almost anything. It does not look good.

______________________________
* Here is preparation: Hit Dinesh D’Souza on his Most Vulnerable Points. If you are going to one of D’Souza’s presentations, read that, print it out, and take it with you.

The Reason behind Dinesh D’Souza’s Box-Office Failure

Hadding — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 11:02:00 +0000

This represents a large part of the Republican electorate.

Some anti-Trump pundits are inferring that the initially poor box-office performance of Dinesh D’Souza’s current movie Death of a Nation reflects a decline in the popularity of President Trump. What they fail to take into account is that D’Souza’s cinematic success has been in steady decline for several years. Here’s the breakdown:

2012   Obama’s America                                $33,449,086
2014 America: Imagine the World Without Her          14,444,502
2016 Hillary’s America       13,099,931
2018 Death of a Nation                                                        5,885,881

The reason for the decline, I believe, is that D’Souza, adhering to the anti-racist neoconservative line, is falling more and more out of step with the multitude of Republicans in the Age of Trump.

D’Souza’s great opportunity came with the election of Barack Obama. Many White people were profoundly uncomfortable with having a Negro president, but were afraid to say it. Rush Limbaugh stated on several occasions that Republicans in Congress hesitated to resist or criticize Obama because of fear of being called racist:

“This is what Republicans are still afraid of, in fact, is being called ‘racist’ if they criticize him. They’re still afraid to jump all the way in with both feet on this because they’re afraid of that charge of being called racist.” (Rush Limbaugh, 4 October 2010)

* * *

“And I’ve mentioned [that in 2012 Haley Barbour] made the point, ‘We cannot criticize Obama, Rush, as a party. We can criticize his policies. We can criticize his policies all day long, but we can’t go there.’ He didn’t say why, but it was the unspoken, you can’t go there ’cause he’s African-American, we’ll be called racist, and it was the same old song and dance. I didn’t say anything. I just sat there and nodded.” (Rush Limbaugh, 15 June 2016)

* * *

“What has happened is, the Republican Party has by and large been shut down. Their reluctance to be critical of anything Obama is doing is rooted in the fact that they don’t want to be called racist by the media.” (Rush Limbaugh, 14 July 2014)

When D’Souza attacked Obama in 2012, he struck a chord. As a non-White person, he did not have the average Republican’s fear of attacking Obama, and thus became the voice for people who were afraid to speak freely. Fearful Republicans could stand behind this clearly not-at-all-racist champion, and not risk being called racist themselves.

D’Souza’s subsequent movies did not respond to that kind of need. Nobody feels inhibited about praising America or attacking Hillary Clinton. Praise of America is commonplace, and anti-Clinton material has been stored up since the 1990s. This is a large part of why, I believe, D’Souza’s second and third movies brought in less than half the revenue of his first production.

The need for a non-White spokesman, based on fear of being called racist, is also somewhat reduced from what it was when Obama’s America appeared in 2012. Republicans have to some extent lost that fear, due to the example presented by Donald Trump, as explained by Rush Limbaugh:

“The Republican Party gave [Obama] his free ride; they said there’s no impeachment; they took it off the table. There’s no enforcement mechanism for anything Obama does that’s extra-constitutional, in violation of the law or what have you. He’s got his free ride here. And the reason he’s got it is because people are scared to death of being called racist or sexist or whatever.

“Okay, within that, here comes Trump. It may well be that a whole bunch of Republicans agree with Trump and have not had the… I don’t want… I’m not questioning people’s manhood here. I’m questioning political analysis. Maybe they just haven’t had the courage to do it, but Trump did and they’re probably sitting back and saying, ‘Yeah, look what’s happening to him. They’re trying to destroy him.’ Yeah, but that’s the lesson! What is Trump doing? With every insult that comes his way, with every bit of criticism, he doubles down and fires right back at the critics. This is, in one small part, exactly what Republican voters have been seeking, wanting to see.”(17 August 2015)

In addition to ceasing to address a need, D’Souza’s work took a turn that seems likely to have alienated much of his audience. D’Souza combined his attack on Hillary Clinton with attacks on Andrew Jackson and racism. At this point D’Souza’s propaganda began to acquire a strange odor, because Jackson and racism are traditional targets of leftist propaganda. To make these attacks, D’Souza relied on leftist sources.

Donald Trump likes Andrew Jackson and most of Trump’s base probably has some racial feeling. Thus with Hillary’s America in 2016, D’Souza’s message took a turn that was offensive to at least a significant part of the Trump electorate.

Many Republicans are happy to say things that they do not really mean (like, “Democrats are the real racists”) in order to score partisan debating points. On that basis they may have appreciated Hillary’s America as disingenuous but — they hoped — effective propaganda.

With Death of a Nation, however, D’Souza is not only attacking the Democrats. Now he adds effusive praise of Lincoln (not as he was but as he is usually portrayed) and argues that racists do not belong in the Republican Party. Believe it or not there are many Republicans today who are racists and not uncritical of Lincoln. It seems likely that Republicans who were comfortable enough with seeing the Democrats called racist as a mere rhetorical ploy are not enthused about seeing it turned against themselves.

Although D’Souza struck a chord in 2012 when he attacked Obama, since then he has been gradually alienating his Republican audience, and the Party of Trump also has less need for what he offers. So, who still follows Dinesh D’Souza? From the positive retweets on D’Souza’s Twitter page what I see mainly are simpleminded people: in particular, those who put party-affiliation above all else. Even before the current movie, D’Souza’s followers on Twitter were so simpleminded, that when he posted a satire he had to label it satire or they could not tell. Probably they are also especially timid people.

I would suggest, if Dinesh D’Souza wants to end the unmistakable decline of his cinematic success, that he go back to attacking figures that White people in general are still afraid to criticize, and leave off the attacks on racism and on White icons like Andrew Jackson. A movie presenting all the dirt about Martin Luther King, Jr. would probably be a blockbuster and it would actually be helpful. If we could get Rush Limbaugh to stop referring in reverential tones to “Dr. King,” that would be fantastic!