Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:53 pm Post subject: The Big Lie: Nazi Roots of the American Left
What is "the big lie" of the Democratic Party? That conservatives—and President Donald Trump in particular—are fascists. Nazis, even. In a typical comment, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says the Trump era is reminiscent of "what it was like when Hitler first became chancellor."
But in fact, this audacious lie is a complete inversion of the truth. Yes, there is a fascist threat in America—but that threat is from the Left and the Democratic Party. The Democratic left has an ideology virtually identical with fascism and routinely borrows tactics of intimidation and political terror from the Nazi Brownshirts.
To cover up their insidious fascist agenda, Democrats loudly accuse President Trump and other Republicans of being Nazis—an obvious lie, considering the GOP has been fighting the Democrats over slavery, genocide, racism and fascism from the beginning.
Dinesh D'Souza expertly exonerates President Trump and his supporters, then uncovers the Democratic Left's long, cozy relationship with Nazism: how the racist and genocidal acts of early Democrats inspired Adolf Hitler's campaign of death; how fascist philosophers influenced the great 20th century lions of the American Left; and how today's anti-free speech, anti-capitalist, anti-religious liberty, pro-violence Democratic Party is a frightening simulacrum of the Nazi Party.
I'm not with GOP or Dems by the way. I don't vote for representatives
'cos it only encourages 'em. And ''cos I can represent my own opinions.
I will vote for propositions or referendums 'cos that's actual democracy.
But back on topic, one of the problems with this guy is that I don't hear
enough from him about banksters and the money supply, but anyhow
the video interview above is a good place to get up to speed,
and here's a written article which lays out his take:
Dinesh D'Souza: Democrats' big lies about white supremacy
By Dinesh D'Souza Published August 22, 2017
The tragic events in Charlottesville seemed almost too good to be true from the point of view of the mainstream media and the political left. On the one side were the neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen who seemed to be for Trump; on the other were the valiant leftists fighting against racism, Nazism and white supremacy.
So I’m not surprised the left-wing press has obsessively pursued this narrative, which it also tried to impose on the Boston free speech rally this past weekend. The narrative confirms leftists in thier belief that Trump is the embodiment of fascism and white supremacy, and that racism and Nazism are on the right.
Looking back at Charlottesville, I am struck by the anomaly that the whole controversy erupted over the campaign to take down a monument to Robert E. Lee.
Now again, this is strange on the face of it. Although Lee inherited a few slaves on his wife’s side, he condemned slavery as a moral and political evil and looked forward to its end. Lee also opposed secession. So how can a man opposed to slavery and secession become, for the left, a symbol of slavery and secession?
Part of the Democrats' big lie is to shift the blame for slavery from themselves to the South.
I realized that in heaping opprobrium on Lee, the left was advancing one of its big lies. This is the lie that the South is to blame for slavery. In this view the slavery debate was entirely a North-South debate. But in reality it was not so. Certainly the secession debate of 1860-61 was between the North and the South. The slavery debate, however, which lasted from the 1820s through 1860, was between the anti-slavery Republican Party and the pro-slavery Democratic Party.
Part of the Democrats’ big lie is to shift the blame for slavery from themselves to the South. This licenses leftist intimidation, vandalism and even violence in the name of fighting Southern bigotry. But let’s remember that most Southerners did not own slaves. Most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves. Let’s also recall that the Northern Democrats led by Stephen Douglas supported slavery with the same resourcefulness and determination as the Southern Democrats.
Watching the white nationalists in Charlottesville sporting hats that said “Make America Great Again,” I asked myself, why would these guys support Trump? Here’s my theory. Ordinarily these guys belong in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party, after all, invented white nationalism and used it for almost a century to maintain their political supremacy in the South.
But today’s Democratic Party is different from the past. Today the Democrats affirm every type of ethnic nationalism—black nationalism, Latino nationalism, Asian nationalism—except white nationalism. So whites can’t show up to the multicultural picnic, because all these other nationalisms are mobilized against white nationalism. Whites have become the bad guys. Consequently, the white nationalists have to turn elsewhere.
So where can they turn? They don’t fit easily in the Republican Party, because the GOP is all about individual rights and the rejection of ethnic nationalisms of every stripe. Nor is Trump their man, because Trump supports not white nationalism but American nationalism. Trump’s American nationalism, however, at least includes all Americans. Consequently, the white nationalists may consider it a better alternative to being hated and reviled in the Democratic camp.
In the end, we shouldn’t worry too much about a bunch of rag-tag white nationalists and Klansmen who have very little power in America today.
If the Klan holds a rally anywhere in America, they can hardly produce more than a few dozen people, and those people are inevitably encircled by a vastly larger and stronger group of counter-protesters. Skinheads, Klansmen and neo-Nazis don’t control corporations or cultural institutions and so their influence is severely limited.
The most dangerous fascism doesn’t come from these losers.
It comes from those who have the power to shut down free speech on campus.
It comes from the studio bosses who destroy the careers of those who don’t succumb to their political orthodoxy.
It comes from deans who manage billion-dollar endowments who can ruin the academic future of dissenters and make them into pariahs.
It also comes from journalists who use their power of expose and humiliate, to browbeat people into submission to political correctness and an ideological agenda. And politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who use the power of the state—the FBI, the Justice Department, the IRS—against their political adversaries.
This fascism of the institutions is far more dangerous than the fascism of the street, and this type of fascism comes entirely from the political left.
Here's another video which is boring
for the first 12 minutes, so start there:
Here's he is on c-Cpan, fielding comments:
(@ 15mins Democrats and the KKK)
(@ 17mins Nationalism is not fascism)
_________________ Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
We agree on most things as usual--neither party is worth voting for, etc.
But this is not the dude you want to be basing your understanding of anything on. He's basically the Alex Jones of books. He is a race-baiter of the lowest order. Also the Democrats and Republicans swapped ideologies in the 60s. To suggest slavery is the fault of the modern day Democratic party and not "the south" is as wrong as wrong can be. How many people who claim "confederate heritage" are still Democrats?? And quite frankly it doesn't matter whose fault the wrongs of the past are. It matters that we make it right in the present and in the future. And we both know that neither the Democrats or Republicans or the corporations that own and control them have any interest in doing that. To me the whole thing reeks of "If you are a liberal hate the right, if you are a conservative hate the left, don't look at the man behind the curtain..."
ETHNIC CLEANSING is the main plank on the Nazi party's platform. Sure, they took cues from the way the colonies/USA treated the indigenous people and people of color... But the modern political left in the US is not the Democrats, and it is not trying to implement ethnic cleansing. So the comparison ultimately falls flat.
Back to my point though, Dinesh D'Souza is not worth anyone's time. The Alex Jones of books, etc. Only more successful financially. Jamie Glazov has also made a career of falsely defining and then opposing "the left". These are two right-wing propagandists with zero integrity talking about "the real truth behind the lies!!" You might as well counter-argue this with some Michael Moore bullshit or some other anti-right propagandist.
This is not who we want to be informing our opinions of anything. he's a manipulator, a liar, and a shrewd businessman who has gotten rich exploiting white people's fear. _________________ Can't be beat, won't be beat, etc.
I continue to be amazed at the enormity of the disinfo lies that the CIA/media (same thing) concoct to distract the tax-slavers from the actual crimes that the NWO master criminals are committing against them each day!
who? someone without such obvious bias. someone who isn't so obviously making a buck playing on people's fear and anger.
I try not to put all my eggs in one basket, meaning that although I don't agree fully with Dinesh or anyone here I take parts to make sense, and build a picture I can understand.
You obviously think Dinesh is out to screw us, and clearly shows your own bias.
Even Alex Jones throws some truths in with the bullshit.
sure, but i don't listen to him either.
i don't think it's biased to do research on people that are presenting information and make decision on whether or not those people are a worthy information source based on that research. if they have a clear motive of personal profit and a clear history of misconduct and fraud... i think it's safe to dismiss them. _________________ Can't be beat, won't be beat, etc.
Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 247 Location: Inverness, Scotland
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:07 pm Post subject:
and i wrote:
i don't think it's biased to do research on people that are presenting information and make decision on whether or not those people are a worthy information source based on that research. if they have a clear motive of personal profit and a clear history of misconduct and fraud... i think it's safe to dismiss them.
I don't think it's as simple as that. Even if you disapprove of the man's conduct, you still need to make a proper analysis and criticism of the strength or weakness of his argument and the evidence on which it's based before you can justify dismissing it out of hand. If the same words had been written by a pauper of faultless character, you'd still need to find fault in their message before they lose their force.
I don't think he's wrong when he says that there is a strong connection between the fascist ideology and the American Democrats. Where the fallacy lies is in his implied premise that only one of the main American parties is pro-fascist while the other one is anti-fascist and the pro-fascist party isn't the one people think it is.
We know that they're both fascist. They don't disagree about the destination, only about how best and how quickly to get there. Oh, and also about who gets the biggest dressing room.
It's a further perpetuation of the fake paradigm that the important discourse is the Punch and Judy show between the left and the right, ignoring the fact that the same puppet master has got his hand up the arses of both of them. _________________ My real name is Gerry.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum