D'Souza, Dinesh

---

see bak for newer and hillary's am

NO MERRI

capt 819

kochaDEMIA OLIN FDN SEE JANE Mayer ISI COLLEGIATE NETWORK

see campus free sp BS

liberal prof BS

brief beef w/ horo (over?) but //

---

---

gotta wonder re timing, just dunking/piling on?

https://www.alternet.org**/2022/06/**ann-coulter-2000-mules-stupid/

---

an 5 22

sixteen months into Joe Biden’s presidency, far-right pundit and conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza continues to shamelessly promote theBig Lieand falsely claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from former President Donald Trump — a claim that the 61-year-old D’Souza makes in his new documentary “2000 Mules.” Journalist Anthony L. Fisher critiques “2000 Mules” in a scathing op-ed published by the Daily Beast on May 19, arguing that D’Souza’s documentary is so sloppy and badly done that even Fox Newsand Newsmax have ignored it.

“The new documentary ‘2000 Mules,’ a Dinesh D’Souza joint,is barely more credible than your average rando conspiracy theory video on YouTube, but its production values attach to it a superficial seriousness,” Fisher explains. “The film’s intended audience will see a rational ‘just asking questions’ kinda guy, D’Souza, talking with some ideological allies — like Charlie Kirk, Dennis Prager, Sebastian Gorka and Larry Elder — who are merely concerned about voter integrity in the America they love.”

Fisher continues, “But the bulk of the film consists of D’Souza’s highly dramatized explainer sessions with a couple of technological ‘experts,’ also credited as executive producers, whose claims that they’ve used geotracking data to uncover thousands of vote-harvesting mules fall apart under the barest of scrutiny. Surveillance footage of people taking selfies after dropping their votes in dropboxes is presented as ‘A-ha!’ evidence — while ignoring the fact that people taking voter selfies was a mundanely common thing to do in 2020, and for quite a few years prior.”

According to Fisher, “2000 Mules” suffers from “relentless repetition of innuendo” and “almost no verifiable facts.”D’Souza, Fisher notes, complains about Republicans who want to move on from the 2020 election and slams them as cowards.

“D’Souza’s whining extends beyond the film itself, and into coverage of the film,” Fisher observes. “Or in the case of Fox News and Newsmax, the lack of coverage around ‘2000 Mules’ — likely because both networks have already been sued for pushing potentially slanderous Big Lie accusations against voting technology companies. D’Souza’s white knight, DonaldTrump, came to the film’s defense when he slammed Foxfor ignoring ‘the greatest & most impactful documentary of our time.’But even a Trump-supporting right-wing firebreather like Ben Shapiro can’t bring himself to say D’Souza made a persuasive case with ‘2000 Mules,’ because the film’s central thesis simply isn’t backed by any supporting evidence— much less an overwhelming amount of verifiable, unimpeachable data.”

Someone who doesn’t already buy into the Big Lie, Fisher stresses, won’t change their mind because of “2000 Mules.”

“The film isn’t meant to persuade anyone, it’s meant to reinforce the already passionate certainty in people who believe in something that simply does not exist,” Fisher writes. “It is a vile piece of agitprop, pushing a falsehood that could very well tear our country apart. It’s also a very stupid movie, packaged as smart, fearless muckraking. In a sense, it’s a 90-minute safe space for MAGA snowflakes who can’t accept the fact that their hero is a loser.”

---

---

jane che

IF THE OLIN FOUNDATION was less than transparent about its mission, it was not for the first time. Between 1958 and 1966, it secretly served as a bank for the Central Intelligence Agency. During these eight years, the CIA laundered $1.95 million through the foundation. Olin, according to Miller, regarded his undercover role as part of his patriotic duty. Many of the government funds went to anti-Communist intellectuals and publications. But in 1967, the press exposed the covert propaganda operation, triggering a political furor and causing the CIA to fold the program. The CIA money at the Olin foundation, which was not publicized at the time, disappeared as quietly as it had arrived. The idea of using the private foundation to fund ideologically aligned intellectuals, however, persisted.

The Olin foundation invested in William F. Buckley Jr., whose television show, Firing Line, the foundation supported. It also funded Allan Bloom, author of the best-selling slam from the right at American higher education, The Closing of the American Mind (in which Bloom also lashed out at rock music as a "nonstop, commercially prepackaged masturbation fantasy"). The foundation also supported Dinesh D'Souza, author of Illiberal Education, which blasted "political correctness," castigating rules requiring sensitivity to women and minorities as the overreaching of liberal thought police.

---

---

Tom McClintockof California's 4th Congressional District is the kind of guy that was still hanging out with right-wing criminal and strange lying machine Dinesh D'Souza. D'Souza is one of those guys that almost makes you feel bad for being a human being.

---

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12109842/

Written and directed by acclaimed film maker, scholar, and New York Times best selling author Dinesh D?Souza, TRUMP CARD is an expose of the socialism, corruption and gangsterization that now define the Democratic Party. Whether it is the creeping socialism of Joe Biden or the overt socialism of Bernie Sanders, the film reveals what is unique about modern socialism, who is behind it, why its evil, and how we can work together with President Trump to stop it.

Directed by 

Writing Credits (in alphabetical order)  

Cast  

[](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10074454/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_i1)

Kathryn Palmer

...

Marla Maples

Produced by 

booked in AMC theaters?!

Death of a Nation

Dinesh D'Souza

4.8 out of 5 stars 2,459

DVD

$16.43

America: Imagine The World Without Her [DVD + Digital]

America: Imagine The World Without Her [DVD + Digital]

America

4.6 out of 5 stars 4,352

DVD

$9.99

2016: Obama’s America

2016: Obama’s America

Dinesh D'Souza

4.4 out of 5 stars 4,594

DVD

$10.61

No Safe Spaces

No Safe Spaces

Adam Carolla

4.9 out of 5 stars 35

DVD

$13.99

Hillary's America [DVD + Digital]

Hillary's America [DVD + Digital]

Dinesh D'Souza

4.3 out of 5 stars 3,584

DVD

$11.75

United States of Socialism: Who's Behind It. Why It's Evil. How to Stop It.

United States of Socialism: Who's Behind It. Why It's Evil. How to Stop It.

Dinesh D'Souza

4.8 out of 5 stars 1,848

Hardcover

$17.99

Death of a Nation [Blu-ray]

Dinesh D'Souza

4.8 out of 5 stars 2,459

amazon dvd

blurb-y

:{wallStreet Guy:(style="box-sizing:border-box;position:relative;unicode-bidi:isolate"):}:

*:{5.0 out of 5 stars:(style="box-sizing:border-box;position:absolute;left:auto;top:auto;display:block;width:80px;height:18px;overflow:hidden;clip-path:circle(0px at 50% 50%);opacity:0"):}:*:{The Moral Case for Capitalism - not Socialism:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:

Reviewed in the United States on September 9, 2020

Dinesh D'Souza is an accomplished author, film-maker, and intellect. Trump Card highlights the inherent good of personal liberties provided to its citizens by the USA and the urgency of protecting and preserving our liberties from the latest wave of socialism to smack our society. I had a chance to see an early preview of this film and was pleasantly surprised. D'Souza is an excellent story-teller, and his background as an adult immigrant to the USA from his home country, India makes him an ideal protagonist given his firsthand experience. D'Souza is also the ONLY person in American history to serve jail time for making a campaign donation exceeding the federal limits. D'Souza pleaded guilty in 2014 in federal court to one felony charge of using a "straw donor" to make an illegal campaign contribution to a 2012 United States Senate campaign. 

He was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house near his home in San Diego, five years' probation, and a $30,000 fine. He was targeted by the Obama administration for being an outspoken conservative. D'Souza thankfully has not allowed media bias and personal attacks to discourage him from delivering a conservative message. Regardless of your politics, America is about personal freedoms, the Bill of Rights, and protecting these liberties which have never been in greater jeopardy in our short history. A prolific author and film-maker, his most recent film, Trump Card is far beyond a critique of socialism. It makes the moral case for capitalism and free markets not socialism, as the cradle of social justice. We have witnessed firsthand the disaster that is socialism/communism in Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina, Russia, N Korea and so forth. Unfortunately, the lure of government promises to provide everything for its citizens has some kind of appeal for those who should know better. But the power of the media and our entire education system brainwashing our citizens is an enormous challenge for anyone to fight. Thankfully, Dinesh is up to the task by providing the conservative stance (aka "the truth") for his audience. Again, regardless of your political leanings, please watch this objectively and note the facts, as opposed to the spin. It is truly a wakeup.

9/20 billed as alt to cpac for the hep kids?

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/its-back-after-2019-outrage-american-priority-festival-and-conference-2020-promises-golf-tournament-and-a-whos-who-of-far-right-speakers/

doral

It’s Back: After 2019 Outrage, American Priority Festival and Conference 2020 Promises Golf Tournament—and a Who’s Who of Far-Right Speakers

By Kristen Doerer | September 15, 2020

Simona Papadopoulos (left) poses with her husband George Papadopoulos (center) and another model after her bathing suit fashion show at the American Priority Festival and Conference. Screenshot of Simona Papadopoulos' since deleted tweet.]

At last year’s American Priority Festival and Conference, a macabre video that superimposed President Donald Trump’s face on a figure shooting the president’s perceived political opponents in a mass killing spree, reported on by The New York Times, caused outrage. This year, the AMP festival, unhindered by the global coronavirus pandemic, will feature a who’s who of right-wing and far-right speakers, all gathered together at the Trump National Doral Miami Oct. 8-11.

The “YUGE lineup”—their words, not ours—includes returning speakers, such as far-right Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, convicted felon Roger Stone, whose sentence was commuted by President Donald Trump, and far-right activist and One America News Network figure Jack Posobiec, who pushed the “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory, according to an organizer’s email Monday.

Anti-Muslim activist and right-wing conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer will also return to the stage. After winning the GOP nomination to represent Florida’s 21st Congressional District in the U.S. House in August, Loomer received Trump’s congratulations as she rubbed shoulders with a series of far-right figures at her victory party. Failed congressional candidate and QAnon conspiracy theorist DeAnna Lorraine, who recently accused Trump of “taking his base for granted” by wearing a mask, is another featured speaker. (We’ll see how many COVID-19 cases come out of this year’s festival.)

George Papadopoulos—who went to federal prison for making false statements to FBI agents about the timing of his contact with Russian intermediaries in 2016—will return to Trump Doral as well. Last year, Papadopolous spoke on an “Unmasking the Russian Hoax” panel, while his wife Simona Papadopolous held a swimsuit fashion show during the pool party portion of the festival.

Described as “Four days of God, country, and MAGA at the spectacular Trump National Doral resort in Miami, FL,” the conference promises “everything you could want in a patriot event.” And in case that description doesn’t excite you, the email promotes a golf tournament for an additional cost, a “MAGA pool party”—which no doubt means more patriotic swimsuits—and even spa deals:

AMP is also hosting a celebrity golf tournamenton the world-famous Blue Monster course with net proceeds benefiting the American Priority Foundation! Come play golf with some of the most patriotic names in sports, TV, and politics. Tournament entry is $500 and available as an option when you register. This makes a great gift for those golf fans!

AMP is also hosting a screening of Dinesh D’Souza’sblockbuster new film ‘Trump Card’, shooting a music video for a brand new patriot anthem by Alex Jordan, kicking off with a MAGA pool party, and hosting many surprise special guests.

The festival and conference was conceived as a pro-Trump, millennial-focused alternative to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference held in Washington, D.C., byAli Alexander, a right-wing political operative, and Alex Phillips, a conservative donor who owns a small telecom company in Virginia. Alexander—who previously went by Ali Akbar and who has ties to far-right figures such as Unite the Right white supremacist attendee Matt Colligan—has recently floated the idea of revamping a 2018 effort discredit mail-in voting ahead of the 2020 presidential election, dispatching Trump supporters to places where ballots are being counted?. Posobiec, who helped announce the first AMP festival in 2018, also promoted Alexander’s latest ploy to discredit mail-in voting.

The first AMP festival, held in 2018 in Washington, D.C., was effectively a flop, with one speaker even canceling after seeing the dismal turnout. Last year’s event, held in Doral, managed to attract more attendees but not quite the millennial and Gen Z crowd that was intended. Though younger conservatives were in attendance, the event attracted plenty of Generation X and baby boomer attendees, featuring such groups as the graying “Bikers for Trump.” Millennial MAGA stars were featured, including the Deplorable Choir, Ricky Rebel, a singer-songwriter known for being unapologetically both pro-Trump and gay, and right-wing activist Scott Presler.

It also ironically prevented reporters from covering its events—centered around the concept of free speech and the First Amendment—by allowing only “invited” media, barring Right Wing Watch’s Jared Holt from entry. In 2018, Alexander had explained the “invite only” policy this way: “Frankly, any press reporter who writes a hit piece on us is not getting a press credential.”

An Aug. 7 email promises panels with “leading experts on Medical Tyranny, Tech Censorship, Educational Freedom, The China Threat, Pandemic Response, and much more!” Last year, speakers peddled conspiracy theories and called for civil war. After coverage of the events and the crude video by the New York Times, ProPublica, and other outlets, AMP temporarily took down its page.

:{

}:

As Right Wing Watch reported last year, “The conference could have been dismissed as a meeting of the fringe, but big-ticket speakers like Don Trump Jr. and Sarah Huckabee Sanders lent legitimacy to the conference, as did more respectable Republican groups like the Leadership Institute, which held a series of trainings in side rooms.” While AMP 2020 has yet to secure high-profile Trump administration or Trump family speakers, its location at the Trump Doral and the degree of coziness Trump has gotten with such formerly fringe figures say enough.

Kaplan: A Disgrace to Discourse

I was the Dartmouth College Republicans' treasurer. Here's why I quit.

by Alec Kaplan | 3/26/19 2:15am 

On Oct. 23, 2018, the Dartmouth College Republicans hosted controversial speaker David Horowitz in an event titled “Identity Politics and the Totalitarian Threat from the Left.” Horowitz, founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, has a history of comparing Muslims to Nazis and believes that universities brainwash students with leftist propaganda. The talk received numerous protestors. Some highlights of the event included Horowitz stating that “the only serious race war in America is against white males” and telling a student “I wouldn’t help you if you were drowning” in response to being told that black Americans do not need his help.

Up until that day, I had served as both the treasurer of the Dartmouth College Republicans and a member of the College Republicans’ executive board. Many of my friends, both liberal and conservative, asked me why College Republicans chose to invite Horowitz. After all, Horowitz spoke at the end of October, just two weeks before the 2018 midterm elections. The Dartmouth College Democrats had already hosted both Molly Kelly, the Democratic nominee in the New Hampshire gubernatorial election, and Congresswoman Annie Kuster ’78, who represents New Hampshire’s 2nd District. The College Republicans were certainly not short of options. Two local Republican governors, New Hampshire’s Chris Sununu and Vermont’s Phil Scott, both faced reelection. Meanwhile, Republican nominee Steve Negron challenged Annie Kuster for the 2nd District, and Eddie Edwards sought to reclaim the nearby 1st District, which had turned blue in 2016. But the Dartmouth College Republicans didn’t invite any of these promising Republican speakers. They invited David Horowitz.

Members of the College Republicans, myself included, found the decision shocking. I heard nothing about Horowitz’s invitation until a week before the event. That lack of transparency, coupled with the decision by the College Republicans’ to invite him, prompted me to step down as treasurer and quit the organization. My replacement, current treasurer Eashwar Sivarajan, joined the Groupme of the Dartmouth chapter of the Young Democratic Socialists of America, where he encouraged members to “organize some resistance” to the Horowitz talk.

The College Republicans aren’t the organization I used to know. During the 2017-18 academic year, Dartmouth College Republicans created a welcoming community for conservative students while encouraging dialogue with other groups on campus. The club welcomed input from all members during meetings. We organized a number of events, including meetings with officials from the New Hampshire Republican Party and multiple dinner discussions, co-hosted with College Democrats, on issues like the Antifa movement and climate change. In April, College Republicans came together with College Democrats for a debate on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as well as other economic issues in America.

Since this fall, however, the College Republicans have shifted away from respectful discourse and abandoned the community they supposedly represent. The last meeting with an open invitation to campus happened in September, and the College Republicans’ only messages to the campus events listserv during winter term concerned the club’s most recent speaker. The College Republicans haven’t hosted a single recent event with College Democrats, and dialogue between the two groups appears to be finished. Instead of reaching out to campus and trying to bring more students in, as it used to, the College Republicans have shut their doors to anyone who does not follow its newfound fringe ideology.

On Feb. 11, College Republicans brought Dinesh D’Souza’83 to campus. D’Souza, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty in 2014 to making illegal campaign contributions. He also wrote a book in 2007 called “The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11.” In February 2018, D’Souza mocked survivors of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on his Twitter account. The College Republicans’ decision to invite him only confirmed the disconcerting shifts within the organization.

Meanwhile, the Dartmouth College Democrats brought multiple presidential hopefuls to campus, including New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand ’88 and Washington Governor Jay Inslee. New Jersey’s Senator Cory Booker and New Hampshire Representative Annie Kuster visited in October, less than a week after the David Horowitz talk. While the College Democrats invite high-profile political leaders, the College Republicans brings in far-right provocateurs. The College Republicans must do better if they hope to make meaningful contributions to Dartmouth’s campus.

Last month, the current treasurer of College Republicans, my successor, wrote an opinion piece attacking the editorial board of The Dartmouth and the larger Dartmouth community for not respecting the “conservative minority.” He claims that The Dartmouth’s opinion writers remain dominated by “pernicious progressivism” and were “too busy complaining about alleged oppression to devote time to actually listening to what D’Souza had to say.” I agree that conservative students are the political minority at Dartmouth. However, suggesting that we face open hostility from campus institutions is an overstatement. The current treasurer’s claim reinforces a false narrative pushed by David Horowitz that conservatives face persecution on university campuses across the United States. What’s more, my successor implies that D’Souza and the College Republicans, in their new, far-right form, still represent the conservative community. This is, sadly, no longer true. Until the leadership of the College Republicans stops complaining about its alleged victimhood and recommits itself to respectful dialogue, it will continue to lack both legitimacy and dignity.

Kaplan is the former treasurer of the Dartmouth College Republicans.

==

https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/why-the-conservative-mindset-is-so-threatened-by-the-truth-about-slavery/

no lnx

Why the conservative mindset is so threatened by the truth about slavery

Written by Nancy LeTourneau / Washington Monthly August 22, 2019

It has been fascinating to observe the reaction from conservatives to the 1619 Project recently launched by the New York Times. As a reminder, here is how it opens.

In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the British colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the years of slavery that followed. In the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully.

A common theme in the reaction of conservatives to this project is to assume that telling our story truthfully is somehow an attack on Donald Trump. For example, Dinesh D’Souza, the man who has spent the last few years blaming Democrats for the oppression of African Americans and claiming that it is the Republican Party that has always fought for freedom, said that the 1619 Project was a “political hit to discredit Trump and his base.” It is always interesting to watch Trump’s enablers assume that any honest conversation about racism in America reflects badly on the president, even when he’s not mentioned.

==

fair.org 819

Dinesh D’Souza: Editor of Heritage’s Policy Review from 1985 to 1987, D’Souza is still a contributing editor at the magazine. D’Souza first gained notoriety as editor of the collegiate Dartmouth Review, which published under his leadership “Dis She Ain’t No Jive,” a racist parody of black students, and a puff interview of white supremacist David Duke, accompanied by a depiction of a hanging black man (John K. Wilson, The Myth of Political Correctness).

https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/trump-supporter-dinesh-dsouza-gets-slammed-for-tweeting-science-free-claim-about-global-warming-you-fcking-idiot

Trump supporter Dinesh D’Souza gets slammed for tweeting science-free claim about global warming: ‘You f*cking idiot’

Image by Gage Skidmore, via Wikimedia Commons .

Written by Walter Einenkel / Daily Kos August 13, 2019

Listen, right-wing intellectuals such as convicted fraudster and felon Dinesh D’Souza have spent so much time looking into a mirror hidden inside of their rectums that it is hard to take anything they say or do seriously. But, depressingly, many people consider expensive glasses to be a sign of intellect. D’Souza has something of a platform again after being pardoned by fellow fraud Donald Trump. Since that time he has produced a garbage propaganda film attacking everyone not named Donald Trump and occasionally embarrassed himself on Twitter.

Today, Dinesh D’Souza jumped the shark of dumb right-wing propaganda when he sent out this tweet.

Global warming comes to Australia. Unless you want to believe your lying eyes! https://t.co/uw83nTdIPc

— Dinesh D’Souza (@DineshDSouza) August 12, 2019

[vid?]

Pretty damning evidence. You see, it is the middle of August, a well-known summertime month in the Northern Hemisphere, and Australia is getting snow! Some MAGA supporters retweeted Dinesh triumphantly, wondering what we liberals would say to explain away this clear indication that global warming is a hoax cooked up by Chinese Muslims in league with the Clintons and Pizzagate and Obama’s deep state. Global warming my foot! Yeehaw! USA U S A U    S    A!

I was at a loss. Part of me remembered something I learned in grade school about Australia’s location in the world and weather—but what could it have been? Using my next-level research skills, I typed “Australia weather” into Google search. Lo and behold, Australia.com and its weather section came up.

Australia’s climate varies greatly throughout the eight states and territories; there are four seasons across most of the country and a wet and dry season in the tropical north.

Australia’s seasons are at opposite times to those in the northern hemisphere. December to February is summer; March to May is autumn; June to August is winter; and September to November is spring.

I. Just. Don’t. Understand. I decided to watch D’Souza get ratioed by Twitter, and see if maybe I might learn me something about weather and geography and science. Head on down to enjoy.

Uhh, it is winter in Australia…

— Barry Blough (@BarryBlough) August 12, 2019

Wait. But I just went swimming where I live yesterday!

Should we tell your tragically misinformed followers that it’s winter in the southern hemisphere right now?

— Devin Nunes’ Alt-Mom (@NunesAlt) August 12, 2019

I just don’t get it!

Nobody knew hemispheres could be so hard, believe me. Nobody!

— Dogald J. Trump (@dogaldtrump) August 12, 2019

It’s so true.

Some people are stupid & uninformed. Some people are craven propagandists.

You are the perfect blend of both. pic.twitter.com/Gyyq4zBuFA

— Carl Marx?? (@saddamshaikh1) August 12, 2019

It is sort of remarkable.

This tree is alive and blooms early every spring. Unless you want to believe your lying eyes! pic.twitter.com/LlHWW5wtYg

— A. Marmot ??Underground?? (@_Anunnery) August 12, 2019

Oh. I think I get it.

dude pic.twitter.com/SZ3onIuhph

— ?????????????°??¯?????????¯???????"??"¯????????p?? (@empiricalerror) August 12, 2019

Ohhhh. And finally,

If’s winter there, you fucking idiot.

— Gary Legum (@GaryLegum) August 12, 2019

https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/conservative-jonah-goldbergs-fraudulent-claim-that-fascism-is-really-a-left-wing-phenomenon-will-not-die-more-than-a-decade-later/

Jonah Goldberg just keeps inspiring people—whether he intends to or not.

Take Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, for example. Earlier this week, after visiting a Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, Bolsonaro was asked whether he agreed with comments made by his foreign minister claiming that the Nazis of Germany were “leftists.”

He did: “There is no doubt, right?” he said to reporters. He added that the appearance of theword “socialist”in the Nazis’ official party name proved it.

The museum he had just visited, however, isclear about the matter, telling visitors at its website that the German Nazi party arose out of “radical right-wing groups” in Europe.

Where would Bolsonaro get such ideas? He didn’t credit anyone, but the ultimate lineage of this idea really belongs to Goldberg. Perhaps, secondarily and more contemporarily, he’s been absorbing the derivative work of Dinesh d’Souza.

Worst of all, he is far from alone. From Charlottesville to Portland to Christchurch, we’re awash in the effects of a resurgent white-nationalist movement that considers the “liberal smear” that fascism was a right-wing movement further evidence of a “cultural Marxist” campaign against white Western civilization.

D’Souza’s bookThe Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left—which has been a bestseller, despite having been systematically dismantled by everyone from Ross Douthat to Mark Bray to Kevin M. Kruse and exposed as a risible fraud from start to finish—was in fact, as Douthat suggests, essentially a dumbed-down, frat-boy repackaging of Goldberg’s 2008 best-seller, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.D’Souza also made a slickly produced “documentary” pursuing this thesis further, titled Death of a Nation.

Indeed, it seems that even though Goldberg has been previously supportive of d’Souza’s work—including appearing in, as well helping to promote, his previous film, Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,which in fact includes his earliest iteration of the “Nazis were leftists” claim—he’s becoming uncomfortable with where the whole thing has been going.

This all came up, I should mention, in the context of a post Goldberg published at National Review’s blog The Corner last weekend, attacking me for a series of tweets in which I had tweaked him recently. But this is an argument dating back more than a decade.

“I am not a fan of Dinesh D’Souza’s effort to take my argument and twist it into the kind of indictment of liberals Neiwert levels at conservatives or that I was accused of doing,” he wrote.

It was something of a mere side-note to an otherwise long-winded defense of what he has always believed is a deep and subtle argument that partisan simpletons like myself cannot comprehend. But in many ways it encapsulates perfectly the argument we’ve been having for the past decade—the way it caricaturizes my argument en route to building a strawman, the way he shifts the goalposts, and most of all his continued evasion in confronting what his little intellectual exercise has produced in the real world, a la Jair Bolsonaro.

Distancing himself from d’Souza is probably how Goldberg eases some of the resulting cognitive dissonance, but then, unfortunately, there are annoying little ankle-biters like your humble correspondent around to remind him of this evasion. (I also like to remind him that he himself actively helped promote this supposedly bastardized version of his original thesis back when it was Glenn Beck doing it.) Thus the odd way of striking back at a Twitter critic in a forum that lets him not have to deal with the inevitable responses.

The argument dates back to 2008, when I published a harshly negative review of Liberal Fascismat American Prospect,headlined “Jonah Goldberg’s Bizarro History.” As I pointed out at the time, its chief flaw was that it conveniently omitted any consideration of the history and continued presence of actual fascist and neo-Nazi organizations in the American landscape, and their relationship to movement conservatism:

"Beyond the Klan, completely missing from the pages of Goldberg’s book is any mention of the Silver Shirts, the American Nazi Party, the Posse Comitatus, the Aryan Nations, or the National Alliance — all of them openly fascist organizations, many of them involved in some of the nation’s most horrific historical events. (The Oklahoma City bombing, for instance, was the product of a blueprint drawn up by the National Alliance’s William Pierce.) Goldberg sees fit to declare people like Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Hillary Clinton “American fascists,” but he makes no mention of William Dudley Pelley, Gerald L.K. Smith, George Lincoln Rockwell, William Potter Gale, Richard Butler, or David Duke — all of them bona fide fascists: the real thing.

This is a telling omission, because the continuing existence of these groups makes clear what an absurd and nakedly self-serving thing Goldberg’s alternate version of reality is. Why dream up fascists on the left when the reality is that real American fascists have been lurking in the right’s closet for lo these many years? Well, maybe because it’s a handy way of getting everyone to forget that fact.

Goldberg responded, and we had a brief but spirited exchange at our blogs that ended after he decided I was unworthy of his time, which seems to be his most recent conclusion as well. Most of those exchanges can be found at my old blog *Orcinus,*though most of Goldberg’s original retorts seem to have vanished into the ether.

I remained dismayed at seeing how readily Goldberg’s fundamentally fraudulent thesis not only spread into the mainstream but became a kind of received wisdom among movement conservatives, especially because I was fully aware how dimly real historians of fascism viewed this work. So in 2010 I organized a group of them into a forum to air their grievances with Goldberg’s book at History News Network. We invited Goldberg to participate, and he did offer one relatively meek attempt at rebuttal that mostly complained about my participation and how mean everyone was to him.

[Note: Goldberg’s claim in his Corner post that I “tried valiantly to exclude me from it at the time” is just a straight-up lie. I eagerly welcomed his participation. I wrote to Rick Schenkman, the HNN.com editor at the time, to ask if he could recall me doing any such thing, and he replied he couldn’t recollect anything either way.]

Our most recent exchange on Twitter began when Goldberg rebukedRep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for her recent remarks about “economic injustice” being closely connected to “environmental justice,” which Goldberg dismissed as “Embarrassing hogwash.”

AOC’s remarks might have the odor of liberal cant, but they also have a factual grounding reflected in serious academic work—unlike certain hoax theses I could name. So I tweeted back the same phrase to him, accompanied by a mock cover of his book and his own core thesis, from those pages: “Fascism, properly understood, is a not a phenomenon of the right at all. It is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left.”

Goldberg winced: “David, I’m sorry I’m your white whale.”

I answered: “As long as your hoax thesis continues to pollute our discourse — thanks, in recent years, no small part to the @DineshDSouza permutation of it — I will remain compelled to call it out for the toxic nonsense that it is, Jonah.”

His reply: “I don’t like what Dinesh did with my book. But I still think you’re essentially a shill talking up your business model rather than dealing with my actual arguments.  You’ve acted in bad faith for over a decade now. It’s kind of sad.”

The next day, obviously still irritated, he subtweeted a response that didn’t actually link to me, but which of course I saw anyway:

Me: Conservatism/classical liberalism in the Anglo-American tradition = limited government, sovereignty of the individual, moral and religious traditionalism, and free market economics. Therefore fascism is not “right wing.”

Left wing obsessive: HOW DARE YOU, YOU IDIOT!?

— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) March 31, 2019

This occasioned my response pointing to our long-ago debates that in turn drove him to reply to me at The Corner. It was classic Goldberg, really, as I’ve noted before:

"One of the more striking aspects of Goldberg’s dishonesty is how he manipulates his definitions in self-serving fashion that lets him move the goalposts at will, as though we were playing Calvinball.  John Cole calls this “the Goldberg Principle”: “You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of words.”  For instance, his operative definition of fascism is actually just the generic definition for totalitarianism, and it omits entirely the special characteristics that distinguish fascism from other forms of totalitarianism.  One of these, for instance, is its overpowering, indeed dominant, antiliberalism – a fact that Goldberg conveniently omitted from throughout his entire 400 or so pages, and later dismissed by claiming that the “liberalism” it opposed was not modern liberalism, but classical liberalism (as though the two have no connection whatever).

All of the classic Jonah tactics—building strawmen, arguing from self-created/self-serving definitions that counter consensual reality, moving the goalposts, gliding over damning counter-evidence and considerations he considers irrelevant—were present in that little aside in which he again tossed d’Souza under the Jonahbus: He characterizes d’Souza’s output as “the kind of indictment of liberals Neiwert levels at conservatives.”

And what kind of indictment was that? According to Goldberg, it was that “his definition of Fascism must indict American conservatives — and only American conservatives.”

This is complete and utter rubbish, of course, because this is never what I’ve argued. I have insisted all along that fascism must be understood as a phenomenon of the right and not the left NOT because I have a project of smearing all conservatives by association, as Goldberg has assumed and insisted for a decade without an iota of evidence, but because it is the very real frame that helps the public understand how fascism can infect our politics.

You know, like most people, I recognize that there’s a spectrum of behavior, and that mainstream conservatives are distinct from right-wing extremists. Or at least were at one time.

Indeed, I’ve argued for many years—as a onetime Republican from Idaho myself—that it’s essential for mainstream conservatives to publicly oppose the radical right because their denunciations carry more weight with the intended audience. Unfortunately, I can’t say I’ve been able to persuade any mainstream conservatives to join that cause, but that may be a product of my pleasing personality.

I do know that when I first began reporting on the Aryan Nations and The Order in the 1980s, followed by Ruby Ridge and the militia movement in the ‘90s, it wasn’t considered a partisan thing at all to do this reportage. It was simple common sense that we needed to shine a spotlight on hate groups and the poisons they bring to communities, not just among people on the left but among communities of faith and chambers of commerce too, all of whom understood that hate is bad for communities.

At one time, Goldberg composed a theory about what kind of person I must be:

Here’s my grand theory about this guy. He’s made his career hyping the terrible threat from the Posse Comitatus, Aryan Nations and American Nazi Party and so like the bureaucrats in Office Space who think TPS reports are the most important thing in the world, he can’t seem to grasp that they’re pretty trivial.

In other words, he came to his understanding of fascism by following bands of racist white losers in the Idaho woods while using some Marxist tract or other as a field guide to identify the various species he encountered. In other words, he’s internalized every cliché and propagandistic talking point I set out to demolish in my book. Moreover, his career depends on maintaining his version of the fascist peril. So, he’s banging his spoon on his highchair a lot because my book undercuts his whole reason for being.

This is what Goldberg means when he dismissively references my “business model”. But as I noted at the time, I wasn’t reading any Marxist tracts to frame my work: I was listening to what these guys were preaching to their crowds and pitching to their recruits. If the neo-Nazis of the Aryan Nations were not definably fascist because of what they preached and not because they were “bad guys,” then the term no longer has any meaning. Which I suspect is Goldberg’s intent all along.

More to the point, they were right-wing—but extremists, as opposed to mainstream. They not only opposed abortion, they believed providers should be executed. They not only resisted civil rights for minorities, they sought to exclude nonwhites from their rights. They not only opposed gay rights, they believed gays should be put to death. Sometimes their views could be indistinguishable from a mainstream conservative, but the body of beliefs put them on the far right. I learned this from talking with and listening to people.

Fascism in reality—as I know it in its on-the-ground American variant, not a theoretical version cooked up as an intellectual exercise—is a kind of right-wing populism turned metastatic, unleashing an authoritarian tide, fueled by a belief in a phoenix-like national rebirth, that uses violence in defense of business interests, established authorities and leaders, and against perceived liberal enemies. I know this from reporting on what they say and do for 30 years, not because I’ve been influenced by some unknown Marxist texts.

But I have researched them deeply over the years in hopes of understanding them. And their orientation has never been in question. Fascism is fundamentally right-wing in large part because it is fundamentally anti-left. As George Orwell wrote, “the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human inequality, the superiority of Germans to all other races, the right of Germany to rule the world.”

Of course, Jonah’s assumptions notwithstanding, not only am I utterly unflummoxed by Goldberg’s ready recitation of various facts about how many contemporaneous liberals and progressives flirted with fascist ideas, and how many left-wing ideas were woven into the early fascist appeals (thus the National Socialist Party business), but I’ve always acknowledged their existence, dating back to that first review in the Prospect.

Goldberg, however, accords them more weight than most historians, who have good reason for taking a broader view of these strands as part of the natural complexity of human ideas and their history. As Robert Paxton explained, placing undue weight on fascists’ (frequently misleading) words and propaganda is a categorical mistake, since the reality of their political base and orientation is revealed by their real-world deeds:

"Goldberg simply omits those parts of fascist history that fit badly with his demonstration.  His method is to examine fascist rhetoric, but to ignore how fascist movements functioned in practice.  Since the Nazis recruited their first mass following among the economic and social losers of Weimar Germany, they could sound anti-capitalist at the beginning.  Goldberg makes a big thing of the early programs of the Nazi and Italian Fascist Parties, and publishes the Nazi Twenty-five Points as an appendix.  A closer look would show that the Nazis’ anti-capitalism was a selective affair, opposed to international capital and finance capital, department stores and Jewish businesses, but nowhere opposed to private property per se or favorable to a transfer of all the means of production to public ownership.

A still closer look at how the fascist parties obtained power and then exercised power would show how little these early programs corresponded to fascist practice.  Mussolini acquired powerful backing by hiring his black-shirted squadristi out to property owners for the destruction of socialist and Communist unions and parties.  They destroyed the farm workers’ organizations in the Po Valley in 1921-1922 by violent nightly raids that made them the de facto government of northeastern Italy.  Hitler’s brownshirts fought Communists for control of the streets of Berlin, and claimed to be Germany’s best bulwark against the revolutionary threat that still appeared to be growing in 1932.  Goldberg prefers the abstractions of rhetoric to all this history, noting only that fascism and Communism were “rivals.” So his readers will not learn anything about how the Nazis and Italian Fascists got into power or exercised it.

The bottom line: Does toying with the concept of “liberal fascism” as an intellectual exercise enhance the public’s understanding of fascism—or does it confuse it, in effect destroying it with Newspeak-like negation? After all, given that its antiliberalism is universally understood as an essential component of the complex phenomenon fascism can be, it’s an obvious kind of oxymoron, as useful an idea as “hateful love.”

I’d argue that not only has the latter happened, but the muddied waters have obscured the incoming white nationalist tide—which Goldberg now says he despises, but whose growing presence he really doesn’t really want to acknowledge. So, naturally, he accuses me of being pleased that the alt-right has arisen and spread, when my eternal and ongoing dismay is already well established.

But Goldberg’s idea—that fascism is really a left-wingphenomenon—has been part of that incoming tide. Some of that, of course, is attributable to d’Souza. But the combined effect of Goldberg’s foundation-laying and d’Souza’s sheer demagoguery has meant that the idea of a “fascist left” is everywhere now, particularly among the “Patriot” militias, the Proud Boys, and the alt-lite media mavens who defend them avidly as victims of an insidious antifascist movement.

And now even South American right-wing strongmen are parroting it.

==

https://www.alternet.org/conservative-political-ally-donald-trump-chose-pardon-has-wickedly-racist-history-and-we-have

no lnx twt

The Conservative Political Ally Donald Trump Chose to Pardon Has a Wickedly Racist History — And We Have the Receipts

From suggesting Charlottesville was staged to describing Barack Obama's roots as "the ghetto," here are Dinesh D'Souza's greatest hits.

By Jen Hayden / Daily Kos May 31, 2018, 9:17 AM GMT

Dinesh D’Souza is a controversial right-wing figure who is a darling of the darkest parts of conservative circles, beloved for his books and films, which he claims expose the “true history” of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party itself. Outside of conservative bubbles, his books and films are seen for what they are—cheap, dishonest propaganda.

In 2014, Dinesh D’Souza pled guilty to campaign finance fraud. He illegally created straw donors to contribute to Republican Senate candidate Wendy Long. D’Souza admitted in court that he knew it was illegal as he entered his guilty plea and asked the judge for a light sentence.From Politico:

“I knew that causing a campaign contribution to be made in the name of another was wrong and something the law forbids,” D’Souza said, according to Newsday. “I deeply regret my conduct.”

As former U.S. Attorney, Joyce Alene notes this is a blatant signal to Michael Cohen and other Trump allies to “stay strong.”

Joyce Alene

@JoyceWhiteVance

Dinesh D’Souza was convicted of one of the crimes Michael Cohen is under investigation for, campaign finance fraud. Impossible to view this as anything other than a “stay strong“ message from Trump to Cohen, especially given the timing. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1002177521599860736 …

6:36 AM - May 31, 2018 34.9K   14.9K people are talking about this

So, aside from knowingly committing campaign finance fraud and churning out right-wing propaganda, what else is D’Souza known for? For many of the same racist themes and conspiracies that just got Roseanne Barr canceled from television. He has routinely used Twitter to lob racist and homophobic insults at President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, among others. Here is a sampling of some of his lowest moments.

Dinesh D'Souza

?

@DineshDSouza

YOU CAN TAKE THE BOY OUT OF THE GHETTO...Watch this vulgar man show his stuff, while America cowers in embarrassment

3,319 people are talking about this

And he spread the racist birther business, while claiming not to be a birther

@DineshDSouza

I was never a birther but what's racist about asking where the son of a Kenyan foreign student visitor to America was actually born?

8:01 AM - Sep 27, 2016

After Florida teen Trayvon Martin was murdered, Dinesh D’Souza sent this message to the world on Twitter, comparing Trayvon Martin to Obama.

Shannon Watts

@shannonrwatts

Never forget that Dinesh D’Souza unapologetically tweeted this right after the murder of Trayvon Martin.

And then there is this despicable tweet targeting Barack and Michelle Obama.

Dinesh D'Souza

@DineshDSouza

I deplore this. Who is putting out these vile messages on social media?

12:29 PM - Feb 13, 2018

D’Souza spread the dumb conspiracy that the Charlottesville white supremacists rally was staged.

Dinesh D'Souza

@DineshDSouza

Can a genuine white supremacist be an Obama guy? No.I wonder if whole #Charlottesville rally was a stagedevent http://www.worldtribune.com/who-is-jason-kessler-reports-say-charlottesville-rally-was-staged-and-its-organizer-was-an-obama-supporter/ …

5:52 AM - Aug 18, 2017

Who is Jason Kessler? Reports say ‘hate rally’ staged and its organizer an Obama supporter

by WorldTribune Staff, August 17, 2017 Supporters of conservative, Indian-American commentator Dinesh D’Souza, believe he went to jail on trumped up charges because he produced the hit film &…

worldtribune.com

5,710

5,190 people are talking about this

When the teenage survivors of the Stoneman-Douglas High School mass shooting visited the Florida capitol only days after seeing their peers murdered, D’Souza mocked them for crying and expressing disbelief as they watched their state representatives vote down a bill to ban assault weapons.

D’Souza mocked Beverly Johnson, one of the women who accused Alabama’s Roy Moore of sexually assaulting her as a teen.

@DineshDSouza

 When someone fights back tears over an alleged incident like this 40 years ago you know you are watching a PERFORMANCE #RoyMoore

1:57 PM - Nov 14, 2017

10.3K 9,138 people are talking about this

He called Rosa Parks “overrated.”

OVERRATED DEMOCRATS DEPT: So Rosa Parks wouldn't sit in the back of the bus--that's all she did, so what's the big fuss? [but praises ida b well in his bad movie for same?]

D’Souza has spread some of the most vulgar lies about George Soros, including the very same ones recently promoted by Roseanne Barr. From Media Matters:

Author Dinesh D’Souza, speaking with C-SPAN at a FreedomFestevent in July, claimed that his new book The Big Lie shows that billionaire philanthropist George Soros “was a kind of collection boy for Hitler” and that Soros admitted as much during an old interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes. D’Souza also claimed there was an “eerie parallel” between Soros and Josef Mengele, a physician at Auschwitzwho selected victims for the gas chambers and performed deadly experiments on prisoners, because, D’Souza said, both defended their crimes by saying that if they hadn’t done them, someone else would have. Since the C-SPAN interview (and besides in his book), D’Souza has pushed the claim on Twitter, in The Daily Caller, and in an interview with far-right troll Stefan Molyneux.

It is absolutely unbelievable with that deplorable body of evidence that anyone would pardon this vile, hateful excuse for a human. And yet, here we are. None of this will stop until Congress acts like the check they were intended to be. The unraveling of our republic is happening before our very eyes and Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are sitting on their hands.

Find a candidate and work your ass off. It’s time to wind down this dark chapter of American history and begin again.

==

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/roger-stone-says-trumps-most-recent-pardon-was-clear-signal-his-associates-and

From the moment President Donald Trump announced his pardon Thursday of conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza, observers began pointing out that the move looked like an attempt to signal to his associates that he's willing to use the pardon power as a weapon against special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into potential Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

While those claims remained largely in the realm of speculation at first, by Thursday night one Trump ally, Roger Stone, told the Washington Post that he had received the message that loud and clear:

“It has to be a signal to Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort and even Robert S. Mueller III: Indict people for crimes that don’t pertain to Russian collusion and this is what could happen,” Stone said. “The special counsel has awesome powers, as you know, but the president has even more awesome powers.”

..

==

omgf mirror ~ djt nazi:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?431251-2/big-lie

coincide=ence t coates sherrod as 1st Bb attack)

regnery

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486

bs blurb

"Of course, everything [D'Souza] says here is accurate... But it's not going to sit well with people on the American left who, of course, are portraying themselves as the exact opposite of all of this." —RUSH LIMBAUGH

The explosive new book from Dinesh D'Souza, author of the #1 New York Times bestsellers Hillary's America, America, and Obama's America.

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.

Now, finally, Dinesh D'Souza explodes the Left's big lie. He 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. 

Hitler coined the term "the big lie" to describe a lie that "the great masses of the people" will fall for precisely because of how bold and monstrous the lie is. In The Big Lie, D'Souza shows that the Democratic Left's orchestrated campaign to paint President Trump and conservatives as Nazis to cover up its own fascism is, in fact, the biggest lie of all.

==

Long-debunked lie that George Soros was a Nazi collaborator resurfaces thanks to Dinesh D’Souza

Research ››› September 1, 2017 4:38 PM EDT ››› ALEX KAPLAN

Discredited conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza has revived the long-running and debunked claim that billionaire philanthropist George Soros collaborated with the Nazis as a child. The false claim comes as D’Souza has been trying to promote his latest book, which links Democrats to fascism and pushes the Soros lie. The smear, which has been invoked by other right-wing media figures in the past, has been repeatedly condemned by journalists. Nevertheless, other conservative media and GOP officials have run with D’Souza’s recycled and false charge.

Discredited author Dinesh D’Souza accuses George Soros of working with the Nazis

Dinesh D’Souza: George Soros was a “collection boy for Hitler” and is like Josef Mengele of Auschwitz. Author Dinesh D’Souza, speaking with C-SPAN at a FreedomFest event in July, claimed that his new book The Big Lie shows that billionaire philanthropist George Soros “was a kind of collection boy for Hitler” and that Soros admitted as much during an old interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes. D’Souza also claimed there was an “eerie parallel” between Soros and Josef Mengele, a physician at Auschwitz who selected victims for the gas chambers and performed deadly experiments on prisoners, because, D’Souza said, both defended their crimes by saying that if they hadn’t done them, someone else would have. Since the C-SPAN interview (and besides in his book), D’Souza has pushed the claim on Twitter, in The Daily Caller, and in an interview with far-right troll Stefan Molyneux. From C-SPAN’s coverage of FreedomFest on July 20, which aired on August 20:

PETER SLEN (HOST): In The Big Lie you also have a chapter on George Soros.

DINESH D’SOUZA: Yes. It’s not a chapter on Soros, but it’s a -- it’s a section on Soros because Soros claims to be the great anti-fascist. In fact, Soros funds a lot of the Antifa, anti-fascist parties. And what I do is I say, OK, well here’s some -- Soros will talk about, for example, the fact that he's inspired by libertarianism, by Karl Popper and the Open Society. In reality, as you look into Soros' past, his sort of secret history, if you will, you realize that Soros, along with a mentor of his, was a kind of collection boy for Hitler. This is seems harsh to say, but it’s true. It was discussed by Steve Kroft in an interview with Soros in which Kroft asked Soros --

SLEN: For 60 Minutes.

D’SOUZA: For 60 Minutes. He says, “You would go around confiscating the property of the Jews and turning it over to the Nazis, right? And how can you feel good about that?” And Soros goes, “I don't feel bad about that at all.” He goes, “Let's remember that if I didn't do it, somebody would do it,” right? Now this gets me thinking because, because I remember a very powerful scene. This actually involves Josef Mengele, the sort of killer of Auschwitz, the crazed doctor of Auschwitz. Mengele escaped after the war and went to Argentina, and one of his sons tracked him down and confronted his father and said, “Dad, how could you do the things you did in Auschwitz?” And guess what Mengele said? Mengele said, “If I didn’t do them, somebody else would have.” In other words, “Here were these captive people and I, as a scientist, simply saw the opportunity to make them into research specimens, so don't blame me because the bad stuff would have gone on anyway.” So here is an eerie parallel between what I would call the “Mengele defense” and George Soros, out of his own mouth, not as a young man. I don't blame anybody for what they did at the age of 15, but as a mature George Soros now reflecting upon his past, there's lots of dark secrets there. [C-SPAN, The Big Lie, 8/20/17; Twitter, 8/2/17, 8/14/17, 8/22/17, 8/24/17; The Daily Caller, 7/31/17; YouTube, 8/16/17; Media Matters, 4/26/17]

D’Souza has a history of making racist comments and pushing false claims and fringe conspiracy theories. D’Souza has repeatedly pushed false claims and conspiracy theories including that one of the main organizers of the white supremacist gathering in Charlottesville, VA, was some kind of liberal double agent, that the Clintons were behind the death of a former Haitian government official, that former President Barack Obama is “anti-American” and "embraced a Third World ideology,” and that Hitler took three "very destructive, genocidal ideas from the Democratic Party” -- a claim he made recently, while promoting his new book. He also shared a fake photo of Obama with Soros, and he has a history of racism, writing about Obama on Twitter, “YOU CAN TAKE THE BOY OUT OF THE GHETTO,” comparing Obama’s father to Ebola, and writing that African-Americans are “better off as a consequence” of slavery. [Media Matters, 8/18/17, 7/18/17, 9/28/12, 2/18/15, 10/6/14, 7/9/14; Snopes, 8/25/17; Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/1/17]

D’Souza’s smear is an old right-wing lie that has been previously debunked

Soros did not admit to being a Nazi collaborator in a 60 Minutes interview. During his interview with 60 Minutes, Soros said yes specifically in response to Steve Kroft noting that “you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson … went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews,” not that he confiscated property himself. As Snopes noted, “Perhaps because of the way the 60 Minutes interview … was edited, or perhaps because Soros was blindsided by Steve Kroft’s accusatory line of questions, or both, his responses were contradictory and confusing. … Soros went on to clarify that he hadn’t actually participated in any confiscations.” Soros said, “I was only a spectator. I had no role in taking away that property, so I had no sense of guilt.” [Media Matters, 2/5/07, 11/10/10; Snopes, 11/28/16]

Soros biographer: Soros did not collaborate with the Nazis as a teenager. According to Michael Kaufman, the author of the biography Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire, Soros “collaborated with no one” during the Holocaust and was simply adopting a secret identity to protect himself while living with a Hungarian government official who was forced to confiscate property from a Jewish aristocrat. From Kaufman’s book:

While he was living with Baumbach as Sandor Kiss, an event occurred that more than a half a century later would become the basis of charges that George Soros, the international financier and billionaire, had somehow collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of his homeland and had exploited his fellow Jews. The issue was raised in a bizarre television profile and interview of Soros aired on the CBS television program 60 Minutes in December of 1998. In the segment, Steve Kroft, the interviewer, noted with prosecutorial gusto that George's father had "bribed a government official to swear that you were his godson," and added that this survival strategy "carried a heavy price tag." For, he continued, "as hundreds of thousands of Jews were being shipped off to the Nazi death camps, a thirteen-year-old George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his rounds, confiscating property from the Jews." Visibly dumbfounded by the line of questioning, Soros could only manage to say that he had no role in the seizure of property and was merely a spectator. To underscore Kroft's point, film footage showed masses of Hungarian Jews being led away at gunpoint.

This is what actually happened. Shortly after George went to live with Baumbach, the man was assigned to take inventory on the vast estate of Mor Kornfeld, an extremely wealthy aristocrat of Jewish origin. The Kornfeld family had the wealth, wisdom, and connections to be able to leave some of its belongings behind in exchange for permission to make their way to Lisbon. Baumbach was ordered to go to the Kornfeld estate and inventory the artworks, furnishings, and other property. Rather than leave his "godson" behind in Budapest for three days, he took the boy with him. As Baumbach itemized the material, George walked around the grounds and spent time with Kornfeld's staff. It was his first visit to such a mansion, and the first time he rode a horse. He collaborated with no one and he paid attention to what he understood to be his primary responsibility: making sure that no one doubted that he was Sandor Kiss. Among his practical concerns was to make sure that no one saw him pee. [Media Matters, 12/8/10]

Glenn Beck pushed the smear in 2010, and journalists roundly condemned him

Then-Fox News host Glenn Beck in November 2010 falsely claimed Soros took “property from the Jews as a teenager.” Glenn Beck in November 2010 falsely claimed that Soros “had to go over and take the lands from the people, his Jewish friends and neighbors,” and that he admitted as such in the 60 Minutes interview. From his Fox News show:

GLENN BECK (HOST): But when he had to go over and take the lands from the people, his Jewish friends and neighbors who were being sent to the gas chambers, I can't imagine what that would do to a teenager, or anybody, an adult. Well, what did it do to George Soros? In an interview with Steve Kroft, Soros was asked if he felt guilt at all about taking the property from the Jews as a teenager. He responded, no. [Media Matters, 11/10/10]

New Yorker: Beck’s Nazi smear of Soros is “blood variety” “libel.” The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg condemned Beck for using a 1995 New Yorker article to criticize Soros, adding that his claim about Soros and the Nazis was “no ordinary libel—it’s more akin to the blood variety.” From the November 29, 2010, article:

Call us oversensitive, but when our efforts are shanghaied like a nineteenth-century sailor and forced to work as a deckhand aboard a ship of lies, we can’t help getting our hackles up. You don’t have to be a professional semiotician to see that the Glenn Beck promo is intended to leave the impression that George Soros, the hedge-fund investor and funder of anti-totalitarian and liberal causes, is an anti-Semite; that he was somehow complicit in the Holocaust; and that he is an enemy of Israel. These are lies—lies told by innuendo, but lies all the same.

[...]

The ugliest single sentence Beck uttered that week came on his radio program, which supplements his TV show. “Here’s a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps,” he said, referring to Soros, age thirteen. That’s no ordinary libel—it’s more akin to the blood variety. It was Beck’s ruminations on the Jewish Question that exhausted the patience of some conservatives, but that is a relatively minor aspect of his malicious crusade against Soros. [The New Yorker, 11/29/10]

Former ABC News reporter Kari Marton: “Beck's smearing of George Soros echoes the anti-Semitic attacks of the Hungarian far right.” Former ABC News reporter Kati Marton wrote a piece in The Daily Beast about Beck’s attacks on Soros. The piece’s subhed said the “smearing ... echoes the anti-Semitic attacks of the Hungarian far right and is a perverse twisting of his experience with the Nazis.” Marton wrote that Soros “acted as a messenger of the Budapest Jewish Council” and was “sent to alert Jews to report to various collection points around the city” but that he “urged defiance” instead. From the November 13, 2010, article:

I, however, find it impossible not to speak up when I hear the likes of Beck from the comfort of his armchair charge Soros with anti-Semitism. Beck paints Soros as a Nazi tool for having had the supreme nerve to survive Europe’s most violent Holocaust: the one that swept through Hungary under SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann during the summer and fall of 1944. Eichmann’s was a well-oiled machine by then, and he had to make quick work of Europe’s last remaining intact Jewish community. Even the most deluded Nazis knew the war was over, their cause lost. But Eichmann was determined to finish the job in Hungary. Only the most resourceful and the luckiest survived.

It is well known that the 14-year-old George Soros acted as a messenger of the Budapest Jewish Council, a group of aged and terrified elders who thought if they kept the city’s Jews calm, and followed the Gestapo’s every command, they might survive. Sent to alert Jews to report to various collection points around the city, the young Soros, prompted by his canny father, urged defiance instead. “There was one man I shall not forget,” Soros recalled, “I told him what my father had said. And he answered, ‘Tell your father that I am a law-abiding citizen, that I have always been a law-abiding citizen and that I am not going to start breaking the law now.'" We know how few of those law-abiding citizens survived Eichmann’s barbaric campaign to make Hungary Judenrein. The fact is that only by assuming false identities, through bribery and deception, could people survive that Kafkaesque nightmare. Andy Grove, the legendary founder of Intel, another young Budapest Jew, survived thus, as did my own parents. Raoul Wallenberg, the great Swedish humanitarian, performed his miracles in Budapest partly by forging passports and bribing Nazis. [The Daily Beast, 11/3/10]

The Nation’s Jonathan Schell: Beck’s Nazi attack on Soros was “especially vile” and constitutes “libel.” The Nation’s late correspondent Jonathan Schell wrote that Beck’s Nazi “libel” of Soros was “especially vile,” noting that Soros “never took any lands or anything else from Holocaust victims or anyone else.” From the December 2, 2010, article:

In a novel and especially vile (and also false) twist, Beck, while heaping the classic anti-Semitic slurs on Soros, insinuates that Soros, a Holocaust survivor, is himself anti-Semitic. Beck, who denies that he is an anti-Semite, accuses Soros of having had to “go over and take the lands from the people, his Jewish friends and neighbors, who were being sent to the gas chambers” when he was a boy in Hungary during World War II. (In reality, as Michael Kaufman reveals in his book Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire, Soros’s Christian protector was ordered to inventory the estate of a Jewish aristocrat who had escaped Hungary. He brought Soros, 13 at the time, with him. Soros wandered the estate and rode a horse. He never took any lands or anything else from Holocaust victims or anyone else.) In a perverse way, the libel is a perfect complement to the history of anti-Semitism: now the Jew is found to be guilty of, on top of all of history’s other evils, his own people’s persecution. [The Nation, 12/2/10]

The debunked smear has been around since at least 2006 and has been pushed by others besides Beck

...

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/09/01/long-debunked-lie-george-soros-was-nazi-collaborator-resurfaces-thanks-dinesh-d-souza/217826

==

Fox Guest: Native American Genocide Didn't Happen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOYTI9Kn4bI

Published on Jul 4, 2014

Former Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers faced off with America director Dinesh D'Souza for an intense debate on The Kelly File tonight over whether America is a fundamentally good or an "inherently evil" nation. Ayers said America's done horrible things, while D'Souza argued America has done great things with his power that other countries would horribly abuse...

Published on Jun 6, 2014

Dinesh D'Souza, America: Imagine a World Without Her, joins Thom Hartmann. Dinesh D'Souza is one of the most outspoken conservative pundits in America - and he's just come out with a new book that says that progressives don't know anything about history? Is he serious? --> movie

==

==

moving pict inst?

--

amazing poster downloaded excorsist blatty "terrifying"

kelly file fox (obama film because he was unknown)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4921678627001/dinesh-dsouza-previews-upcoming-film-hillarys-america/#sp=show-clips

==

Dinesh D'Souza ... 

Himself

Jonah Goldberg Jonah Goldberg ... 

Himself

Andrea Cohen Andrea Cohen ... 

Margaret Sanger

Peter Schweizer Peter Schweizer ... 

Himself

Mikaela Krantz Mikaela Krantz ... 

Young Hillary Clinton

Carol Swain Carol Swain ... 

Herself

Rebekah Turner Rebekah Turner ... 

Hillary Clinton

Jayvaugn Brown Jayvaugn Brown ... 

Young Barack Obama

Richard L. Olsen Richard L. Olsen ... 

Sen. Charles Sumner

Stuart Glass Stuart Glass ... 

Saul Alinsky

Marc Jeffreys Marc Jeffreys ... 

Frank Nitti

Michael Clemmons Michael Clemmons ... 

President Barack Obama

Howard Goldwaite Howard Goldwaite ... 

President Andrew Jackson

Stephen Loftin Stephen Loftin ... 

Young Saul Alinsky

Gidget Taylor Gidget Taylor ... 

Ida B. Wells (as Alesia Gidget Taylor)

Hillary’s America starts with a lounge pianist’s come-on: “You can always count on the Democratic party.” A sickly looking donkey puppet drops down and grotesquely dangles from the ceiling as a big band launches into “Happy Days Are Here Again.” Animated opening credits hint at the eras and topics Hillary’s America will touch upon: the Chicago mob during Prohibition, the Civil War, Barack Obama on some college campus in activist mode. How will these seemingly unrelated images be drawn together into a sustained attack on the Democratic party? That’s not any clearer by the end of Hillary’s America; as in his first two films, conservative polemicist Dinesh D’Souza (co-directing with longtime collaboratorBruce Schooley, who he met 17 years ago on a National Review cruise) presents a series of conspiratorial talking points familiar to Breitbart-oriented readers, but reshuffled in a new, startlingly illogical order.

In D’Souza’s previous film, America, he “disproved” five charges against America’s greatness, proving to his satisfaction that racism et al. were false targets of no lasting concern. The film climaxed with a bonus segment showing the first meeting between Hillary Clinton and community organizer/conservative bogeyman Saul Alinsky in a cafeteria shot through with blood-red light, visually rendering the latter as Satan.

Hillary’s America is a sort of double feature that picks up from there. Its first half is meant to make the case that the party of Lincoln is still the party of Lincoln and that Democrats are the true racists; its back half goes specifically after the presumptive Democratic candidate. The purely rhetorical argument that the “party of Lincoln” hasn’t wavered in character isn’t new; in 2013, continuing a newish post-federal election tradition, Rand Paul became the latest Republican to speak at Howard University to make that case to a crowd rightly skeptical of the idea that the GOP post-Nixon can claim legitimate continuity with its own past. Repetition of this facile argument is key, down to a speech given here by a pre-Civil War Republican: “We, the Republicans, are against slavery, and the Democrats are for slavery.”

The segments on slavery are vile, diving with no compunction into close-ups of black people being whipped and a selection of racist violence. These are still tough things to stage and watch, even when badly done; that Hillary’s America does so for no greater purpose other than, effectively, urging the election of Donald Trump speaks wretchedly of all involved. D’Souza undermines his putatively good intentions with a loud dog whistle when he repeatedly refers to slavery as “theft” and points out the story of one slave (owned by a Democrat, of course) punished for selling wares on the side. Entrepreneurial pluck, D’Souza is implying, was punished by Democrats from the get-go—they want to stop black folks from pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, and laziness has set in as a result. This is talking-points business as usual, in which any sign of a welfare state is in fact the manifestation of the “liberal plantation”—the real reason Democrats still enslave black voters, D’Souza says, and an argument he doesn’t bother to develop any further, its salience being already self-evident to target viewers.

Other images from D’Souza’s freewheeling parade through American history are comically grotesque, the sustained attack on Hillary Clinton a fever dream. A shot of Bill and spouse dancing and raising champagne flutes in the White House to celebrate some ghastly coup is entirely typical of D’Souza’s perspective: just shy of conspiracy theories about mysterious deaths and drug deals, but still safely in the realm of malignant fantasy. To reiterate the old canard that Margaret Sanger’s real mission was the extermination-via-abortion of black people, he stages her giving a speech on a porch deck, with a row of hooded KKK members sitting blithely before her. Sanger did indeed address the Klan—she’d speak with any organization receptive to learning about birth control—but it’s hardly a defining moment of her career; for D’Souza to stage this segment as a sinister extended tableau slides straight into a kind of Adult Swim absurdism, in which shots of an inadequate, orating Abraham Lincoln (Don Taylor) are assigned the same weight and importance in American history.

Taylor is a returning performer from America, a lanky void whose presence points to certain constants within the D’Souza Connected Universe: staggeringly unexciting talking-head interviews (give it up for the National Review’s Jonah Goldberg!); historical figures delivering long, oft-implausible harangues against cable-level backdrops; and—slightly less expected—musical numbers. In a presumable attempt to reclaim rock renditions of the National Anthem from the notedly unconservative Jimi Hendrix, America had an end credits rendition of “The Star Spangled Banner” from all-in conservative Dave Mustaine. Hillary’s America ends with no less than three songs: “God Bless America” (sung by Debbie, D’Souza’s new wife), the national anthem once again, and an end credits song from the Gatlin brothers, the former two accompanied by montages of stock “American” imagery in a limited historical pocket—brave Revolutionary soldiers bouncing on horses, fireworks, etc.

That a film already busy with historical reenactments, interviews, and conspiracizing of the wildest sort should end with three consecutive musical numbers suggests a kind of vaudeville structure to D’Souza’s work. As the MC of this show, D’Souza places himself in the unwise position of sometimes having to act: The film’s prologue finds him incarcerated in a detention house, where a charismatic inmate, Roc (Corey Cotten), explains for him how crime works, and how the government is the biggest criminal of all. D’Souza’s facial expression never varies from sour nonplussed; complex emotions aren’t a possibility. There is a shot in one of the final montages, amid all the farms and fields, of D’Souza standing in a sunset-lit prairie, looking like a Terrence Malick outtake. This determinedly uncharismatic figure has now made himself the star of three consistently lunatic productions; this attempt to give himself a moment of poetry is one of Hillary’s America’s final and biggest inadvertent laughs.

==

Hillary’s America — A Two-by-Four Bashing Democrats

D’Souza links progressives’ sordid, racist past to the Clintons’ current corruption.

By John Fund — July 18, 2016

Dinesh D’Souza, the social commentator who shook up Hollywood with the $33 million earned by his Obama 2016 film, is back with Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.

The film is his response to constant Democratic attacks on Republicans as racist, greedy, and callous toward minority interests. Hillary’s America takes a two-by-four to the racist, greedy, and callous episodes in the Democratic party’s past. He then links this history to Hillary Clinton’s progressive values and to her tutelage under radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.[gop bigger fans/implementors?]

It is over the top in places and definitely selective, but the troubling facts are accurate and extensively documented in the D’Souza book that accompanies the movie. The film is intensely patriotic, and D’Souza told me at the movie’s premiere at the GOP convention in Cleveland that it is a must-see for Americans. He believes Democrats this election year are trying to — in President Obama’s words — “fundamentally transform” America into something the Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize.

This isn’t just rhetorical overkill. Glenn Thrush reported this week in Politico on Obama’s agenda in the waning days of his presidency:

Obama’s ultimate goal in his final year has been strikingly ambitious, according to those I spoke with: not only blocking from office the birther who questioned his legitimacy as president, but preserving the Democratic Party’s hold over the presidency during an era of anti-establishment turbulence. Obama, always one to embrace a grand goal, talks in terms of creating “a 16-year era of progressive rule” to rival the achievements of Roosevelt-Truman and to reorient the country’s politics as a “Reagan of the left,” as one of his longtime White House advisers put it to me.

In 2014, D’Souza pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations in a case that may well have involved selective prosecution. He donated $20,000 to a Republican friend from Dartmouth, Wendy Long, who was running a sure-to-lose senatorial campaign against Kirsten Gillibrand in New York, though he never told Long he’d donated the money and he received nothing in return. D’Souza told me that his searing eight-month experience in a federal halfway house led him to draw his own conclusions about the ultimate goal of Hillary and Obama.

The film re-creates what he said he learned in federal “public housing.” He established a rapport with some of the thugs and con artists there and asked them how the gangs to which they belonged consolidated power. A fellow inmate named Rock told him that the con games the gangs practice involve promising people something for nothing, then cheating them while at the same time making them dependent on the gangs for protection. This eerily resembled the way the Democratic machines operated, D’Souza realized. But Democrats also had a broader ideological agenda: “What if the goal of the Democratic party is to steal the most valuable thing this world ever produced?” That would be the republic the Founding Fathers have handed down to us.

The film then shows D’Souza leaving his confinement and researching the history and methods of the Democratic party. In the film’s least convincing re-created scenes, he visits “Democratic Headquarters” and sneaks his way into a basement records room adorned by a portrait of Andrew Jackson, the openly racist president who was the founder of the Democratic party. While rummaging through the secrets of the records room, D’Souza learns that Jackson’s expulsion of the Indians to reservations in the 1830s was opposed by Republican congressman Davy Crockett; that northern Democrats were instrumental to slavery’s survival in the pre–Civil War era; that Democrats after the war voted against civil rights for blacks at the federal level; and that, after losing that fight, they managed to impose Jim Crow laws against blacks in the South.

RELATED: How the Clintons Got Rich Off of Poor Haitians

D’Souza then shifts his research to the office of Carol Swain, a black law professor at Vanderbilt University, who is a scholar of Democratic-party history. Swain is soft-spoken but devastating in her recitation of the facts. “It’s a sordid story,” she told me at the Cleveland premiere of the film. “Democrats have long practiced plantation politics while blocking economic opportunity for minorities.” She tells the story of Ida B. Wells, a brave black journalist who fought lynchings and challenged President Woodrow Wilson in the White House over his racist resegregation of the federal work force. Wilson ignored her entreaties and proceeded to host a White House screening of D. W. Griffith’s infamous film Birth of a Nation.

Hillary’s America also explores Franklin Roosevelt’s decision not to pursue anti-lynching laws and notes that it was Democrats who tried to block the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congressional Republicans supported it in greater percentages than Democrats did. D’Souza takes on the defense that modern Democrats typically call forth when confronted with their party’s racist roots: They claim that the two parties reversed positions on race, with northern Democrats becoming more progressive and southern Democrats simply becoming Republicans. Onetime segregationist Strom Thurmond did switch parties, D’Souza concedes, but he notes the fact that fewer than 1 percent of Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights followed Thurmond in joining the GOP. The rest remained Democrats until they exited politics.

D’Souza then extensively interviews National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, asking him about the connections he has drawn — in his book Liberal Fascism and elsewhere — between the Democratic party, Wilson, and birth-control advocate and eugenicist Margaret Sanger (the film shows Hillary Clinton lavishly praising Sanger). Goldberg was at the movie’s premiere and noted that it will no doubt receive abundant criticism. “You get the most flak when you are over the target,” he told the audience, to great cheering.

The film then takes a rather abrupt turn from history to focus on Hillary Clinton. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he notes, were acolytes of the great left-wing “community organizer” Saul Alinsky. D’Souza is the first filmmaker to mine the rich material showing the radicalism of Alinksy, who was personally tutored by Al Capone’s deputies in the tactics of the mob and whose most famous book, Rules for Radicals, begins with this epigraph to the most famous Machiavellian:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

In Hillary’s America, the young Rodham is shown as she’s led from her roots as a “Goldwater Girl” into campus radicalism through meetings with Alinsky. Later, she would use her senior thesis at Wellesley to paint an admiring portrait of Alinsky. In a meeting with Alinsky, she chastises him for trying to pressure the establishment only from the outside, saying that some of his followers need to take over the government: “Then we can push from the inside.” But Hillary’s success on the “inside” seems to have brought her and her Clinton Foundation tens of millions in personal wealth rather than any substantive policy accomplishments.

The film then plunges into what it calls the more troubling aspects of the “Clinton partnership,” portraying Bill Clinton as a sexual predator surrounded by women in black dresses slinking out of cars and hotels. The real red meat comes as Hillary is portrayed as throwing things around the White House and generally enabling Bill’s behavior, which possibly includes rape. D’Souza ends his roasting of Hillary by denouncing her for her “hateful rhetoric” and labeling the Clintons “depraved crooks” who will “turn all of America into a plantation” if they get back in the White House.

RELATED: The Dirty Business of the Billary Machine, Again

At this point the film is definitely downbeat, but in ends with a stirring rendition of patriotic songs, beautiful shots of patriotic themes, and an original song from the Gatlin Brothers. The audience that streamed out of the Cleveland premiere felt energized rather than depressed by the film. Bob Unruh, a relative of the legendary California Democratic boss Jesse Unruh, told me: “The movie told it like it is. Machine rule is at the heart of the modern Democrats.” Several viewers said they took away the message that America is worth saving, and that we have the tools to do so in our DNA, if only we have a large voter turnout in November.

The intenselyanti-PC message of Hillary’s America obviously means it will be savaged by critics and ignored by much of the news media. Peter Sobczynski, a film critic writing at Roger Ebert’s site said that it “may well be the single dumbest documentary that I have ever seen in my life — nearly two hours of poisonous bluster and anti-historical rhetoric.”

Of course, Sobczynski doesn’t like the film’s politics, and they certainly aren’t weak tea. Parts of Hillary’s America verge on demagoguery. But the dictionary definition of demagoguery describes it as the methods used to “appeal to popular desires and prejudices.” Hillary’s America won’t change long-settled opinions about Hillary, but it will probably raise doubts in the minds of independent voters who see it. As for the base of conservative Americans, the movie will inspire them to get to the polls in November, despite the flaws of Donald Trump.

— John Fund is NRO’s national-affairs correspondent.

==

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation

==

==

https://www.amazon.com/Stealing-America-Experience-Criminal-Democratic/dp/0062366718

broadside books

WHY HILLARY, OBAMA, AND THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ARE NO BETTER THAN A GANG OF THIEVES

In the fall of 2014, outspoken author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza found himself hauled into federal court for improperly donating money to an old friend’s Senate campaign. D’Souza pleaded guilty and was sentenced to eight months in a state-run confinement center.  There he lived among hardened criminals—drug dealers, thieves, gangbangers, rapists, and murderers. Now the bestselling author explains how this experience not only changed his life, but fundamentally transformed his view of his adopted country.

Previously, D’Souza had seen America through the eyes of a grateful immigrant who became successful by applying and defending conservative principles. Again and again, D’Souza made the case that America is an exceptional nation, fundamentally fair and just. In book after book, he argued against liberalism as though it were a genuine movement of ideas capable of being engaged and refuted.

But his prolonged exposure to the criminal underclass provided an eye-opening education in American realities. In the view of hardened criminals, D’Souza learned, America is anything but fair and just. Instead, it is a jungle in which various armed gangs face off against one another, with the biggest and most powerful gangs inhabiting the federal government. As for American liberalism, it is not a movement of ideas at all but a series of scams and cons aimed at nothing less than stealing the entire wealth of the nation, built up over more than two centuries: the total value of the homes, the lifelong savings of the people, the assets of every industry, and all the funds allocated to health and education and every other service, both public and private. “The thieves I am speaking about want all of it.”

And who are the leading figures in this historically ambitious scam that has turned the federal government into a vast and unprecedented shakedown scheme? Why, none other than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – the current leaders of the Democratic Party. This pair of smooth-talking con artists, trained in the methods of radical activist Saul Alinsky, have taken his crude but effective political shakedown techniques to a level even he never dreamed of.

As the nation approaches a crucial election in 2016, Stealing Americais an urgent wakeup call for all Americans who want to prevent this theft from being completed by eight more years of Democratic rule.

About the Author

Dinesh D’Souza is a number one New York Timesbestselling author and the filmmaker behind the hit documentaries 2016: Obama’s Americaand America,which are respectively the second-highest- and the sixth highest-grossing political documentaries of all time. In his twenty-five-year career as a writer, scholar, and public intellectual, D’Souza has been a policy analyst in the Reagan White House and a John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His bestselling books include America, Obama’s America, The Roots of Obama’s Rage, What’s So Great About Christianity, and Illiberal Education.

==

PENSION 169: paper to intern fellow at aei, u chic, ctt, admin post (each strain of rw has its own places). columns, fox, speechs eg D'Souza (bio of falwell)

==

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what-happened-to-dinesh-dsouza/374939/

 What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza? ­ The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what­happened­to­dinesh­dsouza/374939/ 1/8

In the 1980s, Dinesh D’Souza received some advice from his editor. “Write for the

critics. The success of your book will depend on book reviews,” D’Souza recalled

Adam Bellow of the Free Press telling him. D’Souza was in no position to argue. His

previous books had not sold well, and as a young star in the conservative

firmament, he wanted to burst into a bigger intellectual universe. So D’Souza took

What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza?

At the peak of his powers, the conservative author's strength was engaging with

his critics. Now he's content inside the right-wing bubble.

M A R K S T R I C H E R Z

J U L 2 5 , 2 0 1 4 | P O L I T I C S

Lucas Jackson/Reuters/The Atlantic

7/21/2016 What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza? ­ The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what­happened­to­dinesh­dsouza/374939/ 2/8

the path of humility: He followed Bellow’s advice, which was strategic as much as it

was intellectual. Bellow recalled advising D’Souza and other controversial authors

that their works should “hew to a high standard of argumentation and should be

written to persuade an intelligent and open-minded adversary. That way, when

they indignantly attack you, they only expose their own close-minded prejudice.”

In the spring of 1991, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus was

published. It was immediately successful. The Atlantic ran an excerpt. The eminent

historian C. Vann Woodward wrote a long, favorable review of the book in The New

York Review of Books. “… [O]ne need not be a right winger to be concerned about the

problems D’Souza raises, however welcome he may be as an ally,” Woodward

wrote. The book stayed on The New York Times’ bestseller list for 15 weeks.

D'Souza was a young, non-white,Ivy League-educated

conservative immigrant arguing within the tradition of

liberal education.

D’Souza’s decision to stay humble and write for the critics helped make Illiberal

Education a success, but his background and hard work helped too. Born in

Mumbai in 1961, D’Souza was a rare prodigy. He was a young, non-white, Ivy

League-educated conservative immigrant arguing within the tradition of liberal

education. His criticisms of political correctness and multiculturalism could be not

dismissed as the work of a has-been or crypto-racist. “I especially empathize with

minority students, who seek to discover principles of equality and justice that go

considerably beyond the acquisition of vocational skill,” he wrote in Illiberal

Education.

Raised in a Catholic household and educated by Spanish Jesuits, D’Souza was also

a Christian public intellectual of erudition and wisdom. He cited Simone Weil and

Reinhold Niebuhr in his books as easily as he did Scripture. His main criticism of

the Reverend Jerry Falwell was the minister’s tendency to let his conservatism get

the best of his Christianity. A passage from his first book, Falwell Before the

7/21/2016 What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza? ­ The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what­happened­to­dinesh­dsouza/374939/ 3/8

Millennium: A Critical Biography, illuminates D’Souza’s own recent work:

In Reinhold Niebuhr’s words, “Political controversies are always

conflicts between sinners, and not between righteous men and sinners.”

Falwell is in the pulpit. The Bible speaks of good and evil, and in the

Bible the two do not mix. But in politics, distinctions are often less vivid.

Falwell’s rhetoric, however, frequently does not distinguish between

liberals, socialists, and Communists. He sometimes regards his enemies

as opposing not just his programs, but God Himself. So he demonizes his

critics the way they do him.

At 53, D’Souza looks only slightly older than he did a generation ago. His hair is

graying at the temples and his face has gotten fuller. His sympathies and work ethic

have not changed much either. But he has expanded his range from author and

public speaker to filmmaker, serving as a writer and director of both 2016: Obama’s

America and America: Imagine a World Without Her.

He has also struck a series of road bumps. In October 2012, D’Souza was forced to

step down as president of Kings College in Manhattan after running afoul of the

evangelical school’s sexual mores; he divorced his wife of two decades; and he pled

guilty to using straw donors to aid the candidacy of Wendy Long, a friend who ran

for the U.S. Senate in 2012. In the eyes of progressives, those sins and crimes made

D’Souza a moral hypocrite and phony. In the eyes of critics, he trots out straw men

rather than concrete arguments. But both were symptoms rather than causes of his

change intellectually (and perhaps spiritually) from a generation ago. D’Souza has

not so much broken bad as fallen victim to pride.

"It was my very first book,

" D'Souza said recently of

Illiberal Education. Exceptit wasn't.

7/21/2016 What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza? ­ The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what­happened­to­dinesh­dsouza/374939/ 4/8

“It was my very first book,” D’Souza said recently of Illiberal Education, smiling

nostalgically at the thought of the critical and financial success it received. Except it

wasn’t. In addition to the Falwell book, he had written a book on the great works of

the Catholic intellectual tradition and co-edited another that boasted an

introduction from no less a Republican titan than Richard M. Nixon. The

chronological order of the books does not matter, but D’Souza’s belief that Illiberal

Education was his first is a window into his mind. He is more than an author. His

books have massive appeal to Fox News viewers; he refers to the ones that did not

as his “pre-books.” 

Whatever the view of his critics on the left or right—and in the

last five years nearly all have heaped scorn on The Roots of Obama’s

Rage and Obama’s America—he plays to the crowd. “The book industry was

changing after Illiberal Education, and I found out you could make money by not

writing for the critics, that book reviews didn’t matter,” D’Souza said.

D’Souza said those words at a Ralph Reed-organized forum in Washington, D.C.,

one Saturday morning in late June. D’Souza spoke at the conference twice that day.

The first time he appeared on the stage of the Regency ballroom inside the Omni

Shoreham Hotel, members of the audience did not simply cheer. They stood up

and applauded. Afterwards, he repaired to a narrow, windowless lobby to sign his

new book. At 10:27 a.m., 11 copies of America: Imagine a World Without Her were

stacked untidily on a makeshift table to his left. 

Over the next half hour, the

number of copies dwindled to three or four. The (white) movement conservatives at

the conference gobbled them up—a middle-aged man in blue jeans and T-shirt who

asked D’Souza to pose for a selfie; two pretty brunettes wearing broad smiles who

looked to be in their twenties and thirties; and several middle-aged women.

Movement conservatives’ love for D’Souza is no joke. 2016 made $33.4 million at

the box office, the second highest total for a political documentary of all time.

America is expected to fall short of that lofty total, but has a realistic shot at grossing

$25 million, a sum that would make it the third biggest political documentary of all

time.

The movement has provided D’Souza with at least one collaborator too. While he

used to seek the help of the historian Gordon Wood, now he works with Bruce

Schooley, who hovered near D’Souza in a lobby of the Omni Shoreham wearing an

aqua-blue suit. D’Souza met the middle-aged Bay Area resident on a National

Review cruise 15 years ago, and they’ve worked together on several projects since;

Schooley served as an executive producer and writer on America. D’Souza has said

Schooley is “really an entrepreneur of ideas.” Among those ideas is the FlipTree,

an artificial Christmas tree Schooley designed and marketed after surviving a bout

with cancer. D’Souza showed his appreciation for his friend’s product by endorsing

it in a YouTube video last year. “Once you roll the tree to where you want it, you just

take off the bag and flip; no more heavy tree parts or complicated electrical cords,”

D’Souza tells the camera without irony.

Yet D’Souza, though long close to the movement—he served as a domestic adviser

in the Reagan White House—was always careful not to make it an exclusive

relationship.

His early books kept conservatives at arm’s length and reached out to critics in the

center. Illiberal Education was a work of solid journalism. D’Souza traveled to the

campuses of five prestigious universities and interviewed students and faculty at

7/21/2016 What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza? ­ The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what­happened­to­dinesh­dsouza/374939/ 6/8

length, and before he submitted his final draft, he sent out chapters for review to

dozens of intellectuals and prestigious journalists, including Jonathan Rauch and

the late William Raspberry.

D’Souza broke with critics in the center after the publication of his follow-up,

1995’s The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society,a work of even more

prodigious scholarship (the book had 46 pages of footnotes). “I wanted to leave no

stone unturned: to go where the truth led me,” D’Souza recalled. “I argued that if

racism had a beginning, it can have an end … For me, race is like bushy eyebrows.

It’s nothing.” But his argument struck black conservatives as a dog whistle to the

David Dukes of America. D’Souza used such words as “parasitic” to describe

blacks’ relationship with government. He absolved non-blacks of responsibility for

helping the black poor.

By now a believer that book sales were not wedded to the

judgments of book critics, D'Souza decided to stop writing

for them.

In October 1995, writer Glenn Loury and community builder Robert L. Woodson

Sr. announced they were resigning their posts at the American Enterprise Institute

because D’Souza was a fellow there. D’Souza took the episode as proof that critics

outside the conservative orbit were committed more to a political agenda than the

truth with a capital “T.” Already a recent convert to the idea that book sales were

not wedded to critics’ judgments, D’Souza decided to stop writing with one eye on

the reaction of critics.

Sometimes, conservative authors have broken new intellectual ground despite

unhinged reactions from critics on the left and the center. Witness “The Negro

Family: The Case for National Action,” Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 report on

the parlous state of the black family, which was considered so incendiary that Ivy

League professors and students prevented Moynihan from speaking on their

campuses. Today, Moynihan’s report is viewed as prophetic.

Yet failing to take on the best arguments of the other side—“to play Notre Dame” in

the words of Charlie Peters, editor emeritus of Washington Monthly—carries risks.

D’Souza’s subsequent books and films testify to the intellectual pitfalls of ignoring

the critics. His demonization of President Obama is a case in point. In the

book Obama’s America, D’Souza wrote that “Obama is not merely the presiding

instrument of American decline, he is the architect of American decline. He wants

America to be downsized.” This claim is problematic, to put it mildly. The jobless

rate has declined from 7.8 percent in January 2009 to 6.1 percent in June; the

administration’s bailout of General Motors helped revive the car industry; and the

editors of The Economist concluded recently that “reports of the death of American

influence in the Middle East are exaggerated.”

In the movie America, D’Souza ridicules Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment

in July 2012. “What he’s saying is that [the business] was not earned but stolen,”

D’Souza says. However offensive to entrepreneurs Obama’s comment was, the

context of the quote was Obama’s argument that the federal government helps

individuals and businesses succeed by helping create infrastructure like public

schools, the Internet, and roads. “The point is,” Obama said, “is that when we

succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do

things together.”

At times, America lives up to D’Souza’s old intellectual standards. He meets in

person with left-wing critics, including Ward Churchill,a former professor of

ethnic studies at the University of Colorado Boulder. He argues persuasively that

Alexis de Tocqueville is a more reliable guide than Howard Zinn to troubling

episodes in early American history such as slavery and the treatment of Native

Americans. D’Souza admits he improperly helped Senate candidate Wendy Long in

2012.

In fact, America contains a brief scene in which D’Souza is shown wearing

handcuffs in a room that looks like a jail or prison cell. But is this real humility or a

Uriah Heep act? D’Souza’s pride, his belief he needs neither intellectual nor moral

critics, has brought about his fall from the first rank of conservative intellectuals.

7/21/2016 What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza? ­ The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what­happened­to­dinesh­dsouza/374939/ 8/8

That's a shame, because if he'd stayed humble D'Souza could have reached an

exalted status.

A B O U T THE A U THO R

MARK STRICHERZ is the Washington bureau chief for The Colorado Observer and the author of Why

the Democrats Are Blue.

==

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/dinesh_dsouza_gets_duped_tweets_photoshopped_photo_of_hillary_clinton_with_confederate_flag/

...

In 2014, D’Souza was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement centeras part of five years of probation for violating federal campaign finance laws. In an interview in the latest issue of the New York Times Magazine, D’Souza said “If you put my rap sheet alongside the Clinton rap sheet, I think that would be almost a prima facie case that they have gotten away with far more than I have.”

UPDATE: D’Souza issued a “correction” on Facebook, leaving the photoshopped image of the Confederate flag up but writing, “even if the #ConfederateFlag was edited into this Hillary photo, WHAT is going on with those glasses and that hairdo?”

==

alternet 9/14

Dinesh D’Souza sees similarity between ISIS and Ferguson protestors.

Conservative commentator and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza also had some thoughts this week. That is almost never a good thing. When thoughts rattle around D’Souza’s feverish brain, weird connections get made, and then D’Souza is apt to voice those thoughts and connections, which are uniformly nutso. This week, D’Souza thought he saw a connection between ISIS fighters and Ferguson protestors. This is certifiably insane. We’re hoping we don’t have to explain why. Here is what he said on NewsMaxTV’s Steve Malzberg’s show:

“The common thread between ISIS and what’s going on in Ferguson is you have these people who basically believe that to correct a perceived injustice, it’s perfectly okay to inflict all types of new injustices.”

(Notice, again, the use of the phrase “these people,” the equivalent of sticking a Post-It on your forehead that says, “I’m a stupid racist.”)

“Behead guys who had nothing to do with it. Go and loot shops from business owners who were not part of the original problem whatsoever.”

See the similarities?

We realize that D’Souza needs to kill time while he waits to be sentenced for violating campaign finance law and lying about it. But, thinking, making absurd connections and saying them aloud is not the way to go.

==

alternet; Then came Obama's election, the Zapruder tape for the right's tin-foil hat haberdashers – a moment in history that both explained and exacerbated America's supposed decline. Dinesh D'Souza, the Oliver Stone of the Tea Party,  has now made two movies about the meaning of Obama's presidency. The first, 2016: Obama's America,  garnered an astounding $33m at the box office, and his lawyers blamed disappointing returns from this summer's America  :{on a :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{Google conspiracy:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{ to confuse moviegoers about its showtimes:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:. (Of course.)

==

==

11 Conservatives Claim Indictment Of Obama-Hater Dinesh D'Souza Is Conspiracy (Video)

By Michael Allen, Sat, January 25, 2014

Political conservative, author and anti-Obamafilmmaker Dinesh D'Souza was charged yesterday for allegedly violating federal campaign finance laws.

According to TalkingPointsMemo.com, D'Souza "was charged with one count of making more than $10,000 of contributions in the names of others and one count of causing false statements."

D'Souza allegedly encouraged other people (straw donors) to give $20,000 to a U.S. Senate candidate and then paid them back for their donations, notes The New York Times.

Federal election laws ban "straw donors" and limit individual donations to $5,000 for any one candidate.

The candidate, who got the donations, was reportedlyRepublican Wendy Long,a longtime friend of D'Souza, who lost in a 2012 race against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

D'Souza's debunked, but highly-grossing 2012 documentary, "2016: Obama's America," made him a hero to Republicans, even after he left his wife for a woman twenty years younger, noted the Daily Mail.

MediaMatters.org now reports that the indictment of D'Souza is being called a conspiracy by his conservative defenders.

Matt Drudge of the right wing Drudge Report tweeted, "They are going after the Obama critics with indictments. VA Gov. Now Dinesh D'Souza. Holder unleashing the dogs."

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones told viewers in a video (below) yesterday, "The issue is here, they can find a mistake in your checking account and claim that it was fraud or wire fraud. They can do it to anybody. This is like Nazi Germany. Once they're done with these guys, they're coming after you and I."

On her radio show this morning (audio below), conservative host Laura Ingraham, a former girlfriend of D'Souza, said that his indictment "is more about stifling political dissent and intimidating other people from speaking out than it is about any real serious allegation of wrongdoing."

Sources: Daily Mail, The New York Times, TalkingPointsMemo.com, MediaMatters.org, Twitter

- See more at: http://www.opposingviews.com/tags/conservatives#sthash.vNwnAdOX.dpuf

==

2. King’s College: In 1997, the Campus Crusade for Christ International purchased King’s College, a New Jersey-based school that had been shuttered since 1944, and reestablished it on two floors of the Empire State Building in New York City. Led byDinesh D’Souza, author of a book this year arguing that President Obama’s Kenyan heritage gives him a third world “anti-colonial” mindset, the school has gained a reputation for training dogmatically conservative Christian activists.

new video attacks BO  http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08/27/fear-and-loathing-in-2016-obamas-america/189581

The movie argues that President Obama's true ideology (inherited from his absentee father) is a "failed Third-World collectivism" that seeks to reduce America's stature in the world, as evidenced (in part) by Obama's determination to "lower NASA's horizons" so that it no longer exists as a symbol of American greatness. And this might be a compelling argument had NASA not just successfully deposited a Volkswagen-sized robot with a rock-vaporizing laser on the surface of Mars a few weeks ago.

Similarly, D'Souza's film argues that this "Third-World anti-American" viewpoint of the president's leads him to be "weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadis" captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Meanwhile, outside the movie theaters, news broke this weekend of an air strike that killed a senior Taliban official in Pakistan. (The obvious counterexample, Osama bin Laden's demise, doesn't merit mention in the film)

But again, to merely point out these untimely real-world inconsistencies is to do this movie a favor. 2016 is an outgrowth of D'Souza's 2010 book, The Roots Of Obama's Rage, a controversial and much-derided tome in which D'Souza laid out his hypothesis that Obama's actions are best explained by the aforementioned "collectivist" worldview he inherited from Barack Obama Sr. As Slate's Dave Weigel pointed out after viewing the movie's July premier, some of the blatantly false and risible elements of Roots didn't make it into 2016, but there's still plenty of nonsense to fill out an 89-minute documentary.

The first 20 minutes or so of the movie aren't actually about President Obama. They're about D'Souza himself. He leads us down a hurried biography of his life, starting with his birth in Mumbai, focusing heavily on his education at Dartmouth and Stanford, and moving on to his time spent working for the Reagan White House. (D'Souza prides himself on being a die-hard Reaganite, which I'll come back to in a moment.) The intended message is unmistakable: Dinesh D'Souza is smart. He knows his stuff. Trust what he's about to tell you, no matter how insane it might sound.

Then we ease into the crazy. Parts of the first half of the film could be described as "playful." D'Souza bounds from Indonesia to Hawaii to Kenya, retracing the arc of Obama's existence and hamming it up for the camera as he learns to hula dance and climbs onto the back of a moped in Jakarta. Interspersed are segments of Dinesh D'Souza: Journalist, in which he interviews a psychologist who specializes in child abandonment and an academic who knew Obama's mother and stepfather.

This thin veneer of competence gets completely washed away, however, when D'Souza visits the Obama family in Kenya, showing up at the home of Obama's stepmother seeking an interview and offering three goats as payment. It doesn't go well. D'Souza and his entourage are turned down and told to leave by security personnel.

But he did manage to score an interview with one member of the extended Obama family: the president's half-brother George Obama. A community organizer who lives in the slums of Nairobi, George figures prominently in D'Souza's theory, with the documentarian using him primarily as a vehicle to attack the president for not "lift[ing] a finger to help a destitute close relative." (George has told reporters that he chooses to live in poverty to identify with the people he tries to help.) In the interview, D'Souza asks George why he thinks his powerful brother hasn't helped him, to which George responds: "He has a family of his own. I am of older age. I can help myself." D'Souza tries again, desperate to get George to validate his theory of the president's callousness, but George won't cooperate. "He's got other issues to take care of," George says.

From there we're treated to a reenactment of Obama grieving over his father's grave (Obama himself provides the narration, courtesy of the Dreams from My Father audiobook), which serves as the dramatic, intellectually vacant set-up for D'Souza's primary argument: that Obama has adopted his father's political and economic philosophy and is inflicting it upon America, enforcing a sort of global penance for the sins of colonialism as a way of securing his deceased father's love and respect. This is where things really go off the rails.

D'Souza provides us a dossier for each of "Obama's Founding Fathers," drawn from the well-worn rogues gallery of intellectuals and fringe characters (Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, etc.), combined with the standard-issue warning that "we haven't seen the real Obama." He whips up some apocalyptic rhetoric about the debt, saying Obama will use it as a "weapon of mass destruction" to tank the country, and his discussion of the debt with former U.S Comptroller General David Walker is accompanied by -- and I'm being completely serious here -- high-pitched slasher-film music. (The fact that Walker also lays blame for reckless spending at the feet of George W. Bush does nothing to dampen D'Souza's enthusiasm.)

He whacks Obama for "blocking" the Keystone pipeline (not true) while loaning "billions of dollars" to Brazil to pursue offshore drilling (also not true). There's a bit of Glenn Beck-inspired paranoia as snaking thorns of red, black, and green encircle the Middle East and North Africa, forming the new "United States of Islam." This in turn leads to fearmongering about Iran's nuclear ambitions, and attacks on Obama for a) doing "nothing" to impede Iran's nuclear progress (not exactly true), and b) seeking to reduce nuclear stockpiles globally.

Here's where D'Souza's Reagan boosting comes back to bite him. The documentary attacks Obama for signing the New START Treaty with Russia, which calls for steep reductions in both countries' nuclear stockpiles, and mocks the president for his vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. "Dreamy idea," D'Souza quips, sparing no sarcasm. Unmentioned is the fact that the abolition of nuclear weapons was also the stated dream of... Ronald Reagan, who first proposed the original START Treaty with the Soviet Union. As Reagan told the nation in a January 1984 speech: "My dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth."

So 2016 suffers a great deal from logical inconsistency and factual error, but what did the audience think? After a well-attended showing in northern Virginia I chatted with two women from Arlington, both white and above middle-age, who came to the movie having never heard of Dinesh D'Souza but wanting to know more about President Obama. "I thought it was dramatic and scary," said one, who thought D'Souza offered "a very reasonable explanation for what's happening."

wreck crew; JA and JA reorg C Rep from resume pad social club to grassroots; took over from YAF shock troop BG JA set up fake beastiality clubs to discredit gays, also d'souza [stole info from gay org and published, thus outing ppl]

The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves ...

By Thomas Frank

Dinesh D'Souza is a conservative author.

• CNN, analyst
• Hoover Institution
• American Enterprise Institute, John M. Olin Scholar
• Editorial staff, Policy Review
• Dartmouth Review, founder and editor-in-chief

D'Souza's Wealth

D'Souza's handful of conservative books, combined with his conservative-sponsored business and campus lectures, have generated extensive liberal criticism. They also have made him fabulously wealthy.

According to an April 2005 issue of The San Diego Reader:

"Since Dartmouth, the conservative fray has been quite remunerative for D'Souza. Six years ago, he and his wife bought their home in Fairbanks Ranch (California). The nearly 8000-square-foot house has six bedrooms, seven and a half baths, and a four-car garage, where they keep their maroon 1992 Jaguar XJS. A circular drive fronts the French country stone house. The cathedral-like front room, with its full-length mirrors and tapestries, has an 18th-century French decor of (veneered) golden maple burl furniture. The slick floors echo like a museum as one walks through. In his office, there's wall-to-wall leopard-print carpet; floor-to-ceiling bookcases are stocked with titles in history, politics, and philosophy. The view out back features a bright blue pool and the arboretum-like landscape."[1].

On Race Politics

• Dartmouth Review

Under D'Souza's editorship, the Dartmouth Review became notorious both for its attacks on alleged liberal bias at the university and for its provocative articles on racial topics. It published a parody titled "Dis Sho Ain't No Jive Bro," which mocked the way African-American students supposedly speak. ("Dese boys be sayin' that we be comin' here to Dartmut an' not takin' the classics. You know, Homa, Shakesphere; but I hea' dey all be co'd in da ground, six feet unda, and whatchu be askin' us to learn from dem?") Also during his tenure as editor, according to a September 22, 1995, article in The Washington Post, the Review "published an interview with a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, using a mock photograph of a black man hanging from a campus tree."

• The End of Racism

D'Souza's key work is the 700-page The End of Racism, a book that managed to offend even conservative blacks with its declaration that black culture is pathologically inferior to white culture and that "the criminal and irresponsible black underclass represents a revival of barbarism in the midst of Western civilization"(p. 527). D'Souza's history of southern segregation characterized it as merely misguided paternalism, "based on the code of the Christian and the gentleman" and intended to protect blacks: "Segregation was intended to assure that blacks, like the handicapped, would be insulated from the radical racists and - in the paternalist view - permitted to perform to the capacity of their arrested development" (p. 179). The book's declarations were so extreme that two prominent African-American conservatives, Robert Woodson, Sr. and Glenn Loury, renounced their affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute to protest AEI's sponsorship of the book. According to Loury, AEI marketed The End of Racism extensively in business circles, and "Republican staffers on Capitol Hill are said to have eagerly anticipated how the book might move the affirmative action debate in the 'right direction.'"

Like many modern race-baiters, D'Souza hedges his inflammatory language with just enough caveats to justify apologetics. His reference to the "criminal and irresponsible black underclass" is preceded by the phrase "for many whites." After this passage was criticized by Glenn Loury, D'Souza responded that Loury had "completely lost" this "distinction" between his own views and those of "many whites" (The End of Racism, p. xx). In the original passage on page 527, however, D'Souza goes on to declare his essential agreement with the views that he attributes to whites. "If this is true," the passage continues, "the best way to eradicate beliefs in black inferiority is to remove their empirical basis. ... [I]f blacks as a group can show that they are capable of performing competitively in schools and the work force, and exercising both the rights and responsibilities of American citizenship, then racism will be deprived of its foundation in experience."

The End of Racism also suggests that laws like the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be repealed on the grounds that they are often misused as political weapons rather than for the the actual protection of civil rights. D'Souza's website declares that "the American obsession with race is fueled by a civil rights establishment that has a vested interest in perpetuating black dependency." [2]

• Quotes from The End of Racism:

[The Civil Rights Movement] sought to undermine white racism through a protest strategy that emphasized the recognition of basic rights for blacks, without considering that racism might be fortified if blacks were unable to exercise their rights effectively and responsibly.Most African American scholars simply refuse to acknowledge the pathology of violence in the black underclass, apparently convinced that black criminals as well as their targets are both victims: the real culprit is societal racism. Activists recommend federal jobs programs and recruitment into the private sector. Yet it seems unrealistic, bordering on the surreal, to imagine underclass blacks with their gold chains, limping walk, obscene language, and arsenal of weapons doing nine-to-five jobs at Procter and Gamble or the State Department.Increasingly it appears that it is liberal antiracism that is based on ignorance and fear: ignorance of the true nature of racism, and fear that the racist point of view better explains the world than its liberal counterpart.The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.The popular conception seems to be that American slavery as an institution involved white slaveowners and black slaves. Consequently, it is easy to view slavery as a racist institution. But this image is complicated when we discover that most whites did not own slaves, even in the South; that not all blacks were slaves; that several thousand free blacks and American Indians owned black slaves. An examination of these frequently obscured aspects of American slavery calls into question the facile equation of racism and slavery.If America as a nation owes blacks as a group reparations for slavery, what do blacks as a group owe America for the abolition of slavery?How did Martin Luther King succeed, almost single-handedly, in winning support for his agenda? Why was his Southern opposition virtually silent in making counterarguments?

• Comments on Reagan

In a live chat with washingtonpost.com on Ronald Reagan, D'Souza wrote that blacks rejected Reagan because Reagan felt that what you could do was important, not your race, and blacks disagreed.

Dryden, N.Y.: A difficult question. Watching the SIMI viewing I have been struck by the overwhelming whiteness of the crowd. This to me is one dark facet of the Reagan legacy, a man who chose to start his campaign in Philadelphia, Miss. (where three civil rights workers were murdered). Why do you think he was so tone deaf on the vital American issue of race?Dinesh D'Souza: Reagan had an unfailingly inclusive vision of America. His view was that it didn't matter where you came from or who you were. What mattered was what you could do. Immigrants found this appealing. Blacks in general didn't. Blacks are at a peculiar point in their history where many of them believe that "race does matter" and "race should matter." A different vision from what Martin Luther King held in his "I Have a Dream" speech. So Reagan didn't reject blacks, blacks rejected Reagan. It's unfortunate, but I don't think it tells against Reagan. Maybe there will be some reconsideration of Reagan now by African Americans.

Outing gays at Dartmouth

As editor of the Dartmouth Review, D'Souza stole correspondence from the school's Gay Student Alliance and published it, outing several gay students to friends and family and driving one to consider suicide. When The Nation published an article claiming that D'Souza had stolen the correspondence, D'Souza wrote asking for a retraction, calling the piece "lies from the loony left", and sending articles which he said would clear his name. But bizarrely, the articles he included showed that the claim was true - they included a piece written under his byline that featured excerpts from gay students' correspondence.

Movie appearances

Dinesh D'Souza is set to appear in the forthcoming documentary,Michael Moore Hates America.

Books

• Dinesh D'Souza, "Catholic Classics," Our Sunday Visitor, March 1, 1980,ISBN 0879735252
• Dinesh D'Souza, "Falwell: Before the Millennium," Regnery Publishing, August 1, 1984, ISBN 0895266075
• Dinesh D'Souza, Gregory Fossedal, "My Dear Alex: Letters from the KGB," Regnery Publishing, June 1, 1987, ISBN 0895265761
• Dinesh D'Souza, "Illiberal Education: Political Correctness and the College Experience," John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs, June 1, 1992, ISBN 1878802089
• Dinesh D'Souza, "L'éducation contre les libertés," Gallimard, January 5, 1993, ISBN 2070727696
• Dinesh D'Souza, "The End Of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society," Free Press, September 30, 1996, ISBN 0684825244
• Dinesh D'Souza, "Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus," Free Press, October 1, 1998, ISBN 0684863847
• Dinesh D'Souza, "Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader," Free Press, February 23, 1999, ISBN 0684848236
• Dinesh D'Souza, "The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-Affluence," Free Press, October 30, 2001, ISBN 0684868156
• Dinesh D'Souza, "What's So Great About America," Regnery Publishing, April 24, 2002, ISBN 0895261537
• Dinesh D'Souza, "Letters to a Young Conservative," Basic Books, October 1, 2002, ISBN 0465017339

References

• Michael Bérubé, "Dinesh and Me", June 10, 2004.
• Kevin Nix, ""Distort D'Newsa" now a CNN analyst", Media Matters for America, June 8, 2004.
• "Notable Asian American Writers: Dinesh D'Souza"
• "The Controversialist," San Diego Reader, April 14, 2005.
• "Dinesh D'Souza," Wikipedia

rationalwiki 715

Dinesh D'Souza (born 1961) is a prolific author, public speaker, filmmaker and convicted felon. D'Souza writes mostly on Christian apologetics and has debated religious issues with notable atheists including Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Michael Shermer. He produced a documentary about Barack Obama, alleging that Obama is primarily motivated by "anti-colonialist" fervor... which, ironically, is something you would expect every president to have (not to mention D'Souza himself, having been born and raised in an ex-colony, India). Bringing D'Souza to prominence is perhaps one of William F. Buckley's mistakes he might want to take back.

D'Souza was the president of King's College, an accredited Christian college located in the Empire State Building, but resigned after admitting to an extramarital affair.^[1]

In January 2014, D'Souza was indicted by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney for laundering campaign contributions for a Republican Senate candidate.^[2] In May 2014, he pleaded guilty to avoid a more serious charge that carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.^[3] On September 23, 2014, he was sentenced to 5 years of probation. During the sentencing hearing, a letter from his ex-wife was read in which she stated, "It is my former husband who has an abusive nature. In one instance, it was my husband who physically abused me in April 2012 when he, using his purple belt karate skills (which is pretty low ranking belt, BTW), kicked me in the head and shoulder, knocking me to the ground and creating injuries that pain me to this day."^[4]

[edit]Public Positions

:{

D'Souza is a staunch neoconservative, and began his public career while still at Dartmouth College, writing for conservative publications like the Dartmouth Review, which became notorious for its racist andhomophobic content under D'Souza's editorship, and The Prospect.^[5] In this period, he criticized Dartmouth's policy of Affirmative Action and used the publication to attack gay rights and gay students.

}:Social Issues

In one issue of the Dartmouth Review, D'Souza published an interview with a Ku Klux Klan leader. However, far from being controversy-seeking and "edgy" journalism (contrast with John Safran interviewing KKK leaders), the piece was accompanied by a photo of a lynched black man, and the rest of the publication became well-known for its mocking tone of "black speak."

The Review also frequently "outed" gay students against their wishes. His far-right slant on many subjects led others to nickname him "Distort D'Newsa."^[6] He then went to work for the Policy Review.

[edit]Politics

D'Souza served as a White House political adviser during the Saint Reagan years. He has been known to support United Nations mediation in war-torn parts of the world. In his book What's So Great About America, he defends the United Statesagainst criticism it has received for its overbearing role in geopolitics, and the conservative method of government, while attacking liberalism.

D'Souza has pushed GOP batshittery like Birtherism, and appears regularly on Fox News. During the Republican nomination in 2012, two contenders — Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee — used points raised in his book The Roots Of Obama's Rage, to portray Obama as alien without having to engage in obvious Birtherism.^[7][8] Other Republican leaders have also indirectly used this talking point to attack the character of the President, blissfully unaware of the irony of politicians from a country that owes its very independence to anti-colonialism accusing its president of adhering to anti-colonialism. This also applies to D'Souza himself, since he was born in India, with its own struggle against British colonial rule.

[edit]Homosexuality

As editor of the Dartmouth Review, D'Souza outed the officers of the Gay Straight Alliance and published stolen confidential files. He claimed he just wanted to make sure they weren't using university funding for "gay parties, gay orgies, or whatever."^[9] Yeah, brah. He has repeatedly gone on homophobic rants online and in public.^[10] His attempt to recast the movement for gay rights from a personal and humanitarian one to a political one has not gone down well even with conservatives, who see it as something that is mandated by the will of God, not the will of the people.

[edit]Racism (Or, "I am brown. I used to have many black friends")

D'Souza is completely out of touch with the discrimination that minorities face in the United States. In his controversial 1995 book The End of Racism, he argued that "Racism, which once used to be systematic, had now become episodic," and that "...it no longer controlled the lives of blacks and other minorities." He explains away the prejudice against Blacks and Latinos as being caused by "cultural factors," not racial victimization.^[11] The End of Racism, indeed.

In the book, D'Souza, also among other things, argues that the parts of the Civil Rights Act pertaining to private companies should be *repealed*. D'Souza holds a fellowship at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank which published the book. This caused two of AEI's black fellows to resign their positions.^[12][13]

[edit]Barack Obama

At one point, D'Souza was supportive of Obama, saying that Obama "...makes his claims on the merits, and he appeals to shared American ideals," while contrasting him with people like the evil Jesse Jackson. This was while trying desperately to justify his twisted views on racism, as he used the fact that a black man had been elected president to assert that racism was dead.^[11]

D'Souza then hopped on the "Obama is un-American" bandwagon. Obama's hatred towards the country he leads is indicated by his failure to spend the first 17 years of his life there (Hawaii doesn't count). This is in stark contrast to D'Souza's first 17 years, spent in America's heartland of Mumbai, India.

His main claim is that Obama is an anti-colonialist who wants to suck America dry and distribute the spoils among Third World nations.^[14] His argument is as follows: Obama's father was an anti-colonialist, and one of Obama's books is titledDreams From My Father, so he must be carrying on his old man's alleged agenda and wishing for the swift demise of America's empire.^[15] His evidence for this unorthodox theory consists of a few choice quotes from both Obamas and already-debunked myths, such as an alleged support of Brazilian offshore drilling with US taxpayer money.^[16] Why Obama would take his father's understandable opposition to British rule over his country and turn it into an anti-American doctrine remains a mystery.^[17] Not to mention that the US itself has had some issues with British colonialism.

In yet another case of a broken record spinning completely out of control, D'Souza insisted on making a movie about this (non-)issue entitled 2016: Obama's America. Predictably, the biggest critical booster of the film is WND.^[18] More recently, he claimed that Obama was sympathetic to Muslim *jihadis* and other terrorists because his mother "wanted to marry a Third World anti-American guy," among other things.^[19] D'Souza's production of pseudo-psychological crap on this subject is unequaled. Furthermore, the pretzel logic he displays on the subject is starting to resemble a moebius strip; he's apparently convinced that Obama's support for equal rights for gays is somehow tied to his anti-colonialist views because - wait for it - he identifies "traditional Christianity" with colonialism.^[20]

[edit]Debating tactics

1. D'Souza has an aggressive and rhetorical speaking and debating style, which makes him sound forceful and convincing. He uses the Gish Gallop frequently and effectively, rebuffing his opponent for not addressing every point he makes.
2. He frequently employs caricatures and strawmen of atheist positions. He presents these positions so as to make them sound whimsical or silly, while presenting his own statements with an air of utmost gravity, no matter how lunatic or far-fetched they may be.
3. Every time Dinesh attempts to speak for, quote, or misquote his opponent, he adopts a buffoonish, mocking tone. It is a very unsubtle ad hominem attack fused into his prose.
4. He is a big fan of quote mining. Not content with simply taking his opponent's statements out of context, he will take a quote about a topic completely unrelated to the one under discussion and re-frame it to make it sound as if his opponent is uninformed or delusional.
5. A main weapon in his debating arsenal is the emotional appeal, where he paints his opponent's position as false because some of its implications may be distasteful to certain members of the audience.
6. He enjoys painting his opponents as vicious critics of innocuous policies and events, and himself as a paragon of intellectual virtue. While not going as far as character assassination (at least not in a face-to-face debate), he does subtly attack the character of his opponent.
7. He often says that an assertion by his opponent, or even the opponent's entire position, is invalid because it is not intuitively or obviously true. He paints this as a "common sense" argument, where he calls upon the audience to evaluate an assertion using their own intuition. In reality, this is a denial of the obvious fact that many things are counterintuitive and require expertise beyond the experience of the average person (but don't take our word for it; ask your neighbor about quantum mechanics or the economics of sub-Saharan Africa). This is a particularly effective tactic, as it shifts audience opinion to his side.
8. Thanks to his wide repertoire of tactics, he rarely is forced to allow a point by his opponent to pass unchallenged. This projects the illusion of competence, whereas most of his rebuttals are intellectually dishonest and completely invalid.
9. When all else fails, he will spout outright lies and half truths, pulling facts and statistics out of thin air to give his argument some credibility. This amounts to an argument from authority, which he seems to derive from his public "reputation" as a political commentator, academic and writer.
10. Lately, he appears to carry around a sizable library of books to debates, frequently flashing them at his opponent and at the audience, while stating that they completely prove his own, or disprove his opponent's, points. These are usually self-published works by fringe lunatics (which are not worth the paper they're printed on). This is argument from authority on steroids, since no one except him has read the book. Therefore, his opponent cannot call him out on it, and is forced to let the point go without comment.

[edit]More hypocrisy

In true fashion of other vocal religious neoconservatives, it was revealed in October 2012 that D'Souza was having a sexual relationship with a woman other than his wife.^[21] A few days after the news hit the media and internet, D'Souza resigned from his position as president of The King's College.^[22] In his defense, he claimed that he was divorced (though having previously stated his belief in marriage as an eternal covenant), when in fact he was simply separated from his current wife and divorce proceedings had begun but not yet finalized—which still technically makes him an adulterer, though a comment on one blog suggested that he was also being polygamous by getting engaged to one woman while married to another.^[23] Not to worry, though; D'Souza's squeeze on the side apparently thinks that women's suffrage is a really bad thing (and gives a truly goofy shout-out to Rick Santorum on the subject to boot), meaning that he's got a ticket in the wingnutsweepstakes as well.^[24]

[edit]Publications

• 1984: Falwell, Before the Millennium: A Critical Biography
• 1986: The Catholic Classics
• 1987: My Dear Alex: Letters From The KGB
• 1991: Illiberal Education
• 1995: The End of Racism
• 1997: Ronald Reagan: How An Hollywood Actor Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader
• 2000: The Virtue of Prosperity
• 2002: What's So Great About America
• 2002: Letters to a Young Conservative
• 2007: The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11^[25] (ISBN 0-385-51012-8)
• 2007: What's So Great About Christianity
• 2009: Life After Death: The Evidence
• 2010: The Roots of Obama's Rage
• 2012: Godforsaken: Bad things happen. Is there a God who cares? YES. Here's proof
• 2012: Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream

[edit]See also

• Regnery Publishing, they print most of his nonsense

[edit]External links (if you have the stomach for this kind of bollocks)

-

-

-

• What's So Great About Dinesh D'Souza?
• Fact-Checking D'Souza, Andrew Sullivan
• God Is in the Basement of the Empire State Building, New York Magazine
• Only in His Dreams, a review of D'Souza's hatchet job "documentary" on Obama, David Weigel, Salon

[edit]Footnotes

1. ↑ Ariel Kaminer, "Star Commentator Is Out as Christian College President After Scandal," *New York Times*, October 18, 2012
2. ↑ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dinesh-dsouza-campaign-finance-indictment
3. ↑ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dinesh-dsouza-pleads-guilty-making-705819
4. ↑ Dinesh D'Souza gets 5 years of probation in federal Manhattan court over campaign donations
5. ↑ Campus Progress - Dinesh D’Souza
6. ↑ [1]
7. ↑ NYT: Gingrich: President Exhibits ‘Kenyan, Anticolonial Behavior’
8. ↑ Time: Huckabee's a Birther?
9. ↑ GSA Profile, History Commons
10. ↑ "Gay rights versus democracy", Town Hall
11. ↑ ^11.0 11.1 [2], Town Hall
12. ↑ SPLC on AEI
13. ↑ For an in-depth debunking of the pseudohistory in the book, see Paul Finkelman. Rise of the New Racism. Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1996
14. ↑ Forbes: "How Obama Thinks"
15. ↑ That he's admitting the US is an empire should say something.
16. ↑ Slate: D'Souza's Brazilian Conspiracy Theory
17. ↑ Even more hilariously, US and UK relations have arguably strengthened during Obama's four years.
18. ↑ D’Souza Turns Lie Into Fodder for His Delusions, Dispatches from the Culture Wars
19. ↑ Dinesh D'Souza Says Obama is 'Weirdly Sympathetic' to Terrorists, Sees them as 'Freedom Fighters', Right Wing Watch
20. ↑ D’Souza: Gay Rights are Anti-Colonialist. Or Something. Dispatches from the Culture Wars
21. ↑ [3]
22. ↑ [4]
23. ↑ [5]
24. ↑ D'Souza Mistress Opposes Women's Suffrage, Dispatches from the Culture Wars
25. ↑ This one got laughed at even by other conservatives. See the National Review Online's symposium on the book.

Categories: 

• Bronze-level articles
• Political pundits
• Christian apologists
• Apologists and counter-apologists
• Conservative wingnuttery
• Batshit crazy
• Racists
• Convicted felons
• Insufferable assholes
• Homophobes
• Living people

===