"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

30 November 2017

Another Fake Hitler Quote from a Novel

Last July I exposed a speech ostensibly composed entirely of Hitler quotes as being composed mostly, in fact, of fake Hitler quotes.

The debunking of fake Hitler quotes seems to be a never-ending task, because people are inventing new ones. One of the fake quotes that I debunked was this:
"It's not the truth that matters, but victory."
That fake Hitler quote is from a novel, Mist of Love, Fog of War by Alain J. Zgheib, published only in 2016.  From the same novel, we have this:
"And the victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
The fake quotes from that novel spread very quickly. I have encountered them several times.

According to Snopes, this is also from a novel:

It is from a slightly older novel, Pat Miller's Willfully Ignorant from 2014.

The propagation of a fake quote like this raises some questions. 

One could ask about the thought-processes of the person who decided to take a sentence from a novel and to misrepresent it as a quote from Adolf Hitler. Obviously such a person has no scruples.

More important, however, is what it says about the people who readily embrace such a misrepresentation.

In the first place, it shows that, despite the obsession with Adolf Hitler in popular culture, much of the general public knows practically nothing about him. They never perused Mein Kampf to get a general idea of what Hitler said -- which is rather the opposite of what is attributed to him here. The whole spirit of Mein Kampf is blunt and honest.

Furthermore, it suggests that they are still under the influence of old war-propaganda alleging that Hitler presented in Mein Kampf theories about how to deceive the public. Anyone who investigates what Hitler wrote will find that he warned against the Big Lie as a tactic of the Jews. But the vast majority of people will never check, and the few who have checked either could not or would not obliterate the false belief.

Dinesh D'Souza, in his public presentations about his idiotic book The Big Lie, speaks as if Hitler had advocated the Big Lie. D'Souza indicates in his book that he knows better, but for whatever reason he chooses in his public presentations to conform to the old, false propaganda. The fact that he can do this in presentations at universities without suffering embarrassment is remarkable. Perhaps the people who recognize the deception just don't want to be seen defending Hitler. (Many of Dinesh D'Souza's followers however are simply stupid.)

The belief  that Hitler would have written such statements in a book for publication also shows an utter lack of critical thinking. 

The statement shown here resembles something from The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which was alleged to be a secret document that ended up being published only because it was leaked.* There is no similar background story to explain how similar admissions from Hitler could become public. We are supposed to believe that Hitler deliberately wrote down his evil intentions and had them published. People are just not thinking.
* Incidentally, Protocols is clearly not an authentic document either, although, unlike this statement attributed to Hitler, it at least has some resemblance to the truth.

27 November 2017

Conservative Socialism vs. Empty Partisan Rhetoric

Democrats and Republicans each like to accuse the other of being the real nazis or the real fascists. It's a very stupid and cowardly game that they play, trying to avoid a label or an association. It has everything to do with appearances and nothing to do with substance.

What Republicans Say

The whole question is confused by the fact that, in vulgar American usage, the meanings of conservative and right-wing have changed. Nowadays, to be conservative is to be an advocate of what used to be called liberalism. In most of the world, what is called conservatism in the USA -- the demand for free markets and less government -- is still called liberalism.*

According to this postwar pseudo-conservatism, any big, powerful government is ipso facto a leftist government.

A generally neglected implication of this redefinition of conservatism is that the powerful absolute monarchies that existed before the Enlightenment must be considered leftist governments. That is utterly absurd. This redefinition clearly was not well considered.

For Republican rhetoric, an important effect of the redefinition of conservatism is that it is now considered impossible to be right-wing and socialist at the same time. On that basis, Republicans can say that National-Socialism and Fascism are leftist and in no way conservative.

Before World War II, that was not the case.

Most Americans have never heard of Tory Socialism. Tory means Conservative. Tory Socialism means Conservative Socialism. Conservative socialism as an idea started in the UK, where it was originally associated with the Young England movement in the 1840s.

How can socialism be conservative? Conservative socialism means making concessions to the needs of the laboring class in order to recruit that class as defenders of established traditions and institutions.

The idea was implemented in Germany by Otto von Bismarck, who, after essentially banning the Socialist Workers' Party in 1878, created the German welfare-state in 1881. The purpose was to eliminate grievances that the Marxists could use to gain popular support. Bismarck did all this with support from Conservatives.

Both Mussolini and Hitler followed in Bismarck's path, doing what Bismarck had done but more of it. National-Socialism and Fascism can be regarded as left-right syntheses in regard to methods, but the ultimate aim is conservative.

It is only by relying on a very limited frame of reference that today's so-called conservatives can argue that National-Socialism and Fascism are in no way right-wing or conservative. 

What Democrats Say

The Democrats, eager to throw the hot potato back to the Republicans, argue that National-Socialism and Fascism are not socialism. It's a purely semantic argument. They can't deny that Hitler and Mussolini created large-scale social programs. So, they point out that Hitler and Mussolini did not implement "government ownership of the means of production" the way Stalin did. But that is not a universally shared definition of socialism. That's just the definition that they want to use just for this particular argument. There are many socialist and social-democratic parties that do not insist on government-takeover of enterprises, whose claim to being socialists is for some reason not challenged. 

One could argue that the reason why social-democrats in various countries do not nationalize industries is that they are kept in check by opposition. But this was also true for the Fascists in Italy and the National-Socialists in Germany. Yes, Hitler and Mussolini were autocrats, but it does not mean that they could disregard what everybody else thought.

When Mussolini established Fascism in Italy, it was with the consent of King Victor Emmanuel and the rest of the conservative Italian establishment. Under the circumstances, that establishment continued to wield influence and Mussolini could not implement everything in the Fascist agenda. But in the Salò Republic (1943-1945) the Italian Fascists actually did implement nationalization of every enterprise with more than 100 employees. That is rather socialist by anybody's definition. 

The NSDAP in Germany also had to compromise with the conservative establishment, which is why figures on the left wing of the NSDAP became disgruntled and began talking about the need for a second revolution, and consequently had to be suppressed with the "Night of the Long Knives" in 1934. 

Conservatism of Means vs. Conservatism of Ends

After the Second World War, the idea of using government for conservative purposes (as, for example, with anti-miscegenation laws, or restrictions on abortion and pornography) came under attack.  

Liberalism thus became the new conservatism. It meant that certain ways of doing things -- the liberal ways -- had to be maintained. Under this pseudo-conservatism,  the Constitution and the free market are not means to an end, but ends in themselves (much like some religious law). Those principles are treated as holy, regardless of whether the country is going to ruin because of them. 

Another way to say it is, presentday American conservatism is a conservatism of means. As long as we keep doing certain things the same old way, the so-called conservatives can claim victory. All the leaders of the Soviet Union between Kruschev and Gorbachev could claim to be conservative in that very same sense, of refusing to adapt. This "conservatism" is in fact rigidity.

Fascism and National-Socialism by contrast represent conservatism of ends. Fascism and National-Socialism looked at their most cherished values, and chose means that they thought would conserve those values. 

For Italian Fascism, the most cherished values were cultural, while for the NSDAP the most cherished value was the racial quality of the German people.  More fundamentally stated, Italians were concerned with continuing to be Italians, and Germans were concerned with continuing to be Germans. The two nations chose means that were in some ways the same, in some ways different, for essentially the same purpose.

So, notwithstanding all the disingenuous blather from presentday American political parties, the bottom line is that National-Socialism and Fascism were simultaneously socialist and, in regard to the survival of their nations, conservative.
* The redefinition of conservatism had not fully taken hold in 1951. Anti-Communist commentator Upton Close was still defending the traditional definition of liberalism: "Liberalism is the system which gives the opportunity for people to earn their own way, and make their own successes or failures, to earn what they get, and get what they earn, and keep what they get. so long as it is not taking from others their opportunity to get and keep. Liberalism is the system whereby people have as little government, as few laws and officials over them as possible, taking as little of their savings and earnings as possible in taxes."(Upton Close, broadcast of 1 April 1951) Today this liberalism would be recognized as the ideology of Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh.

18 November 2017

A Note on so-called White Supremacist Terror

Milton William Cooper with his Chinese wife and their child.

For several years now there has been an effort (for example, by the SPLC) to redirect some of the paranoia about terrorism that developed after 9-11 into a persecution of White racial advocates, on the premise that "White Supremacists" commit a significant amount of terrorism.

I will admit that some of what could be called White Supremacist Terror has happened. There was Glenn Miller who killed three in 2014, and Dylann Roof who killed nine in 2015, and ... what else? In a country with about 14 thousand murders every year "White Supremacist Terror" is a microscopically tiny phenomenon.

You wouldn't know this from the amount of attention devoted by mainstream media. When a Negro criminal kills several White people, it may not even make national news, but when a White person kills several Blacks -- or even one Black, if an argument can be made that it might be racially motivated -- mass-media make sure that everybody knows, and they try to make everyone believe that this is the real crime-problem in the country (when in reality Blacks are much more likely to commit violence against Whites than vice versa).

The rhetoric that is used to magnify and generate alarm about this tiny phenomenon of White Supremacist Terror is based mainly on (1) selectively defining certain actions as terrorism and removing them from the overall context of violence in the United States, and (2) lumping alleged White Supremacist crimes together with crimes that have a completely different motive.

In the case of the death of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville last August, there has been a hasty insistence that James Alex Fields deliberately killed her with his car and therefore committed an act of terrorism, even though he was not even charged with First Degree Murder (at least not until four months after his arrest), and has not yet been convicted of anything, and even though circumstances suggest that it may have been an accident resulting from panic at the fact that he found himself amidst a crowd of Antifa who were attacking his car. People with credentials and in positions of responsibility have been attempting to provoke hysteria about this alleged incident of terrorism and trying to portray it as an example of a much larger problem. They attacked President Trump for not playing along with their histrionics.

From their perspective there really is a "larger problem" but it isn't White Supremacist Terror: it's the fact that White people are now openly organizing in support of White interests. They would like to use the accusation of terrorism to shut down a movement that is completely legal.

The fact that they would leap at such a dubious example to support their complaint of White Supremacist Terror indicates that they really don't have much to show. They are grasping at straws.

What they call "White Supremacist Terrror" is mostly NOT that. 

In the SPLC's report Terror from the Right (2012)  many of the alleged incidences of terror amount to little more than fantasizing out loud, or possessing something that was illegal to possess, rather than an act of violence.

Most crimes in the report were not racially motivated. The most spectacular crime by far, the 1994 Oklahoma City Bombing, was certainly not racially motivated.

A large part of the actual violence that is counted as  White Supremacist Terror is actually perpetrated by "Sovereign Citizens"  and anti-government types in general. It should be noted, however, that Sovereign Citizens are a different kettle of fish entirely from White Nationalists and the Alt Right.

A few decades ago there was a lot of overlap between White racists and people obsessed with the Constitution and individual rights. This was probably a legacy of the Constitutional rhetoric used to oppose federally mandated racial desegregation, for example in the "Southern Manifesto" of 1956, drafted by Strom Thurmond and signed by 101 Southern Congressmen and Senators. Although the real concern was racial, the form that it took was a complaint that the government was not abiding by the Constitution. For several decades it was typical for would-be defenders of White racial interests to use Constitutional arguments -- increasingly, as time progressed, without even mentioning that the real concern was racial. As they became more and more afraid to talk about their racial concern, they talked more and more about substitute concerns, like the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. 

Constitutionalists, in their endeavor to remain within the bounds of respectability, typically have a great fear of criticizing Jews. This, however, leaves a void that has to be filled. How do you explain who is responsible for anti-White agitation and why; how do you explain the paradox of supposedly White people trying to undermine the White race, if you cannot talk about Jews? To fill that void the Constitutionalists resort to substitute terms and substitute conspiracy-theories: "Communists" (which is  true but not the whole truth), "liberals" (which is really only a euphemism for Communists), "Insiders" (a term used by the John Birch Society), "Illuminati."

White racial advocacy seems to be much less tied to Constitutionalism and its inhibitions these days. Why is that?

There is the influence of White racial advocates like George Lincoln Rockwell, and especially William Luther Pierce, whose message has become much more accessible in the age of Internet than it ever could be during their lifetimes. In their discourse they made relatively little reference to the Constitution and  individual rights, because these are useful only for defensive arguments. They introduced a much broader perspective. Instead of pleading for the federal government to abide by the Constitution, Rockwell and Pierce unabashedly focused on race, and explained the actions of the federal government as an attack on the White race, not fundamentally by Blacks, but by Jews. The attack is aimed not so much on our bodies as on our minds. The way to deal with this attack is, first and foremost, to make people aware of it. There was, for example, Dr. Pierce's pamphlet, Who Rules America, detailing Jewish control of mass-media. Once the insight about Jewish influence on our thinking has been gained, that influence can be rejected, and correct thought, and then correct action, can follow.

What is called the Alt Right today seems to owe much more to Rockwell and Pierce than to the Constitutionalists. You can see the continuation of Dr. Pierce's awareness-campaign about Jewish media-control in the use of triple parentheses to identify (((Jewish journalists and other Jewish public figures))), and in the recent attention called to the Jewish trick of representing themselves as a "fellow white person" as a way to be more persuasive to White people. The whole baggage of Constitutionalist ideology is being discarded by the Alt Right. Richard Spencer exclaimed defiantly to a questioner at Texas A&M University, "Big government forever!"

What became of the Constitutionalist approach to defending the White race? It has the mild ramification of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and vote for "less government," and a more strident ramification in phenomena like the patriot movement of the 1990s. Constitutionalism as a strategy for racial survival has the very great disadvantage that it is straitjacketed by the imperative to portray itself in terms of approved values and principles, and therefore, being afraid to talk candidly about its own real purpose, is easily sidetracked.

Jews set up mouthpieces like Milton William Cooper  to make sure that the patriot movement was sidetracked. Anti-racist Constitutionalism was promoted, and seems to have become a significant phenomenon. Whereas racists in the past had invoked the Constitution as a defense for the White race, this new anti-racist Constitutionalism makes the Constitution, and general obsession with individual rights, an end in itself. This is an anti-government ideology with no purpose beyond opposing the government. Consequently, the people who have gravitated to this ideology end up in much pointless conflict with the government, like William Cooper himself who died in a shootout with police over a completely trivial matter. The heir to William Cooper as pontiff of this unhinged movement is Alex Jones, who likewise has Jewish connections.

Some of the people obsessed with the Constitution and individual rights call themselves sovereign citizens. A significant portion of the incidents lumped in with “White Supremacist Terror” have involved sovereign citizens shooting police, whom they believed to be violating their individual rights under color of law, as William Cooper used to teach.

But the sovereign citizens’ movement has no clear connection to White activism of any kind. The defining motives of a sovereign citizen are not racial motives. In fact, some self-described sovereign citizens who have run afoul of the law were not even White. 

Thus, it might make more sense to classify anti-government Constitutionalist violence together with the anti-police violence spawned by Black Lives Matter, rather than using it to pad out so-called "White Supremacist Terror" to make it appear as a much larger phenomenon than it is.

The hullabaloo about “White Supremacist Terror” is largely about crimes that are in no way racially motivated, stemming rather from an ideology promoted by anti-racists, most prominently by Milton William Cooper with the backing of some Jews — Hollywood Jews Aaron Russo and Anthony J. Hilder, to name two whose association with him is publicly known.

The propaganda about “White Supremacist Terror” is mostly a fraud.

13 November 2017

Cenk Uygur's Holocaustian Faux Pas at the Web Summit

A few days ago, Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks show on YouTube was moderating a panel-discussion at the second annual Web Summit in Lisbon, Portugal. When a Muslim on the panel said that Muslims should pursue moderation (thus implying that Muslims had in some way gone wrong), Uygur undertook to defend Islam by attacking Christianity:

“The Holocaust was what? Seventy years ago? It seems like Christianity was monstrous, just seventy years ago, way worse than Islam has ever been, than any religion has ever been. If you took your point of view in 1942, you would say: The Christians are the worst; the Christianists are the ones that are destroying the world! We must reform Christianity, which is so barbaric that it has just killed thirteen million people! These Christians are the problem!” (Cenk Uygur at the 2017 Web Summit)

In the ensuing argument, Uygur emphasized that Christians were by far the most bloodthirsty people of all time....

10 November 2017

Dinesh D'Souza had a bad night on Twitter

The incompetent foreigner made the mistake of challenging me to support my assertion that his book was full of half-truths. The whole point of issuing such a challenge is to say Gotcha! when there is a poor response or no response. 

I posted the answer that I had formulated hours earlier, and D'Souza, instead of saying gotcha, had no comment -- because I was clearly right. 

You will note that there is about an hour's difference between my three posts responding to his challenge, and my follow-up comment about how he shut up after I put up. In the interim he started responding to criticisms from other people that were easier to handle.

I made lots of other anti-Dinesh posts, and I made some friends. Unfortunately most of those who "liked" my anti-Dinesh posts seem to be leftists, but an overt leftist is less reprehensible in my view than a foreign opportunist posing as a "conservative."

09 November 2017

Talking-Points for Demolishing Dinesh D'Souza

This is a compilation of material that was posted or could be posted on Twitter. For a more coherent presentation, go to Hit Dinesh D'Souza on his Most Vulnerable Points

Dinesh D'Souza's narrative about how the Democrats are "the real racists" or, lately, "the real fascists" or even "the real nazis," is so full of holes, and so easily refuted, that it can be hard to understand why anyone could really be taken in by it. 

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

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

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

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

Nineteen out of thirty-two governors who signed eugenic sterilization into law (59%) were Republicans.
The picture that Dinesh D'Souza tries to paint, is that REPUBLICANS WERE ALWAYS CONSERVATIVE AND NON-RACIST, and DEMOCRATS WERE ALWAYS LEFTIST AND RACIST. If eugenic sterilization was mainly a Republican cause then HIS PICTURE IS MESSED UP. That happens to be the case.

Dinesh Hides Republicans behind the word "Progressives"
D'Souza selectively avoids calling eugenicist Republicans by their party-affiliation and calls them “progressives” instead. When D'Souza talks about "progressives" he is usually talking about Republicans.
In fact, the label “progressive” was particularly associated with Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt. D'Souza carefully avoids mentioning this.
Dinesh D'Souza has laid a booby-trap for Republicans with this book. If they follow his lead by noisily condemning eugenic sterilization, it is only a matter of time before somebody points out that it was supported first and foremost by Republicans.
Even today the Republican Party has its "progressives."

The Republican Connection to Slavery

Dinesh D'Souza always claims that only Democrats owned slaves in 1860. When somebody cites the well known fact that Ulysses S. Grant owned a slave, D'Souza asserts that Grant was a Democrat at that time. In fact Grant was nonpartisan. Thus, Grant was a non-Democrat who owned a slave, and far from unique.
Many Whigs were slaveholders. While Northern Whigs who opposed slavery joined the new Republican Party, many Southern Whigs did not. The Confederate Vice-President, Alexander Stephens, was a slaveholding Whig from Georgia. D'Souza's assertion that only Democrats owned Slaves in 1860 is false.
There were also some Republicans who owned slaves. Robert Jefferson Breckinridge, a slaveholder from Kentucky who favored the gradual abolition of slavery and resettlement of freed Blacks outside of the United States, may have been still a Know Nothing in 1860, but was temporary chair of the Republican National Convention in 1864. He supported Lincoln because he wanted the Union to be preserved. Lincoln's exemption of Border States from the Emancipation Proclamation was obviously an accommodation to supporters like Breckinridge who owned slaves.
So, Dinesh D'Souza blames Democrat slaveholders but not Whig slaveholders? What about the fact that Abraham Lincoln campaigned for our three slaveholding Whig presidents -- Wm H. Harrison, J. Tyler, & Z. Taylor? It does not seem that Lincoln was a committed abolitionist at all.

The Supposed Party-Affiliation of the Ku Klux Klan
In 1924. the Democratic presidential nominee John W. Davis denounced the Ku Klux Klan, while the Republican incumbent Calvin Coolidge avoided saying anything on the subject. The result was that the Ku Klux Klan supported Calvin Coolidge in 1924.
Dinesh D'Souza claims that the Ku Klux Klan was "the military wing of the Democratic Party." Anybody who went to school in the United States should know that no U.S. political party ever had a "military wing." Furthermore, the Klan of the 20th century often supported Republicans.
Citing Eric Foner Dinesh D'Souza calls the KKK "the military wing of the Democratic Party." What EF wrote is: "IN EFFECT, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy."
Eric Foner, incidentally, is a neo-Marxist Jew from New York City. Dinesh D'Souza had to lean heavily on such disreputable sources for his book The Big Lie.

Only Democrats would make deals with Fascists? Really?

The USA and Fascist Italy had positive relations, during Republican as well as Democratic administrations, until the invasion of Ethiopia in 1937. Dinesh D'Souza wants to pretend that all men of good will saw Mussolini as a bad guy from the start, and that was not the case.

Segregationist Democrats were Conservative
There used to be conservative Democrats. D’Souza pretends that segregationist Democrats were leftists when in fact figures like Senator James Eastland (Democrat, Mississippi) were regarded as extremely conservative.
Conservative Democrats were not LIBERAL LIKE YOU, Dinesh. They tried to conserve the community school, States' Rights, individual rights, freedom of association, public morality, and LAW & ORDER.
Would you like to explain, Dinesh, what was conservative about federally mandated school-desegregation and forced busing? It looks like LEFT-WING TYRANNY to me, and that was the consensus among White people in the South. CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS OPPOSED THIS LEFT-WING TYRANNY.
Senators LYNDON B. JOHNSON and ALBERT GORE, SR. were NOT TYPICAL SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS. They both REFUSED to sign the 1956 "Southern Manifesto" of opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation.
Two of the 101 Southern politicians who signed the Southern Manifesto were Republicans from Virginia.
They claim, "Democrats voted against Civil Rights," or even, "More Republicans than Democrats voted for civil rights." Both claims are false. The vote was very regional. Not one Southern Republican voted in favor of that Act. The only Southerners voting for it were a few Dems.
Dinesh D'Souza himself has criticized the Civil Rights Act: "Am I calling for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes. The law should be changed so that its nondiscrimination provisions apply only to the government."(Dinesh D'Souza, The End of Racism, 1996, p. 544)

Dinesh D'Souza says: "Every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature and signed by a Democratic governor." This is literally impossible, since most of those states had adopted anti-miscegenation laws before the Democratic Party even existed.
One state of the "Jim Crow South," West Virginia, received its  segregation-laws under Republican rule, beginning with Arthur I. Boreman in 1863.

Eugenic Sterilization and the former Confederacy
The eugenicist movement was weaker in the former Confederacy than in the rest of the country.
While 32 out of 48 (67%) of the United States enacted eugenic sterilization laws, only 55% of former Confederate states enacted such laws, compared to 70% of the other States.

Eugenic Sterilization and Racial Segregation

17 states had MANDATORY racial segregation. Of these, only 9 (53%) enacted eugenic sterilization laws. 16 states PROHIBITED racial segregation: Of these, 11 (69%) enacted eugenic sterilization laws. There was NO RELATIONSHIP between racial segregation and eugenic sterilization laws.
23 out of 32 states that enacted eugenic sterilization laws had no mandatory racial segregation. 
In fact, states with mandatory racial segregation were somewhat less likely to enact eugenic sterilization laws, compared to states without racial segregation.

The Southern Segregationist Migration to the GOP
White Southern Democrats started voting for the GOP because Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972 seemed to oppose forced busing. This method of winning the segregationist vote for the GOP, called Nixon's southern strategy, was devised by Kevin Phillips.
Dinesh D'Souza tries to obfuscate the well known fact that most Southern segregationists switched to the GOP by putting the focus on Segregationist politicians, of whom very few switched parties.
Not many segregationist politicians changed parties, because the Democratic Party continued to be dominant until 1980. Politicians like Senator James Eastland (who died in 1979) would have been less influential in the GOP. But those segregationists were conservative!

The Big Switch that Dinesh D'Souza Denies
Some significant public figures from the South who switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party are: John Tower, 1951; Strom Thurmond, 1964; Jesse Helms, 1970; Trent Lott, 1972.
More Democratic than Republican politicians voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964: in the House there were 153 D and 136 R votes in favor; in the Senate, 46 D and 27 R votes in favor. And of course it was signed by a Democratic president, sleazy LBJ.
In 1964 there were, from the former Confederacy, 12 Republican Congressmen and 1 Republican Senator (John Tower of Texas): every single one of them voted against the Civil Rights Act.
The racial attitudes of the two parties by 1983 can be roughly gauged by the Senate's vote on a holiday to commemorate MARTIN LUTHER KING. While majorities of both parties voted for the holiday, ONLY 4 DEMOCRATS -- BUT 18 REPUBLICANS -- VOTED AGAINST THE HOLIDAY. 

 A Misrepresentation of Both Parties
As it turns out, what D'Souza calls the nazi roots of the American left are, on the one hand, “progressive” Republicans, and, on the other hand, conservative Democrats that have now migrated almost entirely to the GOP.
D’Souza pretends that “progressive” Republicans and conservative Democrats were the same group. Furthermore, he wants us to believe that they were all left-wing Democrats. Clearly, none of them were left-wing Democrats! 

Dinesh D'Souza on Andrew Jackson and Genocide
In America: Imagine the World Without Her, Dinesh D'Souza declared that "there was no genocide" of American Indians, that this was just another Big Lie by the left to make Americans ashamed of their country. But now Dinesh D'Souza himself is telling this "Big Lie."
"By some estimates, more than 80 percent of the Indians perished.... But there was no genocide. Millions of Indians died as a result of diseases they contracted from their exposure to the White man: smallpox, measles, cholera, and typhus...."  (Dinesh S'Souza, A:ITWWH, p. 93)
"Today we think of Indians as tragic figures, woebegone on the reservation. But that's not how Andrew Jackson ... saw them. Jackson knew the Indians were canny, organized, and strong.... We should not regard the Indians as passive weaklings." (Dinesh D'Souza, A:ITWWH, p. 102)
“What term other than genocide can we use to describe Democratic president Andrew Jackson's mass relocation of the Indians?” (Dinesh D'Souza, The Big Lie, 2017) "But there was no genocide." (Dinesh D'Souza, America: Imagine the World Without Her, 2014)

Dinesh D'Souza quotes Andrew Jackson out of context, "It was dark before we finished killing them," and leads his readers to believe that this refers to an act of genocide. In fact those killed (generally) were warriors fighting to the death in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend.

Dinesh D’Souza’s attack on Andrew Jackson as a “racist” would instantly be recognized and reviled as Cultural Marxist propaganda if it were not clothed in Republican partisanism.
What do you think President Trump would say about Dinesh D'Souza's attack on Andrew Jackson as a "racist," given Trump's admiration for President Jackson, and the fact that he has been compared to President Jackson (and likewise called a "racist")?

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

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

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

06 November 2017

Followers of Dinesh D'Souza are Stupid.

This post appears on Dinesh D'Souza's Twitter page: 

What follows is an obviously satirical song that has Democrats boasting of their racism and various unpleasantries that Cultural Marxist (Jewish) propaganda emphatically associates with racism. It includes the line, "Stick with us and we'll create an Aryan nation." In other words, it is a song that echoes D'Souza's own bizarre characterization of the Democratic Party, in his books Hillary's America and The Big Lie.

That already should be enough for somebody with an ounce of common sense to conclude that the song wasn't really made by Democrats. But there's more: one of the vocalists uses a funny voice. You have to be more than just poorly informed. You have to be very dim to think that this is real.

Nonetheless, a majority of the comments on D'Souza's post are from people who believe that it is real. (There are many more than I can show in a screenshot.)

It was so bad that a Jew, Rubin Friedman, felt obliged to explain to D'Souza's gullible goy followers that it was a joke.

I guess that I should not be surprised. If they could accept the rubbish that he has peddled in his books, then they are ready to believe anything.

It is really too bad that the eugenic sterilization movement initiated by Republicans more than a century ago did not make greater progress in raising the national IQ.

* * *

UPDATE (11PM EST): D'Souza apparently recognized today that his followers cannot tell whether he is serious or joking, and now tells them up front when he is joking.

05 November 2017

Maurice Bardèche on Mussolini

The broad outline of Bardèche's view of Mussolini is intuitively obvious. Clearly, Mussolini accomplished good things for Italy, and then, at some point, became unrealistically ambitious. How much more fortunate Fascist Italy would have been if the temptation of an opportunistic entry into the Second World War, at a moment when France was already on the verge of defeat, had been resisted.

Since I know little about Mussolini, I can only accept what Bardèche says about him. Regarding the next section, about Hitler, I shall have some points of contention.

I omit the first few paragraphs of this chapter, where Bardèche argues that he as a fascist does not have to approve everything that a fascist has ever done. That point should be self-evident.

The Caesarism of Mussolini
Maurice Bardèche 
From Qu'est-ce que le FASCISME? (1961)

...  The first version of fascism that contemporary history presents to us is Italian Fascism. Originally, it is a movement of socialist activists and veterans that saves Italy from Bolshevism.

Mussolini's mother was a schoolteacher, and his father was a blacksmith who was an activist for the Communist International. Mussolini was imprisoned at the age of twenty for having fomented a general strike. He is initially defiant, takes up exile in Switzerland, translates Kropotkin; the first periodical that he founds is called La Lotta di Classe (The Class-Struggle); the first daily newspaper that he manages is a socialist newspaper. The beginnings of Fascism are consistent with this origin. The speech at San Sepulcro, which is the birth-certificate of the fascio, proclaims the confiscation of the property of the newly wealthy (nouveax riches), the dissolution of the large secret societies, the redistribution of land, the participation of  workers in the management of businesses, and the suppression of titles of nobility.

In twenty years, what from this program did Fascism fulfill? What we can say, what we must say, is that it was something else. Very quickly, Fascism forgot a large part of its revolutionary program in order to accomplish a work of practical efficiency and unity. It had come to power to avert anarchy, chaos, civil war. It acted with great urgency to reestablish order, work, peace. Then it organized and constructed. Italy became again the nation of builders. The Roman sap once again flowed in the old tree-trunk. Mussolini was initially a proconsul. Fascism produced roads, hospitals, schools, aqueducts; it drained marshes; it increased the harvests. "Asfaltar no es gubernar" [1], was one reaction. But it also governed. Mussolini established corporatism, an achievement requiring much more finesse than an Autobahn. The Charter of Labor was certainly not the echo of the speech at San Sepulcro. But it realistically laid the foundations of a socialist city that the future could expand: the replacement of parliamentary assemblies with union-meetings (instances syndicales), the representation of workers, collective contracts, social security, organization of leisure-activities, were so many beginnings that a will for socialist management could develop and transform. There was however one essential condition. Since Fascism wanted to maintain private property while imposing its will on the selfishness of liberal capitalism, it was necessary to know that the Fascist state found itself faced at every moment with surreptitious opposition, and that it was committed to perpetual vigilance.

This was thus the youth of Fascism and I confess that I cannot think of it without nostalgia. There were black shirts and boots, lictors and raised arms, but without anything raucous and colossal. Mussolini was barely guarded. He loved the people, the children, informality. He was easily accessible. Sometimes, he took his red car -- which he drove, it was said, quite badly -- and departed alone to wander in his province of Italy more simply than a Laelius or a Scipio ever had. He was beloved. "You are all of us," was said to him. The slogans had not appeared on the walls and it was not an article of faith that Mussolini was always right. It was a "popular dictatorship," said the Fascists themselves,  words with a bizarre resonance today. It was the time when Mussolini wore white gaiters and a bowler hat. I quite love this touching period.

The Fascist style came only later, with its uniforms, its emblems, its inscriptions, its heel-clickings, and its chief portrayed with fists on hips and chin high. These military forms of discipline symbolize the unity of the nation. They make the nation feel its own strength; they intoxicate it with effectiveness, with energy; they promise to it manly action; they speak to it about honor and sacrifice. Through them, man escapes his mediocre and routine life, from the joyless function that he humbly performs in the city; he becomes a soldier at his post; his life has a meaning; he is united with the other men of his nation as a soldier is united with his comrades. Traditional Fascism recognizes itself in the parades of these young heroes who are quite hard, quite uncompromising, who can also furnish at once, as blind destiny demands, martyrs or butchers, brutes or saints. The struggle against power, the struggle to prevent nations from dying, cannot do without these phalanxes, I know. Always the suit of lights.

But if the very life of the nation is based on this military civic-mindedness, how
dangerous it becomes! Mussolini, having become Duce, declared infallible, no longer appearing except on the balcony like a pope, accompanied by dignitaries who come to a halt six paces in front of him, loses in my eyes all the charm of the little socialist
schoolteacher who had become his people's guide. And above all, he is no longer the people's guide that he was. The splendor of majesty, the habit of performance, separate him from men. He no longer knows Italy except through spectacular tours and the reports of prefects. This consul, in the midst of ovations, condemns himself to being no more than a bureaucrat. The dignitaries of Fascism are his eyes, his hand, his lictors. And if these men are idiots? If the distance becomes greater each day between the real country and the idea that the helmeted army maintains in the mind of the dictator as it passes under his windows singing?

The catastrophe of Italian Fascism had perhaps no other origin. Mussolini, irritated by the sanctions, was dreaming of an Italy that would be military, Roman, helmeted, invincible. He heard the footstep of the legions. And the footstep of the legions echoed, in fact, under his windows; his praetors were showing the locations of his camps to him on maps. He spoke of the "warrior nation" and, as a consequence of speaking about it, he believed in the "warrior nation." He forgot the charming Italian people and the mandolins of Naples and the hardworking craftsmen of Italy and its immense poor lands and the steaming soup on the table of the family that awaits the children in the evening. He was beholding a dictator's dream instead of the face of Italy. And he was forgetting also that social justice is a battle that is won each day, that it demands an infinite love and infinite attention, that there is need of constant monitoring to defend the workers against the rich, and that one cannot rely on the reports of prefects.

Lost in his dream of grandeur, he played with the shadow and forgot the essential. As emperor of a phantom nation, he presses buttons that activate nothing. But finally, as Lieutenant Bonaparte at Montereau and Champaubert[2] nearly saved the success of Napoleon, it is the little socialist schoolteacher who miraculously came to the aid of Mussolini the dictator.

Nothing is more moving in the history of Italian Fascism than the return to roots accomplished under the iron fist of defeat. The program of the Salò Republic in 1944 is that upon which Mussolini ought, twenty years earlier, to have staked his power and his life. That is the true Fascism. But, like the battles of the French countryside, it came too late. There is a moment when no wisdom can any longer stop the avalanches caused by mistakes. Mussolini died of his caesarism, of the isolation that caesarism brings, of the delusions that it allows to develop, of the optimism and the easy satisfactions with which it contents itself, of the stardust that it casts into the eyes of others, and that finally blinds it. Italian Fascism was possessed by the ghost of Rome: in this intoxication with history, it lost touch with reality. We must learn that fascism cannot content itself with being a caesarism.
[1] To pave is not to govern. This was actually said, not about Mussolini but about Franco, by Salvador de Madariaga, a Spanish expatriate who lived in England and enjoyed high status there as a proponent of liberalism. 
[2]  These were among Napoleon's last battles, in February 1814, wherein he made efficient use of his small force against much greater numbers. The performance in these last battles, although excellent, was not sufficient to win the war and prevent Napoleon's exile to Elba.