Dinesh D'Souza

[Foxie Loxie]

I had not heard of this man until he was pardoned by the President. So last night I decided to find out about him.

My, my...it seems we have an American Hero raised in India! OR...we could say his story is a splendid example of the "weaponization" of the DOJ during recent past administrations; sort of a perfect example of Selective Prosecution.

Apparently, he has a movie coming out next month called "Death of a Nation". Now I understand why the President said to him, "Keep doing what you're doing", or words to that effect.

Two terms that stood out to me were, "Global Energy Redistribution" & "Fascism of Institutions". Appreciated his term "Criminals with badges", as well. It seems a certain group of people wanted to bring the U.S. down to the level of a Third World Country to pay us back for all our "colonialism".

I wonder how many others are still incarcerated for daring to speak their mind? As Bill Still says...."The once Free Speech capital of the world"!

My stance is...Pro Rule of Law! That we all be held accountable to the same set of standards. Now...how do we get there?!

[robinr1]

He truly is a great man!!!

[mojo]

His public debate on Alinsky with Alinsky's own son was really good and relates to current political climate.... but I posted this short one below...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BFQtvhedC6Y

here's the Alinsky link...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pwxIxz5lEg

[Valerie Villars]

I saw a quite good documentary from him a few months back, where he deconstructed the Democratic party's true agenda (according to him) and it was really well done.

I pretty much like anyone who challenges "the system" in an intelligent and authentic way.

[turiya]

Dinesh D'Souza certainly has studied American history well enough. Born in India, he knows American history better that most. Take the origin of the Klu Klux Klan for example.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=blJKdNr5VSU

[Smell the Roses]

My daughter and I saw D'Souza speak at Western Michigan University. It must have been about ten years ago. What impressed me besides his intelligent and humorous articulation of ideas, was his ability to deal with the protestors and hecklers in the audience. He kept his cool and addressed them in a logical and non-emotional way. He was a good model of what universities were supposed to be about: The free exchange of ideas. The hecklers weren't into dialogue, of course, but a valiant attempt was made by D'Souza.

[Cardillac]

hi @Foxie!

many thanks for posting this and I hope and pray you're keeping your heart problems at length! :-)))

my 2 hernia operations continue to heal with time /continually less of a screwdriver being jabbed into one's groin- but despite all that (doesn't interest Avalon)...

I once read the name D'Souza as being first arrested (under which grounds/administration I was totaly unaware- under which administration?) but thanks to your posting I've become aware of this incredible man-

there's a lot of positive info coming out now about Trump and all of us initally anti-Trumpers need to take heed of this- whether all of this is info is truthful or not only time will tell- but we need to keep a positive attitude and hope for the best- so what else would be left?-

Larry :-)

[Foxie Loxie]

"Death of a Nation"

Yesterday D'Souza's new movie premiered! It just cracks me up how a man from India became a citizen of the U.S. & he can tell us more about our own history than we have learned in our schools!

I do hope people will support this movie....he was so "dangerous" that he was imprisoned by the Obama administration.

[Valerie Villars]

One of the sagest pieces of advice I ever got was from an Indian national. His family owned the store down the street from where I lived. Very nice people.

I couldn't believe Trump had won and was in the store the next morning and remarked on it.

He said, "Nothing will change."

I was happy Trump had won.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by turiya (here)
Dinesh D'Souza certainly has studied American history well enough. Born in India, he knows American history better that most. Take the origin of the Klu Klux Klan for example.

I like Dinesh, but his interpretation of the Civil War is pretty obviously politicized. I understand what he's doing, pointing out the direct relationship between the earlier iterations of the Democratic Party and its modern version, and that's a good thing. The Democratic Party is far from pure when it comes to racial issues, and it was in fact the party of the KKK. But outside of a few facts like that, the direct relationship he is trying to make between the Democratic party of 1860 and the Democratic party of today is rather limited.

When people say the two parties have "switched" since 1860, that's not entirely true either. The reality is that some policies switched parties and others did not, and it isn't a clean equivalency in either case.

The fact that the Civil War happened at all was a huge tragedy. All other major nations that held slaves in the west freed them without warfare. Brazil had the most slaves by far, and freed its slaves without having to fight a war. Mexico also freed its slaves without such violence.

Another little-known fact is that about 1 million blacks died during the Civil War and the beginning of Reconstruction. Out of a total population of about 4 million in 1860, that equates to a full quarter of the total black population. Why? Because the plantations they farmed were taken by Yankees, or destroyed, and they were driven from the land. They died of starvation, exposure, disease, and general neglect. The Lincoln administration was well aware of this problem before Lincoln's death, but they didn't bother to do anything about it (showing how much they actually cared for the slaves), and neither did any successive administration for a long time.

Lincoln, who was also responsible for the single largest extrajudicial execution of Native Americans in US history, was once asked about this problem, in February of 1865. Alexander Stephens asked Lincoln what they should do with the freed slaves who were unable to work to feed themselves. Lincoln's response was "Root, hog, or die!", which was a common expression of that era referring to the practice of setting hogs loose in forests so they could forage for food on their own. In other words, Lincoln was saying that they were on their own to live or die, and that was his position, even as Yankees looted and pillaged the South.

Lincoln and his party also did not believe that whites and blacks could successfully live among one another. He famously wanted to send the former slaves back to Liberia, in Africa, where most of them would surely starve to death. Others in his party proposed creating a reservation in Florida similar to Native American reservations, but for the freed slaves instead.

For all that is said of how evil Southerners were in the ante-bellum South, the unavoidable truth is that whites and blacks lived together, often in the very same house, in the South. They went to church together, they worked together. You couldn't say that about the North. In the North, which was almost exclusively white, people didn't want blacks around anywhere. At one time, Lincoln's home state of Illinois barred the entry of all blacks, regardless of whether they were free or slaves. When historians say that the Civil War was a result of conflicting visions of the western frontier, and that Northerners didn't want slavery in the West, that's only partially true. In fact, Northerners didn't want any black people in the West, slaves or not. To this day cities in the North such as Chicago, Detroit, and New York have some of the worst racial tension in our entire country.

So, in light of all of that, Dinesh isn't giving the whole picture of Lincoln and that war. Like I said, I understand what he's doing, and Trump says many of the same things, for the same reason. But he is first and foremost a political activist, not a historian, and that's what needs to be kept in mind here. His political activism is what had Obama persecute him in the first place. He is highlighting the racial injustices of the Democratic Party, which is fair enough. But he is presenting it in a very activist kind of way, as any deeper look into the historical reality would illustrate.


Here is an old interview an with ex-slaves that some of you might find interesting. There are several of these on YouTube.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3VTFkyDrH3M

The speaker (who was a slave before the Civil War) says (beginning around 6:20) that after the war, more black people showed up on the plantation to work than had been there previously, because they were destitute and had nowhere else to go to farm, having been run off from their previous homes because of the war. The plantation owner basically ran his plantation as he had before the war, but moved to a sharecropping arrangement where the freed slaves still working for him were allowed to keep (and sell) a greater portion of whatever they made, the rest being paid as rent to the landowner. Sharecropping was a common arrangement after the war, but unfortunately so were chain gangs and mass starvation. And the Yankee administrations did absolutely nothing to help this situation, and never actually had any interest in it.



This other work Dinesh is doing is more interesting to me:

D’Souza Gets White Supremacist Richard Spencer To Admit Being A Socialist Progressive
[...]
D’Souza attempts to dispel in the film that the Republican party is the party of racists. In one particularly compelling interview, D’Souza grilled notorious white supremacist Richard Spencer. Spencer is typically associated with the conservative right and Republicans. D’Souza drilled down to what Spencer actually believes.

Spencer’s responses are revealing and not at all in alignment with the foundations of liberty, conservatism or modern Republicanism.

D’Souza gets Spencer to admit that all rights come from the state. Spenser shrugs off the idea of natural rights, opting for a statist opinion that “ultimately the state gives rights to you.” Spencer said he did not admire Reagan but instead looked to president’s Jackson and Polk as role models.

When confronted on Jackson being the founder of the Democratic party, Spencer demurred, “Party is just the vessel one uses,” Spencer replies.

Later in the film, Spencer admits that he could be aligned with the political views of a “progressive Democrat from the 1920s.” D’Souza eventually gets Spencer to identify as a “progressive” in his world views after explaining the roots of the Democratic party.

“I guess I’m a progressive,” Spencer says in the footage.

Further footage shows Spencer saying he embraces socialism and intervention socialism, embracing nationalized healthcare and economic government control.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/02/ds...cer-socialism/


I've said it for months now: Richard Spencer is a shill. He started his activism during the Obama administration and is probably picking up a paycheck from the FBI. This interview Dinesh did shows once and for all that Spencer is a socialist progressive, and has disdain for the principles of our founding fathers, such as the idea that certain rights are inalienable and from a Higher Power, not from the government.

Dinesh exposed Jason Kessler similarly. Kessler was an Occupy Wall Street shill and there is at least one CNN article in his name, as a reporter on the Occupy movement. He broke up with one of his girlfriends for not being liberal enough, shortly before the 2016 election. So that should tell you just about everything you need to know about these people.