Print this post Print this post

Conservatives are the Real Anti-Whites:
Dinesh D’Souza’s Death of a Nation

2,748 words

Going to the movie theater is a religious ritual of sorts for me. My soda is my wine, and the dehydrated corn kernels accented with sludge are my wafers. They are a debauched communion. The largely Jewish-controlled entertainment industry is my church, and on this occasion, D’Souza was my minister. I received a typical sermon telling me that Jews died for my sins of ethnic identity. Like a good goy, I gave my offering to the teenager in the ticket booth beforehand, and she provided me with a program. Fortunately, I didn’t have to sing or follow along like I would with a church hymnal. I simply plopped down in the seat to which it directed me. I simply had to be a receptive, dumb audience member.

Okay, enough of that overdrawn analogy.

Neoconservative Dinesh D’Souza’s new film, Death of a Nation, is another crazy, illogical propaganda piece. However, it got me to think a bit, and I hope the following review will get the reader to think as well.

Summary

The film begins with an overview of Trump’s 2016 victory, where we see many Leftists accusing Trump of being a fascist. D’Souza has a new task: to prove that Trump isn’t a fascist and that the Democrats are the real fascists.

For D’Souza, the Democrat Party today is 100% responsible for everything that people in the party did from its inception, including supporting slavery. We might call this permanent institutional culpability. No matter how much the institution’s ideals, practices, and people change, it is always fundamentally the same thing, in D’Souza’s mind. The Republican Lincoln prevented the Democrat Party from enslaving blacks. The Republicans also created the Freedman’s Bureau to help the blacks. While this institution did many things that LBJ’s Great Society and Roosevelt’s New Deal also did, it wasn’t bad because, for D’Souza, only the Democrat Party can be bad. When the Democrat Party doles out aid, it is enslaving people and making them dependent on the government. When the Republican Party does it, it’s helping them to escape slavery. This is D’Souza’s crazy logic.

According to D’Souza, the Democrat Party then substituted progressive ideology for slavery so it could control people on a society-wide level rather than only on plantations. D’Souza’s contention that the slaveowners conspired to become progressives is laughable. He cites no evidence for it whatsoever.

Many progressives admired Hitler, a fact which D’Souza emphasizes. The actor who plays Hitler in the film, Pavel Kříž, is a Jew and looks like a Jew, having a leptorrhine nose, a half-circle skin fold on each side of his mouth, and bulging eyes. He and other National Socialist characters angrily shout all their lines and generally behave like thugs. Indeed, the Old Right was very mafia-like in some ways, and D’Souza is all too happy to show us this. He shows footage of antifa violence and claims it’s “just like the Nazis,” as further proof that the two are somehow the same.

Progressives were eugenicists. Eugenics, for D’Souza, is inhumane and evil. He doesn’t give a reasoned explanation for why this is the case, but rather shows us a horror-film caricature of it, conflating it with Mengele’s experiments.

It’s popular in Conservatism, Inc. to ridicule George Soros, a current Leftist supervillain, for having pretended to be a Christian and worked on behalf of the Nazis to assess the value of properties that were confiscated from Jews in Hungary during the Second World War. For D’Souza, this was a shameful act. However, it’s interesting that Soros’ father paid someone to take him in so that he could survive in secret. Jews have no problem with offering bribes and using crypsis when they feel threatened. It also reminds me of how Greg Johnson has quoted the Bible passage where an ancient Hebrew reduces the odds of his family being wiped out by sending some of his kin as hostages to a clan that is threatening to invade so that, if and when the clan attacks, at least some of them will survive. Maybe Soros’ father was following this idea.

D’Souza links fascism with socialism. The young Mussolini indeed believed in socialism, but recognized that workers would never unite across the world in the way Marx believed they would because of their ethnic and national allegiances, so he created the concept of Fascism, which combined nationalism with socialism. D’Souza claims that fascism is bad because of its alleged socialistic inspiration. He also claims that adherence to one’s ethnic identity causes nations to collapse from within. Hence the title, Death of a Nation, which is a play on the title of D. W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation, which was instrumental in getting the 1924 laws restricting immigration into America passed. Speaking of immigration, he admits that nations can collapse from external forces as well, but glosses over that bit, for obvious reasons.

D’Souza attempts to debunk the notion that Nixon developed a Southern strategy to get the votes of segregationist whites in the South, but I dozed off during that part. (I mean, it was a boring film.) To make up for it, I watched a few videos of D’Souza talking about the subject. He claims that most blacks switched from the party of Lincoln to Roosevelt’s New Deal party for the welfare benefits, but he never explains why Southern whites switched to the Republican Party following the introduction of LBJ’s Great Society. Regardless, to prove that Democrats are the real fascists, he feels he must deal with the issue.

I perked up when the film mentioned the Alt Right. He interviewed Richard Spencer. Spencer tried to answer his questions honestly, but D’Souza was not interested in an honest discussion. It’s clear D’Souza was simply trying to entice soundbites out of Spencer to make him look like a cookie-cutter economic Leftist. This would make it easier for the audience to write him off. He followed this with a clip of Spencer saying he supports national healthcare. D’Souza’s message is thus that Spencer, Hitler, progressives, Democrats of all eras, and modern-day Leftists are all the same because they want to enslave humanity in various ways. The film was brusque in its treatment of the Alt Right but correct in asserting that Trump is not like Spencer and the Alt Right. Indeed, Trump is a civic nationalist, who simply happens to be better from an Alt Right perspective than any of his opponents were.

D’Souza then tries to cast pro-whites as anti-Christian, citing how Hitler allegedly secretly believed that the religion undermined the German people. D’Souza offers we goyim a Christian role model: Sophie Scholl, who distributed pamphlets calling for resistance against the Nazis in the Third Reich, citing Bible verses as support. The Nazis executed her for her dissent. D’Souza’s message is thus that pro-white advocates are out to get Christians in a similar manner.

Apart from this, there is a lot of emotional music in the film and several lyrical performances, one of them by black gospel singer Angela Primm, who sings in a church as the camera cuts to various scenes of iconic American cities and landmarks. Her singing consisted of nothing more than low-IQ clichés, but the Americana scenes were nice.

The overall message was that Democrats are the real fascists, and thus we goyim have nothing to regret in supporting Trump. Indeed, we’re as kosher as can be.

My Take

Let’s analyze D’Souza’s claim that Democrats are still slaveowners. One could see how a modern Catholic apologist like D’Souza would ascribe institutional continuity to Democrats because the Catholic Church, as recently as a century ago, taught that all non-Catholics went to Hell and that even a lot of Catholics were going to Hell. Nowadays, they teach that everyone goes to Heaven. This is a fundamental change, yet the Catholic Church sees itself as being the same institution. D’Souza strains to find similarities between the Democrats of yore and modern ones. I must say that despite all its changes, the Catholic Church has changed less since the early twentieth century than the Democrat Party has since the mid-nineteenth century. Believing in the Catholic Church’s continuity is thus not as much of a stretch as believing in the Democrat Party’s.

Regarding D’Souza’s claim that the Alt Right has a lot in common with twentieth-century fascism, I’m probably the wrong person to consult on the matter. Plenty of Counter-Currents writers can offer great commentary on that. I will say that one thing modern White Nationalists have in common with the progressives of yore is in the notion that society is broken. Just as progressives believed that government needed to intervene to make the world a better place, today White Nationalists believe that governments have a role to play in stopping immigration, as well as the white fertility rate from continuing its frightful decline toward extinction. They also believe that governments can be useful in stopping miscegenation and establishing white homelands. White survival is more important than – to paraphrase Greg Johnson – the freedom and livelihoods of the brown people who will replace us.

Most White Nationalists believe that a nation shouldn’t have dysgenic fertility, or a situation where less intelligent and criminally-inclined people outbreed smart, law-abiding people. To stop this, we can simply engage in positive eugenics where we incentivize smart, stable people to have more kids while not resorting to the sterilization of anyone. But only government can make this happen.

White Nationalists aren’t scary people who want to hurt others, nor do they scream and shout all the time like the Nazis in the film. Stupid people tend to be loud. Thus, African-Americans, 85% of whom have an IQ below the white average of 100, tend to be very loud. Whites aren’t nearly as loud on average, and doubtless the National Socialists weren’t, either.

D’Souza acknowledges that George Soros, a Jew from Hungary, and Tom Steyer, who is a Northeast WASP/Jewish hybrid, fund many Leftist groups. Nevertheless, Jews as a group are beyond reproach for him.

Concerning D’Souza claim that a nation which adheres to a particular ethnic identity collapses from within, this is certainly not true of racially homogeneous nations. It is only a problem in multiethnic ones, where several ethnic groups vie for power. And it’s especially a problem when one group dominates another. South Asians like D’Souza don’t dominate whites. I estimate that there are 6 to 7 million South Asians in the US. South Asians are therefore 2.2% of the American population. They are about 1.8% of US billionaires, or 11 out of 585. Whites are equally likely per capita to be billionaires. They are 60% of the US population but around 58% of all billionaires, or 339 out of 585.

Despite only being as numerous as South Asians, Jews are 35% of all US billionaires, or 204 out of 585, making them 16 times more likely to be billionaires than either South Asians or whites. Lest one think this is merely a quirky phenomenon pertaining to billionaires, according to a surname analysis of zip codes cross-referenced with the income levels of residents, Jews make up a quarter of the 1%, and a tenth of all US millionaires. That’s what D’Souza is arguing for in his film. He’s arguing for maintaining an oligarchy split between Jews and others, but which includes Jews as an incredibly privileged minority. That, for him, is freedom.

D’Souza neglects to mention that Jews were even more privileged in Weimar Germany. One pamphlet claims that in Berlin during the Weimar era, Jews were half of all doctors, lawyers, and medical teachers, a third of chemists, and a quarter of teachers in non-medical schools. They were similarly powerful in business, having made up 58% of those involved with commerce, and far more likely to own companies. Jews seem to inevitably reach a point in any white nation where they share power with whites in an oligarchy. They use this power to undermine and ridicule the culture of whites. When poor whites get tired this, they say to rich whites, “Jews are an alien group occupying positions of power that could be yours,” and then both rich and poor whites team up to expel the Jewish component of the oligarchy. Usually all they do is expel them, but unfortunately, as happened in Nazi Germany, sometimes they are killed. This trend of Jews cozying up to a white elite, wearing out their welcome, and eventually being expelled has been repeated countless times throughout history, dating back to the early medieval period. This is why Jews and whites should always live in separate nations, for the betterment of both.

D’Souza admits that nations also collapse due to external forces. However, he doesn’t admit the glaringly obvious fact that immigrants are causing white America to collapse. Since 2000, the Republican Party has remained 88% white, despite non-whites increasing by 45% during the same period. It is simple math to project that the more non-whites there are, the more the modern Democrat Party will gain power. This is what everybody who’s not selling snake oil believes. This is also why so many whites turned out for Trump. They know they’re on the edge of oblivion, and they want Trump to save them. D’Souza side-steps this question because he knows that non-white immigrants are on the rise, and he hopes that even they can be persuaded to vote Republican. Nevertheless, even non-white Republicans can breed whites out of existence.

D’Souza is not like most non-white immigrants. He is the reverse of Charles Stuart (1758-1828), a white officer in the British East India Company who adopted Hindu culture and earned the nickname “Hindoo Stuart.” Stuart bathed in the Ganges River in Calcutta every morning, amassed a collection of Hindu deities and icons of worship, wore Indian clothes, and praised the ways of Indian women, whom he regarded as more sensible, simple, and elegant than Western women. Most white people who sojourned in India during the British East India Company’s reign did not do as Stuart did, and most non-whites in America will not do as D’Souza has. They will not adopt white religion, political ideology, or societal conventions. They will follow their innate sensibilities, which differ strongly on average from the white average. They will not be “white D’Souza.”

At the beginning of the film, D’Souza admits that he came to America not because of its laws, but because of its people, who according to him are hardworking and individualistic, and yet affirming of their immediate family. I guess they were better than the population of India, where the average IQ is 82 and the population is completely non-white, lazy, and nepotistic.

The country D’Souza likes so much was 80% white when he arrived in 1978. Anthropologist Geert Hofstede devised an individualism index, where he scores Western European nations as the most individualistic. Sociobiologist Kevin MacDonald claims whites emphasize the nuclear family more and their extended family less than other groups, and that this inclination goes back to formative years in the Paleolithic. It’s time for D’Souza to admit that he came to America because of white people.

Regarding Christianity, it’s true that many whites are Christians, but they have more to fear from Jews than they do from White Nationalists. Jews were instrumental in getting prayer taken out of public schools. White Nationalists, meanwhile, are either indifferent to or supportive of it. Jews lobbied to get gay marriage passed and want to force Christians to bake gay wedding cakes. White Nationalists are in fact probably more tolerant of homosexuality than the average Republican, but they don’t seek to celebrate it for its own sake, and instead encourage homosexuals to become supporters of their race rather than fall for the Jewish agenda.

I identify as a Christian. The editors of Counter-Currents tolerate me and my beliefs. In fact, they have a Good Friday Special every year. I’m planning on writing an article for the next one, explaining how Jesus had a white personality in many respects, and how he deviated strongly from the Middle Eastern norm. I could never write that article for another publication, not even any “conservative” one, because the Jews would lobby to have me dismissed from the publication for writing it. So it’s clear that there is a place for Christians in a white movement and a white ethnostate.

America means something to D’Souza. It means something to me as well, but something different: it should be a place where whites can survive and flourish for generations to come. A white ethnostate is my America, wherever it happens to be, and I’m a little more frank about the race I like.

Related

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

3 Comments

  1. H.Botmxty
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    [. . .] FYI, as D’Souza and others point out, southern whites shifted to the party of Lincoln in the 80’s due to the economic prosperity under Reagan.

    Finally, Richard Spencer disavowed Reagan, praised Democrats Jackson and Polk, supported socialism, and stated all rights come from government, not God. Spencer damned himself with his own words.

    My question to you is, do you agree with Spencer?

    I give Death of a Nation a solid B because it wasn’t as good as some of D’Souzas previous work and I wasn’t high a kite while watching it.

    • nineofclubs
      Posted August 7, 2018 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      I’d say yes – I agree with Spencer.

      White nationalism and ‘cookie cutter economic socialism’ have historically gone hand in hand. This shouldn’t be surprising. There’s nothing fundamentally inconsistent in the two respective world views. Indeed, the US has a proud history of of labor union activity – especially on your west coast – that’s firmly in this tradition.

      Where D’Souza’s argument turns ridiculous is in trying to associate the socially liberal, rabidly globalist mainstream left of today with the socially moderate, nationalist left which existed in most Western countries until the mid 60’s. The difference is chalk and cheese.

      If you’re interested, the four articles found in the site linked below provide some further context. They relate to Australian nationalism, but the situation across the Anglosphere was broadly similar.

      http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/sr-nature/index.html

    • James Dunphy
      Posted August 11, 2018 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      Socialism will not “damn” the white race. Mass immigration of nonwhites will. It took 40k years of evolution for whites to develop their unique aggregate psychological, intellectual, and physical characteristics. These characteristics are necessary ingredients in white innovations in math, science, inventions, government structures, etc., which the non-white world adopts. Should we erase all that to make nonwhite immigrants a little happier?

      All governments are socialistic to one degree or another, and if increasing socialistic policies is necessary to get whites to reproduce at or above replacement level, I support them. I value the survival of the white race more than keeping levels of socialistic involvement to a minimum.

      Regarding, Lincoln, he believed in more socialism than southern Democrats like Polk because he believed in bigger government, which implies more socialism. This is why the strongest opponents of socialism typically side with the South. Lincoln was pro-socialism in some ways.

      As for whether I think rights come from God, it depends on how far back one traces a causal chain. I define rights as what we ought to be able to do. The government tells us what we can do, but it’s not the lone influence in telling us what we ought to do, so I would disagree with Spencer there. A wide variety of sources influence what we believe we ought to to do. One of these is the shared genetic average of a race that produces an aggregate phenotype which influences the range of how far ideology can tweak our shared understanding of things. For example, whites produced the US Constitution. They used it to create a nation with historically low levels of corruption. Blacks in Liberia copied it for their nation, but their nation has corruption typical of any black nation. Why? Because the constitution calls for behaviors that are outside the constraints of their aggregate phenotype.

      Our sense of rights comes from our evolutionary history, the current material culture’s influence on us, and counterveiling ideologies, but one could argue that God set all this in motion when he created the earth as the prime-mover. The founding fathers deemphasized causal links in the chain between God as the prime mover and other things. This included deemphasizing their relationship with England as a government. This kind of individualistic move is a very white thing. Whites are naturally more indivudalistic than nonwhites, so they tend to think of themselves as less tied down by family, heritage, etc.

      Many white advocates think that the founding fathers were traitors to their nation, but I don’t agree with that. The founders merely broke away from a larger white nation to create a smaller white nation. It’s a good thing that white population growth facilitated this. I disagree with those who claim that the revolution somehow set on pace the eventual mass immigration of nonwhites.

      I don’t have a favorite president. However I can comment on one president’s good action. Washington gave over his sword at the end of the Revolutionary War when he could have retained power and become a military dictator. He was a selfless altruist who fought for ideals and his fellow Americans. He wanted victory for his cause more than power. He followed the tradition of Cincinnatus, the Roman patrician farmer, who also gave up power after leading his people to a victory. White nationalists make similar sacrifices. Evil people kill, assault, doxx and get them fired for their beliefs. They get nothing out of it except the satisfaction for helping their people.

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance