Counter-Currents
3,697 words
Dinesh D’Souza claims historic Democrats have a history of supporting white racial cohesion and that Hillary Clinton and modern Democrats carry out this legacy today.
If that’s the case, then I’m with her!
However, it’s not the case, and the modern Democrats carry out an anti-white agenda. Along with most Republicans they refuse to recognize the moral right of whites to organize along racial lines. Meanwhile they go as far as to encourage other racial groups to do so. That is the problem — not that “Democrats are the real racists” as D’Souza would have us believe. Moreover, trying to prove that Democrats are the real racists is meaningless because nearly every white person who lived over a half century ago was “racist” by today’s standards. If one goes back far enough in time it’s not hard to find members of either party who can be considered “racist.”
Moreover, more Republicans could probably be labeled “racist” than Democrats or at least overall they might be considered “more racist,” but insofar as they support their own race while having no desire to harm other races it’s a good thing, because it means they have a greater attachment to their race and thus are more likely to carry on its existence. Overall, the film has some interesting content even if its thesis is both wrong and useless.
The film begins with a reenactment of D’Souza’s time behind bars. In 2014 Clinton appointee (((Richard M. Berman))) threw the book at him for contributing more money than the legal limit to a political candidate.
Even leftist attorney (((Alan Dershowitz))) has stated that the sentence to time in a half-way house was unusual and “smacked of political persecution.”[1] D’Souza seems to have a case that (((Berman))) made him into something of a political prisoner.
D’Souza can’t help learning something from his stint behind bars. An inmate named Roc teaches him about a universal method of con-artistry as he recites the story of what got him incarcerated.
Roc and his gang sold insurance policies which paid a local government agency $50,000 if the person were to die. Actually, even though its name sounded like a government agency it was the name of a company owned by Roc and his fellow criminals. The signee would mysteriously turn up dead within several months after buying the insurance, and Roc’s company with a government-sounding name would be rewarded $50,000. When the feds caught on they questioned Roc and his gang. Despite something obviously being amiss, Roc vehemently denied any wrongdoing. The feds had to let him go because they had nothing to charge him with. Eventually a snitch notified the feds that Roc and his gang had been murdering their clients in order to collect the insurance money. The cons later murdered the snitch for exposing their murderous con. According to D’Souza, Democrats, just like Roc, make promises which seem morally appealing but which are nothing but a malicious scam. When the scam is discovered they go into denial in spite of damning evidence. In D’Souza’s words they “deny, deny, deny.”
However, in reality conning voters is not unique to Democrats. The (((neo-cons))) perpetrated the “weapons of mass destruction” con regarding Iraq. It’s worth noting D’Souza seems defend the Iraq war in his 2014 film America: Imagine the World Without Her.[2]
When D’Souza gets out of the halfway house, he seeks to discover how Democrats have been conning America. While the Democrat Party is nearly as old as America, D’Souza seems to believe in no statute of limitations when it comes to assigning liability for past wrongs. He documents past sins of the historic Democrat Party such as slavery, resettlements of Amerindians via the trail of tears, and the lynching of blacks and white Republicans in South in an attempt to shame modern Democrats about these actions in the same way anti-whites seek to shame whites. It seems he wants us to believe only Democrats are the bad whites and Republicans the good ones. Democrat Andrew Jackson, one of the “bad whites,” is cast as a cruel slave master. The “good guy” for him is Abraham Lincoln.
However, D’Souza neglects to mention that Lincoln encouraged a delegation of blacks to leave the country for South America. Old Honest Abe believed in a “physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”[3] Thus D’Souza’s hero Lincoln is “racist” by today’s standards. Moreover, both the Democrat Jackson and Republican Lincoln explicitly framed things in terms of what was good for whites. Today neither political party does so, although Trump implicitly supports policies beneficial to whites such as stopping illegal immigration. That said, he is an outlier when compared with the majority of Republicans in government.
(((Neo-cons))) believe America is a proposition nation defined by ideals and not a distinct ethnic group. In the same way D’Souza views the Democrat party as a proposition party based on the “con game” of convincing people you’re offering them liberation when in reality you’re offering them slavery. He seems to suggest the plantation model was passed down through the years to the present.
However, he provides no evidence for this. For him the plantation system manifests itself in the environment modern Democrats create for blacks. It escapes me how affirmative action and gibsmedat constitute slavery, but D’Souza would probably say they create an entitlement mentality among blacks and destroy their sense of initiative. D’Souza blames the cultural environment for blacks’ failure to achieve at the level of other groups just as anti-white leftists do.
A race realist explanation of why American blacks do poorly relative to other groups is that as a population they have a relatively low average IQ. The average IQ of American blacks is 85 while it is 100 white gentiles, 106 for East Asians,[4] and 115 for Ashkenazi Jews.[5] Because income is correlated with IQ,[6] blacks do not achieve at the level of whites, Asians, or Jews. The same entitlements D’Souza claims “enslave” blacks do not enslave these other groups, primarily because their higher average IQ enables more of them to compete in the job market. This explanation is far simpler and less convoluted than D’Souza’s Democrat Party plantation legacy theory based on an alleged con-game.
He uses the term “Democrat” as if modern use of the word refers to the same thing as it did in the antebellum South.
From a racial nationalist perspective, a party’s name is merely a placeholder for the mass of individuals who populate it. Because the individuals in the “Democratic Party” have changed from 19th century whites who were conscious of their racial interests to a multi-ethnic consortium of nonwhites and whites who refuse to recognize white interests, their values and demographics could not be more different. If anything D’Souza is conning people by making them think that the antebellum Democrat party is similar to the modern multi-ethnic one because it has the same name. This is similar to how the inmate Roc deceived his victims to believe the private company was a government agency because it had a government-sounding name. In other words, D’Souza is capitalizing on a verbal fiat. He’s also capitalizing on a historical fiat by claiming that because the old and new Democrat Party are linked via history they are the same. It is like saying a silver dollar is fundamentally worth a dollar today in spite of silver inflation causing it to take on a whole new value far greater than a mere dollar. To me the silver dollar today is a dollar in name only, and modern “Democrats” are antebellum “Democrats” in name only.
D’Souza sits down with black law professor Carol Swain to receive information about the 19th century Democrat Party. She claims she left the Democratic Party because of its past and because modern Democrats use black people. I found this ironic because D’Souza uses blacks for his own purposes. It’s pretty obvious when he repeatedly airs a clip of the late 19th/early 20th century black Republican leader Ida B. Wells walking through a hallway with a determined look on her face. It’s as if he’s trying to communicate that real black civil rights leaders should join the Republican Party and adopt her beliefs.
As far as using people goes, it is a general rule that smart people tend to manipulate dumb people. In economic transactions smart people tend to receive money, and dumb people tend to give it to them, and in politics, smart groups tend to manipulate less intelligent groups. Given their relatively low population IQ, blacks as a group are destined to be manipulated by somebody. It seems doubtful that the black community would stress its ancestors’ sufferings under slavery as much as it does today if (((communists))) hadn’t founded the NAACP on their behalf and taught them to have a long intergenerational memory rather than the short time horizon typical of the black worldview. The difference between Swain’s theory and other “past grievances” complaints is that when Jews and nonwhites recite injustices they’ve suffered at the hands of white gentiles, all groups involved are a racial constant. Carol Swain clumsily grafts this “past grievances” thinking onto racially variable political parties. She ends up attempting to guilt a multi-ethnic consortium of anti-whites in the DNC for the past deeds of a homogenous white group. From a racial perspective this is a farce. Nevertheless, the theory is perfect for D’Souza’s concept of the Democrats as a proposition party, so he adopts it. In the end we have a weird hybrid of (((communist))) “past grievances” thought and (((neo-con))) proposition-party identity. D’Souza may be using blacks but it seems like (((somebody))) is using him.
D’Souza then sits down with neo-conservative writer (((Jonah Goldberg))) for an interview on the alleged evils of the progressive movement. Chief among them, we’re made to believe, is eugenics. We are told that sterilizations carried out as part of eugenic policies could be gruesome and were often done without the person’s consent.
Contrary to this impression, eugenic policies can be carried out on an entirely voluntary basis. First of all, “eugenics” just means increasing the amount of desirable traits in a population, and this can be done in a myriad of ways that don’t involve forcing a person to do something against his will. For instance, everyone who seeks out sperm and egg donors practices de facto eugenics. They choose donors who have traits they like, which may be intelligence and/or physical characteristics like height and eye color. To my knowledge nobody suffers because of this. Furthermore, non-profits can provide safe, painless birth control to individuals who voluntarily accept it. For example, Project Prevention (http://www.projectprevention.org/) “offers cash incentives to women and men addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to use long term or permanent birth control.” The state of Colorado has funded the use of implants which act as temporary birth control. In 2014 these implants were said to help cut down on teenage pregnancies by 40%.[7] Moreover, increasing the birth rate of healthy individuals via subsidies, as was done with marriage loans in National Social Germany, requires no medical treatment. Thus eugenic policies can be carried out on an entirely voluntary basis and without any gory procedures. The main issue with eugenics is that eugenic policies may provoke complaints of unfairness. For example, if one family is given a subsidy to have children and another isn’t, the non-recipients may feel it’s unfair. Potential disagreements may be less common in racially homogenous societies but would probably still exist along socio-economic lines. This is may be why Plato prefers a stealth eugenics program run by Philosopher kings who arrange marriages without anyone knowing the reasons behind the couplings.
Despite the inevitable difficulties in crafting eugenic policies, it would seem better to ponder the subject than to ignore it. Dysgenic fertility (or the increase of undesirable genes) is as much of a reality as it was in the early 20th century. Geneticist Michael Lynch of the University of Indiana maintains that human mutation load, the accumulation of harmful genes in a human population over time, is rising due to relatively novel social factors in our evolutionary history.[8] In a meta-analysis of multiple IQ tests over the past century University of Ulster psychologist Richard Lynn shows that what he calls genetic IQ has been going down for the past century in spite of gains in phenotypic IQ attributable to improved nutrition.[9] Undesirable changes in human populations do no cease happening because we ignore them, and they cannot lead to good things.
Now, D’Souza happily points out that Sanger, a supporter of eugenics and a heroine of Hillary, spoke before a women’s auxiliary group of the KKK. He goes on to state that she promoted abortion polices which have resulted in the abortions of many black babies. Perhaps this is meant to suggest that modern Democrats, because they support abortion, have a similar attitude as the KKK toward blacks.
Let us take a step back and consider how different America would be if not for legalized abortion. Patrick Le Brun has noted that the equivalent of forty Detroits would exist in the US today if not for Roe v Wade.[10] In other words, that many more blacks would be living in the US. Regardless of one’s position on abortion, one must admit that if forty Detroits existed, all things being equal, it would benefit Democrats because blacks tend to vote Democrat. Therefore, modern Democrats do not act in their party’s long term electoral interests by supporting legal abortion. Yet they do when they welcome in illegals and so-called refugees because most of them are nonwhite and most vote Democrat. Because the outcomes of abortion contradict the rest of Democrat stances, which always involve bringing more nonwhites into the nation, town, etc., it seems most modern Democrats support abortion because they really believe the rhetoric about a woman’s right to choose and not because they have a covert scheme to reduce the number of blacks in America.
Although in the early part of the twentieth century eugenics was popular with everyone from Teddy Roosevelt to Helen Keller, D’Souza attempts to characterize it as part of the Democrat legacy.
However, not all advocates of eugenics drifted toward the modern Left. For example, Paul Popenoe, who wrote a quasi-textbook on eugenics called Applied Eugenics, later allied with religious conservative groups. He took on James Dobson as an assistant. Dobson would later found Focus on the Family, a Christian conservative institution popular with evangelicals.[11]
Even if we accept that belief in eugenics is bad for the sake of argument, then at least one modern conservative is guilty of associating with its past exponents. A realistic view is that when the eugenics movement died out, its adherents went in many directions. But if polled most present-day Democrats or Republicans would not endorse eugenics.
Hillary herself was not always a Democrat. Interestingly, we learn she had been a Goldwater Republican before becoming a devotee of (((Saul Alinsky))). Her father Hugh E. Rodham had been a Republican, and she was only 17 when Goldwater ran in 1964. She found her true self in the writings of Alinksy.
Actors portray an interesting story from the young Alinsky’s life. As a college student in 1920s Chicago he frequented a cafeteria chain that had many locations in the city. The convention was for customers to select an order and receive explanatory ticket. After eating they would turn in the ticket to the cashier and pay for the items listed on the ticket. A moneyless college student, Alinksy felt it was unfair that he could only get a coffee. He conceived of a plan to fix this. After finishing his coffee, he told the cashier that he had lost his ticket. She let him pay for the coffee without turning it in. With the ticket still in his pocket, he went to another one of the chain’s cafeterias in the city. There he got a huge meal and ate it in a corner where no one could see him. He then gave the cashier the ticket from the previous cafeteria indicating he had only had a small coffee. He went on to map out where all the chain’s cafeterias were located in the city and repeated the practice in them. As if that wasn’t enough, he got others involved in his scheme by cloaking it with faux revolutionary themes — something to do with “radicals” combatting economic injustice. D’Souza either tells us this story to cast Alinsky in a negative light or to illustrate his vague concept that Democrats are purveyors of cons.
To me it serves as a true-to-life stereotype of a schnorrer using his intelligence and chutzpah to exploit the high-trust nature of white society.
Remaining in Chicago, D’Souza fast forwards to the machine boss politics of the Democrat party under Mayor Daley in the ’50s and ’60s. Under this system people are given favors in exchange for continued allegiance. What forms from this arrangement are “gangs” according to D’Souza. He states that he left India to get away from the “gang” and that American individualism is all about separating from the gang and being an independent, free person.
This is an interesting dilemma for white nationalists because right now whites are more individualistic on average than any other race. Dutch anthropologist Geert Hofstede has set up a scale to measure individualism across the world and ranks most modern-day white nations the highest for individualism.[12] Regardless of what one believes about his methods, it cannot be doubted that white nations, excluding the former USSR, have taken individualism farther than others by welcoming in members of other races as immigrants, a practice which is almost nonexistent in the nonwhite world. As Peter Brimelow demonstrates, it is near impossible for whites to immigrate to India, become citizens, and vote.[13] To save their race Greg Johnson believes whites will have to become similarly exclusivist and keep out racial aliens from a new white ethnostate. This political potentiality is very far off, however.[14] In the meantime, whites may consider voting in a racial bloc and form groups similar to the political machine. Patrick Le Brun characterizes such an arrangement as a kind of proto-fascism that may benefit whites.[15] An ethnocentric strategy always wins out over a non-ethnocentric strategy. For this reason whites living in increasingly multi-ethnic states may find it useful to set aside race-blindness and stop putting themselves at a disadvantage. As for individualist-oriented nonwhite outliers such as D’Souza, they can either found their own communities or at the very least advocate for whites as a group which is, at least at present, the most disposed toward it.
The “Secret History” of the Democrat Party is a lot more interesting than the dirt on Hillary Clinton. She can’t seem to draw a whole lot of attention even in her own designated hit piece, and I’d swear the film portrays her almost as an afterthought rather than a feature. It seems to prove that this election is about Trump or anti-Trump. Hillary is merely the opposition to what will set white America on a better, albeit still rocky course.
Of course, D’Souza’s theory that Hillary married Bill to ride his popular persona to the top in exchange for covering up for his womanizing is interesting, I suppose. If this is true then it makes me respect her more for being able to plan that far ahead, but less for putting power so far ahead of marital harmony. The bit about the alleged selling of influence by the Clinton foundation to the billionaire Frank Guistra in exchange for donations is all well and good too, but it just can’t compete with the “Secret History.”
Maybe it’s a good thing that D’Souza attempts to vilify past fascistic elements in America, because maybe it shows that the Alt-Right has become worth addressing and thus has arrived. In any case, I do not envy D’Souza’s task of having to frame things from a race blind perspective. I have a much easier task of being a race-observant critic. D’Souza is a smart man stuck promoting a stupid worldview. Hopefully one day nonwhites like him will make films as allies of color promoting white identity rather than demonizing it. Hopefully all-white groups and nations may live among themselves, not oppressing other races, and not being vilified by them. And hopefully white leaders of the future will not be devotees of (((Saul Alinsky))) or of (((Jonah Goldberg))) but of thinkers of the North American New Right. We’re smart enough to make that happen — not with manipulation but with truth.
Notes
1. Jacob Gershman, “Dershowitz Says D’Souza Case ‘Smacks of Selective Prosecution,” The Wall Street Journal, January 31, 2014, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/01/31/dershowitz-says-dsouza-case-smacks-of-selective-prosecution/ed this injustice.
2. Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig, “Dinesh D’Souza’s laughable embarrassment: A review of America: Imagine the World Without Her,” Salon, July 22, 2014, http://www.salon.com/2014/07/22/dinesh_dsouzas_laughable_embarrassment_a_review_of_america_imagine_the_world_without_her/
3. Jared Taylor, “What the Founders Really Thought about Race,” National Policy Institute, February 17, 2012. Page 10. http://www.amren.com/news/2012/02/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race/
4. J. P. Rushton and Arthur Jensen, “Thirty Years of Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 11, no. 2 (2005): 240. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
5. Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending, “Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence,” Journal of Biosocial Science, vol. 38, no. 5 (2006): 659–693.
6. Arthur Jensen, The g Factor, (Praeger, 1998), 568.
7. Caitlin Schmidt, “Colorado Teen Birthrate Drops 40% with Low-Cost Birth Control,” CNN, July 10, 2014 http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/10/health/colorado-teen-pregnancy/
8. Steve Sailer, “Genetics: Mutational Load as Bad as Climate Change [According to Michael Lynch],” The Unz Review, March 14, 2016, http://www.unz.com/isteve/genetics-mutational-load-as-bad-as-climate-change/ Sailer doesn’t view mutation load as an immediate problem and postulates that if it is one genetic engineering will solve it before it becomes too severe.
9. Richard Lynn, Dysgenics, (Praeger, 1996), Chapter 8, Section 8: A Resolution of the Paradox. According to Lynn better nutrition and more stimulating environments have masked a slow decline in genes responsible for enabling high IQ.
10. Patrick Le Brun “White Nationalists Need Planned Parenthood Not the Pope,” Counter-Currents, October 5, 2015, https://counter-currents.com/2015/10/white-nationalists-need-planned-parenthood-not-the-pope/
11. David Popenoe, War Over the Family (Transaction Publishers, 2005), Chapter 14.
12. Geert Hofstedle, Dimension Data Matrix, Six dimensions for website.xls, Accessed August 19, 2016, http://geerthofstede.nl/dimension-data-matrix The data are plotted out on a world map on this separate website: http://www.targetmap.com/ThumbnailsReports/31419_THUMB_IPAD.jpg
13. Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation Interview CSPAN 5/18/95, YouTube, 2:41, https://youtu.be/kzjaHnLXLhU?t=2m41s
14. Greg Johnson, “White Extinction,” Counter-Currents, February 14, 2014, https://counter-currents.com/2014/02/white-extinction/
15. Patrick Le Brun, “Fascism: American Style,” Counter-Currents, September 10, 2015, https://counter-currents.com/2015/09/fascism-american-style/
3 comments
D’Souza needs to go be a leader to the dark skins and stay out of White folks business.
My issue with the closing paragraph is the implication that D’Souza is unaware of – or indifferent to – what he’s doing (supporting). D’Souza can never ultimately champion or vindicate White identity politics and bio-interests because he isn’t White, he isn’t European. Why would he champion the cultural heritages, ethnic and biological identities and civilization of which he isn’t a part and ultimately can never belong to, that he likely resents, and which his people are, for all intents and purposes, in economic and global competition and evolutionary struggle with?
White people are natural preservationists because, whether the non-Whites do or do not, we see and place value in things like trees and animals, et cetera. Does any non-White see value in White civilization, and the White race, said of civic propositional and personal self-interests? That is to say, is there any scenario where a non-White supports White civilization in which they, and their people, personally aren’t living in it or benefitting from it or even exploiting it? They recognize that Whites have just as much right to cultural and genetic identity, integrity, expression and continuity as even their own race and ethnic?
As much of a “conservative” D’Souza is in America, I bet he would be one hundred times the conservative in India. You’ll have a very difficult time finding a single Jew living in the U.S. who supports Fascism, Nationalism, et cetera, however you’ll have an impossible time *not* finding a Jew who doesn’t support the aforementioned vices for Israel and for the Jewish people. The overwhelming majority of Asians are liberals because they are a foreign racial group in competition with Whites. The idea that “conservative” non-Whites will thrown their fellow liberal co-ethnics under the bus for the sake of White conservationism is, when one stops to ponder it, ridiculous and wrongly implies that they and their liberal co-ethnics have different and conflicting ethnic interests. Ultimately a “conservative” Indian or Jew has the same interests as a rabid anti-White Indian or Jewish liberal – namely Indian/Jewish interests.
Put yourself in D’Souza’s shoes. Imagine that you belong to an ethnic with high a birth-rate, a relatively low IQ average, and whose people and homeland, collectively, are almost entirely dependent on American/European/Western outsourcing. On top of that, White people, the very people who “colonized” your people, and the very people who your people are trying to economically compete with and outperform in global influence and domination, and the very people whose nations you, and a substantial proportion of your people reside in and have (some) political influence over, wish to restore their traditional ethnic (pre 20th century) identities, citizenship policies, and reclaim and reaffirm their rightful and historical place as the undisputed world inventors, builders, scholars, philosophers, educators, innovators and artists, and medical, technological and scientific trailblazers. Could you support that?
Not long ago, Whites worldwide were up in arms over Tibet, South Africa, India, et cetera. Despite the fact that they gained nothing by championing de-colonialism, de-segregation, and sovereignty for the Tibetans, the Indians, and the Blacks in South Africa, and in the cases of India and South Africa, actually lost a substantial chunk of their empires and territories, and turned them over to foreign ethnics who didn’t build them. While it would be nice and gratefully accepted to get such considerate and unconditional support from non-White individuals and ethnics, I just don’t see it ever happening. But it would be appreciated.
‘He states that he left India to get away from the “gang” and that American individualism is all about separating from the gang and being an independent, free person.’
It’s been said that in other democracies, you cast your vote, whereas in India, you vote your caste. Of course, the problem with that is that factional interests end up overriding the national interest (the common good).
However, liberal individualism can lead to an even grimmer situation – one in which an individual votes on an egotistic basis, resulting in the personal interest overriding both the factional and the national interest.
On the other hand, when the individual considers his own well-being, and that of his family, clan, community, caste, etc… to be bound up with the country’s welfare, he can be expected to vote with the national interest uppermost in his mind. (Even then, of course, he may be misled, deceived or simply wrong on what’s in the national interest; presumably he’ll learn from his mistakes…).
I’d venture that an individual who belongs to the majority community in a country is more likely to end up pursuing the national interest when he pursues his community’s interest than an individual who belongs to a minority community. This is because policies that run counter to the national interest are very likely to harm the majority community in one way or another, whereas a minority community may be spared its effects, especially if the minority is small or concentrated in an area that is not affected by the polices.
(For example: the deindustrialization of Britain certainly harmed the nation as a whole, as well as its white population, but it’s doubtful whether it did any harm whatsoever to its Hindu and Sikh communities, since these tend to be concentrated in Southern England, whereas the areas severely affected by deindustrialization are in the North and West.)
If this is the case, then the liberal tendency to treat minority ‘communalism’ as harmless and majority ‘communalism’ as harmful might well be completely wrong. (‘Communalism’ – pursuit of community interests; the term has a negative connotation in Indian political discourse, since it is assumed that one is pursuing the community’s interests at the expense of the national interest).
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.