Dinesh D’Souza’s Film 'Death of a Nation' Exposes Democrats’ ‘Big Lie’

In his new film, Death of a Nation, conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza exposes the Democrats’ “big lie” that conservatives are fascists and racists.

In the film that is igniting a national conversation about the long-hidden history of the Democratic Party, D’Souza argues that the policies of Democrats and progressives are the intellectual heirs of slavery and genocide, and that their policies helped inspire Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.

One of the most striking things revealed in the film is that the Democratic Party was behind slavery, is linked to the Ku Klux Klan and has a long history of racism, and yet Democrats and progressives today say Republicans are racist. What is going on here?

D’Souza: Progressives have dominated the telling of the American narrative. Progressives are the ones who write the history books. Progressives are the ones who typically make the films. I’m sort of a stray dog in that field.

Now, these guys have gone to great lengths to camouflage the crimes of the Democratic Party and pin them on someone else. And that someone else varies. It could be just generically America. It could be generically the white man. And it could be, and frequently is, the South.

Now, this is a historical distortion. When (President Abraham) Lincoln named what he called the four bad guys of slavery, three out of four were northern Democrats.

And then after the Civil War, the Democrats lost the slave plantations so they had to come up with something new and so they invented white nationalism, or what we call today, white supremacy.

The Democratic Party used white nationalism as the glue to hold the party together, especially in the South.

Recently, President Donald Trump has been talking about the historic low unemployment rate among African-Americans. Polls have noted a substantial rise in the percentage of blacks that favor the Republican Party. What is happening here?

D’Souza: A lot of things are going on simultaneously. The first is what I call the education of Kayne West, which has been carried out in part by Candace Owens and others. It’s very significant because you have a major public figure publicly breaking with the Democratic Party and doing so while there is a massive campaign to bully him and force him to submit to Democratic orthodoxy.

I have said publicly that in 1860, the year before the Civil War, that no Republican owned a slave, not that no Republican in the North owned a slave, but that no Republican in the country owned a slave.

By the way, the statement I just made is in no textbook. It’s never appeared on the History Channel or Wikipedia, and yet it’s evidenced by the simple fact that today – it’s now been over two years since I made it – not one single credible counterexample has been presented.

The “plantation philosophy” is the argument that the Democratic Party’s elite have been exploiting minorities and poor people for two centuries by keeping them on “plantations” – Native Americans on reservations, African-Americans in inner-city ghettos, Hispanics in inner-city barrios, etc. Would you expand on this?

D’Souza: Well, my book on this is called Death of a Nation: Plantation Politics and the Making of the Democratic Party. It tells the story that has never been told, which is that the plantation as an idea and an institution that continued to define the Democratic Party almost 200 years after it was birthed.

It’s not widely known that the Democrats invented the ideology of the plantation. The network of cotton plantations that employed in 1830 two million slaves, and in 1860 four million slaves, corresponded with the rise of a new party, the Democratic Party, which promptly became the defender of the slave plantation.

The second (phase of the plantation) is the invention of the northern urban plantation, which was intended for immigrants. This was aimed at white immigrants – Irish, Italians and the Jews. The idea was to round these people up and find leaders who would deliver a collective body of votes to the Democratic Party which would keep crooked Democratic Party bosses in power.

Stage three is what I call the nationalization of the plantation. The idea was conceived by Woodrow Wilson and the progressives of the early 20^thcentury but carried out by Franklin Roosevelt. He’s the one dolling out patronage, he’s the one who is creating a national form of ethnic dependency (through the New Deal).

And then we come to stage four, which is the stage of today, and that may be called the multicultural plantation. And the concept here is the Democrats want to organize their entire party along the lines of ethnic identity politics. Now most of it is based on race and ethnicity, ghettos for blacks, barrios for Latinos, reservations for Native Americans, but it also includes things like feminist identity, gay and transsexual identity. It’s identity politics carried to its ultimate point.

What kind of suffering has this caused for people in America, especially minorities, and what kind of dangers do the Democrats pose to America?

D’Souza: The danger is the one that Lincoln foresaw and warned against – the reduction of all of America to a plantation.

Lincoln accused the Democratic Party of trying to do that. In other words, trying to extend the slavery principle, not just in the South, but to extend it in the North as well.

I think we see in today’s Democratic plantation many of the same features as the old slave plantation. There are important differences. For example, on the old plantation, blacks were forced to work. On the multicultural plantation, the Democrats prefer that people don’t work. Why? Because then they are more dependent, and the Democrats are in a stronger position to supply their basic needs in exchange for the mindless habit of voting for Democrats.

The time may have come for a rejection of the tired old ideas of tyranny which dominate so-called "progressive" and "socialist" politics.

Rather than being dispirited, we might examine what the Founders of the American Republic called, the role of "Divine Providence," whose pathway to the minds and hearts of youth can bypass even the most ardent and determined efforts of those so-called "progressives."

Now that "progressive/socialistic" politicians have captured their attention, we have some responsibility for directing attention of youth to the ideas of the Founders, all to be found online now, not in some dark stacks on remote floors of university libraries.

For instance, last year's Sons of Liberty portrayal of Samuel Adams might allow us to introduce to Millenials his clearly-articulated understanding of liberty versus tyranny.

"The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath'd to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. - Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom." It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." Samuel Adams - Essay in the Boston Gazette, October 14, 1771
"When designs are form'd to raze the very foundation of a free government, those few who are to erect their grandeur and fortunes upon the general ruin, will employ every art to sooth the devoted people into a state of indolence, inattention and security, which is forever the fore-runner of slavery." - Article signed "Candidus," in Boston Gazette, December 9, 1771
"If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them." Samuel Adams- As Candidus in the Boston Gazette, January 20, 1772
"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave... These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament." Samuel Adams - Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772
"It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772

"Is it now high time for the people of this country to explicitly declare whether they will be free men or slaves. It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in this event. For wherever tyranny is established, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent, it is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice.” - Samuel Adams
And, as it pertains to Clinton/Sanders' "free stuff schemes":
“The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional.” - Samuel Adams

I would also suggest The Law by Bastiat:

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.