Dinesh D'Souza's Documentary Exposes the Historically Fascist Policies of the Left - Video
Published: 1 hour ago
Dinesh D’Souza joins Alex Jones live via Skype to discuss his groundbreaking new documentary, “Death of a Nation”, which exposes the historically fascist and racist policies implemented by the ‘liberal’ left worldwide.
Dinesh Joseph D’Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian-born American conservative political commentator, authorand filmmaker. Born in Bombay, D’Souza came to the United States as an exchange student and graduated from Dartmouth College. He became a naturalized citizen in 1991. From 2010 to 2012, he was president of The King’s College, a Christian school in New York City. Many of his works discuss Christian apologetics and are critical of New Atheism.
On May 20, 2014, D’Souza pleaded guilty in federal court to one felony charge of using a “straw donor” to make an illegal campaign contribution to a 2012 United States Senate campaign. On September 23, he was sentenced to eight months in a halfway housenear his home in San Diego, five years probation, and a $30,000 fine. On May 31, 2018, D’Souza was issued a full pardon by President Donald Trump.
D’Souza is the author of several New York Times best-selling books. In 2012, D’Souza released his film 2016: Obama’s America, an anti-Obama polemic based on his 2010 book The Roots of Obama’s Rage; the film is the second-highest-grossing political documentary-style film produced in the United States. In 2016, he released a documentary-style film and book, both entitled Hillary’s America, which offers his perspective on the history of the Democratic Party. Widely characterized as a provocateur, D’Souza’s films and commentary have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of multiple conspiracy theories.
- 1Early life and career
- 2Career as author, political commentator, and filmmaker
- 2.3Media appearances and speaking engagements
- 2.4Views and perspectives
- 3Presidency of The King’s College
- 4Campaign finance conviction and pardon
- 5Personal life
- 7See also
- 9External links
Early life and career
D’Souza was born in Bombay in 1961. His parents were Roman Catholics from the state of Goa in Western India, where his father was an executive of Johnson & Johnson and his mother was a housewife. D’Souza attended the Jesuit St. Stanislaus High School in Bombay. He graduated in 1976 and completed his 11th and 12th years at Sydenham College, also in Bombay. In 1978, D’Souza traveled to the United States under the Rotary Youth Exchange and attended the local public school in Patagonia, Arizona. He went on to matriculate at Dartmouth College, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in English in 1983 and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. While at Dartmouth, D’Souza wrote for The Dartmouth Review, an independent, student-edited, alumni-subsidized publication.
After graduating from Dartmouth, D’Souza became the editor of a monthly journal called The Prospect, a publication financed by a group of Princeton University alumni. The paper and its writers ignited much controversy during D’Souza’s editorship by, among other things, criticizing the college’s affirmative action policies.
From 1985 to 1987, D’Souza was a contributing editor for Policy Review, a journal then published by The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. In a September 1985 article titled “The Bishops as Pawns,” D’Souza theorized that Catholic bishops in the United States were being manipulated by American liberals in agreeing to oppose the U.S. military buildup and use of power abroad when, D’Souza believed, they knew very little about these subjects to which they were lending their religious credibility.
He was a policy adviser in the administration of President Ronald Reagan between 1987 and 1988.
In 1991, D’Souza became a naturalized United States citizen.
Career as author, political commentator, and filmmaker
The End of Racism
In 1995 D’Souza published The End of Racism, in which he claimed that exaggerated claims of racism are holding back progress among African Americans in the US; he defended the Southern slave owner, and notes that “The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well”. A reviewer for The Journal of Blacks in Higher Educationresponded by posting a list of sixteen recent racist incidents against black people. Michael Bérubé, in a lengthy review article, referred to the book as “encyclopedic pseudoscience”, calling it illogical and saying some of the book’s policy recommendations are fascist; it is “so egregious an affront to human decency as to set a new and sorry standard for ‘intellectual’”. The book was panned by many other critics as well: John David Smith, in The Journal of Southern History, says D’Souza claims blacks are inferior and opines that “D’Souza bases his terribly insensitive, reactionary polemic on sound bite statistical and historical evidence, frequently gleaned out of context and patched together illogically. His book is flawed because he ignores the complex causes and severity of white racism, misrepresents Boas’s arguments, and undervalues the matrix of ignorance, fear, and long-term economic inequality that he dubs black cultural pathology. How, according to his own logic, can allegedly inferior people uplift themselves without government assistance”. D’Souza’s “biased diatribe trivializes serious pathologies, white and black, and adds little to our understanding of America’s painful racial dilemma”. Paul Finkelman comments on D’Souza’s trivialization of racism, and says, in a review article called “The Rise of the New Racism”, that much of what D’Souza says is untrue, and much is only partially true; that the book is “like a parody of scholarship, where selected ‘facts’ are pulled out of any recognizable context, and used to support a particular viewpoint”. In Finkelman’s opinion, the book exemplifies a “new racism”, which “(1) denies the history of racial oppression in America; (2) rejects biological racism in favor of an attack on black culture; and (3) supports formal, de jure equality in order to attack civil rights laws that prohibit private discrimination and in order to undermine any public policies that might monitor equality and give it substantive meaning”.
What’s So Great About America
In the second chapter of his 2002 book, What’s So Great About America, D’Souza argues that while colonialism was terrible, it had the unintended consequence of lifting third world countries up to Western civilization. D’Souza writes, “I realize that in saying these things I am opening the door for my critics, and the incorrigible enemies of the West, to say that I am justifying colonialism… This is the purest nonsense. What I am doing is pointing out a historical fact: despite the corrupt and self-serving motives of [its] practitioners… colonialism… proved to be the mechanism that brought millions of nonwhite people into the orbit of Western freedom.” He holds up the European colonization of India as an example, arguing that in the long run colonization was beneficial for India, because it introduced Western law, universities, infrastructure, and the like, while effectively ending human sacrifice, the practice of Sati, and other “charming indigenous customs”.
In a review of D’Souza’s the book, economist Thomas Sowell wrote that D’Souza’s book exposed the fallacies and hypocrisies of various criticisms of the United States by the Islamic world, “domestic multiculturalist cults,” those who seek reparations for slavery, and the worldwide intelligentsia. According to Sowell: “Perhaps it takes somebody from outside to truly appreciate all the blessings that too many native-born Americans take for granted. D’Souza understands how rare—sometimes unique—these blessings are.” Sowell also wrote that D’Souza challenges the notion that all world cultures are equal: “D’Souza challenges one of the central premises of today’s intelligentsia: The equality of all cultures. ‘If one begins with the multicultural premise that all cultures are equal, then the world as it is makes very little sense,’ he says. Some cultures have completely outperformed others in providing the things that all people seek—health, food, housing, security, and the amenities of life.”
The Enemy at Home
In early 2007, D’Souza published The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11, in which he argues that the American cultural left was in large part responsible for the Muslim anger that led to the September 11 attacks. He argues that Muslims do not hate America because of its freedom and democracy, but because they perceive America to be imposing its moral depravity (support for sexual licentiousness) on the world. D’Souza’s conclusion urges conservatives to condemn products of the American entertainment industry, asking “why should the right stand up for the left’s debased values? Why should our people defend their America? Rather, American conservatives should join the Muslims and others in condemning the global moral degeneracy that is produced by liberal values.” The book was criticized in major American newspapers and magazines and described as, among other things, “the worst nonfiction book about terrorism published by a major house since 9/11″ and “a national disgrace”. D’Souza’s book caused controversy in the conservative movement. His conservative critics widely mocked his thesis that the cultural left was responsible for 9/11. In response, D’Souza posted a 6,500-word essay on National Review Online, and NRO subsequently published a litany of responses from conservative authors who accused D’Souza of character assassination, elitism and pseudo-intellectualism.
America: Imagine the World Without Her
D’Souza wrote the book America: Imagine the World Without Her on which his 2014 film of the same name is based. When the warehouse club Costco pulled the book from its shelves shortly before the film’s release, conservative media and fans on social media criticized the move. Costco said it pulled the book due to low sales. D’Souza disputed the explanation, saying the book had only been out a few weeks and had surged to #1 on Amazon.com, while Costco stocked hundreds of much lower-selling books. He and other conservatives asserted it was pulled because one of Costco’s co-founders, James Sinegal, supported Obama’s politics. Costco reordered the book and cited the documentary’s release and related interest for the reorder.
The Big Lie
In July 2017, D’Souza published The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. Conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat criticized the book, saying it was a “plea-for-attention” by D’Souza, and that the author had “become a hack”. Douthat further stated, “Because D’Souza has become a professional deceiver, what he adds are extraordinary elisions, sweeping calumnies and laughable leaps.” In the book, D’Souza asserts that the 2016 Democratic Party platform was similar to the platform of the Third Reich. The statement received media attention in 2018 when repeated by Donald Trump, Jr. PolitiFact gave the claim its “Pants-on-Fire” rating, noting that “only a small number of elements of the two platforms are clearly similar, and those are so uncontroversial that they appear in the Republican platform as well.” A number of historians refuted the assertion, with University of Maryland historian and Barack Obama critic Jeffrey Herf saying, “There is not the slightest, tiny sliver in which this could be even somewhat accurate.” In another review of the book, historian Nicole Hemmer of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs wrote, “For a book about secret Nazis, “The Big Lie” is surprisingly dull…’The Big Lie’ thus adds little to the no-you’re-the-fascist genre on the right”. New York University historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat wrote that D’Souza distorted the work of many scholars, including her own, to advance the incorrect thesis that Hitler and Mussolini were left-wingers.
The Roots of Obama’s Rage
The September 2010 book by D’Souza, The Roots of Obama’s Rage (published in condensed form in a September 2010 Forbes op-ed), interprets President Barack Obama‘s, past and how it formed his beliefs. D’Souza states that Obama is “living out his father’s dream”, so that “[i]ncredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s”, who, D’Souza goes on to describe as a “philandering, inebriated African socialist”. The book appeared on The New York Times Best Seller list for four weeks in October–November 2010.
Ryan Chittum, in an article in the Columbia Journalism Review, described the Forbes article as “a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia … the worst kind of smear journalism—a singularly disgusting work”. Commentators on both the right and left strongly disputed assertions made about Obama in the book and article. The left-leaning Media Matters for America wrote that “The Roots of Obama’s Rage [was] rooted in lies”. Daniel Larison of The American Conservative stated, “Dinesh D’Souza has authored what may possibly be the most ridiculous piece of Obama analysis yet written… All in all, D’Souza’s article reads like a bad conspiracy theory.” Larison criticized D’Souza’s suggestion that Obama is anti-business, citing a lack of evidence. Andrew Ferguson of The Weekly Standard wrote, “D’Souza always sees absence of evidence as evidence of something or other … There is, indeed, a name for the beliefs that motivate President Obama, but it’s not anticolonialism; it’s not even socialism. It’s liberalism!” The magazine published D’Souza’s letter, in which he expressed surprise “at the petty, vindictive tone of Andrew Ferguson’s review”.
Christian apologetics series
His Christian apologetics books, What’s So Great About Christianity and Life After Death: The Evidence, were both on The New York Times Best Seller list.
2016: Obama’s America film (2012)
Main article: 2016: Obama’s America
D’Souza at CPAC 2016 in Washington, D.C.
D’Souza wrote and co-directed the documentary-style polemical film 2016: Obama’s America. Through interviews and reenactments, the film compares the similarities in the lives of D’Souza and President Barack Obama. D’Souza suggested that early influences on Obama affected the decisions he made as president. The film’s tagline is “Love him or hate him, you don’t know him.” The film has been criticized on the grounds that what D’Souza claims to be an investigation of Obama includes considerable projection, speculation, and selective borrowing from Obama’s autobiography, to prove D’Souza’s own narrative. In a “Fact Check” of the film, the Associated Press found that D’Souza provided little or no evidence for most of his claims, noted that several allegations were factually false, and described the film’s central thesis as “almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best.”
After a limited release beginning July 13, 2012, the film expanded to over 1000 theaters in late August 2012, and reached more than 2000 theaters before the end of September 2012, eventually grossing more than $33.4 million. It is the fifth highest-grossing documentary-style in the United States during the last four decades, and the second highest-grossing political documentary.
The Obama administration described the film as “an insidious attempt to dishonestly smear the president”. Later, when D’Souza was indicted for violating election law, D’Souza and his co-producers alleged that he was selectively prosecuted, and that the indictment was politically motivated retribution for the success of the film.
America: Imagine the World Without Her (2014)
Main article: America: Imagine the World Without Her
In March 2013, D’Souza announced work on a documentary-style film titled America: Imagine the World Without Her for release in 2014. America was marketed to political conservatives and through Christian marketing firms. The Washington Times states that D’Souza is saying that Americans no longer have past heroes like Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan, but “we do have us” in “our struggle for the restoration of America.”
Lions Gate Entertainment released America in three theaters on June 27, 2014 and expanded its distribution on the weekend of the U.S. holiday Independence Day on July 4, 2014. CinemaScore reported that the opening-weekend audiences gave the film an “A+” grade. The film grossed $14.4 million, which made it the highest-grossing documentary in the United States in 2014.
The film review website Metacritic surveyed 11 movie critics and assessed 10 reviews as negative and 1 as mixed, with none being positive. It gave an aggregate score of 15 out of 100, which indicates “overwhelming dislike”. The similar website Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 24 critics and, categorizing the reviews as positive or negative, assessed 22 as negative and 2 as positive. Of the 24 reviews, it determined an average rating of 2.9 out of 10. The website gave the film an overall score of 8% and said of the consensus, “Passionate but poorly constructed, America preaches to the choir.” The Hollywood Reporter‘s Paul Bond said the film performed well in its limited theatrical release, “overcoming several negative reviews in the mainstream media”. Bond reported, “Conservatives… seem thrilled with the movie.”
Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party (2016)
On July 25, 2016, D’Souza released the documentary film Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party. The film criticizes the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, the presumptive (and ultimate) Democratic nominee for President of the United States in 2016.
The film was universally panned by professional film critics. On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 4%, based on 27 professional reviews, with an average rating of 1.7/10. The critics consensus on the site reads, “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party finds Dinesh D’Souza once again preaching to the right-wing choir—albeit less effectively than ever.” On Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating, the film has a score of 2 out of 100, based on 17 critics, indicating “overwhelming dislike”. The film has the fifth lowest score of all films on the site. Peter Sobczynski wrote, “Hillary’s America may well be the single dumbest documentary that I have ever seen in my life.” A July 2016 review in Variety characterized D’Souza as “a right-wing conspiracy wingnut, the kind of “thinker” who takes off from Barack Obama birther theories and just keeps going, spinning out a web of comic-book liberal evil.”
Other critics and figures viewed the film positively. John Fund of the National Review stated that “[the film] is over the top in places and definitely selective, but the troubling facts are accurate and extensively documented in the D’Souza book that accompanies the movie.” He also called the film “intensely patriotic”. On July 23, 2016, Donald Trump, who was then running as the Republican presidential nominee against Clinton, called on supporters to see the film.
On January 23, 2017 the film was nominated for five Razzies including: Worst Picture, Worst Actor (Dinesh D’Souza), Worst Actress (Becky Turner), Worst Director (Dinesh D’Souza and Bruce Schooley), and Worst Screenplay. In response to the Razzie nominations, D’Souza stated that he was “actually quite honored” and called the nominations “petty revenge” in response to Trump’s election victory, also stating that “the film might have played an important role in the election.” After “winning” four of the five possible Razzies, D’Souza repeated his view that the nominations were awarded in response to Trump’s election victory.
Death of a Nation (2018)
Main article: Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time?
In June 2018, D’Souza retweeted other Twitter users who had promoted the trailer of his film, Death of a Nation. However, the other Twitter users had included on one occasion the hashtag #burnthejews and another occasion #bringbackslavery, which D’Souza also retweeted. In response to criticism, D’Souza said that his retweets were “accidental”.
The film had a rating of 0% on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes at the time of its wide release. On its opening weekend, the film grossed $2.3 million on 1,032 screens, the lowest wide release for a D’Souza film.
Media appearances and speaking engagements
D’Souza has appeared on numerous national television networks and programs. Six days after the September 11, 2001, attacks, D’Souza appeared on Politically Incorrect hosted by Bill Maher. He disputed the assertion that terrorists were cowards by saying, “Look at what they did. You have a whole bunch of guys who were willing to give their life; none of them backed out. All of them slammed themselves into pieces of concrete. These are warriors.” Maher agreed with D’Souza’s comments and said, “We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away.”
During an interview on The Colbert Report on January 16, 2007, while promoting his book The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, D’Souza maintained that liberals had some responsibility for the September 11 attacks. He said liberals’ “penchant for interference” had a decided effect in convincing the Carter administration to withdraw support from the Shah, which brought on Muslim fundamentalists’ control of the Iranian government. He also said that the distorted representation of American culture on television is one source of resentment of the United States by Muslims worldwide. D’Souza believes that traditional Muslims are not too different from traditional Jews and Christians in America. Towards the end of the interview, he admitted that he and Islamic militants share some of the same negative beliefs about liberal Americans.
In late February 2017, students at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, stole more than 200 flyers advertising D’Souza’s planned appearance at the university the first week of March. D’Souza called the protest “pathetic”, and suggested the demonstrators “Come out and debate me. In the best case you may win; in the worst, you’ll learn something”. Twin brothers Manfred and Jonah Wendt, co-founders of the student conservative group Tigers for Liberty, had passed around 600 notices of D’Souza’s visit to campus. Those returned by the protesters contained negative comments about D’Souza.
Views and perspectives
Labeled a neoconservative in 2001, D’Souza defines conservatism in the American sense as “conserving the principles of the American Revolution.” In Letters to a Young Conservative, written as an introduction to conservative ideas for youth, D’Souza argues that it is a blend of classical liberalism and ancient virtue, in particular, “the belief that there are moral standards in the universe and that living up to them is the best way to have a full and happy life.” He also argues against what he calls the modern liberal belief that “human nature is intrinsically good,” and thus that “the great conflicts in the world… arise out of terrible misunderstandings that can be corrected through ongoing conversation and through the mediation of the United Nations.”
D’Souza opposes government policies based on affirmative action and social welfare. In the book Illiberal Education, D’Souza argued that intolerance of conservative views is common at many universities. He has attributed many modern social problems to what he calls the “cultural left.” In his 2007 book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 he wrote that:
The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11…. The cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the non-profit sector and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.
D’Souza has also been critical of feminism, and Bruce Goldner, in a review of D’Souza’s Illiberal Education, noted that he “has a tendency to characterize feminists as castrating misanthropes”.
D’Souza has argued the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal was a result of “the sexual immodesty of liberal America.” He further asserted that the conditions of prisoners at Abu Ghraib “are comparable to the accommodations in mid-level Middle Eastern hotels.”
Florida school shooting
In February 2018, D’Souza was widely criticized for a series of tweets which mocked the survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. In response to a photo of survivors reacting to Florida lawmakers voting down a proposed ban on assault weapons in the aftermath of the shooting, D’Souza tweeted “worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs”. D’Souza’s comments were condemned by both liberal and conservative commentators. Jonathan M. Katz wrote, “Let it never be said that Dinesh does not actively root for the death of children.” Others accused D’Souza of “trolling kids”. D’Souza was also denounced by Conservative Political Action Conference, which removed him from the roster of speakers, and called his comments “indefensible”.
D’Souza attended the evangelical church Calvary Chapel from 2000 to about 2010. While stating his Catholic background is important to him, D’Souza also says he is comfortable with Protestant Reformation theology and identifies as a nondenominational Christian. A writer of Christian apologetics, D’Souza has debated against prominent atheists and critics of Christianity on religious and moral issues. His debate opponents have included Dan Barker, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Singer, Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer, David Silverman, and Bart D. Ehrman.
As a guest contributor for Christian Science Monitor, D’Souza wrote, “The moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for—indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to—the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.” He often speaks out against atheism, nonbelief in spirituality, and secularism. D’Souza elaborated on his views in the 2007 book he authored, What’s so Great about Christianity. In 2009, he published Life After Death: The Evidence, which attempts to use scientific and philosophical arguments to support the concept of the afterlife.
D’Souza believes “living creatures are the products of intelligent design,” however, he is not a proponent of the intelligent design movement, as he does not consider it to be a satisfactory alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection. He argues that belief in the afterlife and in a Supreme Being are reasonable conclusions given the evidence available, and that atheists have misrepresented the case for Christianity on many fronts.
In a Catholic Education Resource Center article, he shared his belief on the separation of church and state: “Groups like the ACLU, with the acquiescence if not collusion of the courts, are actively promoting a jurisprudence of anti-religious discrimination. In a way the Supreme Court has distorted the Constitution to make religious believers of all faiths into second-class citizens.” D’Souza argues that current jurisprudence is unfairly promoting secularism and that it is eroding the doctrine of passing laws informed by religious morality.
D’Souza has also commented on Islam. He stated in 2007 that “radical Islamic” thinkers have not condemned modernity, science or freedom but only United States support of “secular dictators in the region” which deny “Muslims freedom and control over their own destiny”. He has debated Serge Trifkovic and Robert Spencer, who both deem Islam “inherently aggressive, racist, violent, and intolerant.” He has labelled Spencer an “Islamophobe” and “an effective polemicist” in his writings on Islam. However, D’Souza has also warned against support for what he calls “a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center” (i.e. the Park51 Islamic community center and mosque project), and the Middle East becoming a “United States of Islam” in his attacks against President Obama.