Though I think Dinesh D'Souza is brilliant, there's something about him that never quite sat well with me. Now, perhaps, I may have put my finger on it.
Have a look at one of his lectures here:
It skips/begins at about the 27-minute mark, depicting inane shouters in the audience and his reaction to them.
Maybe it's his often used comparison to the National Socialist ("Nazi") model. His take is more Hollywood Nazism, rather than having a more circumspect view of those times. The Germany of the 1930s was a place that was then being radically transformed/subverted by the same types of Communist-Socialist Deep State Swamp forces so detested today by true patriots. The threat was so entrenched, threatening, and out-of-control by the late '30s that active militancy by brown shirts shouting down these Commies, for example, were acts of courage (rather than the roles being reversed as they are today, wherein they are acts of ignorant servility). In other words, activism in service to righteous anger at injustice is acceptable, whereas the reverse is not. Granted, shouting down an opponent is not elegant. But it makes a statement, none-the-less, because it interposes a provocative scene that just may make people think.
D'Souza, like Jordan Peterson, is able to keep his cool and attempt to engage moron shouters, which is admirable and constructive. Still, his analogy to National Socialist supporters is off-the-mark to me, as explained herein.
In my opinion, the fine line that must be walked here is this: one must be able to discern when righteous anger is truly righteous, rather than parading its own ignorance—that's a subjective political question, on the one hand, but is also a moral/spiritual one, on the other. That is, the questions to ask are: Who has more control (political)? Is the group with more control standing up for virtue, morality, goodness, and God-given liberty (moral/spiritual)? If so, shouters are mere moronic hecklers; if not, then shouters are brave foot soldiers making a peremptory attack on evil and amoral forces. And though, as I say, it is not an elegant act, I think it is important to realize that there is a job for each of us; "different strokes for different folks." Some jobs, like shouting down lecturers, are just more tacky and rank than others, even when just, i.e., justified.
In America today, leftist fascism serves the politically correct, welfare state that the System pushes like an opiate via its Deep State Swamp controller-handlers. Right-wing fascism is a contradiction in terms, if by "right-wing" you mean conservatism, or the label I prefer: traditionalism. But that's another essay, another post for another day.
I don't know how much the "Socialist" part of the party name was meant as a ruse to placate and attract socialists into their camp when they were just getting organized in the '30s—or how much they seriously considered themselves to be socialists (albeit until the industries were freed from outside control, viz., non-Germanic volk interests, and could then manage independently again). If the latter was true, total power may have indeed seduced the state so that so-called Nazism became fascist, i.e., the state became permanently fused with corporatism.
I would say that is the case with the USA, Inc. right now, a leftist fascist fusion. But shifting the power to correct the injustice is tricky too. For example, author Ellen Brown proposes nationalizing the banks, which the National Socialists did (at least partially). If that happens what's to stop a likewise seduction by power, which would likely end up as just a transfer of banking power from "private" to "public" puppet masters?
We can call it right or leftist fascism if we want, but it's better thought of as simply fascism, defined as state-corporate fusion control, centralized and perpetuated at the expense of the People whose sovereignty has been stolen, subverted, and weaponized against them.
Government and industry are all about power and wealth. Unchecked, there is an "intoxicating, egoic high" derived from the subsequent control maintained over the People that is sadistically enjoyed by elitists in both spheres. Just how to impose "checks" on government and industry is what our founding documents and wiser laws are all about. I'm speaking of course about the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights (especially) in the United States Constitution, and certain laws (if justiciably enforced and interpreted), e.g., the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, laws on legal immigration, and laws against pollution and unfair labor practices. The passing, enforcement and interpretation of laws depends upon three-branches of government properly functioning and not unduly influenced—a tall order, perhaps, but not a total impossibility.
The trick is to know when the shouters are representing the People or a corrupt System.
So shout all you want, rude interlopers, only educate yourselves first as to who's who and who's doing what to whom, so you know who and what you're really shouting at before deciding to interrupt and shout down a lecturer!
No comments:
Post a Comment