D'Souza's Latest Propaganda Atrocity Panned
One thing worth noting is the vicious headline:
Ouch.
As
Jim Gaines advises:
The week of July Fourth seems an odd time to release a film that questions the patriotism of the president of the United States, but that is precisely what right-wing idol Dinesh D'Souza sets out to do in his new film America: Imagine the World Without Her.
I wouldn't ordinarily dignify such nonsense with a column, but America the movie exemplifies everything that's wrong about the American political conversation these days, rich with examples from both left and right.
You get to meet a Sioux activist who wants to blow up Mount Rushmore, and a Chicano activist who talks about the golden morning when the United States will no longer exist. A former professor says that under certain unspecified conditions it might be just fine to drop a nuclear bomb on the United States.
The evil empire? "You're sitting in it," says the professor.
D'Souza lays out all of the worst charges against America, from slavery to the genocidal confiscation of Indian lands, from the way the American brand of predatory colonialism has stolen the world's resources to the way American-style free-market capitalism robs from the poor and gives to the rich.
He then knocks down these charges one by one, with arguments almost as foul as the real and alleged crimes ....
.... Then D'Souza swings around to his main target, President Barack Obama, whom he portrays as a believer in this radical-left narrative of American shame, in "America the Inexcusable." As a result, says D'Souza, Obama is engaged in a conspiracy to bring the U.S. to its knees.
Meanwhile, the convicted felon uses the film as a vehicle to further push his case that he is simply, in the words of Sean Hannity, "the latest victim to be targeted by the Obama White House". But he doesn't simply leave it to others to say:
At this point in the narrative D'Souza inserts a clip in which Fox News' Sean Hannity calls D'Souza "the latest victim to be targeted by the Obama White House," which allows him to avoid saying it himself.
What he does say is pretty close, though: "I made a mistake ... But we don't want to live in a society where Lady Justice has one eye open and winks at her friends and casts the evil eye at her adversaries. Where will they stop?"
He will be free to make the charge of selective prosecution more directly after his sentencing on Sept. 23.
One wonders, if he pleads regret and shame, and throws himself to the mercy of the court, whether the court will stop to consider that
after his conviction he released a film describing himself as a political victim, the
real victim?
And, furthermore, given his
questionable faculties for assessment, what sort of credibility does he really have as a propagandist?
It's not merely
ad hominem. This is a guy who, it seems, is always making "mistakes". To wit, he is a professional political hand who did not know that what he was doing was illegal? Uh-huh.
He is a Christian scholar who doesn't know what the Bible says? Okay, right.
As an historical philosopher? Oh, really? More indigenous people died of disease than war? Okay, so ... what was that bit about biological warfare, you know, where we traded smallpox death blankets to the tribes in order to make them sick?
Nobody is quite certain at this time
what his justification of slavery is supposed to mean.
But what do we do with this? It is not as if D'Souza is an eminent scholar; he is a man with a professional reputation for idiocy at best.
Which, of course, he will blame on President Obama.
____________________
Notes:
Gaines, Jim. "To celebrate the Fourth of July, don’t go see this movie". Reuters. July 2, 2014. Reuters.com. July 7, 2014. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...te-the-fourth-of-july-dont-go-see-this-movie/
This is how D'Souza makes his money. Just like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, et al. he panders to the fools. It's the old "fool the fool" story all over again. It's easy to do and you make big money. No morals required or wanted, education and knowledge optional. All that is required is the ability to invent political and economic fiction, to be able to rewrite history and known facts at will in order to advance so called conservative memes which by the way are certainly not conservative in the traditional sense.
Right wingers have adopted Saul Alinsky's, "Rules for Radicals" as their bible. It's required reading for right wing leaders.
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals
Here is the complete list from Alinsky.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals
