>>2448812 last
Actually you and what you are responding to are both wrong. Half truths made to look like something happened that didn't happen the way it actually did. Dinesh Disinfo is a fraud and liar. He is trying to make you a liberal neo con which is what he is. He is a conman.
That movie is ridiculous and stupid. The left loves that Dinesh Disinfo peddles his stupid DR3 DEMSrREALracists nonsense. They laugh at it and it has no effect on them. Plus it is untrue ultimately.
The reality of the change in the parties. The truth about what the real right wing is. And why the cucks like Dinesh Disinfo are worthless faggots.
Dinesh D'Souza's narrative about how the Democrats are "the real racists" or, lately, "the real fascists" or even "the real nazis," is so full of holes, and so easily refuted, that it can be hard to understand why anyone could really be taken in by it.
At least, it is hard to conceive of how somebody with a memory extending back to the 1970s could be taken in by it. In the 1970s, before Trotskyite Jews calling themselves "Neoconservatives" had acquired much influence, conservatism had not yet been entirely redefined as the demand for free markets and less government (which is actually liberalism, not conservatism). The pro-White motive in conservatism, therefore, was much more conspicuous a few decades ago. For anybody who remembers that, D'Souza's contention that Segregationists were leftists is such obvious balderdash that it requires no refutation. Certainly, Rush Limbaugh, born in 1951, knows enough that he cannot genuinely take D'Souza seriously in this – yet he plays along.
Nonetheless, there are sincere people, all of them I suppose too young to remember politics before Reagan, who are not just playing along but really have been deceived by D'Souza. Because they are sincere, they can be persuaded.
I have had some success in convincing followers of Dinesh D'Souza on Twitter that he has been lying to them. If somebody says that D'Souza's book is excellent or interesting, I respond that it is a stupid book. Alternately one could say that it is a very dishonest book. Thereupon there is a reaction of incredulity and a demand for an explanation. Now a discussion begins.
You post Dinesh Disinfo's stupid ridiculous movie trailer and then a pic of a nigger with the words "hang".
Very interesting lack of self awareness my friend.
You should put these nice little factoids and simple truths on some pictures anon. That would be very useful.
What is Conservative?
It goes back to a semantic question about what is right, what is left, and what is conservative. These terms do not mean the same today as they meant 100 years ago.
During the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, the meaning of the word liberal changed drastically. Westbrook Pegler, a dogged critic of the New Deal, wrote this in his column of 21 September 1953:
>>The truth is that our entire people have been brainwashed by the Roosevelt-Truman administrations for the last 20 years. The result is that today most of us don't even know what our constitutional rights really are. We are afraid to say that Hitler was right about communism and Soviet Russia. Words which formerly had honest meanings now mean exactly the reverse to most of us. Those few who stubbornly insist on using the word “liberal” in its old, genuine meaning, are almost totally misunderstood. We even know we will be misunderstood when we use it.
[…]
>>I am one of the most liberal liberals in the country. But those who use the name “liberal” as their designation of a line of thought put me down as a reactionary. Well, I am. I hit back when I am hit. That is my reaction to abusive action. Suppose then that we say I am a reactionary liberal. These two political cliches are supposed to be mutually contradictory, although they really are not as any person must admit who knows the meanings of plain American words. [Westbrook Pegler, Reading Eagle, 21 September 1953]
Pegler tells us that before FDR, a liberal was somebody who wanted free markets and less interference from government. That political orientation today is called conservative.
So, if what now passes for conservative used to be liberal, what was conservative? I will give you a clue. Being conservative 100 years ago was not about less government. Conservatives 100 years ago used to recognize that individual freedom had a downside to it.