Rush - D'Souza Part #3
RUSH: Absolutely right. There’s no dispute. That’s why it’s one of the most amazing reversals of history for the Democrats to have had that record and essentially make the Republicans guilty of all that. It’s stunning that they pulled that off.
D’SOUZA: Right, that’s a big lie unto itself, but the point I’m making is just simply that the Nazis based their Nuremberg Laws on the blueprint of Democratic Party laws that had evolved essentially since the 1890s.
The third, and to me the most damning, is the way in which the Nazis in the 1930s based both their forced sterilization laws as well as their euthanasia laws on the models that had been created by Margaret Sanger and a whole bunch of American progressives. These American progressives were into eugenics. As Margaret Sanger said: “More children from the fit, and less from the unfit.” That’s how she viewed birth control. Not as a matter of giving every woman a choice, but as a matter of convincing the successful and the fit to have more kids, and essentially to prevent the unsuccessful, the sick, the so-called “imbeciles,” and what she considered to be the disposable people, from breeding altogether.
So American progressives had come up with two ideas. The one that Margaret Sanger favored was forced sterilization. But the other idea was proposed by a California eugenicist named Paul Popenoe, who said: “We have all these useless people who are already born. It’s not enough to have sterilization; we have to have euthanasia, we have to kill these people off. And since there are a lot of them, we need ‘lethal chambers’ to do it.”
Lethal chambers. The Nazis were all over that one. Then the Nazis started this business of gas chambers using carbon monoxide gas. The first people they killed were not the Jews; they were the sick, the disabled, the group that was called “imbeciles,” and then later the Nazi euthanasia program was expanded into Hitler’s Final Solution. So all of this is, as I say, right there in the historical record. And I’m bringing it out.
RUSH: Let me ask about the historical record. Are the three examples you have just cited the result of your interpretation, or is there documentation, are there quotes, are there written passages that attribute to Nazis the acknowledgement of studying policies of the American Democrat Party and their application to the Nazi ambitions in Germany? Or are they separate facts and similarities that you are assembling as evidence?
D’SOUZA: I am in some cases relying on the work of other scholars. For example, there’s a legal scholar at Yale, James Whitman, who has examined the transcripts of the Nuremberg Laws, how those were put together. He has a detailed account of how those laws were based almost point-for-point on the laws of the Democratic South.
“These Antifa guys wear masks and
carry baseball bats. They intimidate,
they terrorize, they use violence.
They are the most obvious living
equivalence of Mussolini’s Blackshirts
in the 1920s, or Hitler’s Brownshirts
in the 30s.” — Dinesh D’Souza
In other cases, we have the attribution of influence from Hitler himself. Hitler himself says: “I’m drafting laws that are based upon things from America.” And here’s the crusher: not only were the American progressives aware that the Nazis were taking their ideas, but they knew about it and they were super excited.
I cite an incident in the book in which prominent American progressive Madison Grant, president of the New York Zoological Society and a prominent eugenicist, gets a letter from Hitler, and he can’t believe it. It’s thanking him and congratulating him. So he goes to a fellow eugenicist, another American progressive, and says, “Hey, check this out, I got a letter from Hitler.” And that guy says: “Wait a minute.” He goes to his library and he comes back with his letter from Hitler. So these American leftists know they have had an architectural influence on German policies, and they are very, very pleased with themselves about it.
RUSH: Is this something your average progressive leader is aware of, or if they read your book, are they going to discover this for the first time, and be offended? Whereas the people you’re citing were proud, they were honored; modern-day leftists learning of this, say from your book, what’s their reaction to it going to be?
D’SOUZA: Oh, Rush, no, they will be stutteringly apoplectic about it. Because here’s the point: after World War II, the moment that American troops went into concentration camps and liberated emaciated captives who came tottering out looking ghostlike from those camps, Nazism and fascism became permanently discredited.
In fact, this is what got the big lie going. This happened as progressives in the 40s and early 50s were, for the first time, really coming into power in American academia and media, and even Hollywood. So these guys basically knew the record. They knew that the American left had been in bed with Mussolini in the 30s, and to a lesser degree with Hitler in the 30s. They knew. So they said, “Look, if we the Democratic Party, if we the left, are associated with fascism now, then we are finished. We will be permanently discredited.”
So in academia, the progressives essentially said, “Let’s not emphasize any of this. Let’s not remind everybody that fdr was a big fan of Mussolini, and sent members of his ‘brain trust’ to fascist Italy, because he considered Italian fascism more progressive than the New Deal. He wanted to bring fascist ideas to America. Let’s just kind of agree to forget about all this, and let’s try to move fascism from the left-wing column, where it’s always belonged, into the right-wing column, so that from now on, we can use it as a truncheon to beat up our political opponents.”
RUSH: In fact you have a whole chapter on the politics of intimidation, which anyone who’s effective on the right has experienced. For example, would you consider the “deep state” attack on Trump, or the soft coup, to be part of that? I mean, is the political establishment of both parties engaged in the intimidation you’re talking about here, against an outsider like Trump to make sure that no outsider ever succeeds in Washington?
D’SOUZA: Yes, I do think that there is a quasi-coup underway. What I mean by this is that normally if you’re trying to run some sort of an impeachment process, to get rid of somebody, there has to be an underlying crime. In Watergate, there was at least an underlying offense; the Watergate burglary. And there might have been a cover-up on top of that, but there was a crime to be covered up.
I think that the left is proceeding in this investigation with Trump, they don’t actually care if there was an underlying offense. They’re going to try to find obstruction of justice, even if there was nothing to be obstructed, nothing to obstruct. This shows that they know that what they’re about is a kind of usurpation or coup.
The relevance of this whole fascism inquiry is that the left pretends that Trump is Hitler circa 1933. And of course, the Germans in 1933 kind of put up with Hitler, and historians generally agree now that if they had been more vigilant, they could have gotten rid of him — but they didn’t, and look at the carnage that followed. So the left is using all that to say now: “Look, maybe we’re doing things against Trump that would otherwise be considered to be outlandish, but because Trump is a fascist, he’s such a bad guy, we’re fully justified in getting rid of him by any means necessa
D’SOUZA: Right, that’s a big lie unto itself, but the point I’m making is just simply that the Nazis based their Nuremberg Laws on the blueprint of Democratic Party laws that had evolved essentially since the 1890s.
The third, and to me the most damning, is the way in which the Nazis in the 1930s based both their forced sterilization laws as well as their euthanasia laws on the models that had been created by Margaret Sanger and a whole bunch of American progressives. These American progressives were into eugenics. As Margaret Sanger said: “More children from the fit, and less from the unfit.” That’s how she viewed birth control. Not as a matter of giving every woman a choice, but as a matter of convincing the successful and the fit to have more kids, and essentially to prevent the unsuccessful, the sick, the so-called “imbeciles,” and what she considered to be the disposable people, from breeding altogether.
So American progressives had come up with two ideas. The one that Margaret Sanger favored was forced sterilization. But the other idea was proposed by a California eugenicist named Paul Popenoe, who said: “We have all these useless people who are already born. It’s not enough to have sterilization; we have to have euthanasia, we have to kill these people off. And since there are a lot of them, we need ‘lethal chambers’ to do it.”
Lethal chambers. The Nazis were all over that one. Then the Nazis started this business of gas chambers using carbon monoxide gas. The first people they killed were not the Jews; they were the sick, the disabled, the group that was called “imbeciles,” and then later the Nazi euthanasia program was expanded into Hitler’s Final Solution. So all of this is, as I say, right there in the historical record. And I’m bringing it out.
RUSH: Let me ask about the historical record. Are the three examples you have just cited the result of your interpretation, or is there documentation, are there quotes, are there written passages that attribute to Nazis the acknowledgement of studying policies of the American Democrat Party and their application to the Nazi ambitions in Germany? Or are they separate facts and similarities that you are assembling as evidence?
D’SOUZA: I am in some cases relying on the work of other scholars. For example, there’s a legal scholar at Yale, James Whitman, who has examined the transcripts of the Nuremberg Laws, how those were put together. He has a detailed account of how those laws were based almost point-for-point on the laws of the Democratic South.
“These Antifa guys wear masks and
carry baseball bats. They intimidate,
they terrorize, they use violence.
They are the most obvious living
equivalence of Mussolini’s Blackshirts
in the 1920s, or Hitler’s Brownshirts
in the 30s.” — Dinesh D’Souza
In other cases, we have the attribution of influence from Hitler himself. Hitler himself says: “I’m drafting laws that are based upon things from America.” And here’s the crusher: not only were the American progressives aware that the Nazis were taking their ideas, but they knew about it and they were super excited.
I cite an incident in the book in which prominent American progressive Madison Grant, president of the New York Zoological Society and a prominent eugenicist, gets a letter from Hitler, and he can’t believe it. It’s thanking him and congratulating him. So he goes to a fellow eugenicist, another American progressive, and says, “Hey, check this out, I got a letter from Hitler.” And that guy says: “Wait a minute.” He goes to his library and he comes back with his letter from Hitler. So these American leftists know they have had an architectural influence on German policies, and they are very, very pleased with themselves about it.
RUSH: Is this something your average progressive leader is aware of, or if they read your book, are they going to discover this for the first time, and be offended? Whereas the people you’re citing were proud, they were honored; modern-day leftists learning of this, say from your book, what’s their reaction to it going to be?
D’SOUZA: Oh, Rush, no, they will be stutteringly apoplectic about it. Because here’s the point: after World War II, the moment that American troops went into concentration camps and liberated emaciated captives who came tottering out looking ghostlike from those camps, Nazism and fascism became permanently discredited.
In fact, this is what got the big lie going. This happened as progressives in the 40s and early 50s were, for the first time, really coming into power in American academia and media, and even Hollywood. So these guys basically knew the record. They knew that the American left had been in bed with Mussolini in the 30s, and to a lesser degree with Hitler in the 30s. They knew. So they said, “Look, if we the Democratic Party, if we the left, are associated with fascism now, then we are finished. We will be permanently discredited.”
So in academia, the progressives essentially said, “Let’s not emphasize any of this. Let’s not remind everybody that fdr was a big fan of Mussolini, and sent members of his ‘brain trust’ to fascist Italy, because he considered Italian fascism more progressive than the New Deal. He wanted to bring fascist ideas to America. Let’s just kind of agree to forget about all this, and let’s try to move fascism from the left-wing column, where it’s always belonged, into the right-wing column, so that from now on, we can use it as a truncheon to beat up our political opponents.”
RUSH: In fact you have a whole chapter on the politics of intimidation, which anyone who’s effective on the right has experienced. For example, would you consider the “deep state” attack on Trump, or the soft coup, to be part of that? I mean, is the political establishment of both parties engaged in the intimidation you’re talking about here, against an outsider like Trump to make sure that no outsider ever succeeds in Washington?
D’SOUZA: Yes, I do think that there is a quasi-coup underway. What I mean by this is that normally if you’re trying to run some sort of an impeachment process, to get rid of somebody, there has to be an underlying crime. In Watergate, there was at least an underlying offense; the Watergate burglary. And there might have been a cover-up on top of that, but there was a crime to be covered up.
I think that the left is proceeding in this investigation with Trump, they don’t actually care if there was an underlying offense. They’re going to try to find obstruction of justice, even if there was nothing to be obstructed, nothing to obstruct. This shows that they know that what they’re about is a kind of usurpation or coup.
The relevance of this whole fascism inquiry is that the left pretends that Trump is Hitler circa 1933. And of course, the Germans in 1933 kind of put up with Hitler, and historians generally agree now that if they had been more vigilant, they could have gotten rid of him — but they didn’t, and look at the carnage that followed. So the left is using all that to say now: “Look, maybe we’re doing things against Trump that would otherwise be considered to be outlandish, but because Trump is a fascist, he’s such a bad guy, we’re fully justified in getting rid of him by any means necessa
