The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left

On its face, claims of the Left having roots in Nazism are ridiculous. Today, political writers are cherry picking history that agrees with the impression or claim they wish to make. The Left has its cause in Marxism that is well documented to have been at work in the 19th century in the U.S. through the fact that Karl Marx himself was writing articles for the New York Tribune in the 1850s inspiring the emerging Abolitionist movement, and the new Republican party movement. I suggest a book, "Lincoln's Marxists," among others for those wishing to grasp a well presented and documented view of the actual history. A gaggle of Jewish intellectuals were chased out of Germany for their radical Marxist views and came to New York City in 1848. They are called "The Forty-Eighters." They found the political turmoil and burgeoning economic arguments tied into the question of slavery and so found fertile ground for the establishment of their lofty, Ivory Tower dreams of a Socialist utopia. They got Lincoln's ear. In the mix was New England's radical Christians, leftovers from the 17th century Puritans that murdered a king and killed other fellow Christians because they were either Catholic or Anglican (English Protestant), and sent tens of thousands of them into slavery in the Caribbean. Joining them was Lyman Beecher, a popular radical preacher who preached to his congregations that they should go to Kansas and kill Southerners (good Christian man that he was). His daughter, Harriet Beecher (Stowe) wrote a book that most people are familiar with (Uncle Tom's Cabin), which is said to have made Queen Victoria cry and Lincoln comment that she was the little lady who started the war. She admitted when queried that she had never been to the South, never seen a plantation, and never met a slave, but that her book's story had come to her in "visions." So the cause of the Civil War, aside from the tariffs that the South suffered under and which Lincoln said in his inaugural address that he would enforce in the South with troops if necessary, was the rantings of a certifiably mentally ill, poor excuse for a preacher, preaching hate and murder, the sensational fiction of his daughter, and Marxists who had Lincoln's ear. This period saw a very strange and stealthy alliance between Marxists and Northern Protestant Christianity. (There is nothing in Marx's Communist Manifesto that prohibits one from being a Christian or that demands supporters or members be atheists. This became a requirement of the Bolsheviks after 1920. Anyone joining the party officially or taking a government position had to swear that they were not affiliated with any religion, which is also different than declaring oneself an atheist. In fact, during WW2, Stalin, who had studied for the priesthood before becoming a Bolshevik, opened the churches to increase morale during The Battle of Stalingrad and Russians poured in).After the Civil War, these same parties pushed for the creation of a separate black nation inside of the South that would be supported indefinitely by the remaining states. The early Marxists were FOR segregation, and so was WEB DuBois, a co-founder of the NAACP. Marxists, following the commands of Marx's Communist Manifesto, soon began labor riots in remote areas like Wisconsin lumber camps and mills, as well as Idaho mines. The Kentucky and Virginia Coal wars came later. (This is not to say that the other side was rights; it's just a fact of history that Marxism was behind it and Marxists were not satisfied with improved laborer's rights; they wanted the abolition of Capitalism and the end of the U.S as part of it). The Marxist-anarchist Emma Goldman encouraged violence as a solution and so influenced another recent immigrant to assassinate President McKinley.The history of the shifting of party platforms from 1860 to 1970 and beyond is important to understand. The Democrats of the pre-1960s were Southerners who believed in segregation, etc., but were opposed by a Northern Democrats who had been influenced by Marxism for decades by then (remember Scandinavians who settled in the upper Midwest were from countries that had already made their monarchs figureheads with parliament houses that had embraced socialism by the mid-19th century. Socialism also became a feature of Lutheranism for example). This tension was to be settled at the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention when Marxist radicals rioted and the police responded to weeks of promises of violence, including arson, rape, and vandalism, etc., promised by the radicals. Nixon was elected for promising to restore law and order and end the war in Vietnam "honorably." Southerners quit the Democratic party and voted Republican.Dinesh D'Souza seems to be both ignorantly and intentionally missing the above important facts and the major shift inside parties that it represents. He is actually assigning today's' usual Leftist diatribe of American misbehavior, stolen land, atrocities and genocide against Native Americans, slavery, and now a new one - Hitler supposedly was inspired by the same group of Southern Christians that are now Christian Conservatives. In Mein Kampf, Hitler never mentions this, but he does write that he watched the Boer Wars with great interest. The Second Boer War was the first time civilians were rounded up and put into concentration camps. Hitler also writes of his awareness of the Tsarist treatment of Jews, again, rounded up and occasionally terrorized in Pogroms. D'Souza wants us to believe that Hitler studied U.S. history as was inspired by it. He never mentions it in Mein Kampf. He also only mentions Democrats once in his chapter on dealing with Marxist "Reds." He attended a Democratic party meeting which was just another Marxist group in Munich at the time.D'Souza seems to ignore the fact that totalitarianism can be a character of any form of government (except a true democracy, republican or direct), as leaders of systems become dictators. He seems either ignorantly or intentionally to be missing these facts and others that would show for example that Hitler got his ideas from Russia, much closer, which had been herding Jews around, eventually containing them in a region that included part of Belarus called "The Pale of Settlement" and harassing them via Pogroms in the later 19th and early 20th centuries. Scapegoating Jews was a favorite dodge for the Romanov's and largely worked until 1917. The other influence would be the program of herding Boers into concentration camps. Hitler was never much of a student of U.S. history and Mein Kampf refers to Slavic and other traditional treatment of Jews as support for his arguments against Jews in general.My observation is the any book, pamphlet, editorial, speech, broadcast, etc., the titles itself as the absolute as in "The Big Lie" or "The Truth of......." is usually a lie in itself decorated with tantalizing fact or two to support an outrageous piece of propaganda that doesn't advance the issues but adds more confusion for the average person who hasn't got time to read and digest all the histories that would provide deeper insight and give the lie to any claims such as the ones that are offered in this book.So for those who are simply looking for another book of propaganda to counter the Left's and Antifa's accusations that all Republicans and people on the Right are "Nazis" by fabricating history in order to reverse that name-calling playground taunt, this book will be a delight. To a serious historian or someone who genuinely cares about the Right remaining RIGHT, correct, factually supported, morally superior, this book is appalling.

The logic that is the basis of this whole book defies me to the point that I find it fascinating. There never was a writer like D’Souza. He is brilliant in that he knows exactly what will appeal to the American right; he has been a prolific writer since the 1980s. America is in a state of crisis with polarization, and it is so essential we avoid making the condition deteriorate; this book will ensure that deterioration. I see there have been 1493 reviews to date, and only about 5% are one star reviews; the vast majority of reviews are five star ones. I see that the American right just loves this book. The author starts with the idea that a truly big lie would seem so preposterous that people would just not buy it. He states that in the book "Mein Kampf," Hitler stated so. Hitler's "big lie" was about the Jews. Hitler’s “big lie” was that Jews were crafty, cunning, evil people. Starting with the night of broken glass in 1938, he then started a relentless campaign to eradicate them. To equate that kind of mania to the Democrats is truly evil. The plantation democrats were focused on making their plantations prosperous, and unlike Hitler, were not on a campaign to eradicate any particular race. By the way the Jews of Europe were genetically no different from the “Aryans.” Even in India, where the name is so ancient, it refers to “the noble ones.” Hitler had a warped idea of race; the Aryans were likely Indo-Europeans, and were Persian or middle eastern in appearance with brown eyes; not the blue eyed blonde people that Hitler called Aryan. This book is yet another dangerous book from D’Souza, a major source of warped ideas that promote hate.Let’s recall the thesis of his book “End of Racism” published in 1995. In it he claimed that the American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well,” he wrote. I wonder why so many slaves tried their best to escape, if they were treated so well. D’Souza seems ignorant of the countless black people who died trying to harvest sugar cane, in brutal lethal labor. He also implied that black people actually owe white people reparations for abolishing slavery. “Africans were not uniquely unfortunate to be taken as slaves; their descendants were uniquely fortunate to be born in the only civilization in the world to abolish slavery on its own initiative,” one passage reads. How preposterous. Uniquely fortunate? It was the northern republicans that abolished that abhorrent practice. In other words, the slave owners of America’s plantations were not “racist,” but it was just a matter of economics. And now D’Souza turns against his own theory, saying they were indeed racist. Which is it? That book was ridiculed by literary critics of the day and no wonder. It defied logic.What is also preposterous is to equate the beliefs of the Nazis to the Democrats of a hundred years prior to the Nazi party’s origin in the early 1900s. The Nazis were ultra-radical racists, anti-semitic, true fascists, and obsessed with expansion beyond Germany. Hitler’s major focus was against the Jews, so to say that he got his ideas from American plantations is truly ridiculous. But then, D’Souza always takes something ridiculous and makes it into his own pseudo-reality.So I searched in this book, trying to find what "big lie" the American left is guilty of. What used to be the American left became the American right, and vice versa, about five decades or so. At least in the past three decades, it is clear as daylight which political party is to the right of the spectrum and which is to the left. D'Souza just *loves* to vilify the Democrats, with his own big lie. And it appears his readers largely have bought into this yet another D'Souza big lie.Ah, I think I get it: the ROOTS of the Democratic party were racist, plantation and slave owning, Indian displacing radicals. From a hundred years and more ago. But blaming today's democrats for what happened then, is like a Christian accusing a "born again Christian" of being doomed to an eternity in hell because of his past. That was a century ago. If anything, the Democrats redeemed themselves. The behavior of the American Left, indeed, is absolutely antithetical to the beliefs and practices of the democrats of many generations ago, and indeed that of Nazis. Indeed the democrats and anyone with good sense, are horrified by the Neo-Nazis. Those extremists are part of the radical right and have nothing to do with the current American left. D'Souza loves to live in a time warp, imagining that the democrats of a century ago have the same belief as what they do now. This is such nonsense and is truly offensive. But- he is a brilliant master at stirring up anger and hatred against the American left.I am so stunned that an immigrant from India has become so successful at polarizing America, bringing out so much hatred against the American left. Perhaps he learned how the British succeeded in India by polarizing the country. This book explores how the concept of right and left originated in France, after the French revolution. I have often wondered if India has a right and a left. The current Hindu nationals could perhaps be considered part of the right whereas the Congress party, very supportive of Christians and Muslims, has been the Indian left since independence. So in India D’Souza, being Christian, would be very much a part of the Indian left; but in America, being a dedicated Christian, he would naturally be inclined to lean right and even to the extreme right. It is so strange how things work.To summarize, he essentially accuses and blames people of today for what their great-great-great grandfathers did. All his books have this same theme. If you've read one of his books, you've read them all. I would congratulate anyone for having a wide audience of approving readers or listeners, but if the end result is to stir up more and more polarization and hatred, that is to be feared; as a fellow Indian immigrant, I am so dismayed. America needs to recover and move forward with the right and left working towards resolving their differences towards a successful reconciliation. A severely polarized America cannot ever succeed in any way.

If you think you already know why there is such a war going on between the Left and the Right, then this book is not for you. If you believe what you have been told (without having researched it yourself) This is Not the Book For you! If you are part of a political party (Republican, Democrat or Independent) and happy with the way things are, This Book is Not for you!But if you truly want to know the real history of the past, then this book is for You! I myself have known part of this story since my two Aunts and my Uncle was sterilized by the State of Kansas in 1936 (as teenagers without parental permission!). I KNOW about the history of the Democratic Party. Now Dinesh D'Souza brings all the connections to light. --- Read it if you dare!

Mr. D'Souza has done a masterful job of explaining how the political left has twisted reality--but what really is great about this book is how he uses so many sources to convincingly back up his assertions. This book brought this verse to my mind: "For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light." Luke 16:8

I read extensively about politics, history and economics. This is easily the best researched, written and articulate history of the greateast lie of the current era.If you want to understand the dangers and fabrications of the ill-liberal fascists of Democratic party in the USA or the vacuous Jihadi Justin Trudeau in Canada or the Marxists in the UK Labour party this is the book.I also thoroughly recommend 'Stealing America'

This is a book that everyone should read, no matter what stripe you are. I suspect too many have bought into the mainstream view of things , people need to wake up

thanks

Interesting views.

Excellent read