Hadding

Hadding

Hadding

subscribers

Redacted and elaborated interview with E. Michael Jones from Press TV, 10 January 2020.

Excerpt from the podcast of the Catholic University of America's Institute for Policy Research, where Dennis Nilsen explains to E. Michael Jones that the government of the United States encouraged Poland to take a belligerent attitude toward Germany, leading to the Second World War.

Jason Reza Jorjani comments on the situation in Iran.
Clip from Red Ice TV of 4 January 2020.

Clip from the Jolly Heretic of 27 December 2019

Clip from the Jolly Heretic of 27 December 2019

Truthseeker with Daniel Bushell looks at the BBC's electronic alteration of a video in support of the accusation that Bashar al-Assad gassed civilians. The program originally aired on Russia Today on 23 March 2014.

Julius Streicher on the witness stand during the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, on 26 April 1946, tells of the physical abuse that he suffered at the hands of American soldiers.

These statements were redacted from the official transcript.

Follow me @NSWorldview on Gab & @HaddingScott on Twitter.

In 1945 Hollywood director Billy Wilder made the film Die Todesmühlen for OMGUS (American occupational military government of Germany). The film told the German people that TWENTY MILLION had been murdered in THREE HUNDRED concentration camps operated by their government during the war. The clip here is from the English-language version, created in 1946 apparently for indoctrination of U.S. armed forces.

The point here is to show what kind of extreme accusations were being made in 1945, and how the story has changed since then.

Of course, a reasonable person would suspect that the story as it now stands might still not be correct.

Information relevant to this video can be found here: https://codoh.com/library/document/4239/

Leftist history professor Kevin M. Kruse foolishly accepts Dinesh D'Souza's challenge at face-value.

By the way -- if you like this video, give it an UPVOTE, please. I am flattered to have so many downvotes, since it means that I truly am an independent thinker, but upvotes are even better.

Dinesh D'Souza makes unsubstantiated categorical assertions and invalid arguments in support of reckless false conclusions.

When somebody produces a counterexample to one of his categorical assertions, his typical reaction is to minimize the counterexample's importance and to continue making the same general assertion. After I spent weeks in 2017 battering D'Souza on Twitter with the fact that eugenic sterilization a century ago was mainly a Republican cause, he began admitting that some Republicans like Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant had supported eugenic sterilization, but marginalized them as "RINOs," which they clearly were not. He also has put qualifiers on some of his other sweeping assertions: it is now not "all," but "the vast majority" of KKK leaders that he says were Democrats, and he no longer says that no Republican ever enacted a segregation law, but instead no Republican after the 1880s. When one of Dinesh D'Souza's unverified sweeping assertions is proven wrong, he makes an excuse and then keeps on saying it.

In this video I go into detail about one example, D'Souza's argument that the Democrats were "the party of slavery," which employs bad logic and pretends to be based on the spurious assertion that no Republican owned a slave in 1860. The text for this presentation was written on 9 June 2019, after I noticed that someone had adduced the name of Francis Preston Blair as a slaveholder who was not only a Republican in 1860 but had helped to found the party. On the following day, Dinesh D'Souza did as I predicted, minimized the importance of the counterexample that he had tauntingly solicited for several years, and asserted that he was essentially correct in spite of it.

An important principle in dealing with a dishonest interlocutor like Dinesh D'Souza is not to let him set the rules of discourse. The leftist "twitterstorians" arguing with D'Souza made this mistake. They foolishly allowed D'Souza to tell them how they must approach his argument, and now -- surprise, surprise -- after they've jumped through his hoop D'Souza is still not admitting that he was wrong.

Dinesh D'Souza pleaded guilty to campaign-finance fraud.

Here you see the real mugshot with D'Souza wearing an orange prisoner's jumpsuit and needing a shave, not the fake one that D'Souza made to divert attention from this image, which he finds embarrassing.

Condensed from the 1933 documentary Mussolini Speaks.

Narrated by Lowell Thomas, directed by Edgar G. Ulmer, produced by Jack Cohn for Columbia Pictures back in the days before Mussolini was regarded as a bad guy.

I tailored this short version for uploading on Twitter.

A response to Dinesh D'Souza's misrepresentation of Abraham Lincoln as not racist.

Only 45 seconds long so that it can be posted on Twitter.

The House Judiciary Committee's hearing on "Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism" featured moving testimony about a case that had absolutely nothing to do with White Nationalism, where no hate-crime charges were brought. Mass-media in general avoided calling attention to the inconsistency, while Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks aggressively supported the misrepresentation.

SHOW MORE

Created 7 months, 2 weeks ago.

14 videos

CategoryOther

Dinesh D'Souza puts forth many unsubstantiated categorical assertions and invalid arguments in support of reckless false conclusions.

When somebody produces a counterexample to one of his categorical assertions, his typical reaction is to minimize the counterexample's importance and to continue making the same general assertion. After I spent weeks in 2017 battering D'Souza on Twitter with the fact that eugenic sterilization a century ago was mainly a Republican cause, he began admitting that some Republicans like Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant had supported eugenic sterilization, but marginalized them as "RINOs," which they clearly were not. He also has put qualifiers on some of his other sweeping assertions: it is now not "all," but "the vast majority" of KKK leaders that he says were Democrats, and he no longer says that no Republican ever enacted a segregation law, but instead no Republican after the 1880s. When one of Dinesh D'Souza's unverified sweeping assertions is proven wrong, he makes an excuse and then keeps on saying it.

In this video I go into detail about one example, D'Souza's argument that the Democrats were "the party of slavery," which employs bad logic and pretends to be based on the spurious assertion that no Republican owned a slave in 1860. The text for this presentation was written on 9 June 2019, after I noticed that someone had adduced the name of Francis Preston Blair as a slaveholder who was not only a Republican in 1860 but had helped to found the party. On the following day, Dinesh D'Souza did as I predicted, minimized the importance of the counterexample that he had tauntingly solicited for several years, and asserted that he was essentially correct in spite of it.

An important principle in dealing with a dishonest interlocutor like Dinesh D'Souza is not to let him set the rules of discourse. The leftist "twitterstorians" arguing with D'Souza made this mistake. They foolishly allowed D'Souza to tell them how they must approach his argument, and now -- surprise, surprise -- after they've jumped through his hoop D'Souza is still not admitting that he was wrong.