Short answer: Yes.
This video is available on Rumble, BitChute, and Odysee.
I’m sure you have heard the phrase, “The Democrats are the real racists.” It’s even got a snazzy abbreviation, DR3. “Democrats R Real Racists.”
A lot of Republicans seem to think this is the knock-out blow against Democrats who call Republicans racists.
The guy who seems to have made the most money out of this line is the writer and movie-maker Dinesh D’Souza. In 2016, he talked to the Daily Caller about a movie he had just made called Hillary’s America — starring Dinesh D’Souza.
The promo copy explains that, “This eye-opening film sheds light on the Democrats’ transition from pro-slavery to pro-enslavement.”
In the interview, Mr. D’Souza explained:
“So if you were to tell the ordinary black guy: ‘Hey listen. Which is the party of slavery? The Democrats. Which is the party of segregation? The Democrats. Which is the party of the Ku Klux Klan? The Democrats. Which is the party of lynching? The Democrats.’ Most people don’t know that. And, so, it is eye opening for them and it makes them begin to rethink their assumption. So that’s what we’re trying to do with this film.”
Did Mr. D’Souza really think he was going to make blacks stop supporting Hillary Clinton by telling them that Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest were Democrats?
That blacks would wise up and vote for Donald Trump, once he told them Bull Connor, who had black demonstrators fire-hosed 70 years ago, was a Democrat? He must think blacks are idiots.
Sebastian Gorka worked for Donald Trump in the White House and is not known for being stupid, but he pushes the same foolishness: “The Disturbing History of Racism in the Democratic Party.”
He jabbers about slavery and then throws some real haymakers: “So racist were the Democrats that, during the Wilson Administration, the incredibly racist film, “Birth of a Nation,” was screened at the White House in 1915.”
He adds triumphantly that Frederick Douglas, who died 127 years ago, and Booker T. Washington, who died 107 years ago, were Republicans.
Does he really think proves Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are racists?
Mr. D’Souza and Mr. Gorka love to tell you that the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, was “the great emancipator,” practically a demi-god compared to those Democrat, slave-owning Confederates.
Lincoln didn’t like slavery, but he didn’t like blacks, either. Once they were free, he wanted them gone. In 1862, when you’d think he was busy fighting a war, he was worrying about how to get rid of black people. He appointed James Mitchell as United States Commissioner of Emigration [of negroes] to find a place, far away, where all blacks would go.
Mitchell invited a delegation of blacks to the White House so Lincoln could ask them to clear out. This was the first time blacks had set foot in the White House on official business and not as servants, slaves, or workmen. Lincoln got right to the point: “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. . . . [T]his physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.”
He told the blacks that it was only because their people were in this country that Yankees and Confederates were slaughtering each other. He told them he had picked out a nice place for them in Central America, and asked them to convince all other blacks to pack up and go there.
But, somehow, it’s today’s Democrats — not Lincoln in 1862 — who are “the real racists.”
Sebastian Gorka ends with this clincher: “Candace Owens and Kanye West are correct: the Democrats are still the real racists.”
Wow. That does it. Makes me want to buy an America First T-shirt with Sebastian Gorka’s name on it.
The fact is, until maybe the 1950s or ’60s, just about everyone in America was hopelessly “racist,” by today’s standards. It makes no sense to single out the Democrats.
After the Reconstruction, the Democrats were the party that governed in the South. That’s the only reason why all the famous Southern segregationists were Democrats: George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Theodore Bilbo, Ben Tillman.
Strom Thurmond first went to the senate as a segregationist Democrat, but switched to Republican in 1964.
At the time, the New York Times said this: “Senator Thurmond’s appeal is confined to the diehard white supremacists . . . . the Republican party in the South is now being built as a ‘lily-white’ party.”
Just about every conservative Southern white left the Democrats for the same reason.
But some Republicans talk as if Bull Connor were running the Democrat party.
Here’s Newt Gingrich in Newsweek, telling us that “Democrats are the Real Racists — and Minority Americans are Taking Note.”
Really? I don’t see any members of the Black Congressional Caucus — all Democrats — defecting to the Republicans.
I guess Ayana Pressley and Maxine Waters love caucusing with racists.
The American Mind is a site that sometimes gets things right. Not this article on “The Institutional Racism of the Democratic Party,” which claims “It’s the most persistent hate group in human history.”
How’s this for a true knockout punch: “There is systemic racism in America: Democrats run that system, in partnership with their high-tech, crypto-Klan media apparatus.”
Whatever you think of MSNBC, “crypto-Klan” doesn’t seem quite right to me.
One of the deep thinkers at Townhall explains that “Actually everything the Democrats do is Racist.”
This lady really pushes back the frontiers of knowledge.
Promoting abortion is racist. That’s because blacks are more likely to want abortions so letting them end a pregnancy is racist because that means fewer black babies. At the same time, giving blacks welfare is racist because it makes it easy for single black women to have babies. That means more black babies, but it’s racist because it means more fatherlessness. Whooping up LGBT grievances is racist because it minimizes the horrors of slavery.
Letting men compete in women’s sports is racist because black lady athletes are better than white lady athletes.
Yep, this genius actually says this.
She is saying that unless you examine every possible law or policy in terms of “What’s in it for blacks?” you’re a racist. That is exactly the same thinking behind wanting to get rid of the SAT test — or traffic stops, or library fines, or bicycle helmet laws, or arrests for fare-beating, or vagrancy laws — because blacks can’t follow the rules.
She’s saying blacks are the only people in America who matter — just the way Democrats do.
It’s even worse. It doesn’t seem to have dawned on these boneheads that they have swallowed the very anti-white nonsense they think they are battling. These so-called “conservatives” think they have found a way to fight back at Democrats who say it’s racist to seal the border or ban Critical Race Theory in schools. In fact, they have fully accepted the idea that if you can call a policy or an idea “racist,” you’ve landed a killer blow. American politics becomes a name-calling contest, and the side that shouts “racist” the loudest wins. That means the only thing that counts in American politics is what’s good for blacks.
These people have surrendered without a fight. They have made it impossible to defend what really matters. Once you think your side wins by calling the other side racist, how do you begin even to think about the biological reality of race, race differences in IQ, The Great Replacement, the colossal failures of multi-racial America, the right of whites to survive as a distinct people, and how to ensure their survival?
A couple of weeks ago, I had a long talk with a remarkable person — an honest journalist — who has been writing about American Renaissance for more than 15 years. He brought up “Democrats are the real racists,” and wanted to know how anyone could fall for it. “It’s an argument for morons,” he said.
He’s right. Dangerous morons. Sometimes, even journalists get it right.
Before “The Democrats are the Racists” there was “The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations” in the Bush Era (2001-2009), which’s a more sophisticated way of of saying the same baloney – indeed, we’ve got dumber in the last 15-20 years, no doubt!
“The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations” = Hey I’m a Republican (!) and I think Blacks don’t need Affirmative Action because they are just as smart as Whites, unlike the evil Dems who otherwise think Blacks are biologically/genetically dumber, hence the need for Affirmative Action!
It’s a flaccid argument that moves no one ideologically. Blacks could care less about DR3.
How about both sides just agree that I’m the only true race-ist.
But Zionist are racial supremacists. Just ask the Palestinians.
Anyway, anyone who uses ‘racism’ as epithet is NOT to be trusted. A cuck.
Don’t go around calling others racist if you are white, it will not work. Our path is more rocky. Whites have to learn not to be afraid of being called racist. Most accusations of racism are hoaxes or exaggerations anyway, the smart racist has already learned when not to say the wrong thing. Accusations of racism is a weapon of convenience for a lot of non-whites, they will never let it go. We need to become harder.
Sounds like Tucker Carlson.
Blacks couldn’t care less about DR3.
Blacks don’t care about what happened in 1865 or 1965 – their attitude is “what are you going to do for me and my people NOW.”
In the 1960s and earlier, the Republican Party collectively was more socially liberal than the Democrat Party. Should that matter today?
Edward Bernays has probably done more damage to Europeans than Marx ever thought about. While it’s true that the DR3 agit-prop convinces few non-whites that the GOP is their real friend, it performs a much more valuable function with regard to US whites. Without this shiny object twinkling in the background, US whites might realize the the Historic Democratic Party of Jefferson, Jackson, Jeff Davis, W.J. Bryan, and Wilson was first, last, and always, the pro-white political party in the US. Older Americans might remember when the “New York” Democrats took over the National Democratic Party in 1933, and younger Americans can recall the 60s and 70s, when the last pro-white Americans were ruthlessly read out of the Party at the State and local levels. The last act of the Bolshevik-style purge is the driving any abortion doubter out of the Party. The the Democratic Party will be a purely anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Western Civilization, anti-white, and anti-anything-normal organization. White Americans, largely being ignorant of history older than 2008, might be enlightened to find out that there did exist at one time (throughout most of America’s history in fact) an openly pro-white political party, willing to stand up in public and fight for white peoples’ rights. For most ignoramus-Americans, the very idea seems impossible. And Leftists desperately want to keep it that way. After all, what man has done; man can do.
This all might’ve been relevant in 2014 or so. Time to retire, Mr. Boomer, sir.
Jared Taylor is such a brazen liar I decided to make an annotated version of his remarks about Lincoln.
“Lincoln didn’t like slavery, but he didn’t like blacks, either.”
Yet Lincoln was more responsible than any other man for freeing them and turning them loose on white people. I ask you, is this the action of a man who hated blacks?
“Once they were free, he wanted them gone.”
Correction: he once or twice saidhe wanted them gone, but his actions prove he didn’t.
“In 1862, when you’d think he was busy fighting a war, he was worrying about how to get rid of black people.”
But not worrying very much, apparently. In his last public address before being assassinated, he called for them to be made citizens and given the vote. It should be easy to see from this facile turnabout that at heart, Lincoln was no racist, but a dyed-in-the-wool racial egalitarian.
“He appointed James Mitchell as United States Commissioner of Emigration [of negroes] to find a place, far away, where all blacks would go.Mitchell invited a delegation of blacks to the White House so Lincoln could ask them to clear out.”
And here we come to the nub of the matter. Any “plan” that relied on all the negroes volunteering to leave was not a plan at all, only a pipe dream.
“This was the first time blacks had set foot in the White House on official business and not as servants, slaves, or workmen.”
In other words, on terms of equality with whites. Another first from Jared Taylor’s hero, “Honest” Abe. I suppose it’s fitting, in a way, that a liar such as Taylor should admire Lincoln, one of the greatest and most successful liars to ever hold the American presidency. And that’s saying something!
“He told the blacks that it was only because their people were in this country that Yankees and Confederates were slaughtering each other. ”
Let’s note that this is the exact opposite of what Taylor and other Civil War revisionists argue. They are quite fond of making the astonishingly stupid claim that the Civil War had NOTHING at all to do with slavery. Why, it was only an attempt to save the Union, doncha know! LOL.
“He told them he had picked out a nice place for them in Central America, and asked them to convince all other blacks to pack up and go there.”
Asked them! To convince all the other blacks to pack up and go there! LOL. Yes, very realistic! If Lincoln actually believed that had a snowball’s chance in hell of happening then he must have been even stupider than the average “white nationalist” who buys into the lie that Lincoln didn’t like negroes.
“But, somehow, it’s today’s Democrats — not Lincoln in 1862 — who are “the real racists.””
Jared Taylor’s comical attempt to portray the Great Emancipator as “the real racist” is an epic fail.
Not racists but culturists.
Forager culture vs. townsfolk culture vs. freedom culture.
The first two put organizations first, the latter puts the individual first.
Guess which one works best.
Sometimes it takes a lot of words to build a straw man.
You do realize that the “not about slavery” argument is a rearguard tactic to combat the even more simplistic “all about slavery” myth that has been opportunistically deployed to indoctrinate the country for generations, cynically if correctly assuming that most Americans are incapable of (or at least disinclined towards) critical nor independent thought?
It’s extremely similar to the tactic that sold everybody on the “WW2 was about the Holocaust” myth. After saturating the public with this childlike view for the better part of the century, we’re at the point where any reasoned big-picture analysis of the factors that led to WW2 is open to charges of antisemitism if it doesn’t put the Holocaust front and center.
No matter how big you make the word NOTHING, it still fails to accurately represent the factual and historical arguments that correctly identify slavery as a catalyst rather than a first cause. It would be progress just to get most people to the point at which they’d realize (or maybe even grudgingly admit) that economics, manufacturing concerns, and centralized political control had ANYTHING to do with sending 600,000+ people to their death.
Don’t tell me you know NOTHING about overstating your case to make a point.
Sollipsist: “No matter how big you make the word NOTHING, it still fails to accurately represent the factual and historical arguments that correctly identify slavery as a catalyst rather than a first cause.”
Lincoln says it’s the ONLY cause. Again, as Taylor puts it: “He told the blacks that it was only because their people were in this country that Yankees and Confederates were slaughtering each other. ”
How’s that for “factual and historical”? So who’s lying here? JT? Lincoln? Both?
Sollipsist: “It would be progress just to get most people to the point at which they’d realize (or maybe even grudgingly admit) that economics, manufacturing concerns, and centralized political control had ANYTHING to do with sending 600,000+ people to their death.”
In The Battle Hymn of the Republic, the Union soldiers sang the line Let us die to make men free!. N.b., they didn’t claim to be willing to die for manufacturing concerns, for economics, for tariffs, for centralized political control, or even to save the Union. Their cause was freeing the slaves. Without this moral cause, it’s hard to see how they would have justified the war, either to themselves or anyone else.
Trump correctly intuited that blacks mainly care about the gimmies, and so about a month before the 2020 election he unveiled his $500 billion “Platinum Plan.” Nice try, but most blacks doubted he would actually implement it, and, inner-city entrepreneurship funding is not a true gimmie. It has to be true gimmies. A 2024 Republican candidate would need to outbid Dem nominee Gavin Newsom on true gimmies to become non-racist. But of course he would lose more votes than he would gain; so it’s better to be the racist candidate.
Except to punish them. Their criminal record over 200 years equals that of the Communists or National Socialists. Those parties are now banned, as this one should be. In contrast, the worst thing the GOP did was to steal Puerto Rico and Hawaii. Democrats need to feel real pain. Long prison sentences, like those given to Edwards and Blagojevich.
Perhaps, but the statement is true nonetheless. The point is, why are they “racists”? 200 years of experience, that’s why. They know perfectly well the Second Amendment does not apply to blacks; they need to be forced to say out loud why. They know the blues isn’t real music, let alone all its many spawn.
Democrats are the real white supremacists. The trick is not to get blacks to believe it– they already know, and are paid (successfully) not to care– it is to get whites to choose which party’s flavor is more palatable.
One party says disarm everybody, the other, disarm nobody. The latter may be untenable, but it’s valid for whites.
It’s a shame that, at this late stage, this still has to be pointed out. But it does, it certainly does.
I recommend refusing to even cite the term unless it’s placed in sneer quotes, just like ‘anti-semitism.’
The only exception I would make is for accusing someone of anti-white racism. I prefer to just accuse them of being anti-white, for which the noun would be anti-whitism, but that may confuse some people, so if the noun must be referred to then “anti-white racism” is acceptable.
@ Robert Morgan,
This reply is superb. I had plans to add it to my site together with Jared Taylor’s lies but yesterday it was taken down. However, I’ll still be blogging here:
The leading proponent of DR3 is Mark Levin of Fox News. He was at it yet again tonight, 10/23/22. Jared Taylor should respond to him in another video.