The Real Implications of Dinesh D'Souza's Strategy regarding Muslims

if we bypass all the code words, we know that dinesh is simplifying the politico-cultural conflict as between liberal-to-leftwing jews at one end and conservative-to-fundamentalist muslims at the other.
it's jews vs muslims, and we should side with the muslims?

dinesh argues thus because he sees jews as being amongst us and corrupting us from within. muslims, no matter how tardish, are not gnawing at our nation from within. it's easier to deal with foreign threat.
also, dinesh argues that while arabs sell us what we urgently and practically need, jews sell us filth and hatred. and while arab oil lubricates our machines, jewish filth seeps into our mind and soul.
so, can jews be trusted? they made tons of money off the US yet many are still radical, anti-american, and hate-filled. steven soderberg is making a pro-Che Guevara mooie.
but, can arabs be trusted? we made many of them rich by buying gazillion barrels of their oil yet many in that part of the world hate us murderously. in both cases, we are dealing with semites, and maybe there is something in the semitic blood which is extreme.

dinesh asks is arab or islamic anti-americanism really anti-americanism or is it anti-jew-americanism? is america hated by arabs because they see it as a jew dominated radical, hedonistic, zionist state?
anyway, if we follow dinesh's argument, it's as though we should try to liberate ourselves from jew domination, filth, and radicalism. and we should make a tactical alliance with muslims. muslims are thankfully not amongst us in huge numbers which makes it easier to deal with them. similarly, US could deal with communist china cuz chinese commies were not amongst us.

----------------------

is dinesh's argument essentially about jew dominated america?
when he talks of the filth of american culture, he's not exactly talking about nashville. he's talking about two main influences: jewish and negro. of the two, the jewish power and influence may be more important since jews don't just create popular culture but hold the reins over much of the cultural and media industries. negroes are prominent in popular culture but without jewish organizational and management know-how, there wouldn't be a media network thru which negro culture could be disseminated. jews are heavily involved in creating much of pop culture. there are many jewish musical composers, writers, producers, directors, comedians, etc. but jews also own and operate much of the media empires.
this cannot be said of negroes, at least not generally. there have been negro moguls with their media empire. think of the guy who ran motown. but, the people who've run most of media have been jews. so, jews gave the green or red light to what as permissible in our popular culture. jews were the gatekeepers, the promoters. even in boxing, a fighter needs to be promoted and matched with other fighters.
so, when we look at american popular culture, we cannot understand it without considering the power of jews. and we find much of our popular culture filthy, disgusting, valuefree, ugly, and hideous. we wonder why infidelity, loose sex, mindless violence and thuggery, and such are being promoted throughout our culture? well, the obvious answer is because such sell and people want that stuff. and, i would be the last person to call for some wholesome puritanical popular culture. but, there's a difference between examining/exploring social/psychological problems and glorifying, endorsing, and celebrating them--indeed, treating them as though they are not problems at all. it's one thing to say adultery is a fact of life. it's another thing to say it's fun and cool. 'desperate housewives' turns adultery into some kind of fun game. 'jerry springer show' turns real problems of real people into a sad circus. 'maury povich show' makes pregnancies-out-of-wedlock into freakshow events.
there are few jews in the media who call for any kind of moral order. most jewish figures range from nihilistic hedonism to hateful radicalism. the nihilist hedonists take everything for granted and laugh at all the value-folks as squares and dullards--as if life is only meaningful if it's meaningless.
then, you have the radical jews who see social morality as nothing but ploy by the rich exploitative class to keep the masses docile or as a weapon of the masses of dumb poor to justify their pious loserdomness. according to this view, the rich and powerful want the poor to be moralistic because such makes the poor accept life's problems and try to cope with them with a certain stoicism and 'dignity'. fuc* stoicism and dignity, say the radicals. rally around the red flag, pick up rocks and stones, and storm the castle!!!
so, one set of jews--liberal hedonists--see morality as lame and square, and another set of jews--radical leftists--see morality as a pernicious attempt to keep the masses of poor docile.
what they both fail to realize is that many people can take their goodies and social stability for granted because great many people are still moral and conduct themselves ethically--yes, they are 'lame' and 'square'. we can rock n roll cuz most people do their 9 to 5 work routine and raise children the right way. if everyone raised his kids like jerry garcia or britney spears have done, kiss civilization goodbye.
and, leftwing jews fail to understand that once the 'oppressive' order is smashed, a new order will have to rely on morality just as the old order did. in fact, a leftist order must be even MORE moral than a capitalist order since the only incentive will be the so-called 'moral incentive'. in a capitalist system, a person may work hard, obey laws, and be courteous not simply because he's moral but because he wants to keep his job and make good money. under a leftist system, there are no material rewards for working hard, being honest, etc. everyone gets the same crap. so, morality must be for morality sake, which is very demoralizing; how would you feel if the state allowed no freedom, took all your fruits of labor while giving you only the basics necessary to live, and then told you that this is the ONLY way to maintain a truly moral order?

anyway, jewish power in the US is strong and widespread. many of us are affected by jewish influence and much of it's not pretty. much of tv, hollywood, academia, and political indoctrination take place under the control of jews, by which i mean liberal and leftist jews. conservative jews are patriotic and good people. even many genuinely liberal jews(liberal in the traditional sense) are good people. but Liberal jews and leftist jews range from pernicious to insane. and they control much of how we think, how we laugh, how we cry, how we feel.

now, it would be wrong to blame all the filth of our society on the jews. after all, many of media outlets and industries in europe and japan are not jewish run, but they are just as debased, if not more so. also, it was japan and italy that gave us first truly nihilistic action movies that glorified violence for violence sake. jewish run hollywood was actually very moralistic until the late 60s, not always for the good--indeed, at times, it was truly lame and square.
today, heaven knows there is much that is debased and sick in japanese popular culture. we cannot blame this on jews. and there are plenty of good jews in hollywood. we must appreciate the later films of steven spielberg for their seriousness and dignity.
and europe is also a kind of cultural cesspool.
however, european culture may be less celebratory of idiocy than the jewish-dominated american. a french film may deal with social maladies and problems but will not glorify them as american films--even serious ones--often do. american movies either stylize idiocy to glorious heights or make it all seem photogenic and even noble. so, a street thug in a french film will simply come across as a street thug. in an american movie, he'll come across as a badass mofo who be so cool and shi*. even in so-called serious movies like 'menace II society', this is the case. the stylistics of social pathology have precedence over social pathology.
and with such issues as adultery or such, european films tend to be more analytical, examinatory, and such than american films which either simplistically moralize it--for or against--or glorify it as a kind of guilt-free fun. as for the japs, their overwhelmingly conservative social values balances out all the filthy stuff in the media; for the timid japanese, badassness on tv and music is mostly just an act and have little social consequence.

now, one wonders if the so-called european 'progressivism' or liberality is really a reaction to american dominance in the world. often, people without REAL power try to compensate with ideological power. during WWII, japan as a nation fought for power in asia. once they lost, they knew they were totally weak and dependent vis-a-via america. the ONLY way to gain any kind of parity or superiority was to move into the 'progressive' sphere. so, many japanese intellectuals and artists became ardent pacifists. as such, they could point finger at the US as the aggressor and militarist in the world. suddenly, overnight, japanese were transformed into 'progressives' who could preach to the US. though japan had completely lost militarily to the US, it could win morally. japan, with no overseas empire and weak army, was a nation of peace, a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. in contrast, US was the new imperialist power in the world.
europeans may have pushed alot of 'progressive' policies and programs for the same reason. since americans dominate the world, the only way europeans can compete with america is in the realm of 'progressive' morality. the problem is european concept of morality is highly liberal, which to alot of people means immoral. this is why the debate is so screwy. of course, european right has been anti-american for the same reason; the difference is it sought to combat the supremacy of US 'imperialism' and ugly capitalism with call to traditional values and patriotism.
anyway in the moral sphere, the liberals dominate throughout europe--even in nations with 'conservative' governments. but again, european morality seems immoral to alot of people around the world. alot of americans are appalled by gay marriage, legalization of prostitution, premissive laws on drug use, etc. as for the rest of the non-western world, european values and morality are sheer vices and decadent social diseases.
europeans defend their values as promotion of freedom and equality for all, in the name of tolerance and diversity. but, europeans fail to understand that such equality is not possible for any civilization. tolerance doesn't mean there must be equality of values. for example, tolerance of gays doesn't and shouldn't mean that gay sex is equally valid as real sex. real sex makes sense. nature meant for the penis to go into the poon. gay sex is about a sexual organ going into a shi*hole. we can tolerate it but we would be crazy to say both forms of sex are equally valid. but, this is the kind of radical egalitarianism that has taken hold of europe. europeans are confusing egalitarian ideals with egalitarian reals. they seem to think that just because we should strive for an equal society, everything MUST be equal. gay marriage is ultimately immoral despite the moral goodwill of its proponents because it undermines the importance of marriage itself. by equalizing the meaningful--sexual, social, moral--marriage between man and woman with a meaningless 'marriage' between man and man or woman and woman, europeans are gnawing away at a pillar of civilization. in the short run, the effect will seem trivial. in the long run, it will be devastating because kids will be raised in the future being taught that there is no core values in society; rather, it's just a matter of lifestyles and anything goes and everything is equal. europe can afford to think and act this way because it's rich and stable. but, how did this stability and prosperity come about? by hedonism and mindlessness?
also, we are seeing the problem of radical egalitarianism in nations such as france and UK with their huge muslim populations. for many yrs now, progressives had been pushing for cultural relativism and cultural egalitarianism. so, it was 'imperialist' and 'oppressive' to teach that western values were more advanced than non-western ones. it was 'racist' to demand that immigrants in european adopt european values and attitudes. ironically, the most 'progressive' elements in european society supported and apologized for the most backward immigrant cultures. and what do you have in places like france? open warfare in the streets.
europeans are fools because they misunderstand the meaning of progress. they seem to think more and more egalitarianism--even valuefree and coerced--is always better.
this is a parody of western values. western values has been for freedom and a certain form of equality, but it has also been for a core hierarchy of values, caution, and sobriety.
but, liberal values in the west are idioitic, and the west is devouring itself. just think of its inner contradictions. on the one hand, it rejects the idea of cultural or moral hierarchy. it argued that western values are not more advanced or humane than non-western values. yet, with the rising social tensions in UK and france, liberals are now saying that western liberal values are indeed the core of western civilization and more important than non-liberal, non-western values. and why are western liberal values morally superior? because western liberal values rejects any idea of culturo-moral superiority! this is utter nonsense. it's like saying, 'i'm better than you because i don't think anyone is better than anyone else'.

anyway, the point is much of western society is rotten with or without jews, so it would be wrong to blame only the jews. indeed, western decadence took off way before jews joined the fray, though jews would come to play key roles in it in europe--until WWII--and america.
also, much of european 'progressivism' could be a lowdown means to feel superior to americans since they can't keep up with US military, economy, technology, etc, europeans are feeling glibly superior by passing more 'progressive' policies. they can feel so enlightened, intellectual, 'rational', and so on whereas americans supposedly only care about military might, domination, gluttony, social riches and power, and so on.
let's say there's a panhandler and two other people. one of them is a very very rich guy who walks tall and proud. the other guy is well-off but not so tall, not so rich, not so powerful. the big tall rich guy walks past the panhandler ignoring him completely. the well-off guy, who feels intimidated by the big tall rich guy, may drop some coins into the cup of the panhandler in order to feel that he's at least MORALLY superior to the big tall rich guy. indeed, i think much of european 'compassion' for africa is of this sort. it's as if to say, 'look, US is rich and powerful but WE, yes, WE, give proportionately more to africa than big fat rich ugly americans'. there is impurity in this gesture of moral purity.
indeed, i wonder how many of european laws and policies are formulated with americans in mind, as if to say "WE are better--more 'progressive'--than those fat ugly rich powerful americans".
notice that former eastern bloc nations sometimes do things that seem almost designed piss off russians who had been dominant over them. in western europe during the cold war, US had been dominant. alot of western europeans see themselves vis-a-vis americans. since they can't beat the US in many material areas, they figure they can win in the 'moral' and 'progressive' field.
again, what passes for morality among liberals could be immoral to most people, which makes it all seem to screwy. indeed, liberals disdain the term 'morality'. they prefer to be 'progressive', 'rational', and 'enlightened', etc. 'moral' reeks of stodginess and lameness. it's as though liberals are soooo educated and intellectual and well-read that they are beyond such quaint notions as 'values'. oh, they take nothing on faith or traditional conventions. they know the science of the human mind and society, and they've learned that one must be 'progressive' along rational grounds. but i wonder, how is calling a penis going into a shi*hole a marriage 'scientific' or 'rational'?
this is also true in culture. so europeans will sometimes make some dull, painful, boring 'art film' and then pride themselves that they made such because they are sooooo different from those damn americans who wanna hollywoodize the world. now, there are many great art films that come out of europe, and thank god for them. but, some of them are just willful exercises in anti-hollywoodism with little else going for them. indeed, if hollywood didn't exist, the value of such art films would vanish. they would have no great Evil to nobly pit themselves against.
now, i'm not defending hollywood movies, most of which is crap. but, i do question the motives of euroeans when they put on airs of being so 'progressive'. anyway, all of this gets more complicated when the so-called cultural and capitalist imperialists of popular culture in the US are liberals!!!!
it's not conservative american culture that is sweeping over the world. how many people in other nations know much about nashville and country music, about christian rock(bad stuff), and such? no, most of american cultural export is negro rap and hiphop, american tv shows with liberal values, hollywood movies which are open sewages of sex and nihilistic violence, and message films like 'blood diamond' made by and starring liberal idiots.
so, the so-called american cultural imperialism is essentially liberal jewish and negro, not white christian conservative. this may explain why there's growing anti-jewish sentiments in europe. alot of europeans are waking up to the fact that their real enemies are not white christian amerians who mind their own business but liberal jews who wanna expand theirs.
indeed, i wonder if there's a european version of dinesh d'souza who has argued for europeans allying with white christian conservatives against the common enemy of valuefree imperialist liberal jews (and crazy negroes).

both arab muslims and jews are semitic, and both have caused many problems for the west and have been persecuted and marginalized by the west. yet, if jewish problem was essentially of the left, muslim threat is essentially of the right. but, this isn't as simple as it seems. while jews were revolutionary radicals, their universalist ideology was rooted in jewish culture, attitudes, personality. and while we think of islam as a conservative faith, it is also universalist and even revolutionary in approach. it too seeks to change the entire world by spreading the word of the prophet.