Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger L. Simon

The Devil and Bill Ayers: D’Souza Debates Ayers at Dartmouth

February 1st, 2014 - 12:58 pm
YouTube Preview Image

It’s a testament to Dinesh D’Souza’s mettle that he even showed up for his scheduled debate at Dartmouth (his alma mater and mine) with Bill Ayers last Thursday.  D’Souza is only recently under what is apparently selective prosecution by the federal government for campaign law violations (see “Amnesty, but Not for D’Souza” by Andy McCarthy) and that was probably some of the reason the pundit/filmmaker seemed off his game.

He fared much better debating the existence of God with the late Christopher Hitchens.  But that was in part because Hitchens played fair, enjoying the intellectual jousting and search for truth between two exceptionally bright people.  D’Souza’s Thursday adversary, Mr. Ayers — former Weatherman revolutionary and retired professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago where he held the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar — did everything but.

Allow me to be a bit personal.  Despite being a child of the sixties and having participated in all sorts of protests back in the day, this was the first time I had ever seen Bill Ayers talk at length.  It gave me nightmares — literally. I went to sleep minutes after watching a video of the debate to dream that I was cut off from my family in some distant Mediterranean village with my car missing.  Stumbling on a hidden garage, I encountered  a gang (Weathermen?) led by a younger Bill Ayers who had stolen the car and were disguising it unrecognizably. I tried to stop them, but I was outnumbered, kicked in the stomach and groin. I woke up before being killed or maimed.

But I wasn’t relieved.  I had a dizzy, depressed feeling that awakened a disturbing, almost otherworldly, sense memory.  Then I realized when I had had the same emotion.  It was the time several years ago when I stood five feet away from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Yes, it was that bad.

So what was it about Ayers that I found so deeply unsettling?  I guess you could say it was the irrelevance of truth.  Truth, or even nuance, was just some trivial stumbling block to be overcome on the way to an end. And that end has never changed, ever, not one jot, since the days of SDS.

Bill Ayers is Saul Alinsky on steroids — an Alinsky beyond Alinsky, as it were.  During the debate,  he rarely responded directly to anything anyone asked or said, only recited a script so old it might as well have been found on some Egyptian tomb painting.  But since he has done this for so long, he did it brilliantly, unwaveringly, no contradictory idea or even thought allowed to enter his brain.  Victory for his cause was all.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Ayers is a sociopath. No conscience and one hundred percent dedicated to his cause.

Confidence is a powerful weapon in the arena of human persuasion. Confidence without conscience is a scary powerful weapon, especially when arrayed against good people because they possess the necessary virtue of self-doubt.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
I would've preferred that we conservatives schedule Dinesh D'Sousa and deceptively insert Mark Levin or David Horowitz at the last minute. The cowardly bully Ayers would never accept a debate with anyone like Mark Levin.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't know why D'Souza would even debate Bill Ayers, knowing who and what the unrepentant little criminally minded chickensh!t is and was and forever will be.

I never understood either why Breitbart and some other people went to Ayers' home for a "gourmet" meal after winning some contest, at which Ayers, when he was tired of playing with them, announced it was time for them all to leave.

"Yes, he is more dangerous now then when he was violent post-adolescent trying to stick a bomb in Pentagon restrooms..."

Like Charles Manson, Ayers always enlisted other people to do the dirty work.

The flapping little seals at Dartmouth applaud this phony.

25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (85)
All Comments   (85)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I think D'Souza was brilliant and bravely defended the American value of wealth creation. He easily won the night.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Bill Ayers is exactly 'who he is' and he does not play any games with his thoughts. He is an unrepentant Communist and terrorist and should have been in prison instead of teaching at the U of I. Of course the FBI is the reason that he was never prosecuted and put on trial.... So much for our law enforcement!
We have Bill Ayers light now sitting in the WH..... So much for the intelligence of the American voter!!
22 weeks ago
22 weeks ago Link To Comment
The best take from this, is that some people are still shocked by an encounter with an emissary of the father of lies. Too bad so few see the opposition in terms of good and evil unless shocked by it. So little time. Having fallen from grace the national mood is one of awaiting the fall of the next shoe, while oblivious as to why.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
The only "debate" Ayers should be having is with his parole board.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
What did D'Souza hope to accomplish in such a venue? OF COURSE the audience nodded mindlessly in agreement. What a waste of time. Even if he had destroyed every single one of Ayers' comments nobody would have ever heard a word about it.

The only viable counterattack is more mass media outlets to get out the opposition message, not silly debates.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ayers is dead wrong about WMD in Iraq. Everyone thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, otherwise there was no way in hell that the 'idiot' Bush could've convinced Congress to invade Iraq.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Of course.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
No article on Ayers should pass without mention that POTUS launched his political career in this criminal's living room.

What a farce it will make of the justice system if D'souza is imprisoned for his political donation, while Ayers, a violent fiend, walks free. With a taxpayer subsidized pension, no less.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ayers makes a compelling case—for striving for a fairy tale world. Sure much of what he wants we all want. But he wants lots that sounds like freedom, but will be slavery. A lot of what he wants cannot work. Trying to make it work will lead us to an endless downward spiral of working and working, giving up our wealth and possessions and still we haven't reached his fairy tale world. So work harder, give away money. But still we are not there. So work and give. Still not there. Work. Give. Nothing. Work. Give. Starve. Die.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is no 'Utopia' where all is lovely every day and everyone gets to live on the work of someone else.... Communism is a complete farce and we should be teaching the truth of life in every school from the very beginning of education.
Each person has the ability to develop to their highest potential in our society and each person also has the freedom to do nothing with their life.... This is called FREEDOM OF CHOICE.... You can choose your own path and then live with it..... THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH -- EVER!! GET USED TO IT..
22 weeks ago
22 weeks ago Link To Comment
What you're describing is the endless downward spiral of Marxism. It's what's happened every time someone has tried to implement Marx's ideas. It's never worked but they keep trying it on the apparent theory that this next attempt is that much more sincere or intelligent so it's bound to work this time. The Marxists just can't accept the idea that the basic ideas simply don't work.

That wouldn't be such a big deal if the Marxists didn't always manage to drag whole countries with them down the drain on their umpteenth attempt to build Utopia. Why do we keep letting them do this crap?
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
To be honest, when Marx died, we really should have done the smart and ultimately moral thing by completely destroying his works and probably making sure all Fabian Socialists are exiled to an island in the middle of nowhere. At least then, Marxism would have died out with barely even a whimper.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
D'Souza makes a great point when he says there are two ways to obtain wealth. One is to seize it from someone else and the other is to create wealth via capitalism and innovation. Clearly Ayers favors the first way and D'Souza makes a strong case for the latter. To me Ayers is no more than Lenin in a tweed jacket.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank God he *doesn't* wear a tweed jacket: as he presents now, the a$$hole looks like he needs to be autoclaved!! People who still value cleanliness are totally turned off by this dirt-bag! What an unutterably ugly little man!!
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Discussing the "pie" and how big it is and how it gets divided is always the main point of communists and is their Achilles' Heel. The pie can be grown nearly infinitely. Your sliver of pie as a lower class or middle class American can be worth more than the wealth of kings ages ago. We are rich—not through theft or looting—but because our ancestors worked from before dawn until after sunset so they would have enough and their children would have an inheritance. My ancestors worked so hard, so very hard, a few starved, to give me a good life.

If Ayers was honest, he would know that many 18th century Christians, many Founders of our country were against Slavery and the killing, oppression, and forcing the American Indigenous population, Indians, to move off their lands and go West. The Founders allowed slavery because the Southern states had too much economic interest in slavery. The Statements of the Declaration of Independence led inevitably to the freedom of slaves. The South had right principles, but used them for a wrong cause. I fully support state's rights, based on the Bill of Rights, but slavery was and is evil.
I live over fracked land and my water is rated superior.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
For my fellow PJM commenters, I posted a response to a comment by Yooper below. It details the Weathermen. You can't understand Ayers without understanding that group.

The next step is to understand the difference between "liberals" and the hard core left. You can't understand Obama without reading a conversation between David Horowitz and Stanley Kurtz.

To understand what is happening to us...at this very moment, you would have to read both the citations in the answer to Yooper...AND...this interview.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/stanley-kurtz/radical-in-chief-3/


THAT will give you the entire picture. You will understand what is "Socialism" today. You will understand why Horowitz thinks people like Moran are dangerous. You will understand how and why our economy collapsed. What the game "oppressors vs oppressed" is based upon.

And why "debating" with Ayers is like debating with a spitting cobra.

In fact, I don't think that a comment (or essay/article) written IN ABSENCE of reading these things...and connecting them...has a tenth of the value of those that absorb them. They are that important, in my opinion.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank you for casting light on this dark subject. However, I disagree that it's necessary to "understand" Ayers or his ilk. We don't need to deeply understand because the left doesn't even deeply understand. The left simply loves a good looking or cool icon and doesn't need more. Ayers & Dohrn know this and continue to play their radical chic schtick effectively. All they need are buzzwords to appeal to sentimental boomers or to the children of boomers raised on vague boomer "open mindedness," and they're in like Flynn.

The left loves icons. Look at the outpouring of lefty love for Pete Seeger. It didn't matter what Seeger's execrable political motives were, he looked good and sang rousing songs and his heart was in the right place. Che Guevara -- looked really cool in the famous poster and was a symbol for the fight against...who knows, really, perhaps against "the system." Would the Kennedys have been so iconic had they not been so wonderfully photogenic? Obama brilliantly marketed himself as the icon of hope & change. We ask what are these people symbols of, but too many people don't think that far.

Ayers has been riding successfully on the back of buzzwords and revolutionary cool for decades. He's more Lennon than Lenin. Being an icon that appeals to people's emotions is extremely effective. Exposing icons with hard information & specifics isn't effective, unfortunately, as critics run the risk of going right over the masses' heads and making their eyes glaze over.

We have to figure out a better way to take down lefty icons than listing facts and regurgitating histories. I hate to be shallow, but the rational right needs a really good marketing package.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All