Home / General / D’Souza

D’Souza

Comments
/
/
/
485 Views

mp030

I find Dinesh D’Souza so confusing. The man clearly wants to return to the Jim Crow years. Or even slavery. But why does he think that if that was to happen, he wouldn’t be affected by it? Here is D’Souza on slavery:

Recently convicted felon and conservative columnist Dinesh D’Souza’s book, “The End of Racism,” provides some great examples of rewriting race. D’Souza says of slavery, “No free workers enjoyed a comparable social security system from birth until death.” Later, he writes, “Masters … encouraged the family unit which basically remained intact.” In a particularly appalling passage, he writes, “slavery appears such a relatively mild business that one begins to wonder why Frederick Douglass and so many other ever tried to escape.” And concludes, “In summary, the American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.”

And then his tour de force tweet of yesterday:

I actually expect this from Attorney General Forrest. But, again, why does D’Souza think he would be excepted from the racist regime he fights for?

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Judas Peckerwood

    He expects that he’d be working in the plantation house, not the fields.

    • rhino

      See Stephen, from Django Unchained, for how this asshole sees himself.

  • pillsy

    Because he’s an absolute moron.

    SATSQ.

    • He really is. He’s one of those guys who’s read a lot of books, but only so he can seem smart in public. Actual thinking isn’t in his wheelhouse.

      • humanoid.panda

        Given that he parlayed the sort of insights he produced in those tweets into millions of dollars, I think idiocy is a weak explanation here.

        • pillsy

          He got caught after breaking the law to give money to Kirsten Gillibrand’s flagrantly doomed challenger (like, more than 40 points worth of doomed).

          He did not have a cunningly evil plan. He had an idiotically evil plan.

          He is dumb. He just lucked into a political tribe that will endlessly valorize and reward stupidity.

          • humanoid.panda

            I dunno. “Conservative intellectuals” are dime a dozen, but how many of them have produced “documentary” movies that millions paid good money for?

            • rm

              Millions? I mean, theaters were paid to show them, but were there butts in seats? Did the winging welfare machine buy tickets in bulk to create the appearance of an audience?

              I think Dinesh’s frat bothers at Dartmouth assured him that he is one of the “good ones.”

              • sigaba

                “Obama’s America” made about $33 million, by mass market documentary standards it was quite successful. It’s the second highest-grossing political documentary on Box Office Mojo (right behind Fahrenheit 911) and the fifth highest-grossing documentary of any kind.

                Theater’s aren’t usually paid to show movies — that’s called “four walling” and it doesn’t show up in BO reports. Theaters rent the movie from the distributor and pay a cut of the ticket gross sales.

                In other news, you live in a world where Transformers 2 made $500 mil domestic. Theatrical BO is no determination of value, it’s mostly determined by marketing and title pretracking. Movies make money in almost direct correspondence with wether or not you’ve heard of the thing in the title. Everybody’s heard of Obama, QED. This is also why the four documentaries that grossed more than “Obama’s America” are starring Bush, Morgan Freeman, Justin Bieber and Michael Jackson, respectively.

                • Solar System Wolf

                  Do we actually know real people went to see “Obama’s America” and paid their own money out of their own pockets, though? Just as conservative book writers get people to buy up mass quantities of their book to propel it onto best seller lists, couldn’t conservative funders go online and buy up mass quantities of tickets? Who would even be tracking that?

                • rm

                  That’s what I’m sayin’, man. Just because tickets were sold, doesn’t mean all those tickets were used.

                  This kind of movie does not cost much to make — I assume it’s splicing together film clips from the news, ominous music, and Dinesh narrating conspiracy theories — so the total sold can be a small number. It might be over two million, so technically “millions.” But how many actually bought it for themselves and sat through it?

                • Matt McIrvin

                  This kind of movie gets promoted through megachurches, I think–the same sort of people who see movies like “The Passion of the Christ” and “Left Behind” and “Time Changer” probably went to it.

                • sigaba

                  That’s fair, block sales of tickets do count towards grosses.

          • Matt McIrvin

            A few weeks ago I had the temerity to mention D’Souza’s election-finance conviction on Facebook and got a truly blistering rant in response from someone who called me an evil man, a bigoted man, and the real racist for even bringing it up. He went on for paragraph after spittle-flecked paragraph. It was pretty amazing given the mildness of the provocation.

        • Stag Party Palin

          I think idiocy is a weak explanation here

          Then how about the Greater Fool theory?

          • AlanInSF

            Conservative signalling and status-sorting has come down to, “You think that makes you sound like a sociopathic asshole? That was nothing. Listen to this…”

        • weirdnoise

          And Sara Palin commanded $60K+ to speak word salad in front of fawning crowds.

          It’s depressing, but does anyone post-2016 question the depths that American tastes will sink to?

          • Derelict

            Simply consider how many people voted for Trump based on his promise to wipe out ObamaCare, and those people are now shocked and dismayed that ObamaCare is going to be wiped out.

            I can only conclude that there must be some sort of collective brain injury going on in America.

            • Bufflars

              Hmmmmm. Maybe the cranks were on to something about that fluoride in the water.

      • DiTurno

        I might be giving him too much credit, but I think this is less stupidity than rank dishonesty. You can make a decent living as a person of color who defends slavery — even if you’re a convicted felon who was caught having an affair while president of a Christian college.

        • Convicted felon = Political Prisoner and Victim of Dictator Obama’s PC Jihad against Christian Dissent.

          He was a hasbeen before the arrest and has parlayed it into box office and relevancy. If I was cynical I might suspect that was the plan all along.

          • AlanInSF

            Once again, let us celebrate the glory that was Dartmouth.

      • No Longer Middle Aged Man

        Agreed. Unlike some of the other right wing attention-seeking-for-profit trolls (e.g., Coulter) D’Souza really is not an intelligent person. He’s basically made a career out of once being a Wall St Journal pet by being rude to one of his professors at Dartmouth. So I’ll grant him some basic cunning or shrewdness in terms of how to cash in on being a no talent — he’s like the Fat Dom (from the Sopranos) of the RWNJ pundidiocy, and I hope he meets a similar end. In terms of right wingers with advanced degrees, I sort along the lines of Victor Davis Hanson >> Newt >> Dick Armey. D’Souza is at the Armey level for the right wing smash and grab attention seekers.

      • N__B

        He’s one of those guys who’s read a lot of books, but only so he can seem smart in public.

        To quote FLW about Philip Johnson, “Educated beyond his capacity.”

        • AdamPShort

          “A donkey laden with books is neither an intellectual nor a wise man. – Saadi

          Of course Saadi was talking about dilettantes like myself, not apparatchicks like D’ouble D, but who’s counting?

  • jpgray

    Masters … encouraged the family unit which basically remained intact.

    Holy Christ never in the history of the English language has so much been asked of the word “basically.”

    • wjts

      Certainly not since “For Brutus is a basically honorable man”.

      • jpgray

        After dinner, the family unit of Thyestes remained basically intact…

        • DiTurno

          Well, Thyestes’ family was more intact than most slave families.

    • Nobdy

      I believe Loomis might say this calls for a “with rare notable exceptions” disclaimer.

      With rare notable exceptions slave masters encouraged the family unit which, with rare notable exceptions, basically remained intact.”

    • sharonT

      Someone should gift Dinesh a couple of slave narratives. Reading them might disabuse him of that whole “intact families” bullshit that he’s peddling.

      • (((Malaclypse)))

        This remains the most painful thing I’ve ever read.

        I wish I believed in hell, so that I could believe that D’Souza would face justice.

        • jim, some guy in iowa

          one of the things that keeps me somewhat amused these days is the thought of the various holy rollers who plague us ending up in each other’s hells- it matters, in some vague way, that they would learn there is a god but they’ve been doing it rong

          • (((Malaclypse)))

            I have long had a dream of a Last Judgement, and Bush the More Dumb standing before the Throne, and the Voice intoning “You thought I meant what?”

      • DiTurno

        That’s the thing: he actually *cites* Frederick Douglass, which is like citing Ayn Rand to argue for the Soviet Revolution.

        • Hogan

          Ah, what did he know? Just another lazy entitled blah.

        • rm

          Fred Clark of Slacktivist claims that on every Friday the 13th, the ghost of Frederick Douglass visits a prominent white supremacist and puts the fear of God into him with his powerful rhetorical skills.

          From this tweet, we can be sure that Dinesh was not singled out for a haunting this year. It’s comforting to know that he is not influential enough to deserve such a visitation.

      • If only there were easily accessible first hand accounts of why Douglas wanted so badly to escape.

    • aturner339

      Yes. God bless the new Smithsoniam Museum for displaying a list of states that legally restricted black marriages during slavery. Not only were families not encouraged they were often legally banned.

    • Mellano

      It’s metaphorical. The Master was the “Father” of the family. And the slaves were his children and/or wives.

      • leftwingfox

        By that extension, I assume conservatives think selling their own children for profit is a family ideal.

        • weirdnoise

          In Libertaria they’ll just be another asset.

          • Mellano

            “In summary, the American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.”

            What’s the depreciation schedule for a baby fetus?

          • Matt McIrvin

            I have seen it seriously argued by libertarians that bodily freedom means ownership of one’s own body, and one doesn’t truly own one’s own body unless it can be sold, therefore freedom does not truly exist unless the option to sell yourself into slavery exists.

            Probably this can be extended to apply to an essential aspect of parenthood somehow. The parents are acting as proxies for their minor children, perhaps, and exercising the children’s inherent rights to sell themselves into slavery on their behalf.

            • N__B

              My first reaction to that is that I already knew that libertarians are idiots.

              My second reaction is that they forget a critical part of the equation: even if they want to argue you have a right to sell yourself, that does not mean that someone else has the right to buy you. The existence of slaves presumes the existence of owners and who wants a society that encourages slave-owners?

            • BruceJ

              This has, in fact been literally argued by Murray Rothbard “He believes that selling children as consumer goods in accord with market forces, while “superficially monstrous”, will benefit “everyone” involved in the market: “the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing”

              It is no wonder that wealthy sociopaths like Thiel gravitate to Libertarianism.

        • AlanInSF

          You don’t expect Liberatarians to pay their own money to support the little moochers, do you?

        • BruceJ

          Well, given their use of their slaves as sex toys, slaveholder quite literally did that, a lot.

  • Linnaeus

    IIRC, D’Souza also makes the claim in The End of Racism that American slavery wasn’t racist because there were nonwhite slaveowners too.

    • Abbey Bartlet

      Abolitionists were the real racists!

    • Derelict

      This is gaining a lot of currency in rightwing circles. The argument is that there were as many Black slave owners as there were White ones. Of course, this ignores the fact that Whites owned tens of thousands of people–orders of magnitude more than all the people owned by Blacks combined.

      • Manny Kant

        There were as many black slave owners as there were white ones in the United States? That can’t be true.

        Black people owned slaves in Africa, of course.

        • MikeMc

          You beat me to it. There’s no way there were that many blacks who owned slaves in the Confederacy. I found an estimate of 3700 black slave owners here http://www.theroot.com/yes-there-were-black-confederates-here-s-why-1790858546; take it for what it is worth. The same article says 250,000 free blacks in the Confederacy. I am surprised at a number that high.

          This is the kind of crap my Texan brother in law believes. He thinks MLK would be a Republican if he were still alive.

          For people like D’Souza – if slavery was such a good deal – would you take it?

          • The Dark God of Time

            "Would you buy it for a quarter?"

          • delazeur

            I found an estimate of 3700 black slave owners here http://www.theroot.com/yes-there-were-black-confederates-here-s-why-1790858546; take it for what it is worth. The same article says 250,000 free blacks in the Confederacy. I am surprised at a number that high.

            I expect most or all of those people were in the upper-ish South. Virginia, and maybe Tennessee? I would be shocked if any significant number of them were in the deep South.

            • Woodrowfan

              many black slave owners “owned” their spouse and kids. That allowed them to remain in areas where free blacks were banned.

            • aturner339

              Louisiana is also a good candidate for this. The creole racial caste system had more levels

          • Derelict

            Yeah, 3,500 and 3,700 is the number that gets punted around. I suspect the good Professor Otto Yerass did the research that produced those numbers.

      • Linnaeus

        Of course, this ignores the fact that Whites owned tens of thousands of people–orders of magnitude more than all the people owned by Blacks combined.

        It also ignores who could be a slave and who could not.

    • sigaba

      It’s a documented fact that Hitler personally conferred the status of “Aryan” upon about 150 Jewish friends and acquaintances, and people in his circle routinely obtained special status for their friends, and for those who didn’t want it, got them exit visas to Switzerland. The SS had a whole procedure for doing this by the book and the people at the top had no compunctions about it.

      For Jewish people who were famous and for whom their absences would be noticed, the Nazis had a special camp where nobody was ever executed — this was also the only camp the Red Cross was allowed to inspect. Of course the cam became overcrowded eventually so people with a lower StarMeter eventually had to be evicted for “resettlement.”

      So I guess Nazism wasn’t really anti-semitic. After all they violated their own racial principles whenever it suited them! I guess D’Souza is counting on an exemption, and really he has no reason to doubt he’d get it as long as he can make himself useful.

      Of course it might be easier to point out that institutional racism isn’t actually about race, it’s about giving some people the power to choose who stays and who goes, and the actual justification (race, immigration status, wealth) is just a pretense to keep certain people mollified.

      • the Nazis had a special camp where nobody was ever executed — this was also the only camp the Red Cross was allowed to inspect

        Theresienstadt, in Prague. My great-grandparents were sent there, because my great-grandfather had been a decorated WWI veteran. Of course, he died anyway, of sepsis after an operation. Which might have happened anyway, since the Germans didn’t have antibiotics. But afterwards they shipped his wife straight to Auschwitz and she was gassed to death.

      • AlanInSF

        People often fail to point out the free railway transportation available to Jews under the Nazi regime.

        • Bubblegum Tate

          Damn. Nicely done.

    • Richard Gadsden

      There weren’t white slaves, though, were there?

  • But, again, why does D’Souza think he would be excepted from the racist regime he fights for?

    He’s a Goan Catholic. He’s used to being the “white” brown person:

    D’Souza was born in Mumbai in 1961. His parents were Roman Catholics from the state of Goa in Western India, where his father was an executive of Johnson & Johnson and his mother was a housewife.[18][19] D’Souza attended the Jesuit St. Stanislaus High School in what then was called Bombay.[20]

    Best Twitter response I saw was Kumail Nanjiani (Dinesh on Silicon Valley):

    Kumail Nanjiani ‏@kumailn 16h16 hours ago

    Kumail Nanjiani Retweeted Dinesh D’Souza

    Just got out of the meeting. All brown people officially disown you.

    Kumail Nanjiani added,
    Dinesh D’Souza @DineshDSouza
    OVERRATED DEMOCRATS DEPT: So Rosa Parks wouldn’t sit in the back of the bus–that’s all she did, so what’s the big fuss?
    171 replies 1,578 retweets 8,585 likes

    This is pretty good too:

    Kumail Nanjiani ‏@kumailn 2h2 hours ago

    Brown dudes guide: Aziz is Aasif Mandvi, Dev Patel is Kal Penn, I am Fisher Stevens & Dinesh D’Souza is just a bunch of eels in an overcoat.

    • Frank Wilhoit

      Colony Sarff!

      Yes, in D’Souza’s own eyes, he is an Aryan. This may be the only narrow point on which he has ever been technically, factually correct. But drop him in Craig County, Virginia, with no cash in his pocket, and he’d be in prison within a couple of hours. (I do not speculate upon other aspects of his physical condition at the end of that lapse of time.)

      • aturner339

        Yeah the basic definition of “Aryan” always boils down to “who do we like just this minute”? I was reading up on efforts by Indian Americans to sue to be declared white in the early 20th century.

        This generally ended poorly.

      • Abbey Bartlet

        Colony Sarff!

        Unfair. Colony Sarff believed in democracy.

        -The poster formerly from Gallifrey

        • Solar System Wolf

          What happened to Gallifrey? Did you put it in a pocket universe and forget where it was?

          • (((Malaclypse)))

            It all went to hell when Romana lost the Presidency, even though she won the popular vote.

            • Warren Terra

              Too soon. Unlikely ever to stop being too soon.

            • Abbey Bartlet

              Smh spoilers I’m only in season 10.

            • veleda_k

              Simm!Master is a lot smarter than Trump, but there are other similarities.

    • DrDick

      But, again, why does D’Souza think he would be excepted from the racist regime he fights for?

      That and the same reason women and minorities voted for Trump. They all think they are special conservative snowflakes and nothing bad applies to them.

      • Captain Oblivious

        Obligatory Nazi reference here: a lot of wealthy German Jews didn’t think Hitler meant them.

        • I’m not sure I believe that. There may have been German Jews who believed other Jews in Germany could assimilate better, and that this would lessen antisemitism (historically unlikely, arguably). There may have been German Jews who believed German society was advancing, both Jews and Christians, toward a better understanding. There may still have been people (who arguably hadn’t been paying attention) who thought conversion or a parent’s conversion would save them But I haven’t read that any Jews thought Hitler and the Nazi party were not that bad.

          • Manny Kant

            There were certainly some assimilated Germans with Jewish ancestry who were sympathetic to the Nazis. Probably not anyone who would have identified as a Jew.

            Here’s a pro-Nazi diary from a woman whose husband was a converted Jew, that I just came upon while making up my German history syllabus.

            • One can’t really blame people in the 1930s for not having read Fritz Stern, but it’s still hard for me to comprehend what they could have been thinking.

          • Captain Oblivious

            Not saying that. Saying there were Jews who didn’t think Hitler would come for them. Not the same thing.

            • Not sure what you mean then. I took you to mean they thought antisemitism both before and after Hitler generally applied to those other Jews, who they may even have thought kind of deserved it.

              “Not coming for them” might mean they thought the anti-Jewish measures weren’t really directed at them, or that they wouldn’t be among those rounded up (once they became aware people were being rounded up and murdered). I’m aware of French Jews who believed at first they were safe in Occupied France, unlike expatriates living there. I’m not aware of Jews (those who as Manny Kant says, called themselves Jews and not just because antisemites did) who did not believe Hitler, being so uncouth as he was, meant them too. What would you suggest I read?

              • sigaba

                There were absolutely German Jews who believed that anti-Jewish measures were primarily meant for immigrants and foreigners, Polish Jews always seemed to come up in the specific case. In any case the “undocumented” and those who had shirked military service were always targeted first, and Arendt cited this as a decisive factor in attenuating dissent, from German Jews, and the German people generally. (Though she has a rep as a flaky source on some of these things, she was there at the time, knew most of the people involved and had been arrested by the Gestapo at least once so I’ll take her interpretation of events for what it’s worth.)

                Also very wealthy Jews found it “easy” to buy their way out of Germany before the war had started, in the sense that they would have to surrender all of their property in exchange for an exit visa. Once the war started this option was extinguished.

                Once the war started and the Nazis created the Jewish Council system, inevitably the rich and well-connected were put in charge of these, and these councils were charged with the actual responsibility of deciding who went away on which train and when — the Gestapo would tell the council how many people had to go on Saturday and the council would produce a list of names. Predictably the powerful members of the councils always held their names out until the end — at which time the SS simply arrested the final members of the council, deported them, and confiscated the assets of the coucil, as the councils were usually the designated receiver of deported Jews’ property. It is disputed how much members of the Jewish councils knew about “deportation,” but some absolutely did know, particularly in Poland and Eastern Europe.

                There were also some Zionist activists who were happy to support the Nazis and work with them on resettling Jews in Palestine, Eichmann recounted (and Hilberg and Hannah Arendt later documented) cordial relations between the SS and these groups, though again it was disputed how much these knew about the Holocaust.

                It was an atrocious business, the whole dirty thing.

                • Thanks. By 2017 there must be something more authoritative than Arendt though?

                  The horrifying thing is that many German Jews (migrants from the East were a different issue) thought they could just assimilate a little more and everything would be OK. Some American, and I think Israeli Jews, and I think Arendt is among these, used to say they brought their fate on themselves by assimilating. I don’t think it’s that, rather that the call for assimilation masked something else. Something that was apparent to them as soon as Hitler came to power.

                • sigaba

                  I cite Arendt only for her account of political conditions among assimilated Jews in Germany in the 30s, I won’t touch anything she said about Eichmann’s state of mind, that’s where everybody takes her apart nowadays. Cesarini, in fact, found letters of Arendt’s suggesting she had racist prejudice against Polish Jews, which is quite ironic, but only seems bolsters her case in this regard.

                  Everything factual I laid out here is in Hilberg. She gets some revision from historians because she was unapologetically angry at the German Jewish political establishment, and she was absolutely convinced that if simply no Jew had complied with the Nazis, and the Jewish leadership had drawn a sharp line with any Jew, not just immigrants or Poles, there would have been no Holocaust. And there’s reasonably strong evidence, in the cases of Bulgaria and Denmark, that when such a line was drawn the Nazis promptly gave up trying.

                  Even worse, Arendt thought she saw Israel repeating the same mistakes and she wasn’t afraid to say so.

                • sigaba

                  Also I don’t know if she would agree that assimilation had been any sort of betrayal. As I pointed out above, she had more than a little scorn for the Zionists she had associated with, she saw them as agreeing with the Nazis on a few too many points for comfort: Jews were Different, Jews should have their own place, Jews will never be at home in Germany.

                  The Zionists she knew were as down on assimilation as the Nazis, and while she was definitely in this camp growing up by the time she wrote Eichmann it’s clear she saw the anti-assimilationist attitude as simply being a side of the Nazi coin. Naturally this translates into her unease with how Israel turned out.

                  Assimilation really wasn’t a large factor in the Holocaust, though it is a big watchword in US ethno-nationalism. The US tolerates and welcomes people of all races and creeds as long as they’re basically Republican in cultural affect, religion, social values and economic status. If you do these things you are “assimilated.”

                  This definitely seems to be the key for D’Souza: for him, it appears, the measure of how racist a society is is how it treats its black Republican millionaires.

                • Yes, Zionists had a strong belief that both assimilation and integration (I.e. assimilation but without forced conversion) were not going to destroy antisemitism even where they were legal possibilities, and that making them legally possible where they weren’t yet was not going to happen.

                  As of about 1900 this was certainly true, and as I recall, in the 19th century German antisemitism had begun to direct itself to converts and the children of converts, as well as to intertwine itself with aspects of German political thought, but I admit I know little about the interwar period.

                  The US tolerates and welcomes people of all races and creeds as long as they’re basically Republican in cultural affect, religion, social values and economic status. If you do these things you are “assimilated.”

                  I suppose this is true in some times and places, for instance if you are well off when you immigrate and decide you would like to be friends with the stuffy people and not the bohemians, but uh, no.

    • Hogan

      Hmm. Is there some Portuguese ancestry back there somewhere?

      • The Dark God of Time

        Some of my mother’s ancestors on both sides of the family came from Macao in the 19th Century, one ancestress had the last name De La Costa and appeared Chinese except for having curly hair from her Lusitanian ancestry.

      • DrDick

        With that name, it is likely. There is a large mixed population in Goa which generally sees themselves “white”, much like the Indo-British families do.

    • The same guy who denounced Barack Obama Sr. for his support of Kenyan independence in the 60s like that was a bad thing and drew it into his remarkable thesis on the Barack Jr. conspiracy to destroy our way of life. D’Souza is above all a Kipling-era imperialist.

      If these people had actually studied any history instead of tweeting about it, they’d be against the American Revolution as well. Or at least against the Constitution, given that the Articles of Confederation (like the Confederate constitution) provided the kind of government they approve of.

    • JohnT

      I think the Aryan thing (plus a heavy British influence) does sometimes confuse South Asians on how white Anglo-Saxon racism works. Over here in the UK the Asian restauranteur association, desperate for more cooks from Bangladesh, campaigned strongly for Brexit in the apparently genuine belief that the immigration spaces cleared by rejecting blond Polish and Czech nurses would be made available to Bangladeshi chefs. No-one from the main Brexit campaign disabused them of their notions until about half a day after the referendum where it was made to clear to them by everyone that this was Never Going To Happen.
      They were shocked.

      More generally about a third of Asian Britons voted for Brext despite the fact that the one certainty about Brexit is that it would empower the enemies of all ethnic minorities

      • aturner339

        I continue to believe that if we bothered to educate our populace that the entire concept of human races is an arbitrary hierarchy unconstrained by any biological standards and subject to change without notice we’d solve a lot of problems.

      • Warren Terra

        I was mystified by the whole “visas for Bangladeshi curry cooks” thing in the UK – surely there must be plenty of people in Britain able to learn to cook a curry, whether or not they have subcontinent heritage – but then I learned how much they pay these immigrant-visa curry chefs. It’s a pittance, for long hours far from home.

        This has (obviously) been bouncing around for a while, but the big Guardian article on the subject over the weekend raised another issue assailing the curry houses, other than a diminished supply of cheap labor in the kitchen: Britons have learned to make curry in the home, pubs and other non-Indian restaurants have learned to sell curry dishes, and intensely flavored cuisines other than Indian and terrible Cantonese have become more widely available, all of which hurt the curry houses.

        • N__B

          intensely flavored cuisines other than Indian and terrible Cantonese have become more widely available

          My first trip to England was in 1990, my most recent was last spring. The difference over that 25 years? There are now inexpensive restaurants that have edible food with flavor.

          • Richard Gadsden

            There has been a complete revolution in restaurant food in the UK in that period. The high-end has improved dramatically in quality (you can count the Michelin stars to see that relatively easily). The mid-range now includes cuisines from far more of the world – Spanish, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Lebanese, Greek, American-style barbecue, Vietnamese are all common sights now, as well as the usual Chinese, Indian and Italian. Some of the kebab shops have even opened up proper Turkish restaurants.

        • JohnT

          I read the same article which I thought was a bit long on special pleading but did have a couple of solid points on how hard is to use a tandoor and consistently get spicing right if you’re not used to it (the latter point partly undercut by the fact that they admitted that they didn’t eat food of the type prepared in the restaurants at home – real Bengali cuisine is apparently less spicy and more refined!)

          And you are right about the increase in competition. In my south-eastern town there has been a bunch of Korean restaurants opening, and certainly in my case half of what I would have bought from the Indian places I now buy from the Korean ones, partly for the novelty, and partly because it seems healthier. Thai, Lebanese and Mexican food are also making advances and there is even a Vietnamese truck in the market.

  • Isn’t this basically the same dynamic as the ladies-against-women, Phyllis Schlafly mode of being the one woman who is allowed to have a career so she can talk about how terrible it is that women have careers? You get power by talking about how all the other [insert category that you belong to here] don’t deserve power and would in fact be happier without it. After all, like most wingnuts, you don’t actually want the thing you’re advocating for to happen, or at least not so comprehensively that it might actually affect you (it’s OK if poor women don’t have access to abortion, because you and your daughters are rich and will always be able to get one). It’s just a grift, so why not go whole hog?

    I mean, obviously a black man advocating for slavery is a bigger leap than a woman advocating for revoking women’s right to vote, which is presumably why it happens less often. But the underlying thinking strikes me as very clearly the same.

    • Judas Peckerwood

      See: Coulter, Ann, D’Souza’s former squeeze.

      • Nobdy

        If you squeeze Ann Coulter does an ooze of liquid hate squirt out, like pus from an infected wound?

        She’s apparently writing for a straight-up white supremacist website now. I guess this is a difficult era for someone whose schtick is being on the hateful extreme on the right. When Donald Trump is literally the president it’s tough to put the “shock” in right wing shock jock.

        • egg

          I was recently reading about milking a dog’s anal glands (really sacs). I’d never heard about that before — despite owning 6 dogs over time — until a friend told me his ex-wife has it done routinely at the vet (for her dog). Apparently the sacs are what dogs are checking when they smell each other’s butts.

          You put your thumb and index finger at 4 o’clock and 8 o’clock and push up in a rhythmic motion until milky white fluid comes out. It’s brown if infected.

          I am now haunted by the vision of Ann and Dinesh reciprocally performing this “doggy style” routine.

          Thanks Nobdy.

          • rm

            This is why 12-year-olds dream of becoming vets, but change their minds by the time they get to college.

          • sigaba

            Groomers are supposed to do this as well, on some dogs I understand buildup can be uncomfortable.

            Every mammal but for ursidae have these glands, including humans. The thing that makes skunks so special is they have specially-adapted versions that can shoot with some distance.

          • Captain Oblivious

            TMI, people.

          • RobNYNY1957

            That’s why dogs rub their buts on the carpet — their anal glands are itching.

    • Donalbain

      Serena Joy Syndrome.

      • Karen24

        Coulters’s an Aunt. Not for her the restrictions of being a Wife, who has to countenance her husband getting it on with the Handmaids. Aunt Annie wants to wield the cattle prod on other women.

      • Wasn’t Serena Joy explicitly modeled on Schlafly? She was certainly in the public eye when the novel was conceived and written.

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

      Or you might consider Hoover and Cohn, who persecuted other gay men.

      Lots of people lack empathy and care only if something affects them, and are indifferent or even happy if the same thing hurts someone else.

      These people are more like to be Republicans.

      • Warren Terra

        I thought there was still a lack of consensus on Hoover being gay? I mean, it’s clear he was a sack of sh!t, but less clear that the rumors of him being a gay one are true.

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

          There’s a lack of proof, not surprisingly, but IMO most would say he was based on aspects of his relationship with Tolson.

          Personally, I go with the Advocate which listed a large number of Republicans including Hoover around 1970 and said they sincerely hoped none of them were gay.

    • Colin Day

      But the underlying thinking strikes me as very clearly the same

      Assuming facts not in evidence

  • Linnaeus

    “No free workers enjoyed a comparable social security system from birth until death.”

    Liberals want to enslave you!

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

      That’s exactly what many conservatives claim, a la Twilight Zone.

  • Nobdy

    Some simple theories

    1) D’Souza actually thinks the old ways weren’t so bad so he doesn’t fear living under them. Sure he wouldn’t be ‘white’ but he wouldn’t be black either, and regardless he’d be treated pretty well because everybody was treated pretty well. I actually find this difficult to believe because anyone who looks at any reputable histories of these time periods can find photos of whip-scarred backs and lynchings and film of dogs and waterhoses and billyclubs being deployed against non-violent protesters. It’s overwhelmingly compelling stuff.

    2) D’Souza thinks that because he has been loyal to the racist regime they would treat him well. He wants to an uncle Tom. It’s unclear why he thinks this is better than the status quo, but there are historical examples of individuals being given special privileges in exchange for acting against the interests of their ethnic group so this seems more plausible than 1.

    3) D’Souza doesn’t actually think that things will revert and is happy to have it both ways by enjoying the relative equality of the modern era while raking in money in exchange for flattering racists and being a token non-white pro-confederate. I think that this is the truth. D’Souza doesn’t think that his actions have consequences and is totally amoral and willing to say whatever he thinks will get him attention and make him money.

    He’s just a sunny optimist who still thinks it can’t happen here, even as it is obviously starting to happen (though Trump does seem to think Indians are one of the ‘good’ minority groups, so maybe that makes him feel safe too.)

    • humanoid.panda

      I actually find this difficult to believe because anyone who looks at any reputable histories of these time periods can find photos of whip-scarred backs and lynchings and film of dogs and waterhoses and billyclubs being deployed against non-violent protesters.

      Then again, if your presume every history published after 1965 or so is a Marxist brainswashing tool, and just go with older historiography, you can safely presume that slavery was a rural utopia.

      • humanoid.panda

        3) D’Souza doesn’t actually think that things will revert and is happy to have it both ways by enjoying the relative equality of the modern era while raking in money in exchange for flattering racists and being a token non-white pro-confederate. I think that this is the truth. D’Souza doesn’t think that his actions have consequences and is totally amoral and willing to say whatever he thinks will get him attention and make him money.

        The more likely version of this is that D’Souza figures that history rarely reverts all the way back, and that upper-middle class minorities have ***relatively*** little to fear from Republicans.

      • Linnaeus

        Ken Stampp’s The Peculiar Institution came out in 1956, so the brainwashing started even earlier!

    • Linnaeus

      I think 3) is the closest to the mark, given that D’Souza’s entire career has been made possible by wingnut welfare.

    • I think it’s 1b) D’Souza considers himself essentially white and expects that he would have the whip hand in the new order.

    • Warren Terra

      Yeah, it’s 3. He’s perfectly happy to take the racists’ money, doesn’t care what he has to say to get it, and doesn’t fear institutional racism applying to him – especially because as it stands the racists make a great show of telling him that he is in the club.

    • JR in WV

      Where Nobdy says:

      2) D’Souza thinks that because he has been loyal to the racist regime they would treat him well. He wants to be an uncle Tom…

      He should say:

      2) D’Souza thinks that because he has been loyal to the racist regime they would treat him well. He wants to be IS an Uncle Tom…

  • randy khan

    I always add “admitted felon and adulterer” before his name and it helps me to understand how vapid he is.

  • aturner339

    D’Souza was invited to speak at a Birmingham area college last year and I remember the outrage over ” freedom of speech” and ” political correctness” when local students started a change.org petition to have the university disinvite him.

    Now D’Souza was still on probation at the time (possibly still is) but it just that it never occurred to him that not every convicted felon is offered the opportunity to lecture college students on their duty to accept racism as a necessary component of the college experience. This isn’t I think an ideological blindness it’s pure cynical calculation that when push comes to shove white supremacy will look out for its own.

  • twbb

    If only Frederick Douglass had left some sort of autobiographical work explaining exactly why he fled slavery.

    • aturner339

      Well he was an activist so of course he can’t be relied upon as a neutral observer. /s

    • wjts

      Opposition to states’ rights and something about tariffs, I think.

      • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

        The photos of him wearing a hat with tea bags suspended from it have been suppressed by the godless liberals.

      • Bubblegum Tate

        Love of big government.

    • Nobdy

      Frederick Douglass was not a “legend”–he was a minor player in the abolitionist movement who became a nasty, bitter old man.

      Yes, I know D’Souza praised Douglass in his attempt to attack Lewis, but since when have conservatives cared about consistency?

      With all respect to the Rosa Parks tweet I still think D’Souza’s hottest take was:

      I love how unintimidated @realDonaldTrump is in deflating overrated Democratic grand pooh-bahs [like John Lewis]

      I mean, come on, praising TRUMP for having the bravery to stand up to LEWIS is such an inversion of the truth that it almost crosses the line from offensive to impressive in its sheer audacity. THAT BRAVE WHITE SUPREMACIST IS STANDING UP TO MEAN OL’ ELITE ESTABLISHMENTARIANIST JOHN LEWIS. I think of myself as a creative person but I couldn’t come up with that one. My mind doesn’t bend that way.

  • humanoid.panda

    But why does he think that if that was to happen, he wouldn’t be affected by

    If I were to speculate, its because as an elite Catholic Indian, he figures life under white supremacy can be rather pleasant for the right sort of native?

    • Karen24

      I think he’s rather like the envious man in the old rabbinical tale. The Greedy Man and the Envious Man met an angel, who asked what he could give each of them. The Greedy Man spoke up immediately and said “I don’t care what you give, but give me twice as much as you give to the Envious Man.” The Envious Man said “I want to be blind in one eye.”

      • humanoid.panda

        Heh. I know the same story with two Russian peasants..

  • “Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

    Abraham Lincoln

    • Linnaeus

      What did that guy know about anything?

      • Abbey Bartlet

        Well, as Republicans are eager to remind us, he was a Republican.

        • so-in-so

          But, they quickly add, a RINO and a horrible tyrant for suppressing state’s rights the rights of property holders.

  • Brett

    I think it’s just as simple as him being a religious conservative who has had a ton of personal success pandering to conservatives on issues of race, history, and so forth. It’s a self-validating thing, all the more so because D’Souza (like many conservatives) is not a particularly ironic person.

    I highly doubt he’s thinking it will save him somehow, or what have you. It just wouldn’t occur to him that it could happen to him.

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

      I’m sure he thinks that having made a lot of money proves how smart he is and how he knows everything, unlike poor people who are only that way because they’re lazy and ignorant.

      I wonder if he’s got any paintings of himself with Jesus like Carson does.

  • SNF

    slavery appears such a relatively mild business that one begins to wonder why Frederick Douglass and so many other ever tried to escape

    Wasn’t he just praising Douglass as being underrated yesterday?

    https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/820348583496949761

    • Nobdy

      He praised Republican staunch conservative who just didn’t like the technical institution of slavery Frederick Douglass, not historical Frederick Douglass.

      Just like tomorrow lots of Republicans will praise hardcore market enthusiast Martin Luther King, Jr., who would probably have voted for Trump and DEMANDED That John Lewis attend the inauguration if he hadn’t tragically died (of…heart disease I think? I forget) before he could give speeches in favor of right to work, which he definitely believed in.

  • Shorter D’Souza: “Evil Democrats created slavery and the KKK, but it wasn’t so bad. Checkmate, libs!”

  • greennotGreen

    And all those black women who bore half-white children had such tender feelings toward their white lovers who showered them with fancy clothes and diamonds and private apartments…so lucky!

  • Chetsky

    Heh. I used to say the problem with Dinesh is, he hasn’t looked at the back of his hand (I’m also brown, also from same country, just a bit further south). And it’s exactly right, that if you look at writings on the way the English treated “the wogs, the n****rs” in India, it sure wasn’t pretty. Dinesh surely would not like it.

    Someone commented on a different thread, that Hindi had N different words for color. Weeeeell, that’s not surprising, since the caste system is effectively a religiously-enforced system of apartheid. We Indians are/can be incredibly racist, and not just to PoC from other places. The way untouchables and other bottom-of-the-caste-system people are treated in India is …. horrifying.

    So yaknow, maybe he’s just doing what comes naturally.

    • Woodrowfan

      his family came from a Christian group that helped the colonizers.

      • Warren Terra

        Also, from Goa, which was never under British control.

        (I have no doubt the Portuguese colonizers were horribly abusive, colonizers generally are, but I know nothing about them specifically)

        • Woodrowfan

          I know, that’s why I said colonizers, not Brits. :) But someone explained it better than I did, further up the thread…

        • They were a lot more relaxed about miscegenation than the uptight Brits. Which is a large part (though not the whole story) of why so many Goans have Portuguese surnames.

  • PohranicniStraze

    Yeah, dark-skinned guy with a fondness for white women… I’m sure he would have done totally fine in the antebellum era.

    “Masters … encouraged the family unit…”

    They did a really good job of encouraging it, for certain meanings of “encourage”. Which is why those of us with lots of slaveowners in the family tree have so many black relatives on DNA-matching services.

    • rm

      Well, the slaveowners thought of themselves as Old Testament patriarchs (when they weren’t pretending to be Arthurian knights), so “family unit” could mean the patriarch and all his property, such as a wife, legitimate children, white mistresses, white bastards, black slave mistresses, house slaves, field slaves, cattle, land, houses.

      We’ve seen over and over that conservatives do not understand consent, but they do value the fuck out of hierarchy.

    • Warren Terra

      The great thing about the “family unit” is that it is so precious, so important, and the slaver can take it away at any time. Victims who have lost all hope and become immune to danger to their persons can still be cowed by threats to torture their loved ones, or to sell them down the river to faraway plantations with horrifying death rates.

  • Cheap Wino

    It’s bad enough that the bullshit idea that the civil war was just about economics has actually taken root. But now we’re getting into slavery really wasn’t all that bad territory? So frustrating to see this make an appearance.

    There will absolutely be people on mainstream message boards and comment sections that will parrot this as if everybody but ignorant liberals who are being deceived by the media know it to be true. Then when they get pushback it reinforces to them that liberals are just stupid and ignorant rather than makes them question their sources.

    • rm

      There are millions of Americans who cherish Gone With the Wind as a charming depiction of real history, and who love the idea of beautiful antebellum plantations. This sentiment had never gone away.

      • The part where Sherman burns Atlanta is heartwarming.

        • Abbey Bartlet

          +1864

        • so-in-so

          Except we now know it was the Confederates who burned it (noted to push back against the “Sherman was a war criminal” Dixie apologists). Only part of the movie I can appreciate – well, maybe the thousands of Rebel wounded around the Atlanta station scene.

      • Woodrowfan

        am I the only one cheering for the Yankee soldiers to kill Scarlett??

    • The Great God Pan

      His defenses of slavery are from a book he published in 1995. It’s not new and, as far as I have seen, it hasn’t really caught on much.

      ETA: of course there is a lot of romanticization of the antebellum South, as rm points out, but rarely do you see people explicitly characterizing slavery as a jobs program or welfare the way D’Souza did. It just never became a mainstream GOP talking point.

      • pillsy

        It’s also not the only time that D’Souza has overshot the mark. He seemed to have a (temporary, at least) decline in popularity after he wrote a book explaining that Osama bin Ladin hated the United States for exactly the same reasons Dinesh D’Souza does.

      • aturner339

        Yes the GOP is far better off pretending slavery was abolished sometime in the Paleocene. When Cliven Bundy pulled a D’Sousza it was enough to have even Sean Hannity pretend at shock.

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

          Or, as Palin commented, the founding fathers never stopped fighting to end slavery. (Except, I guess when they were trying to ride while ringing a bell and holding a musket. But they would have fought to end slavery, too, if only they’d had another hand free.)

    • bender

      “But now we’re getting back into slavery really wasn’t all that bad territory?”

      My fifth grade textbook for history of the state contained the “No free workers enjoyed a comparable social security system from birth until death” argument and we spent some time examining Calhoun’s arguments for the right of states to secede from the Union. Nothing about the family unit that I remember. This was in Arlington, Virginia around the time of Brown v. Board of Education.

      • bender

        BTW, at the time I thought the claim about slavery not being too bad was probably BS, but I was sympathetic to the Calhoun argument about the right of secession on the basis that if you enter a contract voluntarily, there ought to be a way to get out of it voluntarily. Also I got the impression that Calhoun’s argument was based on legal principles, while the Unionist arguments were mostly emotional.

        • aturner339

          Of course for Calhoun these two arguments were one and the same. He was after all the main proponent of the “Positive Good” defense of slavery.

        • Warren Terra

          I’m not necessarily opposed to the argument that states or even smaller entities maybe should have the right to secede (though not arbitrarily and without regard to shared obligations). But on the other hand I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea of “humanitarian” military intervention when important civil rights are being denied – and such intervention is more justified when the abuses are worse, when the abusive country is close both physically and culturally, etcetera.

          • Richard Gadsden

            I do very much believe in the principle of self-determination. If the southern states had the consent of their populations, they had the right to secede, IMO. I note that they never actually asked the slaves, though. White Unionists plus slaves form a solid majority in every seceding state.

      • I can’t find it right now, but there was a tweet making the rounds the other day with a picture of a piece of elementary school homework that asks children, basically, if all your neighbors are buying slaves and making more money than you, can you really be blamed for getting in on slavery yourself in order to keep up economically?

        It’s not exactly “slavery wasn’t that bad”, but it certainly prioritizes the feelings and needs of the poor slaveowners, and more importantly, paints the choice to own slaves as a matter of economic necessity (even survival) as opposed to, you know, greed.

        (To be clear, I just saw this on my timeline that didn’t follow up to confirm, so the homework may have been a fabrication. But it’s not a very implausible one if it is.)

      • Woodrowfan
      • Right. I think what’s new (since the 1990s) is the number of unreconstructed brown people like D’Souza arguing it, which is tragic.

    • Lurking Canadian

      But now we’re getting into slavery really wasn’t all that bad territory?

      Wasn’t it last year (or was it the 2012 election) when the Republican primary voter made the argument that the descendants of slaves should be paying reparations to the descendants of slave owners to reimburse them for all the free room and board?

  • Lots of good points above. But D’Souza gets his money for making a big show of going against (what his paymasters believe he thinks is) his own self-interest. He is, to them, the nonwhite person who has been converted to the belief that whites are superior. To the stupider among them, the non-Christian, furriner-talking, rebelling against the powers-that-be type (as they believe all but rich white Christians are) who saw the light and is willing to preach to his former comrades.

    And he doesn’t care whether what he writes counts as “true” as we ordinary people would understand it. He only cares about signaling that he understands what he’s supposed to think the ideal society is. The idea of suggesting what his betters think is the ideal may not actually have been ideal horrifies him. But luckily, he thinks it’s better for people to read about ideals than actual history anyway.

    He also does probably think that virtues win you a cushy indoor job where they have to coddle you and obedience is the easy burden he’s always found his life to be. And that members of his community who are less lucky will be proud that they’re associated with him, and if they’re good will be comforted by religion anyway no matter what they suffer.

    And he may well be looking forward to neofeudalism with a multiracial aristocracy (or less likely I think, an international alliance of ethnically homogeneous slave states).

    Only the scholar of these things would be emotionally well served by taking anything he writes seriously.

  • Thlayli

    He’s the one who attacked Obama for being “anti-colonialist”, right?

    Which raised the obvious question of why a country which has George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin on its money would think anti-colonialism was a bad thing.

    • The Queen’s going to take us back any day now.

      Right after the Archbishop of Canterbury pledges obedience to Rome.

      • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

        The Queen’s going to take us back any day now.

        From your lips to God’s ears. I think we’d be better off, especially since the current Queen doesn’t seem likely to want to get revenge on those who rebelled against the Crown.

    • Gwen

      I think the relevant point here is that the modern conservative is capable of nearly infinite cognitive dissonance.

      A few months ago I told my old man (a college educated person!) that I thought the confederate statues at UT Austin should be moved. He started ranting about “we can’t rewrite history” and how Confederates were “just as patriotic as the Northern soldiers.” And to be sure some CSA vets later did worthwhile things (Lee was a college president) but I’m pretty sure committing treason makes you objectively less patriotic than the Army that’s trying to save the country.

      I don’t know whether Dinesh DSouza recognizes how ridiculous his arguments are, or not. My guess is he doesn’t. Much of his audience has a deep emotional attachment to nostalgia and I suspect identifying with that is more important than logic or reason.

      • ColBatGuano

        You should point out to your dad that the Waffen-SS was also very patriotic.

  • mikeSchilling

    Taxation is like slavery. The ACA is like slavery. Jury duty is like slavery.

    Was slavery like slavery? Not so much.

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

      In the background, an android has begun to have smoke curling out of his ears.

    • Bubblegum Tate

      Perfect. Thank you.

    • RobNYNY1957

      This goes along with: Christianity isn’t a religion — it’s a personal relationship with Christ. Islam isn’t a religion — it’s a global political system. Atheism, on the other hand, is a religion. So is evolutionary biology.

  • I find Dinesh D’Souza so confusing. The man clearly wants to return to the Jim Crow years. Or even slavery. But why does he think that if that was to happen, he wouldn’t be affected by it?

    He suffers from Clayton Bigsby Syndrome which he may have contracted from Thomas Sowell.

  • NoMoreAltCenter

    This feels more like an attempt to be relevant than anything else. Coulter-esque

  • The Great God Pan

    What's the conflict? He wants to enslave Africans, and only for their own good, not Indians. Indians are good at computers and math so they don't need slavery.

  • Bitter Scribe

    If slavery wasn’t so bad, does this mean that the anti-abortion advocates who are forever comparing Roe v. Wade to Dredd Scott and themselves to abolitionists are even more full of shit?

    • NoMoreAltCenter

      Also, didn’t he just make a movie about how the Dems are actually bad because they were the party that supported slavery and Jim Crow?

      • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

        Shh. You weren’t supposed to mention it.

      • He’s still tweeting that, simultaneously with the pro-slavery message:

        Dinesh D’Souza ‏@DineshDSouza 21h21 hours ago
        YES, BULL CONNOR WAS A DEMOCRAT: Let’s recall it was racist Democrats who beat up John Lewis–a fact he conveniently never mentions

        • Mike G

          An ancient trope on the right, along with, “Lincoln was a Republican and he freed the slaves so black people should be Republicans forever.”

          On Highway 101 near Salinas, CA there used to be a giant banner strung by a wingnut farmer reading “Martin Luther King Was A Republican”.

          I want to ask these people — so, you’re a Republican based on policies they held 55 years ago that are the opposite of today’s? Or you’re so fetishistic that you are loyal to a party label regardless of their policies?

  • Thom

    Do we think he’s been reading Fogel and Engerman, or going back to UB Phillips?

  • AMK

    It’s the same dynamic with the evangelical subset of the Korean community. I recall that at my public high school in suburban jersey, the bible club and the young republicans were 85% korean. They didn’t like it when you tried to point out that their great grandparents were useful idiots for colonial missionaries and they are useful idiots for white nationalists now.

  • philip.koop

    I have a friend who was born here in Canada but was raised by extended family in the Netherlands. Her family is mixed race as well as mixed nationality, but she is black, as is her Dutch cousin who, married to a Turk, nevertheless voted for Geert Wilders. My friend was like, you realize they’re coming for you first, right? But I don’t think she really got to the bottom of it.

    • Barry_D

      “My friend was like, you realize they’re coming for you first, right? But I don’t think she really got to the bottom of it.”

      She undoubtedly thinks that they are coming for Muuuuzzzliiimmmzzzz first. And last. And that she, in the eyes of Geert’s swine, isn’t basically the same thing.

      There’s an apocryphal story of a German Jew in the early 1930’s writing a letter to the NYT explaining that Mr. Hitler’s policies were actually only against foreign Jews from the east (‘Ostjuden’).

  • Bruce Vail

    Why hasn’t Dinesh received an important appointment in the Trump administration yet?

    May be they are waiting to see if Dr. Carson’s appointment sails through to judge the US Senate’s willingness to accept the ridiculous?

    • Hogan

      Nikki Haley has already been awarded that token.

      • rm

        True. But of the two Indian-American Republicans that Trump might have heard of, he chose the qualified one for an important post. It’s very un-Trumplike. I would have expected him to humiliate Haley in some way and then make D’Souza the Libarian of Congress or something.

        • Hogan

          But she’s a twofer! More efficient.

        • Warren Terra

          he chose the qualified one for an important post

          Nikki Haley is, to my limited understanding, not a deranged freak show like many of Trump’s appointees, and unlike most Trump appointees she is not famous for a long record of ideological commitment to destroying the mission of the office she’s been appointed to.

          She is, apparently, a reasonably intelligent, reasonably serious Republican politician. She is if anything unusually respectable for a Republican politician.

          She is completely lacking in qualifications to be UN ambassador. We should not let her un-Trump-like lack of florid clownosity distract us from this fact.

          • rm

            Yeah, “the one who is not insane” would have been a better choice of words. And governors kind of by definition aren’t diplomats, though they aren’t in theory completely risible/terrifying choices, like all of Trump’s other choices.

      • Woodrowfan

        plus the new SC governor is a white guy ally with Trump

        • Abbey Bartlet

          I suspect getting a brown woman out of Strom Thurmond’s chair played a role in her appointment. It’s just undignified!

          • so-in-so

            She’s hotter than D’Souza? Probably important to Trump.

  • why does D’Souza think he would be excepted from the racist regime he fights for?

    Because he’s carried its water!

    “Though I’ve belted you and flayed you,
    By the livin’ Gawd that made you,
    You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Dinesh!”

  • Dr. Acula

    Dinesh D’Souza D’Spicable D’saster

  • Davis

    Drapetomania: mental disorder that caused slaves to run away. Why? The masters were too nice. Only beatings kept them home. I am not making this up.

  • Pingback: The irony of Martin Luther King Day— | Fraser Sherman's Blog()

It is main inner container footer text