Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza is once again on the hot seat- this time he is under indictment for fraud:
"by a grand jury for alleged campaign finance fraud, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s office announced this evening.. According to the office, Mr. D’Souza, 52, is charged “with violating the federal campaign finance laws by making illegal contributions to a United States Senate campaign in the names of others and causing false statements to be made to the Federal Election Commission in connection with those contributions.”
According to a complaint, Mr. D’Souza contributed $20,000 to a New York Senate candidate’s campaign—five times the legal limit—by using straw donors, whom he later reimbursed. FEC campaign finance records show Mr. D’Souza made two $2,500 contributions to long-shot Republican New York U.S. Senate candidate Wendy Long in March 2012—the maximum allowed. Mr. D’Souza’s wife at the time, Dixie D’Souza, also gave $5,000 that March, records show."
Read more here at: http://politicker.com/2014/01/dinesh-dsouza-indicted-for-campaign-finance-fraud/
D'Souza was in hot water previously for attending a Christian conference with a woman he introduced as his fiancée, and sharing a hotel room with said "fiancee" even though he was still married to another woman,his blond wife Dixie. The resulting scandal forced D'Souza to resign his presidency at conservative private Kings College.
World Magazine, a Christian-oriented publication, reported that he had checked into a Comfort Suites in South Carolina in September with a woman he introduced as his fiancée, despite the fact that he was already married. The magazine reported that he filed for divorce the same day its reporter called to ask about the situation.
"“I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced,”
Well, well, imagine that, but as we know, Dsouza is lying. This is a guy who has written robust defenses of Christianity, and who is quite familiar with its doctrines, and the Indian "had no idea"? Sorry Dinesh. It is considered "wrong" to ferry around another woman who is not your wife, apparently share a room with her (so say observers at the Christian conference), misrepresent who she is, and yes, get engaged while you are not divorced. Your ex-wife also confirms some of this in divorce filings. According to one NY Times article, D'Souza on learning that the scandal story broke, filed for divorce one day after. To avoid any appearance of impropriety, D'Souza piously announced he was "suspending" the engagement to his "fiancée." There.. that oughta fix it y'all..
The above raises character issues about D'souza, which brings us to "rational discrimination" as regards the reputed character traits of some racial groups. What is interesting is that D'Souza poses as an "understanding observer" of "rational discrimination" (critics dub it "rational racism") where adverse or negative action or attitudes against another race or ethnicity is deemed reasonable based on statistical patterns of behavior by various group members. Indeed per D'Souza in his 1996 book "The End of Racism": "My basic conclusion is that whites view racial discrimination today as a rational response to black group traits." Let's go with that for a moment, and agree with D'Souza. Based on his approach, then "rationally" it should be expected that people view Indians like him as corrupt and untrustworthy. How so you ask? Waaaahelll.. I tell you pilgrim..
His own claim that he "had no idea" that "it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced.” How could a man who has become prominent defending Christianity of all things, "have no idea"? What does this tell us about the Indian's truthfulness? And if D'souza demonstrates this mendacity, doesn't this confirm others who draw "rationally racist" conclusions about Indian honesty, mendacity, and corruption? Note- we are using D'souza's own "understanding" to evaluate his case. The black targets of his scorn get no special favors. Why should he get a free pass?
D'Souza conveniently skips over "character issues" of people from the Indian subcontinent in the West. A number of weighty commentators, some conservative soulmates of D'Souza had also warned about how the Indian sub-continent "culture of corruption" threatens to poison the culture of Britain. Dominic Grieve, Attorney General of the United Kingdom, said just that publicly in 2013 warning that said denizens from the Indian sub-continent were bringing a culture of mendacity, dishonesty and corruption- warning ruling elites: to ‘wake up’ to the threat of corruption posed by minority communities using a ‘favour culture’. Says Grieve: ‘I can see many of them have come because of the opportunities that they get. ‘But they also come from societies where they have been brought up to believe you can only get certain things through a favour culture. ‘One of the things you have to make absolutely clear is that that is not the case and it’s not acceptable.’
Uh oh. Playing by the rules? Honesty? Bribes? In Jolly Old? Grieve sounds there like those colored Third World politicians complaining about Indian dishonesty in their own countries. Who woulda thunk? Grieve focused mostly on Pakistanis, but the same complaint about people right next door, Indians, is frequently heard in Britain- about "the Indian character" and the pattern of cheating, not playing by the rules, and corruption. Another ideological soulmate, conservative William Dalrymple, also a writer for the prominent conservative American magazine "National Review" like D'Souza, voices similar sentiments- only in India, in his book "The Age of Kali".
Respected Indian writers mention the same. The Booker Prize winning debut novel The White Tiger, written by Indian novelist Aravind Adiga, tells the story of Balram Halwai and tells an oft dismal tale of character paralleling Grieve, where straightforward moral principle or behavior may be a quite flexible concept. Per one review: "Within the novel there are two sides of India known as the “light” and the “darkness”. The light and darkness refer to the economic conditions in different areas of India and really emphasis the inequality that exists in the country. Ironically, the actions that often bring you from the light to the darkness or from the bad to the good are morally questionable. It seems that you need to abandon the values learned in the darkness in order to escape into the light. Basically, to live in the light you need to be dark or bad, whereas if you live in the darkness, your morality might have a chance of staying intact. Balram’s narration, especially later in the novel, does not glorify his actions or achievements but uses his actions to portray how moral ambiguity is a commonly accepted practice."
Therefore, using D'Souza's own "rational discrimination" standard, should we be biased against Indians as prone to corruption and bribery or illegal activity? If so, why should we be surprised at the indictment against the Indian D'souza for making illegal campaign contributions, using his former white wife, Dixie, as a front to do so in the past? Isn't it "rational" that we view all Indians as dishonest and suspect? And hasn't D'Souza proven it by HIS own behavior?
On the sexual infidelity front, hard data is more ambiguous, but anecdotal evidence and accounts puts infidelity by Indian men as a not unusual occurrence, including men who openly consort with other women even though married. One account below for example sees the dowry-marriage complex as a business arrangement for many Indian men, leaving them free to cheat in between the sheets of "convenience" in these "marriages of convenience." See for example:
It could be argued that D'Souza has outgrown Dixie- she was good to start- giving him a certain "honorary white" cachet- the colored who "dares say what no others dare say," to the delight of certain conservatives- and it certainly fit the bill to have a white blond on his arm back then. And he has the best of several worlds.
Indian D'souza himself benefited from allegedly "unneeded" Civil Rights Laws or rulings- like freedom from segregation and freedom to marry his white wife, something forbidden before "unneeded" civil rights laws brought about equal justice.
The Indian D'souza may not even have been allowed to become a citizen at one time in America. In 1923 the US Supreme Court ruled that Asian Indians were not eligible for citizenship, stripping several naturalized Indians of citizenship. A 1922 federal law stipulated that women who married aliens ineligible for citizenship would lose theirs- provisions not lifted until the 1940s. The 1921 and 1924 immigration law set numerical limits but only for. Europeans. Other non whites were banned. The book by Ian Haney 1996- White by law: the legal construction of race" sets out the dismal facts in detail. It took decades of struggle, suffering and sacrifice to get such things reversed. But along comes the feckless Dsouza to benefit on the backs of those who suffered, even as he dismisses civil rights protections as "unneeded" directly or by implication. Since he arrived on American shores in 1978, well AFTER all the messy and ugly business of the "unneeded" Civil Rights law he dismisses, he and white wife get to stay in any public accommodations he chooses, can pretty much buy housing where they want, and get to send their kids pretty much to the schools they want, without being blocked and sandbagged by racist Realtors, restaurant owners or bureaucrats. Furthermore, he and Dixie lived in Virginia, a state that once imprisoned or threatened to imprison interracial couples for the crime of "miscegenation." D'Souza gets to have to both ways, He can dismiss Civil Rights laws as "unneeded," because as an "honorary white" immigrant coming after the fact, he can enjoy that which he dismisses, and never had to worry like say, interracial couple Mildred Loving and her husband- miscegenation "criminals" sentenced to jail or exile. But hey, mission accomplished. D'Souza's new paramour is reportedly a "minority" woman. Back to those old colored roots, aye old chap?
So again, usng D'Souza's own "rational racism" approach, should we not suspect Indians like him as being likely to cheat? D'souza relates how his white father-in-law objected to him marrying his blond daughter. He says he "quite understood" these objections based on skin color. Indeed- all hale and hearty, and wondrously understanding by the honorary white guy.
But perhaps the white father-in-law had a deeper, more "rational" reason for objecting to the marriage of his daughter, sweet Dixie to D'souza. Perhaps he suspected the character of Indians- as fundamentally more corrupt and as a corollary, suspected them as less reliable and faithful, compared to other men. His objections to the marriage would thus be not only skin color, but might be even more understandable under D'souza's rational bias argument. And maybe Dad was right- for the Indian apparently not only cheated on Dixie, but publicly shamed his daughter, and brought negative attention to Kings College- openly parading is paramour about, even before they were divorced.
Was Dixie's father also disturbed by the occurrence of "honor killings" in perpetrated by Indian men in fits of jealously? There are a number of documented instances where Indian women received short shrift, indeed short life in these cases. In colonial Trinidad for example were the notorious 'Coolie wife-murders', crimes of violence by Indian men against wives suspected of infidelity. Between 1872 and 1900, eighty-seven murders of Indian women occurred primarily among the estate-resident Indians.".. (Bridget Brereton - 2002 - Race Relations in Colonial Trinidad 1870-1900 - Page 182) But is it fair to bring this up? There must be mitigating circumstances. Indeed, but curiously, D'Souza cuts little of such slack to his black targets or scapegoats in his writings.
Another author likewise notes the pattern of violence against Indian women by Indian men and how that pattern is embedded in the Indian culture of dowry expectations and jealously: "In 2008, 1,948 Indian men were convicted in dowry-death cases, and 3,876 acquitted, with 5,824 cases pending, and many were never even brought to justice. Honor Killings. In addition in Bangladesh, 86 women were attacked with acid in 2010, and 12 percent of those attacks were related to disputes over dowries. Acid attacks, while usually not lethal, are designed to maim or disfigure the victim, thus rendering victims marriageable and economically vulnerable."
--Jeffry O.Korgen, Vincent A. Gallagher - 2013 - The True Cost of Low Prices: The Violence of Globalization. pg 21
It is interesting that in 2014, D'Souza's white ex-wife, Dixie, victim of his adulterous affair, filed a report in his court trial on illegal campaign contributions, that he had abused her physically. Again, using the rational bias meme, shouldn't this be expected of Indians? Per Dixie, the Indian repeatedly had demonstrate “flawed character and lack of truthfulness” (see NYT story below).
In statements read in court during D'souza's sentencing hearing, Dixie accused D'souza of fraud and even physically abusing her. QUOTE: "It is my former husband who has an abusive nature. In one instance, it was my husband who physically abused me in April 2012 when he, using his purple belt karate skills, kicked me in the head and shoulder, knocking me to the ground and creating injuries that pain me to this day." The letter also says D'souza forged his wife's name on checks to skirt campaign finance laws, which would explain why his wife was not charged with the crime as well. Read about it here.
Forgery? Abuse? Lying? Kicking a white woman in the head and shoulder? Where are all the good conservative defenders of white womanhood when their token honorary white boy, acts up? Or are they only concerned if a black man shows up? Not good you say, but isn't this what should be expected of an Indian, using the "reasonable racism" approach? Indeed, spousal abuse is a problem in India. Fifty-five percent of Indian women believe spousal abuse is tolerable, according to the most recent National Family Health Survey (2005-06). More than half the men surveyed said that if their wife disrespected their parents, hitting her would be acceptable. So its not just D'souza but his cultural background proponents of reasonable racism should say. But where are the rabid right-wingers who are ever so quick to bash black people, why do they maintain a mysterious silence on the racial aspects of the behavior and character of their "honorary white" golden, er, brown boy?
All the above are reasons D'Souza should NOT have married his white wife and would have been prevented from doing so in their residence of Virginia, before he came to US shores. A number of right wingers would agree. But like D'Souza they seldom detail patterns of WHITE corruption and violence that would make the case in reverse. And D'Souza seldom applies the case in reverse to his own people. Now why is that double standard?
D'Souza's excuse that he "had no idea" that Christian teaching would consider it wrong or unethical to be engaged to someone while still being married to someone else, seems contrived and disingenuous, especially since D'Souza has made quite a name for himself as a defender of Christianity. Yet he "had no idea"? Seriously? Here again, such sophistry raises questions bout character. Did Dixie's dad suspect that the character of the Indian wanting to marry his daughter was not all it seemed to be? Again, wasn't Dad justified in his objection "rationally" about Indians? Not simply skin color, but character and truthfulness? On top of that D'souz'a's white ex-wife, whom he cheated on with an adulterous affair, filed a report in his court trial on illegal campaign contributions, that he had abused her physically. Did Dad also suspect the Indian was not all he claimed to be?
D'souza is not the only Indian public figure to be charged with corruption. Maryland Democratic Party fund-raiser Lalit Gadhia pleaded guilty in the 1990s to funneling more than $46,000 to nearly 20 congressmen, and received jail time as a result. The judge said he was imposing a prison term to send a message "that people inside the process will not be able to manipulate it without some kind of consequences." Ghadia seemed remorseful that his corrupt activities reflected badly on Indians, offering his apologies to the Indian community "for any harm that has come to the cause of their participation in this society." All well and good, but using the approach of D'Souza and assorted "heriditarian" types, shouldn't such corrupt, untrustworthy behavior be expected of Indians?
(Baltimore Sun 1996 "Attorney Ghadia gets jail.."
Other institutions in India are hardly sterling "role models." The police for example are notorious for corruption and unwarranted violence. As one Indian Chief Justice, A.N. Mulla said: "there is not a single lawless group in the whole country whose record of crime is anywhere near the record of that organised unit whichi s known as the Indian Police Force." and says one study: "The strong mutual suspicion between the police and the public reains today. The police in India are widely viewed by the public as untrustworthy, corrupt, partisan and ready to favour the politically and economically powerful over the poor and dispossessed."
G. Pelly (2011) State Terrorism: Torture, Extra-judicial Killings, and Forced Disappearances.. p31
But you object dear reader to the "rational racism" meme... Why should ALL Indians be suspect because of certain patterns that pertain to some Indians? That is a good objection- why should all be impugned due to the actions of some? I agree and reject any broad brush stereotype. But see, this "all are suspect" line of reasoning is fine among assorted "heriditarian", "HBD" and other right-wing types as long as it only applies to white people, black folk can be bashed. But the bashers conveniently, seldom apply their own logic the other way- when their own white "role models" are put under the spotlight. After all, its the general statistical patterns that count for "understanding observers" of rational racism. It is is exactly what D'Souza's "rational racism" argument does, and it is embraced by white right wing types enthusiastically as long as blacks are involved.
Proponents of "rational racism" almost never apply it the other way- that it is "rational" for say blacks, based on white group behavior, to distrust or fear whites as violent killers, or deceptive cheaters (the bogus treaties made with Indian tribes in the US for example were made by white people), or that whites are congenital hypocrites (the US constitution's purported democracy and justice, written by whites, seldom until recently applied to non-white people in the US). Isn't it then "rational" for black thugs to do what they do against the well documented violence, deception or hypocrisy of certain conveniently exempt people? Isn't it "rational" for people like Al Sharpton or other assorted "race activists" to gain and keep prominence, given the long legacy of suspicion and anger in black communities at white violence, hypocrisy and deception? You get the picture..
Yet D'Souza laments the "race card" played by assorted black activists. But using his own theory, that negative black evaluations are a "rational response" to group traits (in this case white people) why is D'Souza in high dudgeon about black activists, commentators etc etc who trade in race issues? Isn't their behavior a perfectly "rational response"? How about black thugs bombarded 24/7 with images of white wealth, some of which was gained historically by vicious oppression, discrimination and deception? Isn't it a "rational response" for them to go where the money is? To target people who produce more (including sexual goods like pornography with overwhelmingly white objects of desire), people supposedly so much better, and wealthier?
The reasoning is faulty, and morally ugly, yes, (no endorsement is made here) - but the purpose of this post is to expose the double standards of "rational racism.". Isn't this exactly the bottom line approach of the hypocritical proponents or acceptors of "Rational racism" when all the polite language is stripped away? How come they seldom apply their own reasoning on the flip side? This post's purpose is to expose the ugly double standards so often indulged in by some right wingers. Using that same double standard approach- ALL Indians are morally suspect character. Questioning such reasoning apparently makes one a "politically correct" - a bad person really. Apparently such bad "PC persons" would advocate equal treatment and consideration of people, and if some Indians take bribes, engage in corruption, do adultery and abuse (generically speaking here), this does NOT mean ALL Indians are bribe prone and corrupt, anymore than all white people are liars and hypocrites, or blacks for that matter.
If the "rational bias" model is flipped, lovers of the "rational bias" argument seldom extend its inherent logic to white people. Using that model- we can "conclude" that all or most white people are automatic liars, and their is plenty of evidence to prove it. Shocking you say? Ugly? Unfair? But this is what is being pushed 24/7 among right wing types. Remember than the next time you hear arguments about "rational racism." Ask their proponents why they don't apply them in reverse.. to their own selected group of virtue?
Do certain "racial traits" show as Dsouza and his attorney leave
federal courthouse after his guilty plea?
NOW A QUESTION: How come white people themselves never accepted "rational racism" when THEY were put at a disadvantage?
One author who coined the term "rational racism," Tim Harford, (see his book- The Logic of Life) is oft quoted by right-wing types to justify bigotry or racism, in either "soft" or "hard" aspects. He notes that if a particular coloured group was perceived to exhibit higher economic returns to employ, the employer would rationally prefer this group over the other. This general pattern thus stated, they then go on to "rationalize" Jim Crow, discrimination in hiring, public accommodations and other such things, as inevitable, even good. So the minorities should just stop their politically correct agitation or whining and learn to accept "racial reality."
Curiously proponents, white or "honorary" like D'Souza, quickly move on to other topics when the script is flipped- even-steven. Why for example did whites react so murderously when "rational" bias applied to put THEM at a disadvantage? When employers on California's West Coast in the 19th century discovered Chinese were more efficient workers why did white mobs engage in mass murder so that the helpless Chinese workers did not even have "a Chinaman's chance"? Why didn't the white people, supposed paragons of merit, just "get over it"? Proponents never say. They duck the implications.
Why did white union thugs murder black railroadmen some of whom had been on the job for decades, because they dared to want to move up and work in jobs deemed "reserved" for whites? See Letter of Harry Truman below. Or why did white unions go on strike to force companies to fire good, decent black workers? And not only railroads. In industry after industry, when employers "Rationally" concluded it was cheaper and more profitable to hire blacks over whites, whites responded viciously, using special laws and Jim Crow legislation, to open police thuggery, to the frenzy of lynch mobs. How come the white people just didn't "get over it" and "accept the inevitability" or rational bias? ? And if employers "rationally" perceive hiring cheaper, harder-working Mexican illegals as more profitable to the detriment of whites, why are white people upset? If jobs are outsourced to black and brown and yellow Third World workers, isn't that a good thing, or does it only become a bad thing of white people are left unemployed as a result? After all, aren't employers practicing "rational discrimination" to increase their profits and cut costs? Why are white people upset at that- don't their libertarian or business pundits cheer such "rationality" by employers? Whites have oft reacted violently, but when the shoe is on the other foot, how come "blacks and other minorities" are supposed to remain quiescent and accept their fate under regimes of white bias and discrimination? Can you say double standard? I knew you could..
In his 2014 movie "America" there is a scene in which D’Souza is shown wearing handcuffs in a room that looks like a jail or prison cell. The scene is fictional but not all that divorced from reality- whether legally as noted in his bribery indictment above, or morally/ethically as the adultery episode above demonstrates. The cell is also symbolic of the propaganda package D'Souza has built up over the years, one that has rebounded on him. As of July 2014, D'souza was actually convicted for illegal political campaign donations and money laundering, carrying a sentence of 10 to 16 months of prison time. He copped a plea before the judge just as his trial was about to start. His plea deal his plea deal calls for 10 to 16 months behind bars and a $250,000 fine. He will no doubt seek leniency. In his 1996 book "The End of Racism" D'souza discusses blacks and prisons extensively. Looks like he may be joining "the culluds" pretty soon eh?
Sep 2014 update- Dsouza admits lying about his criminal activity carried out with a friend and his mistress, his wife reports physical abuse, and he draws a relatively lenient sentence. D'souza, who has condemned judges that are "soft" on convicted criminals, himself got the benefit of a "soft" judge, drawing no prison time, only 8 months of "community confinement" - sort of a halfway house arrangement, one year of "community service" and 5 years probation. Though he went easy on D'souza as far as cell time, the judge dismissed D'souza's claims of political prosecution as whining, and rebuked him repeatedly for his self-serving explanations of the behavior he had pled guilty to. Using D'souza's OWN "rational racism" meme, doesn't this AGAIN demonstrate Indians are mendacious and deceptive, a charge as old as British colonialism on the sub-continent. And doesn't this justify the bias people have against Indians, a "rational" bias, that even the British 2 centuries ago pointed out? The Indian even used his alleged lover as a front, to further his illegal activity per the NY Times report below. Again, we are using his own reasoning, applied to his case. Per the NY Times:
The government charged Mr. D’Souza with illegally arranging to have two people — an employee and a woman with whom he was romantically involved — donate $10,000 each to the campaign of an old friend from Dartmouth College, Wendy E. Long, with the understanding that he would reimburse them in cash for their contributions. Ms. Long was challenging Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Democrat.
According to prosecutors, Mr. D’Souza lied to Ms. Long about the donations, reassuring her that “they both had sufficient funds to make the contributions.” Ms. Long pressed Mr. D’Souza on the issue after the election, and he acknowledged that he had reimbursed the two people, the government said, but told Ms. Long not to worry because she had not known about it.
D’Souza pled guilty to one count on federal charges detailed in an indictment accusing him of violating campaign finance laws and making false statements. D'Souza admitted in front of the Court that he did in fact ask two people to make contributions in their name and later reimbursed them, knowing it was not proper under the law. D'Souza submitted a plea deal on May 19 and the charge of making false statements was dropped.
Judge Berman played a clip from one of Mr. D’Souza’s interviews, with Newsmax TV, during the sentencing hearing Tuesday. While the judge said that Mr. D’Souza had an “absolute right” to express his opinions, he described his claims of political persecution as “nonsense,” and scolded the defendant, saying that he continued to “deflect and minimize” the seriousness of his crime.
“I’m not sure, Mr. D’Souza, that you get it,” the judge said during the sentencing hearing, which lasted more than two hours.
Judge Berman rebuked the defendant repeatedly over the course of the hearing, describing his conduct as “self-destructive” and his remarks in the media as “thoughtless.” The judge even quoted from a letter to the court from Mr. D’Souza’s ex-wife, Dixie D’Souza, in which she said he had a “flawed character and lack of truthfulness” and accused him of physically abusing her.
Also in "America" D'souza attempts to downplay the actual facts of Native American, Hispanic and Black subjugation and discrimination. His basic tactic is a quick boilerplate acknowledgement of problems, but then quicking using extreme outliers to insinuate that things were never so bad. Another tactic is the slanted half-truth- "meretricious window dressing" - superficially attractive claims that have in reality little value or integrity- like cheap souvenirs for the tourist trade, baubles valued by the non-analytical or propaganda focused right-wing set.. As one review notes:
"Similarly D'Souza focuses on single instances of outliers to discuss usurpation of Mexican lands, Black labor and Native American abuse. Despite some admitted injustices, Native Americans must be doing well because now they have casinos. A Mexican American student tells us that he does not want to go back to Mexico. A Black entrepreneur shows how easy it is to become successful in America. But meretricious window dressing aside, D'Souza's Potemkin Villages are so shallow as to only call attention to the weaknesses of his arguments.
D'Souza never deals with history or context in any meaningful way. Instead he repeatedly offers scattered factoids and cherry picked quotes. He actually shows no understanding of history. This lack of insight, analysis and grounding betray him. Notable is his attempt to deflect arguments of racism by pointing to the case of the notorious Black plantation owner William Ellison who, though himself African American, owned 60 slaves and 1,000 acres. But the system which allowed the growth of Ellison's rapacious enterprises is exactly the system which Historian Howard Zinn and the other critics took pains to describe.
We are shown an American pilot shot down in the Vietnam War. The U.S. role in Vietnam is praised. But the film pointedly ignores the corrupt, repressive regime which the United States was supporting. D'Souza tells us that the United States in ALL its wars wanted to extend freedom and NEVER took land. Somehow he ignores the governments which the U.S. has toppled and the resources we have extracted from these lands. The same pattern of one-sided treatment persists throughout the entire film.
D'Souza's deceptions seem more willful than ignorant. His suggestion that his own criminal conviction and his cheating on his wife are the result of political targeting are embarrassing and without support. It is a rather tawdry, but appropriate conclusion to a sad cinematic attempt to trash one's enemies without benefit of fact, yet explain away actual fact by suggesting political martyrdom."
And so it goes, the pattern of deception and propaganda. What was that he said again about "rational discrimination" or a "rational response" based on "traits"?
Finally D'Souza himself seems a beneficiary of "affirmative action" - the same 'special treatment' he never ceases to bash black scapegoats for. He was appointed "scholar" at prestigious Hoover Institute at Stanford for example, despite having no serious scholarly publication, or peer reviewed article published, and only having a BA in English. He was appointed president of prestigious private Kings College despite no experience in academic administration, or ministry. As one detailed analysis notes:
"He holds the post of “scholar” [Rishwain Scholar at
As an immigrant “success” story, his is more reminiscent of the political patronage and smoke-filled backroom promotions of over a century ago—only this time ethnicity and tribalism are denounced and denied as the source of D’Souza’s power. In reality, D’Souza has little in the way of credentials or training to merit any of his promotions... If Dinesh D’Souza were not East Indian, he would simply have no role to play for the Right: there would be no White House credentials, no appointments as “scholar,” and no press."
FROM: --How Dinesh Gets Over: The Unmeritorious Scholarship of Dinesh D'Souza, by Christine Kellyhttp://logosonline.home.igc.org/kelly.htm
In 2012, after the fall of D'Souza, Interim Kings College President Andy Mills introduced Gregory Thornbury as a "natural fit" for the college. Quoting Acts 15:28, Mills said, "It seemed right to us and the Holy Spirit that" Thornbury becomes president. Really? Where was this spiritual guidance before when they selected D'souza? One wonders whether it was actual spiritual insight that led to and guided the appointment of D'Souza, or whether its King's College "spiritual leaders" were following something more worldly- like D'souza's cachet in conservative circles. Were they truly spiritually guided they would have seen through D'souza's glib character, but the "leadership" pursued something else- and got burned as a result.
Harry was no flaming liberal on race but was a lot more honest than D'souza..
LINKS TO OTHER POSTS:
Trump properties discriminated against black tenants, lawsuit finds
Stealing credibility- Dinesh D'souza has prison epiphany- after hanging with the homies- Hallelujah Hilary!
Go with the flow 3- more DNA and cranial studies show ancient African migration to, or African presence in ancient Europe
Go with the flow 2- African gene flow into Europe in various eras
Go with the flow 2- African gene flow into Europe in various eras
DNA studies show African movement to Europe from very ancient times
Guilt3- Why the "white privilege industry" is not all there
Guilt2- Media collaborates with guilt mongers - or how to play the white victim card
Why HBD or hereditarianism lacks credibility
Leading Scientists criticize hereditarian claims
Thai me down - Thais fall behind genetically related southern Chinese, Tibetans below genetically related East Asians like Koreans and other Chinese
Time for liberals to respect "the south" ... in a way of speaking.. the south of Egypt that is..
Irony 2: touted High IQ "G-men" cannot reproduce themselves
Unz and Sowell: Unz debunking Lynn's IQ and Wealth of Nations. Sowell debunking the Bell Curve
Irony 1: touted High IQ types are more homosexual, more atheist, and more liberal (HAL)
Elite white universities discriminate against Asians using reverse "affirmative action"
Deteriorating state of white America
Racial Cartels (The Affirmative Action Propaganda machine- part 2
Hereditarian's/HBD's "Great Black Hope"
Exploding nonsense: the 10,000 Year Explosion
We need "rational racism"?
The Affirmative Action Propaganda Machine- part 1
Two rules for being "really" black- no white wimmen, no Republican
The Axial age reconsidered
Cannibal seasonings: dark meat on white
"Affirmative Action" in the form of court remedies has been around a long time- since the 1930s- benefiting white union workers against discrimination by employers
Mugged by reality 1: White quotas, special preferences and government jobs
Lightweight enforcement of EEO laws contradicts claims of "flood" of minorities "taking jobs"
Railroaded 3: white violence and intimidation imposed quotas
Railroaded 2: how white quotas and special preferences blockade black progress...
Railroaded 1: How white affirmative action and white special preferences destroyed black railroad employment...
Affirmative action: primary beneficiaries are white women
7 reasons certain libertarians and right-wingers are wrong about the Civil Right Act
Social philosophy of Thomas Sowell
Bogus "biodiversity" theories of Kanazawa, Ruston, Lynn debunked
In the Blood- debunking "HBD" and Neo-Nazi appropriation of ancient Egypt
early Europeans and middle Easterners looked like Africans. Peoples returning or "backflowing" to Africa would already be looking like Africans
Ancient Egypt: one of the world's most advanced civilizations- created by tropical peoples
Playing the "Greek defence" -debunking claims of Greeks as paragons of virtue or exemplars of goodness
Quotations from mainstream academic research on the Nile Valley peoples