The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
Dinesh's America
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It seems that the prolific and effusive America-apologist Dinesh D’Souza has succeeded big-time with a movie about America, which was taken from a book that proclaims the same theme. As a “conservative,” I’m supposed to swoon over this movie and the book that preceded it, predictably put out by the GOP publishing house Regnery. Both these masterpieces convey the exhilarating message of American “greatness.” As someone who is older and better educated than D’Souza and, in addition, politically well to his right, I find his boasting and posturing to be profoundly annoying. Further, most of his books have no redeeming intellectual or social value and, from what I can determine, are churned out for those whose minds have already been diseased by the Murdoch media.

Dinesh’s writings all go after the same convenient targets, anti-American leftists who are either senior citizens or rapidly approaching that status. These baddies allegedly hate us, despite the (for D’Souza and his fans) self-evident facts that our government is a model of civility and constitutional continuity, and that every war we’ve waged has been beneficial for the world. Apparently taking on critics of American greatness suffices to make one a conservative star, although the question goes begging whether someone who is truly on the right should applaud what the US and its Western European clients are becoming. Is it possible to question the exceptional goodness of the US in its present state, without having to be compared to such paradigmatic leftists as Howard Zinn and Ward Churchill? What about someone who questions D’Souza’s rallying cry, because that person is disgusted with the direction in which the US is moving politically, culturally and constitutionally? Are we expected to swallow our scruples and scream the D’Souza-Fox mantra?

I also don’t happen to think that Dinesh’s villains are as consistently awful as he suggests. I have uncovered some useful facts by reading Howard Zinn, for example how the American government entangled us in World War One or about the collaboration that went on between the American government and certain business and banking interests. But I’ve never learned anything of value from reading Dinesh; and I doubt that I ever will. The guy’s done too well as a noisemaker to change his calling. For once in my life I find myself in agreement with Huffington Post, when it points out the silliness and lies in Dinesh’s latest movie, which we are told is intended to redeem us from our leftist culture. The film abounds in reenactments of war, to a point that would have caused Mussolini to blush with embarrassment. We see, among other visual pleasures, our national savior Abraham Lincoln periodically coming out to regale us with speeches about how we’re all equal. We also get to hear Dinesh emoting about he loves America and about how he couldn’t imagine the world without it. (Yes, I could easily imagine the world without having to listen to this emoting.)

Unfortunately, according to HP, D’Souza “strays off the costumed path to prove his point.” He warns us that the US is harboring villains who want to destroy us, and the scoundrel he spits at the most is Howard Zinn, whom “he introduces as the most influential historian of the last fifty years.” “Although a popular survey of the profession and a consideration of awards and publications do not support D’Souza’s contention,” which is “a total fabrication,” our movie-maker has a deep investment in this invention. It is entirely indicative of where D’Souza is coming from as a neocon propagandist. A far more obvious choice for the rap he’s bestowed on Zinn is the longtime Stalinist and despiser of Southern whites Eric Foner, who has held every conceivable honor in the historical profession and is the favorite historian of Karl Rove. But Foner, whose radical reconstruction of Reconstruction has had a far more widespread effect on American society and his profession than any People’s History produced by the aged radical Zinn, is a less useful target. While the retired Boston University professor railed with particular vehemence against American war-making, the retread- Marxist-Leninist Foner has made a career out of attacking racists, especially the ones who are white and who speak with Southern drawls.

Huffington Post also brings up another problem that has something to do with D’Souza’s integrity. He writes in defense of traditional marriage, but is far from the best representative of what he preaches, as judged by his philandering lifestyle. Recently our movement conservative hero was forced to resign his presidency of King’s College, a Christian institution in New York City, after he was found performing indelicate acts in a hotel with his latest paramour.

Dinesh and I go back a long way, to the time when he wrote commentaries for me when I was senior editor of The World and I in Washington in the 1980s. He was then working at Heritage, and his colleague Adam Meyerson, whom I knew well, assured me that Dinesh “writes very efficiently.” Since I was required to fill hundreds of pages of a gargantuan magazine every month, I needed lots of copy, and Dinesh, I was told, could help me reach my goal because he just “keeps typing.”


At that time I was grateful for his prompt services, but as I reflect on his voluminous submissions, there was nothing he ever sent me that had the slightest substance. It all had the same overriding theme, which was particularly evident in a commentary on the literary corpus of Graham Green. All I could discover from looking at this text is who liked America’s foreign policy and who didn’t. Although Green may have held crotchety political opinions and exchanged mistresses with some regularity, I was looking for a commentary that dealt with his writing craft. Whether or not Green consistently supported the “democracies” or “democratic capitalism” was likewise not the intended focus of the assignment. Green was one of the greatest novelists in the English language in the twentieth century. But Dinesh’s interests lay elsewhere, and he obviously choose shrewdly when he decided to become a neoconservative, establishment Republican propagandist.

The idea that the “Left,” whatever that means in contemporary political debate, “hates” America is a neocon idée fixe going back to the 1970s. Back then the New Left engaged unrestrainedly in anti-American statements, and the neocons rose to prominence by countering these indiscretions. This new class gained prominence not as hardened rightists but as seemingly gentler progressives than the loudmouths they attacked. A friend of mine had it right right when he satirized the typical neocon polemic as an attack by social democratic gradualists against those who were further on the left. Moreover, the neocons were and are aggressive internationalists, a position that didn’t sit well with what there was of the Old Right in the 1970s. By the same token, there were leftists, including leftist politicians, who once made careers out of ranting against “Amerika.” One can hear their tirades on old news clips. In any case forty years ago neocon defenses of what the American polity had become had at least some relevance.

With due respect to those who continue to scream about this grievance, I haven’t noticed President Obama, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer perpetuating the oratorical tradition of Jerry Rubin and Jane Fonda. Much has changed since the 1970s, including political rhetoric. The Left has been able, with generous GOP assistance, to turn this country in the direction they want. When Obama tells us America is “a special place on Earth,” I’ve no reason to doubt that he means it. After all, the USA is a country this national leader is helping to refashion. Running as the most leftist presidential candidate of all times, he won two presidential races, and both of them handily, and since then he has been able to push the country even further to the left than his Republican predecessor.

Yesterday I heard remarks by another FOX bête noire, Hillary Clinton, which may have surpassed Dinesh’s prose in its boasting about American greatness. This came conveniently at a time when neoconservative moneybags are looking at Hillary as someone they would support for president, if the GOP presidential candidate did not turn out to be a predictably obliging tool of their interests. No sooner had Hillary recited her neoconservative phrases than Sarah Palin oozed pleasure over the “boldness” of her onetime ideological opponent.

D’Souza has to dig deep into the nut barrel to come up with current examples of anti-American ranting in our political class. Most of our politicians sound to me like either funeral directors or Cultural Marxist maniacs. But none of them is denying that we’re the greatest. By the way, the single most abject admission of American guilt by a president I’m aware of was the lachrymose performance offered by Obama’s predecessor during a visit to Benin. In that African country in July 2003, G.W. Bush bewailed America’s participation in slavery and did so in the presence of the local power-holder. Significantly, Obama’ critics at FOX praised Bush for “apologizing over slavery” in Africa. One could only imagine how they would have reacted if a Democratic president had provided the same show.

Dinesh may be right in deciding that some things are more profitable for him than pursuing research scholarship. His early work, The End of Racism (1995), is so egregious that once, when asked in a discussion involving the author to enumerate the book’s weaknesses, I almost passed out in exhaustion after ten minutes. Contrary to D’Souza’s contentions, racism is not a modern invention that came along in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Although “scientific racism” is a product of the Enlightenment and the age of science, racialist attitudes can be traced back to the dawn of world civilization. These attitudes and sentiments have been institutionalized in legal codes and sacred texts. Indeed in the country from whence D’Souza comes, racial domination shaped an elaborate caste system imposed by the Indo-German invaders on the darker-skinned older settler population– about four thousand years ago. And while the encounter of more developed Western explorers and missionaries with less developed or more decadent non-Europeans spurred racialist thinking in the nineteenth century, it is glaringly wrong to argue that this experience caused people to become preoccupied with racial and ethnic differences. That focus has been there for quite some time.

And it’s even more ridiculous to pretend that people will cease to make such distinctions because we now live in what D’Souza proudly announces is a “multiracial society.” I have noticed, and it does not surprise me, that there are continued signs of racial consciousness in what is supposed to be D’Souza’s super-great society. This was obvious, at among other times, during the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman affair, when racial polarization surfaced unmistakably. D’Souza’s efforts to demonstrate the “end of racism” often elides into mere happy talk. But I don’t want to be unfair to the author. I know he’s trying to soothe tensions and discourage minorities from stressing racial grievances. That’s fine with me, but I have one question about the format of his magnum opus: Can’t D’Souza express his view succinctly, without drowning us verbiage?

Despite these critical observations, I should mention that I could never produce a book with as many words in it as The End of Racism. It is a weighty coffee-table decoration that may have begun as something that the author intended to send me in installments for The World and I. But then I left Washington, while Dinesh kept pecking away on his word processor.

Hide 38 CommentsLeave a Comment
38 Comments to "Dinesh's America"
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. fnn says:

    The rise of the anti-national left in the post-Cold War era:

    Of course the left subsumes the right in today’s West.

  2. Trumped says:

    Great article. I always get a good laugh reading the claims of neo-cons and leftists about how Lincoln was some sort of equal rights guru. It ignores how he wanted to ship all blacks, regardless of slave status, out of America to Haiti, Liberia, or “anywhere but here.” It ignores how he proposed a constitutional amendment forever allowing slavery, or his decades of statements about how inferior the negro race was to the white man.

    I mean even using today’s standards on “racism” the old Presidents who even had slaves were not this bad! Wanting to round up and ship out to random nations people who were born and raised here just because they were of African blood?

    The people who believe that also seem to believe that the Emancipation Proclamation “freed the slaves” somehow. And none of them ever read the actual document, which excludes down to the county level basically anyone under northern control.

  3. Mark says:

    Wonderful article, thanks. I wish I could force every Fox News conservative to read it.

  4. @Trumped

    A. Lincoln was the hero of Karl Marx and the various failed European Revolution of 1848 communists who flocked to this country and were given high post positions in the Lincoln war cabinet, as well as made officers in the Union army — they all had a similar goal: crush the upstart South, and make the world safe for socialism.
    Once the South finally decided to secede from the ‘less than perfect’ Union, there was absolutely no limit to Lincoln’s murderous desire to impose his will on every man, woman and child in the South. And four years later, the carnage he started with his blockade of Charleston Harbor, including having his favorite maniac Sherman marching through the devastated South, killing civilians with impunity, (much as he would later kill Indians) —ended with Lincoln himself a casualty. War is hell, said Sherman, the devil in blue uniform!

  5. TomB says:

    It seems to me this piece is an example of the reactionist instinct of the Right; in this case reactionism against what the neo-cons have done, and so amounts to a foolish (and continued) throwing out of a baby with the bath water.

    After all what is it’s core complaint? Plainly, it is that D’Souza is wrong where he talks about some Leftists harboring some significant anti-American views.

    Except that … Gottfried himself notes that the political if not personal patrimony of many of the current Left lies among the New Left of the Sixties who were openly and proudly anti-American. (With their patrimony in many instances going directly back to the “red-diaper baby” communists of the Forties as David Horowitz himself notes.)

    Followed by Gottfried’s apparent tenet that just because those on the Left today aren’t openly so anymore, we must take them at their word.

    And … that’s it. No further analysis or examples; we must just take them at their word. No possibility that they’ve just found that getting to their ends means dropping their open hostility to traditional or even constitutional American values and notions.

    Of course, one can go too far in the other direction, such as arguing that Obama’s comment that he wanted to “fundamentally transform” this country alone is some inarguable expression of anti-U.S. hostility.

    But, per the Gottfriedian calculus the fact that someone observing this at least has some evidence means nothing.

    And indeed for him it’s an all-or-nothing question admitting of no possible degree of validity to D’Souza’s claim either. And thus we also must just take Obama at his word that no, there’s not a molecule of the anti-American influence of the now old New Left that infects him. (Just as we apparently have to take his word that his long and close rubbing of shoulders with the Reverend Wright and former Weatherman Bill Ayers means nothing whatsoever either.)

    I don’t think that this means that Obama himself is anti-American in any deep manner, but that doesn’t mean there’s no molecule of that infection present in the man either, with even Gottfried’s sole metric of what people say being the only valid test being even more met with Obama’s famous statement clearly disdaining those who “cling” to their guns and their Bibles.

    And if anyone can make any sense of Gottfried’s argument when he himself goes about citing Howard Zinn and Eric Foner, I’d sure like to hear it. If at least a good dollop of good old non-metaphysical anti-Americanism doesn’t just drip from their writings I don’t know what does. And if folks like them and Noam Chomsky aren’t heroes of the Left I don’t know who are.

    And what of the abundance of other evidence? Does anyone really deny that among at least some Leftists their eschewing of the idea of color blindness isn’t part and parcel of a clear desire to constantly incite racial grievances and hostilities instead of seeing a peaceful America, and that as regards same they’ve succeeded dis-admirably? That, amongst many the very idea is to create as much and as enduring racial and ethnic hatred of this country as is possible?

    Moreover, at precisely the time at which we see an absolutely fevered attempt to simply throw open our borders to uncountable millions from a different culture, and just about the most blatant examples of ignoring all kinds of the rule of law relevant thereto imaginable—perhaps the most fundamental of American values—what says Mr. Gottfried about same? Particularly after the revelations coming from Britain how its hard Left embarked on the same path with a full and complete conscious intent to stick nothing less than a cultural over-throw in the eye of traditional Britain and its people?

    Of course the neo-cons didn’t shy from trying to use the “patriotism deficient” argument to some extent in all their efforts to get us involved in the little wars of late, but it’s a senseless thing to say that because some argument is invalidly used in one instance—such as where the neo-cons did against obvious patriots—that this means the argument can never be validly used against anyone.

    Except that this seems to me to be exactly Gottfried’s point.

    Moreover, it might be remembered, the patrimony of a great many of those neo-cons lies not on the Right but on the Left, and this is interesting. Because what does Gottfried’s argument further come down to but the proposition that the Left—not even just as an occasional tactic but now indeed almost their entire central operating principle—can go about and at the drop of a hat level the most base, venomous, hate-inciting charges against anyone at any time, but that … no no no! The non-Left must never ever say anything really nasty about them. Nothing, for instance, that would really really resonate with, say, those Americans who cling to their guns and Bibles. (Or their jobs or their culture.)

    Just because Hitler liked dogs don’t mean dogs are bad. And just because D’Souza was and is wrong in his neo-conism don’t make him wrong about everything. And if one can’t perceive some very considerable dollops of antipathy towards traditional American values and interests on the Left today it seems to me that can only maintained by resort to that beyond-feeble metaphysical argument that they just love the country so much that they want to save it from the deeply immoral values and interests they incessantly allege it represents.

  6. rod1963 says:

    Dinesh’s movie was a antidote to the stream of anti-American thought coming from the Left. It’s not perfect by any measure and a little too easy on some nasty people the Left holds up as heroes. But it’s better than nothing or letting the Left continue to shape the narrative.

    Now Dinesh didn’t need to dig deep into the Left to find anti-Americanism or for that matter the virulent anti-White, anti-Western civilization views that permeate the Left. It’s all out in the open. Go to Dailykos and blogs like that you can find lots of it.

    Anti-Americanism and the Left for all intents are synonymous. This goes way beyond the typical Leftist agit-prop artists like Chomsky, Saul D. Alinsky and Moore.

    It’s even worse on college campuses where Marxism has found it’s new home in the liberal arts department. There you can find a near endless parade of Marxist/feminist/racist teachers that are promoting their ideologies as facts for mushy brained students who don’t know any better. And these bastions of supposedly unfettered thought are also known for their speech codes, bullying and intimidating speakers who happen to have Conservative points of view to the point they need bodyguards, assuming they are even let on campus. All thanks to the Left.

    Overall they are for anything that diminishes the country and straight, socially conservative whites. Their tools are affirmative action; race and sex quotas; open borders for race replacement; boycotts; threats; getting whites fired they don’t like.

    They are a pretty nasty bunch.

    One thing Dinesh didn’t touch was race and should have. It’s one of the major tools of the Left to bully their opponents.

    Take the Zimmerman, trial. The racial polarization was created by race baiters and extortionists like Sharpton, Jackson, various black celebrities and the MSM who generated a endless stream of racist opinions and promoted threats against Zimmerman and his parents. Even Obama helped flame the hate.

  7. My cultural background and experience gives me special insight into the type of Indian that Dinesh is. There are thousands (millions?) like him. I’d call him an ABCD (American Born Confused Desi) except he wasn’t born in the US.

    A lot of his rhetoric stems from his younger years trying to fit in as a minority, particularly trying to gain interest from the ladies as a not so sexually attractive Indian male.

    As an Indian myself I can say all this without being accused of racism.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Anonymous
  8. Numinous says:

    Indeed in the country from whence D’Souza comes, racial domination shaped an elaborate caste system imposed by the Indo-German invaders on the darker-skinned older settler population– about four thousand years ago.

    Please do not perpetuate this myth. This is one hypothesis of what may have happened long ago in the Indian subcontinent. Other theories have been proposed which are as likely (or unlikely), given all the evidence we have today at our disposal. From genetics, linguistics, and archaeology, there is evidence both to support this theory and to invalidate it. Color of the skin matter in today’s India, but the causes of that cannot be directly attributed to a fancied ancient invasion of white people on black. The past millenia consists of a series of invasions by lighter-skinned outsiders (Central and West Asians, followed by the British), which have to have had some impact in shaping Indians’ color prejudice. As for caste, every society in the world has had it. Indian (Hindu) society just made it more formal and codified than others. And there is no evidence to suggest that it was based on skin color. If you don’t trust Indian epics and records, you can look at Greek records from around the 3rd century BC; if society had then been stratified by color, they would have been sure to mention it, which they don’t.

    PS: If you are interested in Indian history beyond simplistic takeaway points (like the one I have quotes above from your post), you could do worse than to read the posts of your prolific fellow blogger, Razib Khan. He knows something about the topic, and would cringe at the description you have given above.

    • Replies: @Bill
  9. @Shuddh Bharatiyaan

    I’d call him an ABCD (American Born Confused Desi) except he wasn’t born in the US.

    Considering his Portuguese surname and Catholic upbringing, he was pretty alien at home in Bombay.

    As an Indian myself I can say all this without being accused of racism.

    Ha! Don’t bet on it. It’s about whom you support, not who you are.

    • Replies: @Shuddh Bharatiyaan
  10. Numinous says:

    Contrary to D’Souza’s contentions, racism is not a modern invention that came along in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

    Though my contempt for Dinesh D’Souza’s “scholarship” probably matches yours, I think the above quote is a misreading of his statements. Clearly racial discrimination has been with us since the dawn of civilization if you treat the words “race” and “tribe” as synonymous. Here, it seems to me that Dinesh is specifically talking about white-nonwhite racism, which acquired a pseudo-scientific basis in the 18th and 19th centuries and was used as a justification for endless colonialism by European powers. And to the American mind, the word racism is virtually synonymous with white-nonwhite discrimination, where whites are imbued with positive qualities and nonwhites with negative ones. The “end of racism” that Dinesh talks about probably refers to the fact that is is completely “uncool” or even atypical for modern Americans to discriminate purely on the basis of skin color (now culture is different; someone who behaves like a gangsta will be treated accordingly.)

  11. @Trumped

    Wanting to round up and ship out to random nations people who were born and raised here just because they were of African blood?

    Yes. It was called the American Colonization Society, and was quite popular– more so than abolition– among whites everywhere but, for some reason, Dixie. That section was under the thrall of the kumbayah belief that various races should live together in harmony, and that God was mistaken to have given each its own continent.

  12. Sam Haysom [AKA "Matt Buckalew"] says:

    The first sentence kind of says it all doesn’t. I’m so smart but others achieved so much more than me.

    I guess that’s why Pat B is always the least bitter and fulminating of the Paleocons to read. He’s worse educated than Paul too, but the rat race didn’t leave him behind at a tiny regional college like Elizabethtown College. Harvey Mansfield is so much smarter and so much better edicated than Paul I guess by Paul’s logic the neo-cons need to teach Grandpa Gottfried a thing or two.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  13. Bill says:

    D’Souza’s efforts to demonstrate the “end of racism” often elides into mere happy talk. But I don’t want to be unfair to the author. I know he’s trying to soothe tensions and discourage minorities from stressing racial grievances.

    Are you sure that this is what his happy talk is about? Calming down the negroes? Given who he is talking to, isn’t it more plausible to think that he is all about calming down the white man, the white man who is looking a little nervous about his dispossession?

  14. Bill says:

    And there is no evidence to suggest that it was based on skin color.

    Gottfried really didn’t say that the caste system was based on skin color. He said that the caste system was imposed by whites on browns. The Aryan blood eventually got to be pretty well-mixed in India, so the color gradient mostly went away. Originally, though, it must have been dramatic.

    Are you one of these lunatic Hindutvas who don’t believe in the Indo-European Expansion and the Aryan Invasion? Why are so many English-literate Indians Hinduvta lunatics—feel free to answer whether or not you are one of them.

    • Replies: @Numinous
  15. @Sam Haysom

    …the rat race didn’t leave him behind at a tiny regional college like Elizabethtown…

    A “tiny regional college” also filed under “E” gave us the only competent president of the last half-century. What do Harvard and Yale have to show for themselves since?

  16. Sam Haysom [AKA "Matt Buckalew"] says:

    Don’t get mad at me it was Gottfried that brought it up. Do you not think the first line of this paper is embarrassingly catty and suggestive of a mind very low on confidence. Can you ever see Ronald Reagan beginning an argument with first off I’m better educated than my opponent.

    The last time Gottfried was associated with an elite university was like 45 years ago when he left Yale. As an academic he has been an utter failure notable only because he is one of the few paleocon intellectuals to even have tenure at a college. Notice neo-con professors have not had quite the trouble penetrating into the elite universites and acquiring educational credentials that far exceed Gottfried’s. It seems by his logic he should keep that mouth shut and learn a few things from them.

  17. Numinous says:

    I believe in the Indo-European expansion, though am not completely sold on the conventional version (that it started out in Ukraine or thereabouts; the origins are murky). Anyone who has read about the relations between the languages has to believe in such an expansion.

    I’m not so sure there was an “Aryan Invasion” though. Maybe it was an invasion, maybe it was gradual demographic dominance. We don’t have all the proof. The proof for an outright invasion followed by the establishment of a caste society to reduce admixture between the immigrant and native populations is, to put it kindly, light. And we keep coming up with new archaeological and genetic facts. Read Razib’s posts occasionally for info. That there were just two significantly different races that came into violent contact with each other long ago in the subcontinent is a theory put forward (in the 19th century) to explain how a rigid caste system came about (this theory is not substantiated by any sort of material evidence, but just happens to meet the plausibility bar.) There is more evidence of 3 (or perhaps more) racial groups colliding in the subcontinent. The linguistics evidence is also not a slam dunk for the invasion theory.

    I am not a subscriber of Hindutva, and generally have mild contempt for those folks. But they are nationalists. Why they suspend reason and refuse to believe in any aspect of the Indo-European expansion (and not just the Aryan Invasion theory) is that the latter theory was used throughout the colonial period by the British to justify their rule of India. Sort of like a Manifest Destiny, applied to the gradual British conquest of India (often with trickery, sometimes with brutality).

    PS: I’ll be glad to continue this exchange if you would like to, but not if you use terms of abuse like “lunatic”. Otherwise, hope you have a great day!

  18. D’Souza has always had more than a whiff of “What makes Sammy run?” about him. Same goes for the Reform Conservatives now hoping to sell their books and get influence in the next Republican administration. It’s all become a tiresome racket. These people make a living in the zone that exists between what we all know and what we are permitted to say. They produce only material acceptable to the GOP donors and interest groups.

  19. @Thomas O. Meehan

    “It’s all become a tiresome racket. These people make a living in the zone that exists between what we all know and what we are permitted to say. They produce only material acceptable to the GOP donors and interest groups.”

    Perhaps, but do expound on WHICH GOP donors that Paul Kersey, Jared Taylor, etc are writing for? Which interest groups find their writings (and others of the dissident right) totally acceptable?

    Crickets chirping.

    Also, why doesn’t it appear to bother anyone on the Right that D’Souza is facing possible jail time for a felony? Granted, there is a likelihood that he will not do serious time. Why is this acceptable behavior? And the unpleasantness with his affair. Who does he think he is, Newt Gingrich? Or Rush Limbaugh? “He may be a bad so and so but he’s OUR bad so and so.”–John Ford.

    Starting to notice a pattern among the mainstream right: oftentimes their private values don’t appear to match their public stances.

    As Steve Sailer might say, you tend to get into trouble for noticing things.

  20. VincentT says:

    I thought D’Souza America was well-done and very entertaining. It’s a feel-good movie. But I’m not an academic or an historian so I don’t have a sophisticated critique of its accuracy. But a I wonder, if seeing America through this lense inspires someone with this virtuous ideal, can it be bad even if it not tempered with some balance of historical accuracy?

    Btw, the other people in the Boston suburb theater were clearly blue-collar, 50+ white Americans.

  21. Yojimbo, “Paul Kersey” and Jared Taylor write on the behalf of Caucasian Americans. As you very well know this is not an organized interest group Why hell, there’re practically illegal.

    As to D’Souza breaking the law, well, D’Souza broke the law. Is this a case of selective enforcement? Count on it. Do Indian Americans tend to have a cavalier attitude toward the law. In my experience; yup.

  22. @Thomas O. Meehan

    Thomas Meehan,

    But they are in fact, a sizable group of the populace and electorate at large.

    Also, do Caucasian Americas (for the most part) en masse PUBLICLY support such research and or commentary from PK or Jared Taylor as it relates to race relations? I think not.

    The point being, is that “respectable” and “reputable” Conservative Incs. such as Heritage Foundation, National Review, as well as popular infotainers as Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity etc. would never EVER publicly side with American Renaissance, Vdare, Kersey, etc.

    In point of fact, they’ve already headed for the hills by endorsing their own (e.g. Ben Carson, Allen West, Herman Cain, etc.) When they do these things, they are conceding the lefts major premise vs them (“All Cons are racists”). The quickest way, they believe, to negate this charge is to go all out, so to speak, by demonstrating that they too have their own.

    1. MLK day? Hey, he was great and we believe in a “colorblind” society!
    2. GOP black congressmen? Check, we have em too!
    3. Head of GOP? We’ll nominate M. Steele, that’ll show the libs we’re not racist!
    4. Rand Paul’s Enterprise Zones in Detroit? That’ll show blacks they can vote GOP!

    Even the late Richard Mellon Scaife. Can you name a specific instance when he publicly put his money into an organization such as American Renaissance or Vdare? Didn’t think so.

    Re: D’Souza breaking the law, yes he’ll most likely have to pay the hefty fine, but doubtful any prison will be served. After all, here in this case its a matter of a well connected to the DC ruling class. The main reason he was even appointed to the insignificant religious college was to bring in donations from Conservative Inc.

    But his excuse, that he’s the victim of big bad eeevvilll wiberals simply doesn’t wash in 2014 anymore than it did when Limbaugh was committing a felonious act by Dr. Shopping for prescription pills.

    • Replies: @Thomas O. Meehan
  23. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Yojimbo, you are addressing me as though I am denying what we all know. If you have a point, just make it rather than addressing them to me. Race Realist POV doesn’t get a lot of attention or respect in the MSM. Stop the presses!

    I made no prediction about D’Souza’s sentencing. I presume that a custodial sentence and /or a fine is possible. Frankly I don’t give a damn which, or neither, for that matter.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
  24. viking says:

    its not a laugh it allows them to pwn the American historical narrative, clever really.
    Anyway he didn’t ship the africans home he set them up as judges throughout the south with the force of federal troops, he didn’t push an amendment to permanently enshrine slavery [a stupid idea btw] but instead dismantled the entire constitution. forever changing the balance of power in the US.
    So ultimately he was and is a left wing hero even if he believed his lying eyes about the abilities of africans

  25. @Thomas O. Meehan

    @Thomas O. Meehan

    “you are addressing me as though I am denying what we all know.”

    It was your tone that gave that strong impression.

    “If you have a point, just make it rather than addressing them to me.”

    Uh, duh, I was make the points.

    The main point to make is why are the sheeple falling for this neocon, con-inc. buffoon to begin with? And why is this same pattern occurring with more and more so-called conservatives?

    I don’t like to quote a far leftist such as Salon’s Joe Conason, but what the hey. In his book the GOP Noise Machine he devotes an entire chapter of so-called conservatives’ public rhetoric vs their private lives and its not to pretty. D’Souza is merely the latest to include among the others who haven’t lived up to the hype.

  26. “Indo-German invaders ”

    Indo-German? What is that?

  27. @Reg Cæsar

    “Considering his Portuguese surname and Catholic upbringing, he was pretty alien at home in Bombay.”

    – Not at all. There are plenty of Goan and Konkani people in Mumbai. The surname D’souza has long been de rigueur in Bollywood cinema.

    “As an Indian myself I can say all this without being accused of racism.”

    “Ha! Don’t bet on it. It’s about whom you support, not who you are.”

    I don’t “support” any politician.

  28. @Thomas O. Meehan

    “. Do Indian Americans tend to have a cavalier attitude toward the law. In my experience; yup.”


    I thought Indian Americans were the “model minority”. Or perhaps their cavalier attitude toward this law is *why* they were given that label?

    • Replies: @Hadding
  29. It just so happens that I do. Check out my piece on VDARE.COM. It’s the tip of the iceberg.

  30. As to “Model Minorities” are the real Asians, Chinese Japanese, Koreans. You guys are the subcontinental Asians. Perhaps the term “Sub-Asains” should be applied.

    • Replies: @Shuddh Bharatiyaan
  31. @Thomas O. Meehan

    Actually in the UK we are called “Asians” whereas the above mentioned are called “Chinese”, “Japanese”, etc. In the US its the opposite. Those ones are called “Asians” and we are called “Indian” “Sri Lankan” etc, or sometimes as South Asians. We often refer to ourselves as “Desis” though. Desi coming from the Sanskrit देश (Desh) which means local, indigenous, home land, among other things.

    I like “sub-asians” though. Has a nice ring to it and fits neatly in with Gayatri Spivak’s sub-altern theories.

  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    As to racism, if it has always and everywhere been present, might we consider that RACISM is necessary for the species? Might we suggest that evolution works operationally chiefly at the level of the group genome packet, a distinct contained ethnic congregation – and frequently even through a broader category – a race, and not primarily through the individual.

    And so might we say that attitudes and actions of racism serve to preserve the group genome from excessive intermingling with outsiders, and therefore preserving the packet’s genome to compete in evolution’s great engine? For the health of the species, might racism be both necessary and hence good AND MORAL? Affirming one’s own IS THE HEALTH OF THE SPECIES!

    • Replies: @Shuddh Bharatiyaan
  33. @Anonymous

    “As to racism, if it has always and everywhere been present, might we consider that RACISM is necessary for the species?”

    We are still evolving. What may have worked once in our more primitive state may not work now. Besides “racism” is a loaded word with extremely negative connotations and a cruel, inhumane track record. Something like “in group preference” might be preferable. There’s a trend for modern people to seek out their “tribe”, even or especially on the internet. An entire web portal named “Tribe” was designed to connect people with similar interests. It appears that modern, post-industrial populations form tribes based on similar interests and values, not race or ethnicity.

  34. jay says:

    “As someone who is older and better educated than D’Souza …”

    I write to a narrow audience too, and masturbate in the shower. Editor!

  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Shuddh Bharatiyaan

    Excellent summation There are growing numbers like Dinesh floating in sea of American nothingness attempting to surface off and on to give hope of redeeming some honour in losing battle for capitalism.

  36. Hadding says: • Website

    Can we agree that Dinesh D’Souza just spews reckless blather that he thinks will tickle his audience, and doesn’t much care if it’s true?

  37. Hadding says:

    Can we agree that Dinesh D’Souza just spews reckless blather that he thinks will tickle his audience and pad his pockets, and doesn’t seem to care much care much about whether it’s true?

  38. Hadding says:
    @Shuddh Bharatiyaan


    You have to expect that when Indians come here, they will bring some of that with them.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS