Posted on 02/27/2015 11:04:29 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Dinesh D’Souza is a disgusting man. He shocked the conscience in November 2013 when he tweeted, “I am thankful this week when I remember that America is big enough and great enough to survive Grown-Up Trayvon in the White House!”
Today, the vile right-winger added to his racist repertoire.
YOU CAN TAKE THE BOY OUT OF THE GHETTO…Watch this vulgar man show his stuff, while America cowers in embarrassment pic.twitter.com/C9yLG4QoOK
— Dinesh D’Souza (@DineshDSouza) February 18, 2015
D’Souza’s slam of the president caused gasps across the Twitterverse because “ghetto” has long been negatively synonymous with African American in popular culture and politics. But let’s face it, all sorts of folks have been labeling things or people deemed lacking class, taste or refinement as “ghetto” for years now. It’s a brand of one-percent sneering that the rest of us hurl at each other all the time, either seriously or in jest. It’s a put-down that packs a punch because there is no denying how bad being branded “ghetto” is. Still, that D’Souza would hurl the “ghetto” charge at the nation’s first black president is beyond offensive.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He’s lucky plagiarism isn’t a crime worthy of jail.
D’Souza was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center. I heard from sources that he spent most of his time OUTSIDE the facility and when he was there, he was teaching English to inmates.
Hardly a hoosegow. And that is appropriate — all he did was use straw donors to contribute to a conservative Senate candidate in violation of a law that IMHO, is itself unconstitutional.
RE: He’s lucky plagiarism isn’t a crime worthy of jail.
Who did he plagiarize?
Seek.... The picture is worth a 1000 words.
The facts are 99% of American blacks have no idea who D'Souza is or what he said or wrote. What Dinesh says or writes affects blacks almost zero. But D' Souza's "The End of Racism" put a burr under the saddle of liberals who refuse to acknowledge the truth in D'Souza's book and use misdirection by focusing on words from D'Souza they consider racist.
I'm sure Heer was distressed and complained loudly during the Bush II presidency when Bush was called numerous names by many libs and compared to a chimp among other things. In reality, Heer was probably one of the libs calling Bush names.
Libs are positive that some so-called "racist" words directed at Dear Leader or other high-profile blacks by conservatives causes severe distress to the rest of American blacks who are totally unable to function because of the terrible racism directed at them by people like D'Souza. The fact is by their unwillingness to recognize black dysfunction, they, libs like Heer, make the task of integrating most blacks into American society much harder.
Here’s the problem with Sam Francis as I personally see it — His views are slippery as an eel and it’s very difficult to determine whether what he said in the past are exactly his views later.
He seemed to be ( like Obama ) evolving and developing.
Francis only began advancing explicitly racial concerns in 1994, as a result of a continuing evolution in his own ideas about culture, race, and politics.
In other words, he was a man whose ideas on race were DEVELOPING even as he had the audacity to write about them PUBLICLY.
So, what could be deemed racist in the past (e.g., his concerns about inter-racial marriage and “genetic endownments” ) could have mitigated later by his changed tone.
D’Souza did critique Francis, especially on his speech at the 1994 American Rennaisance Conference. He especially attacked this Sam Francis statement:
“The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.”
But I doubt whether that one D’Souza critique alone forced his firing from the Washington Times.Francis’s position at the Times was already precarious. He had written a column mocking the Southern Baptist convention for apologizing for slavery. Francis had remarked that no present-day Baptists had ever owned slaves. And, he added, neither Jesus Christ nor the Church Fathers had ever condemned slavery as a sin. For this the Times demoted him and reduced his salary by 25 percent.
So, I’d say D’Souza’s critique was not the sole factor for Francis’ firing. In fact, if you asked D’Souza, he would tell you that he never wanted Francis to lose his position.
The left and liberals and dem’s hate truth. And of course, some pub’s. Truth is evil and evil is good.
RE: Seek.... The picture is worth a 1000 words.
I dunno, he looks quite decent enough in that pic.
D’Souza’s ‘The End of Racism’ borrows materially from Jared Taylor’s ‘Paved with Good Intentions’.
Everyone borrows ideas from others all the time. Did he copy words from Jared Taylor word for word without referring to him?
I’ve never seen anyone seriously proved D’Souza to be a plagiarist. I mean, the left would be giddy with glee just to show this seeing how they hate him.
Offensive? Obama has been offending America for 6 years. Especially White right America.
Its only offensive if a non progressive says it.
And this greasy lickspittle of a sodomite clown calls D’Souza “disgusting”?
[this will probably be deleted, but right now I don't care. Capehart is “proud” to be a sodomite. Facts are facts.]
Figures the Wastington Pest would hire him as a columnist. Apparently Josef Mengele is already under contract to the Times and was unavailable.
I don’t think “grownup Trayvon” is accurate, really. Obama is much too above-it-all to be a Trayvon. Instead he’d fake a fall on his backside, sue his “attacker” and end up owning the guy’s house. With never a mark on him. The real Teflon President.
Well you actually have Francis’ views evolving in reverse order. He expressed a concern with race in his later writings and not his earlier work. His earlier writing dealt with matter similar to James Burnham’s idea of the managerial revolution. Burnham was once a mainstay of National Review for those too young to remember him.
There is nothing in Francis’ later racial writing that you wouldn’t have commonly found in National Review in the 60’s and 70s. So if we are to accept D’Souza’s multicultural imperative then a large portion of conservatism’s intellectual past will need to be discredited and replaced with the politically correct view D’Souza prefers.
One other point regarding D’Souza’s account of the American Renaissance conference in 1994. Some attendees obtained galleys of D’Souza’s ‘The End of Racism’ and discovered that the chapter on the 1994 conference was filled with falsehoods. They approached the publisher with evidence detailing that fact and the entire first run of the book was pulped and D’Souza was required to rewrite the chapter.
Taylor’s book preceded D’Souza’s by three years. D’Souza addresses the same subject, makes the same arguments and often uses the very same examples cited by Taylor. D’Souza’s book is heavily footnoted but not once does it footnote Taylor.
Let’s say that D’Souza had to rewrite his chapter ... my interest is not in D’Souza’s own problems but with the accusation that he ruined the career of Sam Francis.
How true is it that he was the cause of Francis’ firing at the Washington Times?
I seem to remember that Francis’ position at the paper was already quite precarious because of his racial views.
Wes Pruden had cut back on Francis’ column after The Times ran his June 27, 1995 essay criticizing the Southern Baptist Convention for its approval of a resolution which apologized for slavery.
In it, Francis quoted Oswald Spengler that “Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.” He argued that if the Baptists “dismiss the New Testament passages about slaves obeying their masters as irrelevant,” then they might as well join the Bolsheviks.
My feeling was that people WITHIN the paper that he was working in were already very uncomfortable with his racial views and were just waiting for one particular column to be the straw that break the camel’s proverbial back.
It was his column entitled “All those things to apologize for,” at the Washington Times, June 27, 1995 that did him in.
THAT punishment had nothing to do with D’Souza.
In fact, I believe that D’Souza might have taken Francis’ views on intermarriage personally as he was himself married to a white woman.
BTW, if D’Souza really plagiarized Taylor and failed to give him credit, leftists like Jonathan Capehart, if they are smart, should be doing careful research on him and exposing D’Souza so as to disgrace him.
Heck, this exchange of ours could be used as a reference for their opposition research.
I wonder why no one is doing that...
Jonathan Capehart is an MSNBC regular and a black racist. Therefore, screw him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.