Dinesh D’Souza – The Art of Cluelessness

The man who breaks wind with his mouth.

451536086-writer-director-dinesh-dsouza-attends-the-premiere-of-jpg-crop-promo-mediumlarge“One of the perks of being associated with the modern conservative movement is that no matter how badly you fail, how thoroughly incompetent you are, or how wildly corrupt and disreputable you choose to be, you’ll never lack for friends, allies, or media availabilities. There’s no finer example of this phenomenon than Dinesh D’Souza.”Salon Magazine

I couldn’t have said it better, myself. The sheer incompetence of this man is mind-boggling. His lack of knowledge in the scope of American political history is mind-numbing. For example, he seems to either willfully ignore (or maybe not willfully) that the Democratic and Republican parties began an ideological switch somewhere between 1872 and 1936, which continued until what is known as ‘The Southern Strategy‘ or the ‘Southern Realignment.’ D’Souza insists on using modern party demographics when he makes asinine comments like,

“I think it’s very important for people to know that historically the Democratic Party has been the party of slavery, of segregation, of Jim Crow, of lynching, of the Ku Klux Klan, forced sterilization, support for fascism, the internment of the Japanese after World War II – I mean, it’s an unbelievably sordid history, and it’s been somehow all been swept under the rug. It’s all been covered up. And the blame has now switched to the very party, the Republicans, who fought to end slavery, who opposed segregation, who proposed anti-lynching laws throughout the 20th century. So there’s an unbelievable inversion that’s gone on, and our film blows the lid on it.”

But I digress…

D’Souza spoke before the Liberty University Convocation over this past weekend, mainly to shill for his latest book (which deserves it’s own article for obvious reasons), before he turned to politics. What flowed from his brain can only be classified as dumbfounding. Thus, we shall break it down for those of you who actually believe his tripe. To Wit:

“You need to know that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to swing the balance of the Supreme Court, virtually irrevocably, against us.”

The United States Supreme Court is neither for nor against any religion. Christians may emphatically hate, or may virtually love, their decisions. However, those decisions are not based on the support of an ideology. They are based on interpretation of constitutional law. What D’Souza is upset about, as are so many evangelicals is their belief that Secretary Clinton is not the right kind of Christian, ergo a ‘false Christian,’ according to their very narrow-minded points of view.


“A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to not only permit, but bring in federal subsidies for abortion”

No. That is outside of the scope of authority for the President, and getting the Supreme Court to agree to that would be easier than inventing a perpetual motion machine out of a gym sock and an orange peel.


“A vote for Hillary is a vote to put religious freedom, already precarious, into a much more endangered position, because the checks and balances of what would normally block the government are themselves being eroded”

I have to laugh every time I hear someone say that religions freedom is in danger, precarious, etc. This is just idiotic. That in this country, which is composed of a majority of Christians; where there are more Churches than Starbucks; where there are hundreds of thousands of churchy billboards on tens of thousands of highways and byways; where free speech is protected even in its most disgusting displays of arrogance, bigotry, and discrimination; where churches and parachurch ministries are tax exempt; where on the state level there are still laws passed that belong in the 1950s; anyone who actually believes that religious freedom is is precarious, let alone endangered, is in need of professional help and a prescription.


“And you are voting for a regime in which justice becomes increasingly discretionary, as I saw terrifyingly in my own case.”

D’Souza was referring to his prosecution for violating campaign finance laws. Too bad, Brotatochip. You can spin it as much as you want. You got busted. Whining about it just makes you look more pathetic than you already do.


“In Hillary’s America, I think it is an illusion to think that we as conservatives, as Christians, can retreat into our private spaces, drive our pickup truck to school or work, pray in church, and they will leave us unmolested. They will not do that. They have no intention of doing that.”

This is where D’Souza crosses the line into the realm of the tin foil hat brigade. He is under the delusion that somehow squads of liberal atheists are going to storm the homes, places of employment, and churches of good Christians everywhere, or randomly pulling over pickup trucks, to elicit molestation. He is playing on the same part of the psyche that lives in fear of imaginary devils and non-existent places of eternal torment, and he should be ashamed of himself for it.


“In a democratic society, as Christians—think about it, how did we lose the media? Not enough of us got involved. How did we lose academia? Not enough of us went to those schools. How did we lose Hollywood? Not enough of us make movies. We gave up that territory, and then we pretend to be shocked when they use their power to beat the heck out of us.”

What media? If you are referring to cable news and most of the news websites on the Internet, then yes, there are more left-leaning outlets than right-leaning outlets. The right leaning outlets tend to get more criticism because, well, they deserve it. I am not saying the left-leaning outlets are without their problems, but the right seems to have more conspiracy theorists by a wide, wide margin. Faked moon landings? The right. Obama is a Muslim, Kenyan? The Right. The 9/11 attacks an inside job? The right. I can do this all day.
But news? Christians never had the news. Neither did anyone else. Not republicans, not liberals, not the Jewish community, not atheists, not anyone. There is a reason that it is called ‘The Fourth Estate.’ True news outlets, such as Reuters, The AP, etc., are non-biased, non-partisan, and report the news without spin or commentary. Nobody owns that.


“We’ve seen the latest WikiLeaks emails. In them, you see the kind of bigotry that the Democrats will indulge in privately against evangelicals, against Catholics. When you listen to it, you ask yourself this question: ‘Will they ever say that about a Muslim?’ Never.”

Aside from the lack of evidence, even in Wikileaks, of these accusations, there is one major problem with using Wikileaks as a talking point. Oh, how the conservatives LOVE to cite Wikileaks. This will continue until Assange starts releasing material that is damaging to them. Then you will see and hear them condemn Wikileaks as a liberal plot, and Assange as the devil, himself. Mark my words…


“So, there is a selective prejudice in our society. It’s already there. It’s already in the culture. But to import to the highest level of politics—it’s one thing if it happens anyway and we fought it and we lost, but for us to collaborate with them? To make it easy, to make it happen? This is why the English phrase was invented, ‘Askin’ for it.’ For us to do that, in my opinion, is to ask for it.”

Yes, he is absolutely correct. There is selective prejudice in our society. However, it is coming from the evangelicals.

They are the ones who are prejudiced against anyone who does not think or believe like them. They are the ones who consistently demean and degrade the LGBT community, who discriminate against women and fervently insist that they, alone, should be able to tell women what they should be allowed to do with their own bodies. They are the ones who, through biblical interpretation, brought institutional slavery into this country – and the black community is still reeling from the effects.They are the ones who are making the lives of many Muslims in this country literally unbearable. The list goes on.

They enjoy the right of the first amendment to speak their mind, but when others counter their speech, they cry persecution. Here is where D’Souza continues his delusion that Christians are somehow a minority that is being unfairly treated, and he adds the caveat that those who do not think like him are part of a collectively imagined conspiracy that reaches into the highest annals of our government. Robert Ludlum would be proud…


“I urge you to think critically. I urge you to weigh the options. I ask you think about the American Dream, handed down to us from generation to generation, and ask what can you do preserve, protect, and defend that dream. In the immortal words of the ’60s—I’ll close with that saying from the 1960s, ‘If not now, when? If not us, who?’”

I had to chuckle at this. The religious right is not known for its reliance on critical thinking. I am not even sure many of them know what critical thinking actually is. Also, since when does the American Dream belong to any religious group? Or any ethnic group for that matter? Or any gender? Or sexual orientation? It belongs to all Americans, and should come without required one belong to any given political or religious group, or no political or religious group. That is rather arrogant.

As well, the ‘dream’ that D’Souza and those like him are referring to is not the one referred to in those immortal words of the ’60s which were uttered by Dr. Martin Luther King. They are from the ’60s that brought us Jim Crow, segregation, women not being allowed to vote, homosexuality being illegal, etc.

Christians persecuted, Dinesh? Christians are very much privileged in the United States, and have been on top of the food chain in this country for so long that they are largely clueless that in a free society, such privileges are inappropriate.

Leave a Reply