Today In Conservatism: A Convicted Liar's Historical Revisionism, Brought To You By An Alleged Abuser

Hard to narrow it down from the headline alone, innit? Enough suspense: It's alleged domestic abuser John Fund using his bullshit pulpit at NRO to have a confab (See also: Confabulate, psychiatric definition.) w/ convicted (So guilty he pled guilty.) political criminal, adulterer & apologist for imperialism & colonialism Dinesh D'Souza. This load of poop should have the iNternet in a tizzy once it gets around later today. Just remember, WEB OF EVIL was outraged before you were, Eastern elitists.

Please don't pretend for even a moment that racist pig William F. Buckley, Jr. is spinning in his grave at this; any spinning he's doing is from sheer joy at how well D'Souza has internalized the "White Man's Burden" schtick.

WARNING: Will elevate levels of bile in decent people, who will want to slap D'Souza about the face until his pencil-neck snaps.

For young people, and young adults who were taught spongy “social studies” rather than true American history, the most valuable parts of the movie might be those in which D’Souza tackles America’s greatest sins: its treatment of Native Americans, slavery, the transfer of half of Mexico to the U.S. after the Mexican War of 1848, and its supposed colonialist behavior. Consider his treatment of those subjects as his direct rebuttal to the works of radical historian Howard Zinn, whose textbooks treating America’s history as one of ceaseless oppression dominate many American high schools and colleges.

“The Indians have gotten a bad deal,” he notes in his book. “At the same time, we should be clear about what the alternatives are. . . . You say, ‘Give us back the Black Hills,’ you point out that there is uranium and other minerals in those hills, and now that land is worth a fortune. Once again, no Indian tribe knew how to mine uranium and no Indian tribe knew what to do with uranium if they had it. Other Americans have added value to the Black Hills by figuring out how to tap its resources, and now the Indians want the land back so they can take advantage of what others have figured out how to do.”

He takes a similarly hard line with the demands of some Latinos to return land that once belonged to Mexico: “After the war, the United States immediately recognized as valid the property rights of Mexicans who were now part of U.S. territory. The change was not in any individual’s land ownership but in the fact that people who were once Mexicans now became Americans. . . . While progressives deplore American aggression . . . what we do know is that the vast majority of Mexicans who ended up on the American side of the border, following the Mexican War, never attempted to return to Mexico. And neither have their descendants.”

“Did America owe something to the slaves whose labor had been stolen?” he asks in the book. Yes, he says, but “that debt . . . is best discharged through memory, because the slaves are dead and their descendants are better off as a consequence of their ancestors being hauled from Africa to America.” He notes that when the great boxer Muhammad Ali won one of his most famous fights (the “rumble in the jungle” against George Foreman in Zaire in the 1970s), he was asked by a reporter, “Champ, what did you think of Africa?” Ali replied, “Thank God my grandaddy got on that boat!” Ali recognized, D’Souza boldly claims, “that for all the horror of slavery, it was the transmission belt that brought Africans into the orbit of Western freedom.” He quotes the black writer Zora Neale Hurston: “I have no personal memory of those times, and no responsibility for them. Neither has the grandson of the man who held my folks. . . . I have no intention of wasting my time beating on old graves. . . . Slavery is the price I paid for civilization, and that is worth all that I have paid through my ancestors for it.” D’Souza also notes that slavery has been a worldwide phenomenon throughout most of human history, and that whites were often enslaved — it’s hardly a sin unique to America, which fought a civil war to free its slaves.

No real surprises, of course, merely the same mealy-mouthed lies iterated again in defense of evil. It is to be noted that the crime to which Mr. D'Souza pled guilty was essentially lying, & there's no indication here that he's learned the error of his ways.

I dare say, the only thing the repellent little adulterer D'Souza seems to have learned in the last several yrs. is that the audience of delusional paranoids & racist morons his sad appeals to fear & loathing attract are so cow-simple that "documentary" movies & DVDs are a much better way to relieve them of their hard-earned moolah than the pointy-headed books (soundin' out them thar big werds lak "uranium" one syllable at a time is such a struggle for so many of them) D'Souza had typed for him by interns.

Dinesh D'Souza & John Fund: Living proof that nothing less than the proverbial live boy or dead girl can derail a right-wing career.