Category: D’Souza

Race in the News, 8/22/16

The usual stupidities.


Unfortunately, Senator Sessions was too polite to call Trump’s touchback scheme what it is, namely just more lipstick on the amnesty pig, characterizing touchback as “not… the best solution.”

From a psychological viewpoint, rewarding illegal behavior is always wrong, and particularly so when it followed the failed amnesty from 1986 when the promised enforcement never happened. Even hinting that some sort of forgiveness might be considered after shutting the border is poison. Any reward for bad behavior just incites more of same — something that parents and teachers know.


Somewhere in the manosphere, Roissy weeps softly, the tears falling on his stained and sticky portrait of God Emperor Trump.


Adam Gemeli…physically could pass as a Southern European.


This is a picture of the person in question.  He is very obviously a non-European NEC, and could NOT physically pass as a Southern European. He could, perhaps, “physically pass” as Tom Jones’ son, I don’t know.


D’Souza is a smart man stuck promoting a stupid worldview. Hopefully one day nonwhites like him will make films as allies of color promoting white identity rather than demonizing it.


Let me rewrite:

D’Souza is a smart man stuck craftily promoting a stupid worldview to appeal to White GOP cucks.  What else to expect from a devious Asiatic Desi?. Hopefully one day nonwhites like him will leave America because they can never be allies of color promoting white identity rather than demonizing it.

Cuck’s America

Cuck’s America: “conservative” Rush panders to brownster visions of America and of American history.

First, (before getting to the main point of this post) let me start out by denouncing the stupidity of democracy, of giving the average drooling retard the same vote as the rare informed person. I’m always fascinated by such concepts as the “post-convention bump.” Now it appears that Hillary is “six points ahead” after the DNC. And, we also know that the polls for candidates go up and down dependent upon trivial matters, such as Trump criticizing a Mexican judge.
Let us consider together. Contrary to most US elections, in 2016 there is a real choice. Not much of a choice, not what I would want as a choice, but at least there is some difference there – particularly on issues of immigration, law and order, and foreign policy, as well as the contrast between Trump’s “implicit Whiteness” and Clinton’s “explicit Coloredness.” There has not been an election in recent memory (at least not since Ronnie Raygun), where there has been such a significant difference between the candidates.
Very well. My point: who exactly are these morons who would switch their preferences between such drastically different candidates merely based on who was the last one to host a convention, or based upon a single passing remark? Who exactly are the imbeciles who would make an important voting decision based on such shallow, superficial reasons? Who exactly are these idiots with no grounding in any philosophy or worldview, or even a sense of self-interest, that could drift between a Trump and a Clinton from day-to-day based on trivial events and on passing whims?
Well, these would overwhelmingly be Whites (non-Whites are voting for Clinton, 100%, with no doubts or wavering), these are White American voters. God (or whoever) help us all.
And, second, then we have this (the main point):

And part of what we show in the movie is that the Democratic Party is actually the party of slavery, of segregation, of Jim Crow, of the Ku Klux Klan, of lynching, of forced sterilization, sympathy for fascism in the 1930s.

Those are bad things? Oh, wait, to cuckservatives and alien brownsters, they are.


The Democrats are the ones who interned the Japanese-Americans after World War II. So unbelievably, this Democratic Party has been implicated in the most sordid and heinous acts of history, and yet in a move of unbelievable Jiu-Jitsu what they do is they take all their crimes and blame them on the south or blame them on the Republicans or blame them on America, as if America did this or America did that, but America didn’t do it. The Democrats did.

Thus, conservatives view segregation and sympathy for fascism as “the most sordid and heinous acts of history.’

RUSH: Well, now, you ran through that list pretty quickly, and I know you don’t want to give away the entire movie here, but there’s a couple things I don’t want to gloss over. You link the KKK to the Democrat Party. You link segregation, Jim Crow laws to the Democrat Party. Do you realize if you took a survey of the American people, that would stun them, and most people wouldn’t believe that. I’m curious to know how you figured that out, where you went to learn that, how it’s documented in the movie, and what your audience’s reaction to this is. Because that’s big; it’s huge.

Yeah, Rush, huge, just like your stomach and your ego.

D’SOUZA: So, Rush, I think this is the power of the movie. It completely interrupts and discombobulates the Democratic narrative. Now, it is a fact that it was a Democratic delegate to the Democratic National Convention, Nathan Bedford Forrest, who founded the Ku Klux Klan. It is also a fact that the Klan had a massive revival in the early twentieth century due to a progressive Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, screening a pro-Ku Klux Klan movie in the White House. 

It is also a fact — and here I’m quoting the progressive historian Eric Foner — that for 30 years the Ku Klux Klan was the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party in this country.

OK. Even IF we were to agree that this was all bad and horrible – who gives a damn about any of this today? How is any of this relevant to the Democratic Party of today? Do you think your average Negro is going to reject the Dems giving away “free stuff” and is going to reject Democrat pandering and Black identity politics because of things that happened decades ago? It has as much relevance as the Whig party. Stupid brownster and his cuck enabler.


D’SOUZA: Rush, I’m, as I say, a person of color. I’m a brown-skinned immigrant to the United States. I was born in Bombay, India. I grew up in a country that’s ruled by gangs. You saw a hint of it in Slumdog Millionaire. This is a country with corruption running all the way through it. You can’t get through the day without paying bribes. It makes you feel dirty at the end of the day. 

I came to America to live a different kind of life and to experience the American dream.

That’s great. But you know, Mr. D’ Souza, maybe Americans – native-born White Americans – have dreams as well, and those dreams and aspirations do NOT include having brown filth like you in their country.
We do not need alien Desis – with faces that could launch a thousand autisms – pontificating to us about their interpretations of American history, or lecturing us on how their unwanted presence in our country is part of the “American dream.” Your “dream” is our nightmare, D’ Souza. 
I cannot denounce this pro-brownster cucking strongly enough.
And if any naive reader thinks I’m being too hard on D’Souza, then remember this. Surprise! An anti-White colored liar. In other words – an Asian.
Trump wants America to be “great again.” Unfortunately, America is a dead country with no future, and one look at D’ Souza’s leering brown countenance is all the proof you need of that. Rush’s pandering only makes it worse.

Hillary’s America? No, it is Cuck’s America.

Movement Cherrypicking: Plagiarism and Gay-Baiting

Selective, very, very selective.
Well, so one of the complaints about the execrable South Asian NEC D’Souza is plagiarism, a charge more mainstream sources have also leveled against the even more execrable South Asian NEC Zakaria.  Very good.  But then the plagiarism of Andrew Hamilton is ignored, and his boringly repetitive essays praised by movement comment thread peanut galleries. If plagiarism is wrong, it’s wrong no matter who does it, no?
This sort of “movement” cherrypicking extends to the favorite past-time of “gay-baiting” various “movement” personages. That is 100% politically motivated (here I refer to internal “movement” politics. not real Yockeyian High Politics). After all, there are some august “movement” personages widely rumored to be gay (no names, I don’t engage in this sort of womanly gossip-mongering), but who are NEVER the target of the sort of vulgar gay-baiting that takes places on “movement” blogs and comment threads. The reason? Well, gay-baiting in the “movement” is typically done by “activists” belonging to specific “precincts” within the “movement” and they share with those august personages a similar set of beliefs. On the other hands, the targets of the baiting are memetic opponents within the “movement” to those doing the baiting, so the accusations and insinuations come out specifically in those cases  (the “movement” being so obviously successful that it can afford to be ridden with this sort of sordid public squabbling).  It’s clear that there is no principled opposition to homosexuality as such, because a distinction is made between “our guys” (let’s not mention the rumors) and “their guys” (mention the rumors at every opportunity). That says more about the character of the baiters than it does the baitees; even more so, it says much about the character of the pathetic cesspool known as the “American racialist movement.”