Dinesh D’Souza – Tactical Street-Shitter

If a serious rightwing movement is going to be successful in this country, we’re going to need our own fair share of “useful idiots.” Some candidates for our useful idiots would be the people, mostly boomers, who are big fans of Dinesh D’Souza. I personally have never been interested in D’Souza’s work but I have firsthand seen how D’Souza’s books and movies, which are usually cringe-worthy and idiotic, are well-received by people whose votes we need to win elections.

Before I go any further, let me explain why I view D’Souza as a “conservative” con-artist. Dinesh D’Souza is the token Indian guy Conservatism Inc. has awkwardly tried to make into the Republican answer to Michael Moore. His entire existence as a political commentator, let alone a filmmaker, is a testament to how Conservatism Inc. will let anyone into the movement and elevate them to superstar status if they are a minority and promote a globalist worldview. Conservatism Inc. is so desperate to give off the appearance of “diversity” that an intellectual lightweight like D’Souza will jump at the opportunity to be the next brown hope.

D’Souza also perfectly represents the pathetic type of purging of other conservatives that is a rite of passage among cuckservatives. D’Souza made a name for himself by writing a point and sputter hit piece on a 1995 American Renaissance conference which lead to the late, great Samuel Francis being fired from The Washington Times. That should be reason enough for people in our circles to despise the man.

It appears to me that D’Souza, like most minorities who find themselves on the fast track to stardom in Conservatism Inc., is the type of man who tells his target market exactly what they want to hear in order to make a buck. My personal view of D’Souza is that he doesn’t actually believe the tripe he puts out and is only exploiting his fans. D’Souza’s history as a “Christian apologetic” seems to support my impression. D’Souza actually made a very handsome living by writing books and giving speeches about Christian apologetics even though his own Christian beliefs seemed dubious at best. Carl Olsen, writing in the Catholic World Report back in 2012, had this to say about D’Souza.

[D’Souza] seemed to be more of a theistic opportunist whose exact creed and doctrinal home could morph and move according to the needs of the market and the angle of the spotlight (D’Souza reportedly makes $10,000 per speech).

The incident which prompted Christians to reevaluate D’Souza stemmed from a 2012 Christian conference where event attendees said D’Souza publicly introduced people to a young woman who accompanied him that he described as his “new fiancé.” This struck some at the event as being odd considering that D’Souza was already married to another woman and had been for the past two decades. It became even more scandalous when it was revealed that his fiancé was also married to someone else. A witness at the conference said D’Souza admitted to sharing a hotel room with the fiancé but insisted that nothing happened, although D’Souza later disputed that they shared rooms. D’Souza also expressed surprise at the reaction to the incident with the explanation that he “did not have any idea that it is seen as wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced even though separated.”

The engagement would be short lived as D’Souza and his fiancé parted ways but the debacle and D’Souza’s ugly divorce displeased his Christian supporters. Shortly afterwards, D’Souza would resign as president of the evangelical Kings College in Manhattan. It seemed like D’Souza’s credibility was in a tailspin as he also ran afoul of campaign finance laws at the same time. D’Souza was arrested for making illegal campaign contributions to the Senate Campaign of Wendy Long. D’Souza would eventually admit that he had other people make donations and then reimbursed them for the amount in an effort to avoid contribution limits. His former flame, the young fiancé’ he was flaunting at that evangelical conference, was even implicated. Such activity is an illegal tactic under federal election laws and is commonly referred to as using “straw donors.” D’Souza would later confess to making illegal donations in the amount of $20,000 as part of his plea deal. The entire incident was quite odd considering that it would have been easy to donate the money to Long’s campaign efforts legally had he just retained an attorney familiar with campaign finance laws to assist him. Instead, D’Souza sloppily engaged in open violations which resulted in him having to take a plea deal. I don’t know if this is evidence of D’Souza’s incompetence or just an inclination towards corruption and fraud which is common among many Indian immigrants. If you ask D’Souza’s ex-wife though, she might agree that both are true. Dixie D’Souza actually wrote a damning letter to the judge in his case imploring the judge to hand down the most stringent sentence possible.  Dixie D’Souza wrote that she knew Dinesh D’Souza “better than anyone and can attest to his flawed character and lack of truthfulness.” Dixie would go on to detail D’Souza’s “abusive nature” and claimed that he physically beat her by kicking her “in the head and shoulder, knocking” her to the ground.

D’Souza was eventually sentenced to 8 months in a community confinement center. The whole episode is retold via poorly acted vignettes in D’Souza’s 2016 film “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party” although you get D’Souza’s spin that he was just a nincompoop who didn’t realize that violating federal election laws was that big of a deal. Upon being released, D’Souza would marry a half-Mexican/half-Venezuelan immigrant from South America in a service presided over by Ted Cruz’s evangelical pastor father.

After all this, you would think my natural inclination would be to scold anyone who tells me how much they love D’Souza. I resist that urge though because forming a political coalition that can actually win elections will require us forging common ground with other right-leaning people and that includes “useful idiots” who are D’Souza fans.

And, to Dinesh’s credit, he was supportive of Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy back in the early days of the primaries when most other members of Conservatism Inc. were fighting Trump. Again, this was probably due to D’Souza’s opportunism and responding to market demands than any positions based on principles but you take what you can get. I have to admit that I even may have retweeted him more than once. He can be useful for us from a tactical perspective where his work and our ends intersect. And where he runs off the rails, which he does frequently since much of what D’Souza peddles is just plain wrong, our response should be to subtly drop red-pills about his errors and point people in the right direction while being careful to not angrily dismiss his supporters outright.

If we become dogmatic and reject others for not agreeing with us on every issue, then we become as bad as the NeverTrump ideologues. The truth of the matter is that, despite our major differences, we need each other to win and we need to start seeing past our differences long enough for us to stay focused on achieving common goals. So, if I know someone is a Trump supporter and they’re telling me about how great Dinesh D’Souza is, I’ll smile and nod politely while trying to move the conversation in our direction. After all, D’Souza isn’t the only one who can manipulate others to get what he wants.

-By Clayton Bishop, an identitarian lawyer from the Deep South. You can follow him on Twitter at @claytonbishop14


  1. your 2nd paragraph nails it! he’s like a nonwhite cernovitch (albeit slightly more consistent across time than cerno)
    he is “pajeetovich.” & your last paragraph nails our appropriate response. well done!

  2. Idk I really can’t stand this guy’s bs lies about southern heroes of the bygone days. His followers really seem to think that the southern Democrats of the 1860s are the same as today’s Marxist Democrats. These people will literally throw their grandpa under the bus for partisan politics. Many of them (especially the more cuckfederate types) also seem to have high levels of cognitive dissonance. On one hand they will say that the confederates were conservatives fighting for states’ rights. Then 2 seconds later they will say Lincoln was the righteous republican waging war against those evil dirty democrats of the south.