What Have You Done For Me Lately, D’Vorce D’Spousa?

D’vorce D’Spousa dancing with his first wife… while on leave from the prison, before leaving her (and his first mistress) for his second wife.

D’vorce D’spousa, documentarian fabulist, convicted election fraud felon, fired Y’all Qaeda business school dean, serial adulterer, and would-be bigamist and self-proclaimed political prisoner of the Kenyan Usurper is really on a tear promoting his latest doorstop, er, book. And besides trying to convince us that his books are flying off the shelf…

…he’s also writing up a storm on Fox News’ blog-like thingie. His piece is of course summarized as the left are the real white supremacists. Here’s some of the longer version:

The tragic events in Charlottesville seemed almost too good to be true from the point of view of the mainstream media and the political left.  On the one side were the neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen who seemed to be for Trump; on the other were the valiant leftists fighting against racism, Nazism and white supremacy. 

The KKK who seemed to be for Trump? What gave it away, the MAGA caps and signs?

Looking back at Charlottesville, I am struck by the anomaly that the whole controversy erupted over the campaign to take down a monument to Robert E. Lee. 

Oh, here we go again: the GOP were anti-slavery in 1860 and the Dims were the slavers, right?

I realized that in heaping opprobrium on Lee, the left was advancing one of its big lies. This is the lie that the South is to blame for slavery. In this view the slavery debate was entirely a North-South debate. But in reality it was not so. Certainly the secession debate of 1860-61 was between the North and the South. The slavery debate, however, which lasted from the 1820s through 1860, was between the anti-slavery Republican Party and the pro-slavery Democratic Party. 

As our good friend Yastreblyansky writes at the always-excellent Rectification of Names:

No one can falsify D’Souza’s broad thesis because, as George Soros’s favorite philosopher (and one of mine, Karl R. Popper) would explain, it has no empirical content: it’s all about definitions, not about fact. “If you accept my definitions of Democrats and Nazis and accept that these definitions are eternally true, then Democrats were at some point Nazis and they still are, and Nazis were likewise Democrats”.

If it is all about label definitions, then we can change the label. D’Vorce D’Spousa wants to change the Civil War definition  from North-South to Republican Party – Democratic Party, and therefore I should be able to change the definition to Liberal-Conservative.

The Civil War was between the anti-slavery Liberals and the pro-slavery Conservatives.  And suddenly D’Vorce D’Spousa’s thesis that the Democrats are the true racists goes up in a puff of (white) smoke. The Conservatives definition stays the same over time, Jim Crow and Civil Rights Era, to the Nixon and Reagan Southern Strategy, up to the current moment with the Orange Menace giving full throated support to White Nationalists.

So, we return to Miss Janet Jackson, D’Spousa and the rest of your fellow Conservatives: What have you done for me lately?

This entry was posted in snark. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to What Have You Done For Me Lately, D’Vorce D’Spousa?

  1. roket says:

    I miss the old days when it was all about states rights.


  2. Redhand says:

    Alert readers may recall that intellectually dishonest and morally degenerate GOP sex lizard and notable word-writer D’VORCE D’SPOUSA was taking his mistress with him on book signing tours and introducing her as his fiancée, even though he is currently still married to his current wife, and it seems his squeeze is still married to her current husband, which, technically makes them, oh, what’s the word? ADULTERERS and of course Xristian Xrazie hypocrites.

    I always thought this was pure comedy gold, better even than his felony conviction!

    Liked by 1 person

    • tengrain says:


      Thank you!

      I have a great love of scoundrels. D’Spousa isn’t charming enough to be a scoundrel. He falls short of the mark and instead is like a lazy 7th grader who wants you to think that he is brilliant. He’s annoying.

      After Mr. Y’s comment, I went back to look at D’Spousa’s other arguments, and he’s right: it’s always definitional. Even when introducing his fiancé to his fellow conservative travellers, he tried claiming that didn’t know that one could not be married and affianced to another. You could anticipate that he would actually demand someone to show him where it says that!




      • Redhand says:

        Yeah. I agree D’douchebag isn’t even up to being a genuine scoundrel. He’ll never equal the artistry of the The King and The Duke in Huck Finn, or Steve Martin and Michael Caine in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. A true poseur!

        And Yas is the best! I take some pride in maybe being one of his earliest fans.


  3. Bruce388 says:

    “…1820s through 1860, was between the anti-slavery Republican Party and the pro-slavery Democratic Party.”

    The Republican Party was founded in 1854, so it was nowhere to be found in the 1820s. There were plenty of abolitionists back then, but they weren’t Republicans.

    Bad history, D’Vorce. BAD!


  4. A.J. says:


    You are correct. Robert Caro’s third masterpiece biography on LBJ, “Master of the Senate” references conservatism from the ‘Solid South’ in the Senate.

    Now, I’m going to have to go back and find it again, but he lays out that, from the 1830’s into the time of “Big Cotton”, to Goldwater, the south, regardless of party – was conservative. The civil war was between unionists/abolitionists and conservatives. Because of the fabulous wealth created by slaves picking cotton.

    The solid south before the Southern Strategy, was not Democrats – it was Conservatives! Those same conservatives kept their sordid philosophy and became Republicans.

    Thanks to King Cotton, slavery had exploded. Of the 4-million slaves in America, 1-million had been sold in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas between 1820 and 1860, to the tune of half a billion dollars. The slave trade constituted a larger piece of the American economy than even the railroads or manufacturing. …There were 436,631 human chattels toiling in Mississippi, and their prices rose with cotton. A single field hand in the 1850’s was worth anywhere from $1,100 to $1,800 – roughly $75,000 to $135,000 in today’s (2009) value.

    In the 1850’s, Frederick Law Olmsted journeyed thorough Mississippi as part of an extended tour through the south and filed a series of roving reports for the New York Times. In one exchange, he asked a Woodville, Mississippi innkeeper what sort of country it was.

    “Big plantations, sir. Nothing else. Aristocrats.”

    Olmsted asked how rich were the people he spoke of.

    “Why sir, from a hundred thousand to ten-million.”

    “Do you mean that between here and Natchez there are none worth less than a hundred thousand dollars?”

    “No sir, not beyond the ferry. Why, any sort of plantation is worth a hundred thousand dollars. The niggers would sell for that.” – From “The State of Jones”, Sally Jenkins and John Stauffer, Doubleday, 2009, page 46.


Comments are closed.