Berkeley Condemns Letter On BLM From “Anonymous History Professor” Calling For Academic Freedom

Berkeley is up in arms this week because of a letter sent by someone claiming to be an anonymous professor of history at U.C. Berkeley.  The writer, who identifies as a person of color, objects to a loss of free speech and academic freedom in the school adopting an institutional position on Black Lives Matter.  The writer objects to the silencing of academics who do not support BLM for reasons entirely separate from the protection of black lives.  I was sent this letter when it started to be circulated and I did not discuss it because I have no idea if this is an actual member of the Berkeley faculty though Kentucky State University Assistant Professor of Political Science Wilfred Reilley has recently vouched for the identity.  However, it is the response of the Berkeley faculty that I believe is notable and concerning.  The faculty denounced the letter and said that there is “no evidence” that such a person teaches on the faculty. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly impossible for any academic to criticize BLM or aspects of the protests. However, what concerns me is that Berkeley’s response notably does not even bother to state the pretense of tolerance for opposing views.  The condemnation would seem to reaffirm rather than redress the concerns over academic freedom and free speech for dissenting faculty members.

I actually do not agree with portions of the letter but my view of the merits is immaterial. Rather, as is often the case on this blog, I am more concerned with the implications for free speech and academic freedom in the response of the Berkeley faculty.  The letter objects to an intolerance at the school for conservatives or those who criticize groups like BLM. There is no response to that concern. To the contrary, the writer is condemned for all of his views by the school as a whole — a condemnation that does not specify which points are being addressed.  I have included both the letter and the response in full so readers can reach their own conclusions. 

Here is the response of Berkeley to a letter complaining that an alleged member of the faculty feels that there is no ability to disagree on the issue of BLM. The condemnation expresses confirms that view:

UC Berkeley History@UCBHistory

An anonymous letter has been circulating, purportedly written by a @UCBHistory professor. We have no evidence that this letter was written by a History faculty member. We condemn this letter: it goes against our values as a department and our commitment to equity and inclusion.191Twitter Ads info and privacy1,319 people are talking about this

First, it is increasingly rare for any conservative or libertarian to be hired on a faculty, particularly a highly ranking school like Berkeley.  Many of us have complained for years that there is a rising and open intolerance for conservative or libertarian voices on faculties.  In my thirty years of teaching, I have never seen the level of open intolerance for opposing views on faculties as I have seen in the last few years. I have spoken with young law professors across the country who say that they feel that they cannot speak openly to colleagues about such issues because they fear they will be fired or punished by their liberal colleagues.  Indeed, many faculty are now quite clear  in forcing colleagues either support or stay silent on such issues. This pattern did not start with the recent protests but there is now an open effort to force professors to either adopt an orthodoxy on such issues or to remain silent. If they do not, they are threatened with harassment and termination. It used to be that such measures came from students. These measures now come from the faculty itself.  

Second, this response seems to struggle to confirm the hostility for any opposing view.  Rather than even noting its commitment to academic freedom, the faculty condemns the views stated in the letter.  I have no problem with the school stating that it does not know if the letter is legitimately from a member of the faculty. However, as an institution, I have always maintained that schools should not take positions on the merits of such controversies even when the vast majority of the faculty may support one view.  Professors are always free to sign a letter denouncing the views within such a letter.  This alleged faculty member was not speaking for the faculty and it is unclear why the faculty should speak as an institution as opposed to individuals. I would feel the same way if the merits or points of the letter were reversed. I respect the passion of faculty in fighting for these causes and indeed I support many of these views.  I also believe that faculty members should be actively involved in this transformative debate. However, the academic institutions themselves should remain firm on protecting pluralism and tolerance of opposing views.

Here is the letter that started the controversy:

 

Dear profs X, Y, Z

I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely, and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job, and likely all future jobs in my field.

In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.

In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system. The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions.

Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or ‘Uncle Toms’. They are intelligent scholars who reject a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders. Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques.

The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians. Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence. This hypothesis is transforming our institution and our culture, without any space for dissent outside of a tightly policed, narrow discourse.

A counternarrative exists. If you have time, please consider examining some of the documents I attach at the end of this email. Overwhelmingly, the reasoning provided by BLM and allies is either primarily anecdotal (as in the case with the bulk of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ undeniably moving article) or it is transparently motivated. As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black.

Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict. This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries.

And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation that appeals to the department’s apparent desire to shoulder the ‘white man’s burden’ and to promote a narrative of white guilt.

If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even Jewish Americans are incarcerated less than gentile whites. I think it’s fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews. None of this is addressed in your literature. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and ad hominems. “Those are racist dogwhistles”. “The model minority myth is white supremacist”. “Only fascists talk about black-on-black crime”, ad nauseam.

These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications, intended to silence and oppress discourse. Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing orthodoxy tactics they are, common to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and religions throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently exile the culture of robust criticism from our department.

Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM’s problematic view of history, and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those of us in a precarious position, which is no small number.

I personally don’t dare speak out against the BLM narrative, and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.

The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people. There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.

No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence. This is especially bitter in the Bay Area, where Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions, to the point that the SF police chief has advised Asians to stop hanging good-luck charms on their doors, as this attracts the attention of (overwhelmingly black) home invaders. Home invaders like George Floyd. For this actual, lived, physically experienced reality of violence in the USA, there are no marches, no tearful emails from departmental heads, no support from McDonald’s and Wal-Mart. For the History department, our silence is not a mere abrogation of our duty to shed light on the truth: it is a rejection of it.

The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn’t led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices – as do Nigerian Americans, who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department. The explanation is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession.

Most troublingly, our department appears to have been entirely captured by the interests of the Democratic National Convention, and the Democratic Party more broadly. To explain what I mean, consider what happens if you choose to donate to Black Lives Matter, an organization UCB History has explicitly promoted in its recent mailers. All donations to the official BLM website are immediately redirected to ActBlue Charities, an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates. Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades; the ‘systemic racism’ there was built by successive Democrat administrations.

The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community, exemplified by nearly every Biden statement on the black race, all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, poverty, and the attendant grievance politics which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives. And yet, donating to BLM is bankrolling the election campaigns of men like Mayor Frey, who saw their cities devolve into violence. This is a grotesque capture of a good-faith movement for necessary police reform, and of our department, by a political party. Even worse, there are virtually no avenues for dissent in academic circles. I refuse to serve the Party, and so should you.

The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes, carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves, many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity. Fiat lux, indeed.

There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called ‘race hustlers’: hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal political entrepreneurship.

Given the direction our history department appears to be taking far from any commitment to truth, we can regard ourselves as a formative training institution for this brand of snake-oil salespeople. Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any hope at harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically segregationist.

MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today. We are training leaders who intend, explicitly, to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing?

As a final point, our university and department has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was a multiple felon who once held a pregnant black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at her pregnant stomach. He terrorized the women in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children, playing no part in their support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a human being. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer, a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors.

And yet, the regents of UC and the historians of the UCB History department are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his name to virtual sainthood. A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. With the full collaboration of the UCB history department, corporate America, most mainstream media outlets, and some of the wealthiest and most privileged opinion-shaping elites of the USA, he has become a culture hero, buried in a golden casket, his (recognized) family showered with gifts and praise. Americans are being socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist. A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species.

I’m ashamed of my department. I would say that I’m ashamed of both of you, but perhaps you agree with me, and are simply afraid, as I am, of the backlash of speaking the truth. It’s hard to know what kneeling means, when you have to kneel to keep your job.

It shouldn’t affect the strength of my argument above, but for the record, I write as a person of color. My family have been personally victimized by men like Floyd. We are aware of the condescending depredations of the Democrat party against our race. The humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM, that we need special help and lower requirements to get ahead in life, is richly familiar to us. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn’t be easier to deal with open fascists, who at least would be straightforward in calling me a subhuman, and who are unlikely to share my race.

The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating. No other group in America is systematically demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites.

No message will more surely devastate their futures, especially if whites run out of guilt, or indeed if America runs out of whites. If this had been done to Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Chinese Americans, then Chinatown and Japantown would surely be no different to the roughest parts of Baltimore and East St. Louis today. The History department of UCB is now an integral institutional promulgator of a destructive and denigrating fallacy about the black race.

I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda and the Party’s uncontested capture of our department. I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd’s death and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end.

I also want to protect the practice of history. Cleo is no grovelling handmaiden to politicians and corporations. Like us, she is free.

 

336 thoughts on “Berkeley Condemns Letter On BLM From “Anonymous History Professor” Calling For Academic Freedom”

  1. I have no idea who the author of the letter is, but he/she raised some excellent points. As for Floyd, his record should be well-known by now – eight arrests and convictions. As for whether the woman he assaulted was pregnant or not, I don’t know but he definitely got into her home and assaulted her with a pistol. By the way, his death was determined to have been to heart failure. There is a very good chance Derek Chauvin will be exonerated – assuming he can get a fair trial – as this article explains. https://medium.com/@gavrilodavid/why-derek-chauvin-may-get-off-his-murder-charge-2e2ad8d0911

    1. “[Floyd’s] death was determined to have been to heart failure”

      Better to focus on what the people who actually conducted autopsies said — https://www.startribune.com/medical-examiner-classifies-floyd-s-death-as-homicide/570918792/ — not some random opinion writer.

      Floyd’s history — other than in the short period immediately preceding his death — is irrelevant to Chauvin’s homicide trial and irrelevant to the reason that people are concerned about his death.

      I wouldn’t want a convicted felon in prison murdered by a guard. Floyd shouldn’t have been killed.

      1. No one believes that he should have been killed for whatever his past crimes were, but neither should we erect a statue to him or uphold him as evidence of black virtue. Also, we can call Chauvin an evil murderer without concluding his motive for murder was race.

        1. There are plenty of victims of police abuse, mentally ill as well as black and white. They don’t need to put George Loyd up as a hero. They have real heroes on the Black Community, put them up.

      2. I agree – except that even the period immediately prior to being cuffed is irrelevant.

        If Floyd had just axe murderd half a dozen cops and white babies, once handcuffed, the police are responsible for his life, for providing him necescary care.

        I do not know enough to know if Floyd would have died given proper treatment.
        But none of the officers met their duty of care for someone in their custody.

    2. The woman of the home invasion was very pregnant while Floyd held the gun on her stomach and his 4/5 accomplices ransacked the home. For this offense Floyd served 5 years in prison. And I believe the latest count is 9 arrests. Floyd was not a good selection for their poster-boy.

    3. Chauvin will not be exonerated. It does not matter what the cause of death was.

      The moment Chauvin cuffed Floyd he became responsible for him. Even if Floyd was dying from a heart attack due to a drug overdose – Chauvin was required to get him assistance. He did not even try.

      1. John Say – Chauvin did NOT cuff Floyd, he was cuffed by the officers in the first car responding. Chauvin arrives in the 2nd car.

        1. It is not important who cuffed him.

          Once he was cuffed ALL the officers were responsible

          1. John Say – I am going to offer you a 2nd scenario which fits with ALL the videos available to date. When Floyd is moved across the street to the other SUV and as he rounds the passenger side of the vehicle, he collapses. I posit that at this time he is having a stroke. Now, remember he gets all rag-doll and they have trouble getting him in the SUV, although the video shows them getting him in at one point. At some point they take him out of the SUV and put him on his stomach. Why would they do this? I posit they thought he was in medical distress which required the restraint they used (as spoken to by Chauvin) and the two calls to the ambulance service and emergency. The next part I am not sure about, but it appears EMTs do not ride in the Minneapolis ambulances, but rather on the fire trucks (here the ambulance service is part of the city and EMTs ride) so the fire truck arrived later and had to find the ambulance. The fire truck had all the emergency equipment. He was on fentanyl. One of the severe side effects is very shallow breathing. Another is a fast heart rate.

            1. What you post is consistent with what I know. But I do not claim to know all the facts.

              I think it is very likely that the direct cause of Floyd’s death was of his own making – complications of drugs he was taking. It is possible that if the police had never shown up he would be just as dead.

              But that does not alter the responsibility of the police ones they took custody of him.

              It is possible they could not save him – but they had an actual duty to try.

              It is my understanding that there are many external symptoms of a fentayl overdoes.
              The police are supposed to have Narcan. That would have rapidly countered the fentanyl.

              Based on what I suspect we will find out, the appropriate crime would be death as a result of reckless indifference – or whatever is the most similar in Mineapolis.

              But the politics are so charged we are unlikely to see a just verdict.

              1. John Say – I do not know what police in Minneapolis are required to carry and if they are allowed to diagnosis fentanyl abuse.

                1. Narcan is standard issue in many police departments
                  It can stop a fatal opiod overdose quickly. It saves lives.

                  it is easily administered – I beleive it is like an epipen.

  2. Any organization with a “race” in the name is racist. NAACP is racist. BLM is racist. Pro-black, pro-colored people (as was PC when it was established) _as a race_.
    Any legislation that mentions any racial group is, by definition, racist.
    There is (in the politically correct world) apparently no condemnation of pro-black racism, but very much condemnation of pro-white racist positions.

    Systemic racism occurs when the system makes laws or rules against a particular race as in segregation. Systemic racism even occurs when the system makes laws benefiting a particular race because those laws are against every other race.

      1. Committ – I just thought he was taking spelling lessons from JT. 😉

      2. It does not matter who the author is – that is actually the point of anonymous.

        We have only the authors words to judge by.

        And those are damning.

        1. If the author is claiming special, inside knowledge, or unique understanding, it certainly does matter if they are in the position they claim.

          1. “If the author is claiming special, inside knowledge, or unique understanding, it certainly does matter if they are in the position they claim.”

            Nope.

            It matters if that purported inside knowledge is correct.

            If it is not other UC professors can point that out. thus far they have not.

            Further “inside knowlede” is a very small portion of the letter.
            Nearly all the assertions in the lefter can be verified from public sources.

            Very few require inside knowledge.

            We dig into peoples backgrounds, whether it is possible for them to know what they claim to know – when we have no other means of verifying the facts alleged.

            If I say “Etna is erupting” – it is not typical to determine whether I am correct by exploring my credentials as a volcanoligist – when it is possible to get a live cam of Etna erupting.

        1. If I were a history prof., I’d proofread before circulating a letter like that.

          1. Why do you assume the error is in the original letter ?

            JT’s posts contain almost as many typo’s as my comments.

      3. oh, i cant guarantee he was one, would not know, but i know professors who think and speak in private the same way. and more than a few. for decades now. another other professionals too

        nobody should misunderstand this. “liberals” have changed a lot over 30 years. i can say that many liberals from 30 years ago were very principled people.

        but today’s “Left” including many of today’s phony civil liberterians are actually a pack of hounds, who want “freedom of speech” only for their own team, like BLM, and anything to shut up less-educated white people is OK. we see this blatantly of late.

        You middling legacy population Democrats who abide this phony and unfair trend, are suckers, because in your lilly white skins, one day you too will become targets, as the revolution eats its own, as it always does. once they’ve done away with the white folks they’re afraid of, do you think hipsters will be able to put up much resistance? look at how they do it in the “CHAZ” and that is your future, assuming the pathetic self abnegations continue along current downward trends

        1. PS why did i say “less educated”? I mean here we have a letter from a professor. allegedly

          but that’s exactly it! A professor is more educated and he knows that saying ANYTHING remotely positive about the “White race” or whatever now, or saying anything to defend himself as a white person, is POISON for a career.

          you have to get down and lick boots and apologize for being white every day now if you want to be a climber

          in some “professions” you dont have any free speech and can be censured for “politically incorrect” speech that has nothing to do with the subject of the license. like law here, what i mean, obviously. model rpc 8.4 g

          lucky for me i am just a nobody. so far near the bottom nobody cares. thank God for silver linings.
          they wouldn’t hire me to clean toilets at Berkeley let alone teach law. do they have a law school, dont even know

  3. What’s not to admire about Anonymous’ letter? How can one with a brain and a heart not despise the letter from the jackals of UC Berkley History?

    I wish anonymous well. In our heart we know Anonymous is both right and brave.

    But I strongly urge him/her to flee Berkley, like the family von Trapp fleeing Nazi-controlled Austria during the music festival. Get to a safe, honorable haven. Go now, before the jack-booted SS of Berkley’s faculty ferret you out, torture then murder you and cremate your body in the crematorium beneath the faculty lounge.

  4. I’m curious whether the letter is actually from a Cal prof., and if so, who “profs X, Y, Z” are. There’s a contradiction between listing 3 literals (X, Y, and Z) and then saying “I have met you both ..,” “I would say that I’m ashamed of both of you …” (emphasis added), which indicates that it only addresses 2 professors, not 3.

    I’m a Cal grad (for my masters), and the anonymous letter merits a more pointed criticism rather than a generalized condemnation. For example, the letter should be called out for false claims like “MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today” and “The humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM,” when Cal actually has a long history of supporting STEM students of color (e.g., Uri Triesman’s Emerging Scholars program, for which he was awarded a MacArthur).

    But the letter itself fails to include the citations that would be needed for full academic engagement with it. It refers to “your recent departmental emails” but doesn’t cite or link to them, which makes it impossible to check the claim that “the extended links and resources you provided … [fail to include] a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative.” The letter has a facade of scholarship without really being scholarly.

    1. “called out for false claims like “MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today” ”

      This isn’t a “false claim”. It’s an opinion, to which the writer is entitled.
      You do applaud the right to hold dissenting views, yes?

      1. Point taken, I should have said “evidenceless” rather than “false” for the first quote. But the re: the second quote — “The humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM” — there is no such “assumption” on the Cal campus. Berkeley has many students of color graduating in STEM fields with bachelors, masters, and Ph.D.s, it has many faculty of color in STEM fields, and it has programs intended to increase the numbers of students succeeding in STEM fields from groups that are historically underrepresented in STEM fields.

        I don’t have any problem with faculty having diverse professional views as long as they’re well-founded in the literature and evidence of their field. The MLK Jr. claim is a rather bizarre one for a history prof to make, given that MLK Jr. was called an “Uncle Tom” in his own lifetime (https://americanexperience.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Voices-of-a-Generation-Malcolm-X-and-Martin-Luther-King-Jr.pdf ), so it’s not as if that particular response would be new. Of course, that historic response by some doesn’t tell us anything about whether “MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today,” nor does the author provide any evidence of this “likel[ihood].”

        1. “The humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM” — there is no such “assumption” on the Cal campus. ”

          Your response appears to demonstrate the assumption is wrong.
          It does not demonstrate that the assumption does not exist.
          The evidence of special assistance that you cite CONFIRMS the existance of that assumption.

          Regardless, you are nitpicking the letter, you should expect the same kind of nitpicking of your critique.

          The letter was not intended to be a research survey.
          It is an excellent letter, and makes an important point.
          And the universities response amplifies that point.

          The University essentially confirmed that the professor would have been fired if he provided his name, and that the university is denying any of these obvious problems exist as well as that anyone is allowed to discuss them.

          The academy is broken.

          1. John, our previous exchange in another column convinced me that trying to have a discussion with you is not productive, so this will be my one and only response to you here. If you read the document I linked to re: Treisman’s work, you’ll find that the program isn’t based on an assumption that the students are “too stupid to do STEM” and is instead based on the assumption that they’re bright. If you’re unwilling to learn what the program actually does, so be it.

            I’m not going to address the rest of your comments. Bye.

            1. “John, our previous exchange in another column convinced me that trying to have a discussion with you is not productive, so this will be my one and only response to you here.”
              Not an argument.
              If course our exchange was not productive, you did not engage with facts, logic, reason.

              “If you read the document I linked to re: Treisman’s work, you’ll find that the program isn’t based on an assumption that the students are “too stupid to do STEM” and is instead based on the assumption that they’re bright. If you’re unwilling to learn what the program actually does, so be it.”

              The argument “Black students do not need help with STEM, therefore we have created a program to help blacks with STEM” is self contradictory – the professor is correct.

              Regardless you can not disclaim the meaning of your actions with words.
              But this is a common left problem.

              Finally I do not know whether blacks need help with STEM – but that is not the issue.

              The issue is whether the University beleives that is the case. The evidence YOU cite proves the university does NOT have faith that Blacks can do STEM on their own.

        2. CommitToHonestDiscussion’s comment “it has programs intended to increase the numbers of students succeeding in STEM fields from groups that are historically underrepresented in STEM fields” says it all. If there were no assumption that the people needing the special treatment needed it because because they wouldn’t qualify without it, then why have special programs? And who did these special programs displace — whites, Jewish, Asian, fill-in-blank-other-than-color?

          1. Sorry, but your claim “needing … special treatment” is not the same as — and does not imply — what I was responding to: “too stupid to do STEM”

            People need assistance for many reasons other than being stupid.

            “who did these special programs displace?”

            Why do you assume that programs like the Emerging Scholars program “displaced” anyone? Perhaps you didn’t bother to read what the program actually does. I linked above to a good document about the program and its history.

            1. You are correct – the Professors statement is hyperbole. Both the professor, and everyone criticizing you understands that.

              If you strip the hyperbole the statement becomes “The university assumes that blacks are too stupid to do stem without significant assistance”

              Does that make you happier ?

              Regardless that statement is obviously true, by the evidence you provided.

              1. It’s striking that you interpret “we” (in “I write as a person of color. … The humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM”) as “blacks,” when the author doesn’t say that s/he’s black, and I certainly wasn’t talking only about black students, as there are diverse groups who are underrepresented in STEM fields.

                And no, it’s not “obviously true” that people who receive assistance with something do so because they “are too stupid to do [that thing] … without significant assistance.” Lots of people get diverse kinds of assistance for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with stupidity. Think of the assistance that you’ve gotten in your lifetime. Did you exclusively get assistance because you were “too stupid”? I certainly wouldn’t assume that.

                Moreover, note how you introduce “significant.” Do tell me: does the Emerging Scholars program I cited above introduce “significant” assistance? The workshop leaders offer some assistance, but I’d say that the primary assistance comes from working with other students on challenging problems. Instead of making assumptions about it, I again suggest you read the document I linked to earlier.

                1. “It’s striking that you interpret “we” (in “I write as a person of color. … The humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM”) as “blacks,” when the author doesn’t say that s/he’s black, and I certainly wasn’t talking only about black students, as there are diverse groups who are underrepresented in STEM fields.”

                  Picayune semantic nonsense. WHAT IS YOUR POINT ?
                  What YOU were talking about does not matter – what the letter says matters.

                2. “And no, it’s not “obviously true” that people who receive assistance with something do so because they “are too stupid to do [that thing] … without significant assistance.” Lots of people get diverse kinds of assistance for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with stupidity. Think of the assistance that you’ve gotten in your lifetime. Did you exclusively get assistance because you were “too stupid”? I certainly wouldn’t assume that.”

                  We are not talking about “life the universe and everything.”. We are addressing the claim by the letter that the University assumed blacks were too stupid to do STEM
                  Stick to the topic.

                  But if we were – I got assistance when I was unable to do something on my own.

                3. “Moreover, note how you introduce “significant.” Do tell me: does the Emerging Scholars program I cited above introduce “significant” assistance? The workshop leaders offer some assistance, but I’d say that the primary assistance comes from working with other students on challenging problems. Instead of making assumptions about it, I again suggest you read the document I linked to earlier.”

                  Again the standard and topic is the letter. Not a specific program you raised.
                  Again the details of your linked program or irrelevant.

                  But addressing your remarks above.

                  If students need or want help from other students – aren;’t they free to do so on their own ? Why do black students need special assistance to do something that occurs all the time ?

                  While I do not have the answer to that question – there is not an answer that is not problematic.

                  Ni matter what the existance of a racially constrained program is a reflection of the Universities assumption that race is unable to provide for themselves what that program provides. And that is racist.

                  As to your direct claim – I have an excellent STEM education. Much of my work is in STEM. I get help from others sometimes. Both in my work and in my education.

                  I am either capable of doing the work or capable of getting the assistance on my own.

                  I did not need my university to step in and say “sorry your Irish complexion means you are too stupid work this out on your own, so we have setup a program especially for fair skinned Irish students to provide them benefits other students do not get to compensate for your pigmentation inferiority”

            2. “Why do you assume that programs like the Emerging Scholars program “displaced” anyone? ”
              Because Univerities do not have infinite resources. within a small margin of error any preference or benefit they provide to one person or group leaves others with less.

              It is not a perfect zero sum game, but it is close.

              “Perhaps you didn’t bother to read what the program actually does. ”
              Precisely what the program does is irrelevant to the argument.
              It provides additional resources for one group. That comes at a cost to others.

          2. CTHD does not seem to grasp the obvious.

            The issue is NOT do black students need STEM help.

            The issue is whether the professors claim that the University assumes Black Students are too stupid to do STEM is correct.

            The professors statement is hyperbole, but ratchetting down the hypoerbole – it is self evident the university BELEIVES that black students need additional help to do STEM – because they have provided it.

            Actions speak louder than words.

    2. You rebuttal makes the professors point.

      We have already had academic voices roundly criticize comments that repeated the words of MLK.

      If blanks are able to do STEM why do they need extra support from UC – isn’t that racist ?

      You comment does not include cites either. Regardless, I would presume that the professors addressed are familiar with their own interdepartmental email or other published work.

      The data supporting the claims made in the letter are readily available from many sources. The author noted some of them. WaPo makes public the raw data on crime, it is also available from the FBI. Many papers have been published on exactly this issue. There has been massive research into this. There is great public concern on this issue. There are extremely few patterns of conduct by law enforcement that are not driven by complaints made by the public. The police investigate allegations that are reported. Those involving alleged black perpatrators, are reported almost exclusively by black victims. The subsequent patters of arrests and convictions are no different from those of whites and hispanics. The allegation of systemic racism deriving from policing data fundimentally becomes a claim that black people are racist against blacks.

      There do exist a few rare examples of data that appears to indicate a problem that are independent of reporting. These need to be explored much further.

      But ultimately though they can indicate problems they can not indicate systemic racism. For racism to be systemic, the evidence of racism would also have to be systemic.

      Regardless, do your homework.
      While you are correct – this letter does not constitute a scientific paper, neither doews what it rebuts.

      You, the left, BLM are making claims of systemic racism. That is a moral claim.
      When you make moral accusations of others – the burden of proof is on you.

    3. Committ – if he links the emails, he exposes himself. Also, of X, Y, and Z, only two are off the rails.

      1. “if he links the emails, he exposes himself.”

        No, “your recent departmental emails” were ostensibly sent to the entire department (that’s what “departmental emails” means), so they wouldn’t “expose” a specific recipient, only the authors.

          1. Unless you’re just trolling, why are you asking me rather than reading the letter in Turley’s column?

  5. Thomas Sowell has written on the degree to which bloat in higher education is attributable to the tenure system, because with tenure, the purpose of the institution is to cater to the tenured faculty. MS Adams has offered an opinion on the effect of tenure on faculty recruitment. To wit, tenure systems are magnets for people who resent ordinary labor discipline. Leftism is commonly an expression in political idiom of what are euphemistically called ‘issues’.

  6. Imagine working in an environment carrying this heartache to work every day. Prayers to anonymous and those who love him and share his pain.
    Shame on each and every employer and person in authority whose eyes are closed to accepting and discussing differences of opinion.
    It’s amazing how these individuals and institutions use THEIR freedom of speech to destroy people’s lives and inflict such pain on others.
    The greatest comfort is that the truth can not be suppressed forever!

    1. Apparently you can be fired for speaking an inconvenient truth.

      But if you try to engage a customer in a discussion of your sexuality, the supreme court says you can not be fired – if you are gay.

  7. State legislatures could fix this problem. They do nothing.

    Black Lives Matter is a completely valueless humbug cause. It’s simply indicative of how worthless intellectual life is in this country that academics subscribe to it and are harassing the few academics with the sense to call a spade a spade in this set of circumstances. Another more particular indicator of that has been the endorsement of massive outdoor protests by public health mavens at a time when restaurants are only offering take-out service and the odious Mayor of New York City is having his minions inflict petty abuse on orthodox Jews in outdoor settings.

    The problem is that your ‘colleagues’ are malicious people, and we’ve subcontracted the job of sorting the labor market to malicious people. We can take much of that function away from them by eliminating employment discrimination law and allowing employers carte blanche to employ screening tests. In public employment, a restoration of timely, competitive, and serious civil service examinations is in order.

    A reduction in subsidies to higher education is much in order. Have public agencies conduct their mission-specific research in house, picking the brains of university-based researchers with term fellowships. Give no subsidies to higher education. them from the public purse. As for subsidizing tuition, room, and board, end it completely for private institutions and limit it to a fixed % of a state’s total personal income in re the public sector. And cut costs.

    Keep in mind that just shy of half of the faculty manpower in higher education is devoted to academic subjects and the arts – things that do not map to specific vocations. Of that subset, about 40% is devoted to natural sciences, mathematics, computer and information science, quantitative social research, and foreign language instruction. We can do without the rest. Just shy of 30% of the faculty can be tossed overboard right there. Some disciplines are so corrupted, there is neither a gross nor a net loss to the commonweal in so doing. (Studio art, cultural anthropology, non-quantitative sociology, and American history are all terrible).

    A. In regard to your vocational faculties, you have three sets of pseudo-professional schools which function as paper hoops whose course content is largely nonsense when it does not consist of social indoctrination. These would be programs in teacher training, social work, and library administration. Collectively, about 10% of all degrees awarded each year are in these ‘subjects’, within which realm about 85% of the manpower is devoted to teacher training. The faculty in these programs should be discharged.

    1. Librarians, archivists, and curators can be certified in diploma programs operated by state libraries, university research libraries, and the New York Public Library and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Library of Congress, the National Archives, and the Smithsonian could set up their own programs as prototypes.

    2. The child protective and foster care service (and allied) could be staffed with sheriff’s deputies, public health nurses, and junior grade psychologists who had obtained cross-training certificates in brief courses of study. Social work positions in the medical and l/t care sector could be filled with people trained on the job. The rest of them aren’t doing anything worth doing and should disappear.

    3. A proper teaching certfication program would consist of a set of screening examinations, a short menu of instructional methods courses (lesson planning, lecturing, evaluation of student work, testing, and discipline) adapted to the type of certificate you’re seeking (elementary, academic secondary, vocational secondary, art, music, athletics, special education, ESOL, &c). After that, you’ve an internship and 1 or 2 years in a stipended apprenticeship. Special ed and elementary classroom teachers wouldn’t require much else. Other teachers would have to have 42 credits in their subject, and teachers colleges might have in house departments in those subjects in lieu of relying on an arts and science faculty.

    B. Also in regard to vocational faculties, some programs are terribly padded and their prerequisites are also padded. Replace the baccalaureate degree with preparatory certificates that in length might be around 25 credits as a rule and not exceed 70 credits. Then selectively cut the time in professional school. Reducing the duration of the basic law degree by 40% and allowing aspirants to take the bar exam without any degree would be agreeable.

    1. these are very good practical academic system reform ideas

      but if nobody ever punches the ticket of a billionaire like soros who is funding both BLM and the academics, via his vast array of grants from the open society foundations, then, it will all just slouch along forwards in the same direction

      but, conservatives are “reluctant” to name the most identifiable group of troublemakers in America at this moment: the titans of global finance and their cousins in silicon valley

      https://technocracy.news/soros-billionaire-ideologues-who-finance-society-destroying-anarchy/

  8. Wow – This writer summed up the situation and the challenges amazingly well. How unbelievably sad that he has to fear for his life and livelihood based on views that he defends with substantive critical thinking. The extreme left and the Democrats who’ve provided them a home and succumbed to their rhetoric and violence have irreparably harmed American citizens and America.

  9. How far we have fallen. 10 years ago, the Democrats eulogized ex klansman, Senator Robert C Byrd.
    Obama, both Clintons, Joe Biden. The letter may even be ficticious, but speaks the truth.

  10. While the left is not devoid of bigotry and bias, this is primarily a position based on the ‘Bessie the cow has brown eyes. David the football player has brown eyes. David is a cow and/or Bessie is a football player.’ argument.

    While bigotry and bias can be found in both the left and right far reaches, racism is almost exclusively a right wing characteristic.

    1. issac:

      yep and that’s why the angry left-wing mob just assumed “whitey bad” and rioted when a white cop was involved in killing a black ex-con. No other facts but race apparent but, of course only the right-wing, has a prejudice problem. The counter-examples are just too easy with your “argumentation” style.

      1. Is the “black ex-con” a justification of George Floyd’s murder? Certainly, the crime of which he was accused, passing a fake $20 bill didn’t merit his killing. I haven’t heard anything to suggest Flold had any knowledge the bill was counterfeit or that he was printing them at home. I have come to possess counterfeit bills in my former business, some of which were discovered when attempting to deposit them. Should I have been arrested or killed? You may not have noticed but there is a pattern. One would think the words, “I can’t breathe” would have registered to the police officer after the Eric Garner death in New York. Is it reasonable to believe any police officer in America wouldn’t be familiar with that case?
        As far as a focus on the right-wing, Trump’s Justice Department suppressed a report that every race-based incident in 2018 was perpetrated by white supremacist right-wing groups. At the same time they were compiling a report on Black Identity Extremists, an apparent reference to the Black Lives Matter organization. Make you want to go hmmmm.

        https://www.salon.com/2019/08/09/trumps-doj-hid-shocking-report-on-growing-terror-threat-from-white-supremacists/

        1. mespo727272 did not argue Floyd deserved to die.

          His argument is why is what happened to Floyd a justification for looting, burning, rioting and the death and injury to many people – black, white, cop, …

          mespo727272 did not raise the counterfeit 20. you did.

          Floyd was an excon. I beleive he served 5 prison terms and was convicted 9 times.

          There is some evidence that prior to C19 he was getting his life together. But that when he was out of work do to C19 he started a downward spiral.

          These and inumerable other facts about Floyd do not mean he “deserved to die”,
          They do not excuse Chauvin.

          If Floyd was a violent criminal resisting arrest – once subdued and handcuffed the police were responsible to protect him.

          If the report you reference actually existed – it should have been “supressed”

          I am not aware of a single raced based incident involving white supremecists.

          Your involved in a snipe hunt. The KKK could not manage a dozen people at the first Charolettesville Rally.

          There are likely 10 times more antifa in Portland than white supremecists in the US

          The last significant KKK member I remeber was when Democrat Senator Robert Byrd retired.

        2. enigma:

          “Is the “black ex-con” a justification of George Floyd’s murder?”
          ********************
          Straw man much? The point was the folks who immediately went off and assumed racism are the racists since they decided guilt on nothing more than the race of the parties. John Say told you the same thing but I like my explanation as well.

          1. I see a bigger problem with those who cannot accept the possibility of racism. Provide me an example of a cop kneeling on a white man’s throat for almost 9 minutes when he was in no danger and I’ll back down.

            1. “Provide me an example of a cop kneeling on a white man’s throat for almost 9 minutes when he was in no danger and I’ll back down.”
              Tony Timpa – this is significantly WORSE than Floyd.
              The Cops held him down for 12 minutes – with similar pleas from Timpa, while the cops insulted Timpa from start to finish.

              1. Thank you for the information, Timpa’s case is an example of horrible treatment by cops where race didn’t appear to be involved. It’s arguable that this case is worse than Floyd, the penalty seems to be exactly the same. In Floyd’s case, even after his pulse was talked and none could be found, the officer stayed on his neck another three minutes. The Dallas officers were at least surprised they killed Timpa. That can’t be said for Floyd.
                Yes it’s possible that an individual case may be unrelated to race, but then statistics would even out which isn’t true in America. Is there even such a thing as stop & frisk and broken windows policing in well-to-do white communities? Those are reserved for the minority and poor communities. Thanks again for the info.

                1. In the Floyd case there appear to be a number of other factors that may have contributed to his death. Floyd was aparently on meth and fentynal at the time.

                  It is entirely possible that Floyd’s death was the result of a reckless indifference, rather than the actual physical handling of Floyd.

                  It is possible that had the police not been called – Floyd would have died without notice.

                  This is not true of Timpa. He was schizophrenic and off his meds. But the only imediate threat to his life was his own psychosis. Further he actively sought the police help. He call 911 on himself.

                  There is no doubt Timpa was killed by the actions of the police.

                  1. “It is possible that had the police not been called – Floyd would have died without notice.”

                    That’s what you’re going with? Your argument has deteriorated to the point of ridiculousness.

                    1. Read all of what I wrote. Do not snip one probably correct observation and try to make it into everything.

                      The moment the cops put cuffs on Floyd they became responsible for him.

                      EVEN if he would have died on his own. They are STILL responsible to save him if that is possible – and it likely was. And even if it was not, they are obligated to try – which they did not.

                      It is important to get the facts right.

                      If you do not understand the actual standards and rights and duties – then finding out that Floyd was overdosed on Fentynal means the cops go free.

                      But that ignores the fact that once they cuffed him – they had a duty of care.

                    2. I read all of what you wrote. I choose not to devote the time or energy to respond to twenty things when only one interests me or stands out or I find credible or whatever criteria I choose. You cannot dictate what I choose to respond to.

                    3. “I read all of what you wrote. I choose not to devote the time or energy to respond to twenty things when only one interests me or stands out or I find credible or whatever criteria I choose. You cannot dictate what I choose to respond to.”

                      All true, but there is no right to persuade.

                2. “Yes it’s possible that an individual case may be unrelated to race, but then statistics would even out which isn’t true in America.”
                  Properly regressed for other independent variables they do even out.

                  “Is there even such a thing as stop & frisk and broken windows policing in well-to-do white communities? ”
                  Stop & Frisk – no
                  Broken windows – absolutely – there is no place that is worse than afluent suburbs for demanding that neighbors keep up appearance – by force of law if needed.

                  “Those are reserved for the minority and poor communities.”
                  Poor is not the same as minority.

                  There is little if any differences in policing or most other “discrimination” between poor white and poor black communities.

                  if you are poor your odds of lots of bad outcomes increases dramatically.

                  At the same time. the poor in the US are between 2-4 times as well off as they were 50 years ago.

                  I am a landlord, I have a city home that I rent to a black working class poor family.

                  That home is nicer than the one I was born in, and my parents were middle class at the time.

                  1. “Broken windows – absolutely – there is no place that is worse than afluent suburbs for demanding that neighbors keep up appearance – by force of law if needed.”

                    Getting a notice from your HOA isn’t quite the same as getting choked for selling a selfie cigarette.

                    1. “Getting a notice from your HOA isn’t quite the same as getting choked for selling a selfie cigarette.”

                      All laws and regulations are ultimately enforced by men with guns.

                      If you do not conform to the requirements of an HOA what do you think will happen ?

                      If you choose – as Eric Garner did to resist, enforcement will escalate and if you persist you will face men with guns who may choke you or shot you to compel compliance.

                      Every single law, every single regulation is ultimately enforced by men with guns.

                      That is how government works.

                      Whatever your good idea that you think government should make law, you should always remember that it will ultimately result in government sanctioned violence to enforce it against any who resist.

                      This is not “racist” it is how government works.

                      The police officers who choked Eric Garner did not make the law, they just enforced it.

                3. eb: While I reject the claim that the police or this country is systemically racist.

                  That does not mean there are not LOTS of improvements that it is likely we agree on.

                  Trump’s recent EO is small potatoes – but it is a start. Mist importantly it gets one thing very right – it INCENTIVIZES improvement.

                  eliminating qualified immunity would be huge. But I doubt we will see that.
                  Frankly I doubt we will see much more than Trump’s EO.

                  At the same time – there is nothing the federal govenrment can do that cities and states can not do on their own.

                  1. “Trump’s recent EO is small potatoes – but it is a start. Mist importantly it gets one thing very right – it INCENTIVIZES improvement.
                    eliminating qualified immunity would be huge. But I doubt we will see that.
                    Frankly I doubt we will see much more than Trump’s EO.
                    At the same time – there is nothing the federal govenrment can do that cities and states can not do on their own.”

                    Trump’s EO is a group of meaningless suggestions and a ban on chokehold “EXCEPT” when the officer is in fear of his/her life which is already the standard excuse whenever a cop goes overboard. It was a purely political statement in which he held a news conference mostly dedicated to his own self-praise with a couple minutes on policing.

                    1. You missed the key issue – incentives.

                      As best as I can tell there is nothing manditory in the EO – which is unsurprising the president does nto have the authority to give orders to states.

                      But he does have control of federal funds to states.

                      The EO allows DOJ to establish standards, to measure conformance with those standards and to allocate federal funds based on conformance.

                      You say the Chokeholds is no big deal. It will be when DOJ decides that too many of your chokehold claims are pretexts and they withhold federal funds.

                      Honestly I would prefer that the federal government got out of local policing – just end federal funds to police completely.

                      But given that is not happening – this gives alot of leverage to improve conduct.

                      And police forces are heavily motivated by money.

                      When an instructor runs a class with a dozen officers and he says – this is how we will police, and we will track conformance and we will lose money if you do not conform and you will be fired if you are the reason for that

                      Things change.

                      I am depressed because i think this is all we will get.
                      But I am happy because it is actually a good start – only a start, but baby steps.

                      Further the problem is not racism, it is police culture and lots of factors are working to change that.

                      I think this past few weeks will have broken the blue code of silence.

                      There is now a huge incentive for police to report bad conduct by other police.
                      Who wants to risk their department being the epicenter of the next George Floyd event.

                      That alone is a major force for change.

                      But we unfortunately have a converse problem.

                      We are destroying the morale of police right now.

                      While there are many problems with police that we should fix.

                      We must also recognize that policing in the US is not only very good overall but it has been improving for a long time.

                      But that can change in a heart beat.

                      We are already seeing crime rates spike dramatically.

                      Right now that is because the police can not do riot control and crime prevention concurrently.

                      But what happens when ordinary cops say F’it.
                      Many are quitting, but what if instead of quitting they just do not work as hard.

                      I am expecting to see crime rates accross the country double, and stay that way for some time.

                      BLM has the upper hand at the moment – that is not likely to stay that way.

                      Those shouting abolish or defund the police should hope the police do not give them what they ask for.

                      Di not make the mistake of beleiving that because policing in the US is less than perfect that we can dispense with it.

                      Do not pretend that reform is going to happen without police buy in – and that is why the incentives in Trump’s EO are important.

                    2. That is how EO’s works. This has nothing to do with Trump.

                      Aside from ending qualified immunity – which requires congress,
                      Ending the provision of military supplies to police forces – which requires congress

                      Pretty much anything else that the federal government can do is condition funding on voluntary compliance that would be supervised by DOJ.

                      This is driven by the constitutional limits of federal power.

                    3. If Congress passes a law – that will be a political statement.

                      The fundimental difference between an EO and a law is that an EO can only direct those within the executive branch in how to impliment and enforce existing laws or powers of the president.

                      In this case there are laws that direct federal funds to police departments. The EO instructs DOJ to develop new conditions to receive those funds.

                      That is the limits of the presidents power.

                      In this specific instance – Congress does not have much more power – as police powers constitutionally belong to the state.

                      While I expect that there will be beneficial consequences of Trump’s EO

                      The fundimental reforms must come at the state and local level.

                      That has Always been true.

                      You continue to beleive that there is systemic racism. While the evidence to support that does not exist, even if it did, the responsibility for the problem rests with the state and local governments.

                      Ofc. Chauvin’s actions were heinous. To the extent there is a responsibility for them that extends beyond Chauvin – that responsibility lies with mineapolis – not washington.

                      While your systemic racism premise is false. Policing can be improved, and the responsibility to do so rests with the police departments and the cities.

            2. “I see a bigger problem with those who cannot accept the possibility of racism”

              So much nonsense.

              Humans are inherently tribal. This is Innate. It is not likely to go away ever.
              We discriminate for those closest to us, and against those farthest away.
              Immediate Family, extended family, clan, tribe, race, state, country,

              We inherently prefer similar to different.

              That is not going to change.

              But it is also not binary.

              Until two centuries ago The US enslaved those who were different, a few anglo countries ended slavery earlier, nearly all the world later, in a few parts it still exists.

              Universally there is more racial conflict in diverse societies – but there is less actual racism. Learning to live together and respect “the other” is conflict ridden and stressful.
              Places that do not have significant diversity have less stress and think of themselves as enlightened and end up completely shocked when that lack of diversity changes.

              Does racism still exist in the US ? Absolutely. My daughter is chinese and recently was spat on by a black person.

              But systemic racism does not exist in the US.

              Further while Racism still exists, and will still exist in 100 years. it is the least it has ever been.

              Within the same class, there is no statistical difference in the life outcomes of blacks and whites. The major factors that predict success do not include race. They are all factors associated with the bottom quintile in the US. Not race.

              Lastly – racism will decline in this country over time, regardless of anything government does. Beyond blind justice protecting our rights, there is nothing that govenrment can do that will reduce racism in this country. It is not its job and it is not inside its ability.

              Historically the impact of government on race has been negative not positive.
              Slavery required government. Jim Crow was a series of laws to force whites and blacks to behave differently than they were choosing on their won. To force them to NOT do business with each other.

              1. It has been changing and will continue so with the likely obsolescence of race. In fact, the story of the human races advancement over the last millennia is the widening social groups we claim membership in, from family to tribes, to nations, to ideologies. Progress is real in human relations thigh there are backwards movements occasionally, like Irish religious wars over religions that are dying slowly.

                I recommend “Sapiens” by Noah Harari to gain a better understanding of this occurrence.

                1. Wow! We agree.

                  I would note that – the modern expansion of identification to ever larger groups does NOT destroy the more immediate relations.

                  Most of us are ALWAYS going to put family first.

                  The near relationships will always have more strenght than the far ones.

                  Though I would be careful because even near and far are not the same for each individual

                  I adopted my daughter from China. I did not appreciate at the time how that would change my relationship to the world. I have much greater concern for impoverished children throughout the world and much less concern about the plight of far better off poor people in the US.

                  Which raises another issue – we can not “save the world”

                  I beleive you posited that as we are better off we should do more to help those less well off.

                  Well who are they ? For me – that is the children in poor countries througout the world. Maybe for you that is someone making MW at walmart.

                  What should we do ? Do you get to force your idea’s of who should be helped on me ? Me on you ?

                  You can not do this through government – government is force. and charity by force is immoral. It is slavery.

              2. “But systemic racism does not exist in the US.”

                “There is none so blind…”

                I’d finish the quote but it would likely serve no purpose.

                  1. Then you would have data and it would be clear and pervasion.

                    Systemic racism does not show up in some dark cranny.

                    It is evident everywhere.

                    Otherwise you are abusing language

                  1. I’ll start with the Mulford Act in 1967. When Black Panthers showed up at the California State house with guns. Ronald Reagan, Democrats, Republicans, and the NRA got together to get guns out of black people’s hands. What was the response when white people showed up at the Michigan state house with guns? Praise from the President

                    1. enigma:

                      The Mulford Act, misguided as it was, applied equally to all citizens and wasn’t systemic racism. It was bad policy but blacks and whites carrying loaded forearms were subject to its strictures. Try again.

                    2. So you are concurrently arguing that the right to own guns is evidence of systemic racism, and gun control is systemic racism ?

                      As best as I can tell – for you everything is about racism.

                      Absolutely the intentions of those who passed the mulford act were racist.

                      But the law itself was not. The law applied regardless of race.
                      The law was however wrong.

                      I would further note the law barred publicly carrying LOADED weapons.

                      I do not know what CA law is today. but the Mulford act would not have prevented the lock-down protests.

                      BTW there were blacks at the Michigan state house with guns.

                      I will be happy to praise the lock-down protesters.

                      They were right and that is increasingly self evident.

                      The lock downs were a very stupid idea.
                      Recent larges stories and modeling in Europe using the IMIE model and what we have learned over 2 months. has determined that there is no statistically significance to any mandatory action that any government in the world or any state took.

                      That lock-downs did not correlate to better outcomes than no lock downs as an example.

                      That not one measure than any government took had any impact.

                      But beyond that the hypocrisy of the left when faced with protests is ludicrously stupid.

                      Suddenly mass public assembly was acceptable. Our governments said so, our purported health experts said so.

                      In doing so they egregiously violated the 1st amendment. The government can not constrain disfavored speech, it can not advantage favored speech.
                      The moment that states waived rules for BLM protests, those rules became null and void.

                      It is not the statehouse protests that demonstrate “systemic racism”.

                      But the government response to the BLM protests that did.

                      The government on the basis of race favored BLM protests.

                  2. More appropriate to the conversation, the sentencing disparity for crack cocaine vs cocaine. It was recently reduced from a 100:1 difference in sentencing to a mere 18:1 difference which politicians hailed as a victory.

                    1. enigma – you know that the crack cocaine sentencing came at the behest of ministers and leaders in the black community?

                    2. It came at the behest of a number of people, mostly not black ministers and community leaders who have since discovered the disproportionate effect it has on minorities and role in mass incarceration. The same people you feel originated the practice are now almost totally opposed to it yet an 18:1 ratio still exists in sentencing differential.

                    3. enigma – sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for.

                    4. So your argument is that the dispartity in sentencing is evidence of systemic racism,
                      because the same black leaders who supported the law, now oppose it ?

                      You have redefined systemic racism as anything the black community does not like today – even if they liked it yesterday.

                      If you do not like the law – change the law.
                      I think that all drug laws are bad, but the crack laws are worse.

                      But they are not evidence of systemic racism.

                      They are however evidence that black leaders can pass stupid laws too.

                    5. Too many are blind to history.

                      Further though I oppose drug laws period.

                      But given that we have them it is NOT evidence of systemic racism to treat crack different from cocaine.

                      The black community leaders wanted stiffer sentences for good reason. Crack was causing far more harm to black communities than powdered cocaine to white ones.

                    6. So now your argument is that black community leaders are racist ?

                      I will agree that it has turned out that Crack laws disparately impact the black community, and that they are bad.

                      But bad law is just bad law, it is not inherently racist.

                      And laws that effect one group more than another are not inherently racist.

                      All Abortion laws only effect women – are they inherently sexist ?

                    7. They weren’t the only ones asking for a solution. Republicans were the driving force behind the Crime-bill and frightened Democrats caved to not appear weak on crime. Clinton/Biden et.al. would say they got the best deal they could. Some black leaders were part of the process but got thrown under the bus went it all went awry.

                    8. BS

                      D’s were not “frightened” they were in the majority, and this was a time were there was still a filibuster so a full 60% of the Senate was required to pass anything.

                      Biden has been divorcing himself from his past, but ALL federal laws empowering police were bipartisan with enthusiastic support from democrats.

                      They were bad ideas, but not espeicially repoublican

                      I would further note that what reform there has been has ONLY occured with republicans in power.

                      Obama could have past criminal justice reform – there was bipartisan support.
                      Obama could have past immigration reform – there was bipartisan support.

                      Democrats – especially in the past 10 years. Do not want to solve problems, they want to create political fights
                      They propose things that do not stand a chance of passing and are completely unwilling to support good laws if they can get more political milage out of opposing them because they are not perfect.

                    9. No one can or should be able to make others do what they do not want to do.

                      It is extremely rare for one party to be able to pass any law without the support of atleast some others.

                      That racist constitution you hate deliberately empowers minorities.
                      ALL types of minorities.

                      But it empowers them in the best way possible – with the power to STOP government action.

                    10. The sentencing disparity was deliberately created at the request of black members of congress and leaders int he black communities because at the time crack was sweeping through their communities like an epidemic and destroying them.

                      Even today – crack use destroys more lives and creates more crime.

                      Regardless the sentencing disparity – whether you like the reasons or not, was not the consequence of racism.

                      This is the huge flaw in the idiotic disparate impact nonsense.

                      Using disparate impact ALL laws are racist.
                      There are more murders committed by blacks – therefore laws against murder are racist ?

                      The legal treatment of cocaine vs crack is a bad idea. Crack like all epidemics plateaued. While its impact on black communities is large and negative, it did not ultimately completely destroy black communities.

                      Just as C19 has not killed 3% of the united states.

                      Bad laws – even bad laws that disproportionately impact blacks are not inherently racist.

                      BTW if you want an actually racist law – try minimum wage laws.
                      They were passed specifically to drive employers to hire whites before blacks.

                      And they work in exactly that way right up to the present.

                      MW laws mean higher unemployement among those with less skills, and then they make it impossible to get those skills.

                    11. “MW laws mean higher unemployement (sic) among those with less skills, and then they make it impossible to get those skills.”
                      Why, yes, Minimum Wage is indeed systemic racism.

                      De facto and not de jure, but still a supposedly race-neutral law which discriminates against the unemployed youth leads to the inability for mentorship (which sometimes involve no wages) and apprenticeship (which sometimes involve low wages) . Minimum wage law was strongly supported by unions. Even though an employer could, absent the law, hire people for lower wages than the unions successfully demanded replacing existing higher-cost union laborers, they couldn’t.
                      Minimum wage as a “living wage” is nonsense. It should be the wage of the high-school drop-out’s first job.
                      Minimum wage today means adults and automation man McDonalds.

                      In some sense the dollar of today is “backed” by one hour of absolutely unskilled labor. This establishes the value of the dollar. Every time the minimum wage is raised that is inflation.

                    12. MW laws passed with the vigorius support of southern democrats who were open about their expectation that they would favor whites.

                1. If there was systemic racism – there would be a very large statistical fingerprint.

                  I have seen a few datapoints which tend to indicate a race driven choice.

                  I beleive there is data that traffic stops of blacks decline slightly after dark – presumably because the police can no longer tell that the person they are stopping is black.

                  Conversely – traffic cams, and automated speed traps hit a higher proportion of minorities that the police.

                  There is pretty good evidence that there is racial bias in sentencing – though the data needs much better regression to be certain,.

                  But that is a judical issue not a policing issue.

                  Regardless, if there was systemic racism you would not have one or two quirks. You would see evidence everywhere.

                  Otherwise you have to claim Cops are racist with traffic stops but not robberies.
                  Or that minority cops are just as racist against blacks as whites.

                  Put simply the statistical data is not there for systemic racism.

                  Problems in police culture that are unrelated to race – fine.

                    1. Already rejected the crack laws are evidence of systemic racism.

                      Unless you are claiming that black politicians and black sommunity leaders are racist against blacks.

              3. John Say, please do not take racism away from enigma – it’s all he’s got.

                1. Just to be clear – racism exists, and it is unlikely to go away ever.

                  My grandfather did not consider himself racist, enigma would likely think he was a KKK member. My father did not think of himself as racist. His views were those of a middle aged white male in the 60’s I am sure enigma would think he was a right wing extremist.

                  I am sure enigma thinks I am a racist. My chinese daughter is more racist than I am – she gets crap for being chinese all the time – and much of it from blacks.

                  In my large circle of friends straight white males are a very small minority. My friends are a rainbow. Racially sexually politically,

                  While racism still exists, there is little if any “systemic racism”

                  The outcome based conceptions of the left are idiocy.
                  You can not run a lemonade stand and get perfectly distributed outcomes.
                  It is not possible or even desirable to create laws that always have uniform impacts on every possible groups.

                  There are problems with the police culture – the police are taught to be confrontational, to take control. Descalation is not in police DNA.
                  I had a cop threaten to tow my car and throw me in jail for the night because he accused me of going 79 in a 55 zone when I was going 69 in a 65 zone, just be cause I told him “with all respect, that is wrong”. I took it to court and won. I had GPS data. I am a 60 year old white male, and I was driving a unpretentious low end mercedes wagon.

                  I am not trying to make a big deal of that. Only pointing out that the police problem is not Racism, it is police culture. It is possible that if I had been a young black male draped in gold chains driving a pimp mobile that things would have gone even worse.
                  They also might of gone as bad for a young white male skinhead in a beater.

            3. enigma – I am not 100% behind this action, however there seems to be more to it than we are getting.

            4. “I see a bigger problem with those who cannot accept the possibility of racism.”
              *********************
              I see an even bigger problem with those ASSUMING racism. It simply proves my point about who the racists truly are. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. That’s basic rational thought. The mob is mindless but composed of minded people who ought to know better.

              Today in NYC I saw a young black kid punch a 92-year-old white lady for no apparent reason. She went down and hit her head on a fire hydrant. Had I summoned my friends, marched up to Harlem and began firebombing black businesses and shooting up the place in some mindless act of revenge, would you have been so sanguine about my actions? Of course, not because we don’t know what happened. Once we know, we act accordingly and punish the offender not everyone who might look like him. This collective guilt/collective punishment will not end well for radicals. Right-wing groups will rise up, arm themselves and return eye-for-an-eye justice.

              1. “. Right-wing groups will rise up, arm themselves and return eye-for-an-eye justice.”

                What do you mean Right-wing groups “Will” arm themselves. They’ve been doing that for over a century, egged on by the NRA. I pray there never is a real race war (like Dylann Roof and Charles Manson hoped to start) because black people are woefully unarmed. I’m familiar with a newly formed black group that advocates every black person get a gum. I personally don’t own a gun nor want one because I would be the most likely victim but I don’t have a good answer as to why black people shouldn’t arm themselves to the same degree as right-wing groups because some of them really are out to get us. The Second Amendment was as much as the ability to maintain slave patrols as it was about fear of a standing Federal army.

                1. What do you mean Right-wing groups “Will” arm themselves. They’ve been doing that for over a century, egged on by the NRA. I pray there never is a real race war (like Dylann Roof and Charles Manson hoped to start) because black people are woefully unarmed.
                  ********************
                  That’s exactly right. Blacks would decisively lose a race war but the animosity and guerrilla warfare would linger for a generation. The simple fact is that right-wing groups are heavily (as in more than sidearms and rifles) armed and waiting for a spark. That would seem to suggest that radical blacks wouldn’t antagonize them. Alas, it seems the radicals want a spark. Crazy though it seems.

                  1. “Radical blacks” are still willing to fight for freedom in a country where it exists less for them than others. Do you know what it takes to antagonize some of those right=wing groups? Education, voting, and existence.

                    1. “Radical blacks” are still willing to fight for freedom in a country where it exists less for them than others.
                      *****************************
                      They might but they’d lose. In fact, everybody loses but it would decide the issue. The best solution is still a negotiation among moderate people but when radicals of both stripes take that away and demand everything their own way, violence and force of arms becomes the decider. The largest, best armed group usually wins (Ask the South) and the loser takes centuries to recover. People hate the Chicoms for Tienanmen with good reason but the fact on the ground is that the student uprisings in China are over. People will put up with some uncertainty but not endless uncertainty.

                    2. Would it decide the issue? Wouldn’t everyone else of color have to end up choosing sides. Those that hate black people might not feel too warmly about Hispanics, Jews, or pretty much anyone other than their kissing cousins. Families have become mixed racially and that unknown black person might be some white person’s son-in-law, husband, wife, or daughter. A race war would be the ugliest thing imaginable which is why I’m concerned the best equipped people to stop it, the Federal government, will barely acknowledge the existence of the highly armed right-wing groups while declaring one questionable left-wing group, “domestic terrorists.” A look at the evidence one to conclude that the government has been preparing for a race war and already taken sides. They’ve militarized the police forces with tanks and other military weapons, placed the majority of black people in centralized locations with a railroad track running through ti for easy access. This may seem unreasonable but the National Guard dropped bombs on Greenwood, OK (Tusla) and Philadelphjia police bombed a MOVE household (destroying dozens of other homes along the way). One wonders though, what will happen if some Trump-like figure orders soldiers to attack people when 40% of the soldiers look like them? Food for thought.

                    3. “Those that hate black people might not feel too warmly about Hispanics, Jews,”

                      Yes, all of two people in the country.

                      Mist of the antisemites in this country today are black.

                    4. There is not going to be a race war.

                      The most serious possibility of actual armed conflict in this country is that either the BLM portests/riots get out of hand and you see real open fighting between law enforcement and rioters, or somebody has to go in and clear out CHAZ.

                    5. What does it take to antagonize heavily armed extreme right groups ?

                      One and only One thing – attacking them.

                      Their posture is entirely defensive.

                      Ruby Ridge – defensive.
                      Wacco – defensive.
                      The Bundy’s – defensive.

                      every conflict with heavily armed extreme right groups
                      started by the feds attacking them

                    6. John:

                      OAKLAND, Calif. — An Air Force sergeant suspected of killing a Santa Cruz County sheriff’s sergeant will be charged, along with a Millbrae man, in the fatal shooting of a federal security officer last month in downtown Oakland, federal officials said Tuesday.

                      Steven Carrillo, who was charged last week in the killing of Damon Gutzwiller, the sheriff’s sergeant, was aided by 30-year-old Robert Justus, of Millbrae, in the killing of 53-year-old federal security officer David Patrick Underwood, officials said. Justus drove a white van and acted as the getaway driver in the May 29 Oakland shooting, officials said.

                      Officials said Carrillo harbored a hatred of law enforcement and had ties to a right-wing Boogaloo group that believes a second American Civil War is coming soon.

                      Underwood, a 53-year-old Pinole resident, was guarding the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building in Oakland amid protests nearby over police brutality and the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The white van was captured on a surveillance video, officials said, which revealed that the gunman had slid open the van’s side door to fire the weapon.

                      The FBI has ranked right wing terrorists as the deadliest in the US over the last several years.

                  2. mespo – I do not want a race war, however I would welcome a war to win back our rights and people of color should be happy to join the fray.

                    1. I would welcome a war to win back our rights and people of color should be happy to join the fray.
                      **********************
                      That war never ends — it just goes hot and cold. Seems to be heating up again.

                    2. Our paramilitary posters might applaud this:

                      OAKLAND, Calif. — An Air Force sergeant suspected of killing a Santa Cruz County sheriff’s sergeant will be charged, along with a Millbrae man, in the fatal shooting of a federal security officer last month in downtown Oakland, federal officials said Tuesday.

                      Steven Carrillo, who was charged last week in the killing of Damon Gutzwiller, the sheriff’s sergeant, was aided by 30-year-old Robert Justus, of Millbrae, in the killing of 53-year-old federal security officer David Patrick Underwood, officials said. Justus drove a white van and acted as the getaway driver in the May 29 Oakland shooting, officials said.

                      Officials said Carrillo harbored a hatred of law enforcement and had ties to a right-wing Boogaloo group that believes a second American Civil War is coming soon.

                      Underwood, a 53-year-old Pinole resident, was guarding the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building in Oakland amid protests nearby over police brutality and the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The white van was captured on a surveillance video, officials said, which revealed that the gunman had slid open the van’s side door to fire the weapon.

                    3. Do we need the same post which says almost nothing related to the point that is verifiable. 3 or 4 times ?

                    4. Apparently you do as it is on point and you can’t answer it.

                      Look! There’s an Antifa radical sneaking up on you!!!

                    5. Anon – Antifa and BLM seem to be at odds in CHAZ. I am not worried about Antifa here, we have concealed carry.

                  3. the “radicals” are a bunch of organizers hired by billionaires like geo soros and further enabled by other whiteskins like jack dorsey

                    the plan is to sic everybody else on white guys, so that white guys never get together and come for the jack dorseys and geo soroses of the world

                    because if we did, they would be finished fast

                    now everybody else, they can hold at bay indefinitely

                    there never was a “race” filled with more cunning, selfish, sociopathic rich people than the white race

                    i am sometimes tempted to think racist thoughts then I think of jeff bezos a guy who is the richest man in the world and urinates every day on the President of the US in his newspaper and every person who dared to vote for him, nobodies like me

                    I am not going to be mad at the george floyds of the world or even those protesters. i can even cut the rioters some slack. but i will never cut the jack dorseys or geo soroses slack. not that they care what i or we think anyhow.

                    white folks! the dumbest group of sheep who think we are smart because of inventions. wow. as if inventions were the only thing that matters in life.

                    maybe if we were so smart, would learn some math and understand how these billionaires buy votes by levering mass media, by organizing via NGOs and the like, and they can and do literally destroy nations. geo soros really is an evil mastermind of toppling governments, just take a look at his financial exploits over spans of decades. England, Thailand, there’s a long list about 15 nations long.

                    US may join that list as his parting “gift to humanity” a capstone to his already overlong-life

                  4. No!!!!!

                    This trope has been arround for a long time.

                    To my knowledge there has been a single instance of right wing militia agression in us history – the OKC bombing and that was mostly a lone wolf.

                    For decades it has been know that these “right wing” groups are heavily armed

                    BUT their posture is entirely defensive.
                    They are not attacking anyone.

                    They are DEFENSIVELY armed.

                    They are waiting for the government to attack them.

                    If society collapses they are waiting for those who did not prepare to come after them.

                    They are not going to leave their compounds and cabins and come out and kill blacks or anyone else.

                    1. OAKLAND, Calif. — An Air Force sergeant suspected of killing a Santa Cruz County sheriff’s sergeant will be charged, along with a Millbrae man, in the fatal shooting of a federal security officer last month in downtown Oakland, federal officials said Tuesday.

                      Steven Carrillo, who was charged last week in the killing of Damon Gutzwiller, the sheriff’s sergeant, was aided by 30-year-old Robert Justus, of Millbrae, in the killing of 53-year-old federal security officer David Patrick Underwood, officials said. Justus drove a white van and acted as the getaway driver in the May 29 Oakland shooting, officials said.

                      Officials said Carrillo harbored a hatred of law enforcement and had ties to a right-wing Boogaloo group that believes a second American Civil War is coming soon.

                      Underwood, a 53-year-old Pinole resident, was guarding the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building in Oakland amid protests nearby over police brutality and the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The white van was captured on a surveillance video, officials said, which revealed that the gunman had slid open the van’s side door to fire the weapon.

                      The FBI has determined right wing terrorism as the deadliest in the US over the last several years.

                    2. Sorry John but McVeigh was no “lone wolf”

                      Boogerloos are not anything like the racist bank robber gang he associated with nor the 80s guys they were imitating

                      this tiny handful of boogerloos are just anarchists of a different flavor

                      all the fruits and nuts roll out of hiding when chaos is unleashed. it is a destabilization campaign organized from above, that is the overall detectable pattern, mobilizing black discontent and white guilt, to stir things up and undermine trump before the election. simple as that. bought and paid for by soros and the silicon valley crew

                    3. The operative word with McVeigh was Mostly.

                      Nichols is the only other person convicted and it remains unlear how much he knew.

                2. dont worry, there’s not going to be any “race war” against blacks. right now the capitalist oligarchs have only harassing middle class white people in their sights. to crush the middle class rebellion against globalism and “free trade” outsourcing to China that has made them so rich, by crushing the supposed champion

                  and “wars” never emerge by accident. they are always planned. this is exactly opposite to what a lot of socalled “history professors” teach but you know the old saying:

                  “those who cannot do…..”

                  1. Mr. K:

                    Don’t be so sure. The Right is full of manpower and arms. They just need a charismatic leader and then it’s on and likely off very quickly.

                    1. Mespo,

                      guns and soldiers dont organize themselves. there is always leadership. there is no such thing as “leaderless resistance” and the bigger the struggle the more the necessity of it.

                      if you look at really intense ethnic wars within the past 30 some years, two stand out

                      Bosnia

                      Rwanda

                      i studied both and in both instances there were state actors acting behind both sides.

                      Rwanda is often suggested as being some sort of spontaneously emerging fight, but it actually wasnt. read this book, very interesting

                      https://www.amazon.com/dp/0099478935/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

                      right now all the money is on the side of BLM etc. there is virtually no serious money or professional skill whatsoever on the side of run down, hated, perpetually blamed white folks,. white folks have been programmed to avoid thinking as a group from birth. the only white people who get over this are usually the guys in jail who don’t want to spend the whole time locked up in protective custody and so find their ability to finally cooperate through absolute necessity.

                    2. Mr. K:

                      Mr. K and enigma are spot on. The real enemies aren’t the races but the puppet masters who foster this racial hatred for profit or as enigma says the sideline dwellers waiting on the spoils. Wonder what would happen if we just quit playing their game, taxed the Hell out of them and went about our merry way as allies rather than antagonists?

                    3. not happening the entire posture of the armed right – from the fringe all the way through to the middle is defensive – “don’t tread on me”.

                      There is about zero possibitly of organized armed agression for the right.
                      Even lone wolves are rare.

                      Even the wack jobs like the Bundy’s, Koresch, Randy Weaver do not agress.

                      The fully expect the feds to come to them – and they are rarely disappointed.

                      If CHAZ was right wingers, it would have been overrun by tanks already.

                  2. There is a record of people (Dylann Roof, Charles Manson, and others) trying to start them. I can’t guarantee that the only response will be to proay for the killer like the South Carolina congregation did for Dylann Roof. Any violent response to getting murdered will open the floodgates for those awaiting the opportunity.

                    1. enigma:
                      Exactly, we are seeing scouting missions at the protests now. The protests are a mixture of dumb kids, petty criminals and middle-aged white women with an attitude. That’s lambs to the slaughter for a trained small militia. Cops could not react so fast.

                    2. Psychopaths are incapable of leading others. Some sociopaths are actually good at it. Roof and Manson were psychopaths.

                      Enigma, i am not going to get into any hot conversations about race war with blacks. Mespo is right if it actually happened it would not go well for blacks. To elaborate on this as a white person, is to engage in self soothing fantasy. because blacks are not an enemy to be feared. They are not even an enemy, not as a group. this is the fallacy of almost all white racist thinking. black americans as a group are not very powerful. burning and looting in the streets is violent, but that is a superficial form of power.

                      Look at China, the PRC. 70 years and only one war, a border war with Vietnam, which the PRC basically lost. Their power is not the power of violence, it is the power of culture, cooperation, leadership, and ethnocentrism. Yes, definitely they are very “ethnocentric.”

                      I know who my enemies are and in spite of my relative dislike for baggy pants hoodlums and ghetto miscreants, they are not my true enemies. Not even Xi Jinpeng all his CCP are my enemy. They are a foreign rival, a danger, but not an enemy.

                      My true enemies almost all wear the white skin and have US passports and bank accounts, bigger than Donald Trumps. The rest of the people who harry us just work for them.

                      This is a dangerous position white folks find ourselves in, and we need to stop with the self-abnegation and apologizing to BLM antagonists, but also realize that black folks are not actually an enemy to be feared, not as a group. I say this with no special affection for black people. I am not a person who is apologizing for anything. I just refuse to consider black folks as a group, as an enemy, not even after watching 2 weeks of blacks burning and looting and so forth. This is petty compared to the cunning of the oligarchy, and it was organized and set in motion by that oligarchy. this is part of a planned destabilization campaign prepared over years by the likes of Geo Soros who finds in Trump a new target. but his design is wider than Trump. Sure, a lot of other plutocrats are on board with him and have a special hate for Trump, but if Trump goes, bully us, middle American white guys, will still remain as a strategic aim of theirs.

                      To think in groups, you have to get past appearances. Sure, I could whip that four eyed geek Bill Gates. Sure he is white. He would not be able to roll me in an alley.
                      But he is a mastermind of cunning and force

                      The big strong black guy who can beat two cops down and take their taser? Like that guy who got shot? He is scary, he probably could kick my butt, however, he is just one person.

                      All politics requires thinking in groups. All the political leadership in America, wants us to misunderstand groups. Each in different ways. Even Trump, my guy, wants us to misunderstand some things too. I am waiting for Trump to start calling out financial capitalists who have planned his failure in November. He is probably afraid of them. For good reason.

                      Now when Trump starts naming them every day, then i will know he is serious. Right now i wonder

                      Did you notice that it was about 3 weeks ago they threatened to break up Twitter with antitrust law about when all this kicked off? Yeah, Twitter is the tool of Jack Dorsey and he has poured tankers of fuel on this fire. Let Trump go after Dorsey if he really wants to win, break him, by any means necessary, and then we will know he is for real. Right now he looks to me like he may be content to run off into the sunset and retire.

                    3. There’s a lot in there we could agree on. I’m not concerned about Dylann Roof who couldn’t lead anyone or even Charles Manson who had devoted followers. They simply said out loud what others don’t admit to each other. There isn’t a scenario I can imagine where black people win a race war in America. The ones to be afraid of are the ones not involved in the fighting but sitting on the sidelines waiting to take all the spoils.

                    4. There is zero possibility of a race war in the US.

                      There is almost no one right or left with that in their heads.

                      That is a stupid pipe dream of long dead neo nazis.

                    5. Manson is a nut, and not on the right.

                      Roof is more of the typical schizophrenic – they pretty much always adopt some warped ideology – but their defining characteristic is nuts, not the ideology.

                      Quite often the ideology they pick up is mishmash – the el paso shooter was anti-immigrant and also an eco-terrorist. They are nuts, their ideologies do not have to make sense. They are not actually driven by ideology, They are driven by being nuts.

                    6. There are no floodgates.

                      All those lone wolves that have acted that you have cited are NUTS.
                      There is not an army of them in waiting.

                      There is an army of armed right wingers. But they are not going to initiate any serious action. They will wait for the fight to come to them.

                      They will defend their homes, or their camps.
                      And they will likely do so with sufficient skill and violence that if you are not a marine unit you are not taking them out.

                      But they are not coming to town to start a race war with blacks.

                      Blacks are NOT their enemies – most are not white supremcists.
                      They are not waiting for a race war.
                      They are waiting for the government to come get them.

                      Some are religious – Koresch, weaver, the Bundy’s
                      They are waiting for armagedon.

                      Regardless they are waiting for it to come to them.

                      Their model is Masada, Not the american revolution.

                    7. I’m sure the relatives of those killed by right wing extremists – the most deadly variety in the US over the last several years – take comfort in knowing that their killers were one of multiple “lone wolves”, some inspired by the President.

                      GIven the paramilitary pretenders posting here regularly – mespo, kurtz, antonio – as well as others like John having wet pants over Antifa, the one cop killing we know about during protests was p[robably righ wing, is just an inconvenient fact they’ll ignore while singing their narrative.

                      OAKLAND, Calif. — An Air Force sergeant suspected of killing a Santa Cruz County sheriff’s sergeant will be charged, along with a Millbrae man, in the fatal shooting of a federal security officer last month in downtown Oakland, federal officials said Tuesday.

                      Steven Carrillo, who was charged last week in the killing of Damon Gutzwiller, the sheriff’s sergeant, was aided by 30-year-old Robert Justus, of Millbrae, in the killing of 53-year-old federal security officer David Patrick Underwood, officials said. Justus drove a white van and acted as the getaway driver in the May 29 Oakland shooting, officials said.

                      Officials said Carrillo harbored a hatred of law enforcement and had ties to a right-wing Boogaloo group that believes a second American Civil War is coming soon.

                      Underwood, a 53-year-old Pinole resident, was guarding the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building in Oakland amid protests nearby over police brutality and the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The white van was captured on a surveillance video, officials said, which revealed that the gunman had slid open the van’s side door to fire the weapon.

                    8. “I’m sure the relatives of those killed by right wing extremists – the most deadly variety in the US over the last several years – take comfort in knowing that their killers were one of multiple “lone wolves”, some inspired by the President”

                      So much for your credibility.

                      Please give me a single demonstrable right wing extremist killer ?

                      First as I said before – these guys are near universally paranoid schizophrenics.
                      Are you going to claim that the Unibomber was right wing ?
                      What about Joseph Stack ?
                      Jared Loughner’s “ideology” was a gramar nazi – is that left or right.

                      Here is the shooters of the past 6 months from the LA times.

                      The El Paso shooter was an anti-immigrant eco terrorist – right or left ?
                      Are you saying the trans teen highland park shooter was right wing ?
                      What about the black hebrew israleite shooter last year ?
                      Conner Betts self described as a leftist.
                      DeWayne Craddock certainly a right wing nut – go look him up.
                      Gary Martin – like DeWayne is black – but I guess he is another of those rare black white supremecists.

                      About half of those identified as Right wing have turned out to be left wing.
                      Pretty much all of them are nuts.

                      There is only one in the past 4 years I recall that had even the remotest connection to Trump and he not only did not kill anyone he did not intend to, he was amped on steriods and sent fake bombs.

                      But I can list atleast half a dozen that cited Bernie on their SM.

                      How much evidence do you need before you let go of this stupid Trump inspired right wing nut nonsense.

                      Calling these guys merely nuts is being generous to the left.
                      There is a larger frequency of leftist nonsense in their social media than right.
                      Several were explicitly anti-Trump.

                    9. Both the Pittsburgh and El Paso shooters were inspired by Trump and the FBI lists white supremacists at the top of national threats..

                      “The FBI has elevated its assessment of the threat posed by racially-motivated violent extremists in the U.S. to a “national threat priority” for fiscal year 2020, FBI director Christopher Wray said Wednesday. He said the FBI is placing the risk of violence from such groups “on the same footing” as threats posed to the country by foreign terrorist organizations such as ISIS and its sympathizers.

                      “Not only is the terror threat diverse — it’s unrelenting,” Wray said at an oversight hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

                      Racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, or domestic terrorists motivated by racial or religious hatred, make up a “huge chunk” of the FBI’s domestic terrorism investigations, Wray said in statements before the Senate Homeland Security Committee last November. The majority of those attacks are “fueled by some type of white supremacy,” he said.”

                    10. “Both the Pittsburgh and El Paso shooters were inspired by Trump”
                      Here is what the El Paso shooter says about that”
                      “My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I putting this here because some people will blame the President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that.”

                    11. Anon, btb, Jan F. and multiple other aliases of his, troll this blog. Not only does he use one name but has been adequately shown to use more than one alias at the same time. He has been caught talking to himself. Other attributes of this troll are, at least in the past, some women were not safe from his abusive behavior and no one was safe from his four letter words. He previously was very proud of the fact he could do his own taxes. That can demonstrate a low achiever.

                      Similar proofs were raised with regards to at least one of the shooters, but Anon runs away like a coward from the provided proof but will return saying the same things in a future thread.

                    12. When you make false allegations you do so at the expense of your credibility.

                      If BTB wishes to post lots of false allegations. that provides the opportunity to vet each one. And when they fail to live up to his claims, that errodes not just his credibility but that of everyone like him.

                    13. “If BTB wishes to post lots of false allegations … that errodes not just his credibility but that of everyone like him.”

                      Consider my statement a reminder to the blog.

                    14. “Both the Pittsburgh and El Paso shooters were inspired by Trump ”

                      Wikipedia on the Pittsburgh shooter

                      His posts included criticism of US President Donald Trump for being a “globalist, not a nationalist”[78] and for supposedly being surrounded by and controlled by Jews

                      So that is 0 for 2.

                      You suffer from beleiving the nonsense that the left and the media sell.

                    15. “The FBI has elevated its assessment of the threat posed by racially-motivated violent extremists in the U.S. to a “national threat priority” for fiscal year 2020″

                      This would be the same FBI that sold us the Steele Dossier ?

                      Regardless, look out your window into the real world.

                      You claimed these mass killers were all/mostly right wing.

                      I have not yet found one killer that is right wing.

                      You claimed they were trump inspired – even citing specific killers that were Trump inspired – yet BOTH say otherwise.

                      We have seen alot of racially motivated killing in the past couple of weeks.
                      that would be rioters – either BLM or Antifa – take you pick I do not care.

                      So you have been pretty much wrong by the numbers so far.

                      I can tie several to Sanders, one was clearly political and explicitly targeted republicans.

                      Yet in BTB world – these are ALL right wing and inspired by Trump.

                      I guess in BTB land evidence is not necescary

                    16. John , your quotes from the anti-immigrant El Paso shooter must be true, and of course Trump only provided inspiration for him and the Pittsburgh killer for hatred of immigrants,
                      .
                      I think that’s a trait of right wing white supremacists, not Antifa or Bernie Bros – nice try.

                      By the way, here’s a list of thwarted terrorists plots since 2001 in which the FBI played a large role.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11

                    17. “John , your quotes from the anti-immigrant El Paso shooter must be true”
                      My quotes are accurate quotes. If you wish to argue that the El Paso and Pittsburg shooters are lying – go ahead, but that argument works for ALL mass shooters

                      Maybe the guy on steriods was really a biden supporter trying to frame Trump ?
                      I doubt it, but that is where things go when you expect me to play this “they really did not mean what they said” game.

                      There is not a single mass killer who was a trump supporter or claimed inspiration from Trump or republicans. ZERO. There is not a single one that is clearly right wing rather than schitophrenic or some similar disorder. There are atleast an equal number of equally mentally disturbed killers who could as easily be called “left wing”.

                      Put simply you can accept that these guys are nuts – and therefore their universally confused political nonsense means nothing – and there is no right wing killers.
                      Ir you can claim that what they said politically means something – and more are left than right. There is no way you can reach majority right wing.

                      I do not care how you choose to interpret what mentially unhealthy people say – so long as you do so consistently – otherwise you are just a hypocrit.

                      “and of course Trump only provided inspiration for him” Not what he said

                      “I think that’s a trait of right wing white supremacists, not Antifa or Bernie Bros – nice try.”

                      Contra your nonsense – 76% of voters do not want “open borders” – that includes lots of democrats.

                      Most libertarians actually support open borders – with the elimination of minimum wage, and social safetynet programs. Because otherwise you crweate a massive moral hazard.
                      There are more people in the world who would immigrate to the US if they could do so easily than live here now. How do you think it would work out of the US jumped to 650M people in a decade ? Can you make our systems work as they are ?

                      Most people are not stupid and grasp that there must be some give somewhere.

                      Put simply nearly every american is anti-immigrant – by your standards.
                      Must of Trump’s immigration policies have majority support, some has super majority support.

                      Regardless, I look forward to sane immigration reform from democrats.
                      Do you think we will see that before hell freezes over ?

                      If you are going to decide right wing and left wing based on immigration – 76% of the country is right wing.

                      “By the way, here’s a list of thwarted terrorists plots since 2001 in which the FBI played a large role.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11

                      Did you read your own list ? There is one KKK member and One Democratic socialist.
                      Pretty much the entire rest of the list is Jihadi’s

                      Why am I supposed to Trust the FBI ?

                      I do not know most of these cases – but I know many of the “unsuccessful” attacks during the Bush administration that were supposed to be Jihadi’s was the FBI framing muslim kids to make it look like they were doing something.

                      Why should I beleive any of the rest are any better ?

                      Regardless you have provided no credible evidence of any sweeping ideologically motivated terror campaign.

                3. The 14th amendment was specifically to provide an individual right to guns to blacks in the south (as well as all other rights) that the state could not infringe on.

                  You are personally free to own or not own a gun as you wish.

                  No the 2nd amendment was not about slave patrols. The “militia” language in the 2nd amendment was added by southern states because they did NOT want individuals having weapons in their homes for fear that slaves would get them. Southerners were deathly afraid of armed slave uprisings. The number of slaves in the south was large, the number of slave owners was quite small. Those that did not own slaves were not reliable supporters of either slaves or slave owners.
                  Neither the north nor the south framed the civil war as about slavery – even though it was, because northerners would not fight and die to end slavery and southerners would not fight and die to preserve it.

                  You do not just get to make up history.

                  1. That’s false. The South seceded because of slavery – read the state proclamations and those of national leaders in the Senate. Secession was an unacceptable hair trigger to the North – a predictable reaction fully anticipated by the South which began by attacking federal military facilities.

                    1. I will give you that the South made this about Slavery – but they still had to sell the fight to their people and slavery was not sufficient to get the poor whites of the south to fight.

                      Very few people in the south at any time owned slaves.

                      The southerners who fought and died in the Civil war were not fighting for slavery – that meant nothing to them.
                      the closest that they possibly came to concerns about slavery was the possibilty of free slaves competing for their jobs.

                      The southern attacks on Federal forts was a huge mistake. There was no basis for federal government action prior to that.

                    2. John, the Germans on the Eastern Front were not all or mostly anti-semites. Interesting but irrelevant.

                    3. “Germans on the Eastern Front were not all or mostly anti-semites. Interesting but irrelevant.”

                      Perhaps they weren’t but like BLM and Antifa they terrorized the nation and the people didn’t act against that terror.

              2. I hope that right wing groups do NOT rise up.

                The more likely scenario – which can happen quite fast is that increasing lawlessness crosses the threshold and our value of security and safety exceeds our value if these protesters.

                One of the core tenants of AntiFa is that violence brings chaos which will birth utopia.

                But history tells us that violence brings chaos and births Fascism or some other form of totalitarianism.

                The more violent things become the less people will care about racism and the more they will care about safety.

                In the midst of violence and anarchy few will care about police shooting unarmed black men if they restore safety

        3. Enigmainblack.com, “You may not have noticed but there is a pattern.” The only “pattern” I see is picking and choosing to only protest black criminals killed by cops, not black-on-black crime or other crimes that truly form a pattern. Look at the stats kept on Washington Post, for example. More whites are killed by blacks, whether we like that fact or not. Applies to civilians and cops.

          1. Protest whatever you want.

            But do not lie about the facts.

            There is no evidence of systemic racism.

            1. “There is no evidence of systemic racism.”

              Systemic racism is built into the Constitution, the Electoral College, the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court, and certainly local and state law. Your inability to see or acknowledge it is based on its non-applicability to yourself.

              1. they took the 2/3 stuff out of the Constitution ya know. and the 13 amendment abolished slavery, and the fourteenth has the due process and equal protection clauses. actually the current Constitution as it stands amended, is a very poor example of this supposed “systemic racism” against blacks. it is neutral as to race, on paper. and that includes the second amendment.

                now the electoral college does favor geography over population density. you can call that racism if you like but again it is facially neutral on race

                a truly “systemic racism” would need to actually encode explicit forms of privilege for race, not all this implicit or cultural stuff.

                one might argue that the ancient principle of “jus sanguinis,” or ancestry based citizenship, as it is practiced in some countries around the world if not most, could be “systemic racism” but not in the US. under current law anybody born outside the US who has one American parent, is an american citizen, black white or whatever race or color.

                defined: “jus sanguinis (English: /dʒʌs ˈsæŋɡwɪnɪs/ juss SANG-gwin-iss, /jus/ yoos, Latin: [juːs ˈsaŋɡwɪnɪs]; “right of blood”) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is determined or acquired by the nationality or ethnicity of one or both parents.”

                  1. Enigma, I find your basic premise in that short essay plausible. i already granted the premise that the original constitution had concessions to slave holding states., that is not in dispute from me,

                    but it does not really address what i said

                    which was, that the constitution as amended, is not racist.

                    1. “We’ll have to agree to disagree. Just as the original Constitution was a set of compromises, so were the Amendments.”

                      Because you say so ?

                      What has that to do with anything ?

                      And you were wrong – the electoral college was not about slavery.

                      The entire structure of the constitution is to give veto power to as many different minorities as possible, so that the power of government could not be weilded absent buy in from nearly everyone.

                      Because government is force and you can not use force against others without justification, and one of the elements of justification is super majority support.

                    2. How can Turley stop this parade of babel? The Anonymous Letter matter was adequately addressed in the first 10-15 comments on Turley’s post 4 or 5 days ago. Yet the thread has now become an internet absurdity of mere annoying venting, psychological projection, pettiness and academic preening.

              2. “Systemic racism is built into the Constitution,”

                “the Electoral College,”
                When the constitution was written – blacks could not vote.
                The electoral college had nothing to do with race.
                Even today the electoral college diminishes the political power of geographically concentrated political majorities. That is all it does.
                There is no race component.
                Further any group can choice to gain advantage by moving.

                “the 2nd Amendment”
                The 14th amendment explicitly imposed the 2nd amendment on the states.
                The purpose for doing so as stated by the authors of the 14th amendment was to allow newly freed blacks to own guns for their own protection.
                For the next century southern whites sought to take guns from blacks.
                Civil rights leaders routinely carried guns.

                “the Supreme Court, and certainly local and state law.”

                You might as well say all government is racist.
                How is the Supreme Court Racist ?
                A specific decision can be racist.
                A specific set of justices can be racist.
                For extended periods of time the court can be racist.

                But the institutions themselves are not structurally racist – or the concept of self government is structurally racist.

                Absolutely there HAS be systemic racism in the US government in the past.

                There might even be some racist laws that remain – so find them and remove them.

                1. “The electoral college had nothing to do with race.”
                  The Electoral College had everything to do with race, it was an instrument to ensure Slave Holding states couldn’t be overruled by the rest of the nation. It’s whole purpose was to protect the institution of slavery. If you don’t understand that, no purpose in engaging in conversation/

                  1. I could grant that premise enigma
                    but even if it had that function and apparently failed at it since slavery is now illegal

                    now where does the conversation go? apparently the criticism is “moot” as we say in the law

                    1. The electoral college at present gives more power to predominantly white states and diluted that of states with large populations and a large percentage of minority voters. A vote in Wyoming has far greater weight than one in New York or California. Also, Washington DC has a greater population than Vermont or Wyoming yet has no Senators and their Congressional representative doesn’t get to cast a vote. That sounds like disenfranchisement to me. Take a guess as to why Republicans are opposed to letting D.C. have representation? In this case it doesn’t have to be about race but about power. They’re willing to ignore 700,000 mostly black voters because they most likely wouldn’t vote Republican. If someone tried to take the same representation away from Wyoming, there’d be a revolution.

                    2. “The electoral college at present gives more power to predominantly white states”
                      There are 48 predominately white states. Hawaii has always been majority non-white.
                      CA flipped to majority minority in 2014. All other states are majority white.

                      “and diluted that of states with large populations”
                      Yup they chose to do that deliberately
                      At the same time in the house of represenatives those states with large populations have more power.

                      “A vote in Wyoming has far greater weight than one in New York or California.”
                      Depends on what for. A vote anywhere in the US for representative has the same weight. A vote for president anywhere in the US has the same weight – the electoral colleges votes of a state are based on that states population.
                      But a vote for Senator in Montana has more weight that a vote for senator in CA.

                      “Also, Washington DC has a greater population than Vermont or Wyoming yet has no Senators and their Congressional representative doesn’t get to cast a vote.”
                      Yup, and still people choose to live in DC. They do not have to. They have never had to.

                      I know how to solve the propblem! Lets move 2/3 of the federal govenrment OUT of DC.
                      Why are we dumping billions of dollars stolen from the rest of the country to make several DC zip codes the wealthiest in the country.

                      DC produces nothing. It is not Silicon Valley, it is not detroit, it is not Iowa.

                      “That sounds like disenfranchisement to me.”
                      Are DC residents obligated to live in DC ? Is there a wall around it ?
                      Do they need visa;s to go elsewhere ?

                      “Take a guess as to why Republicans are opposed to letting D.C. have representation?”
                      Who cares ? It has always been that way.

                      “In this case it doesn’t have to be about race but about power.”
                      So what ?
                      That is what the constitution was all about. Deliberately making the US a republic instead of a democracy. Our founders were smart enough to grasp that democracy was a really horrible form of government.

                      “They’re willing to ignore 700,000 mostly black voters because they most likely wouldn’t vote Republican.”
                      DC is not mostly black. It is 47.1% black and blacks are moving out. They have declined by 2% in 6 years.

                      “If someone tried to take the same representation away from Wyoming, there’d be a revolution.”
                      No one has taken anything from DC residents. They have never been a state.
                      DC was created that way, you do not have to live in DC if you do not like it – many dont
                      But many people choose to live in DC anyway.

                      Life gives you choices – that you can make freely.
                      It does not however guarantee that you will get the choices you would prefer.

                      We are all free.
                      We are not all equal.
                      We can not all be equal.
                      Attempting to make us all equally will make us all unfree.

                      The american revolution was about freedom.
                      The french revolution was about equality.

                      If you can not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.

                      Why am I pretty sure you would be operating the guillotine – until it was your turn.

                    3. Maybe you’re right Enigma. It comforts me if it’s so. I do live in flyover land after all. And I openly dislike coastal megapolises.

                      Because right now I think obviously the Democrat party leadership has green lighted riot, looting, arson, and violence against whites across the nation, because they want to push a destabilization campaign to unseat Trump. Following on 3 and half years of foot dragging, sabotage, and sedition.

                      So, it’s all very dirty already. Lucky if that will be difficult due to the electoral college, which seems like a pretty simple advantage, and one that has given some geographic stability to this nation as a contiguous whole in the lower 48. Keep on criticizing it, help lay this out for the people who are too dense to get how this may be working at this present time.

                      Power comes from groups, organized groups. There are a multitude of factions in America. All in competition, and sometimes coooperating in one sphere and sometimes not in another. It’s not just two parties or two races but ten thousand factions. Things may be more complicated than you have come to believe. The situation two centuries or two decades ago, may be a different situation than we have now. For my part, i keep an open mind

                    4. Kurtz disqualifies himself with his stupid diatribes.

                      Must have fallen on his head.

                  2. “The Electoral College had everything to do with race, it was an instrument to ensure Slave Holding states couldn’t be overruled by the rest of the nation.”

                    What a black and white answer (pun intended). Everything in life according to Enigma is black and white. I don’t pretend to have The Answer by Enigma though there is significant history I provide below. Sometimes things lie in between black and white. That is called grey.

                    I think the popular vote was considered earlier and was defeated. There were good reasons (other than the slavery issue) in the minds of those voting not to have a popular vote. You have heard some of those reasons before. The strange thing is what follows. The idea of electors was brought for a vote. I believe it made no difference regarding power between the north and the south. My understanding is that both the popular vote and the electoral vote at the time was 40% for the south plus one or two percentage points additionally. That means the Southern states lose either way by essentially the same margins.

                    An even stranger thing happened when one looks at how the states voted. My understanding is that 3 states voted ‘nay’ and they were N. Carolina, S. Carolina and Georgia. Weren’t they 3 slave holding states?

                    Based on that information I can’t see why Enigma is so sure of himself. Things are not always black and white. Thinking they are promotes racism.

                    1. There was only one facet of the constitution regarding voting that was racist.
                      And that was that slaves could not vote.

                      In every other area of voting race either had nothing to do with it or southerners were trying to use their ineligable to vote blacks to gain voting power.

                      Pretty much the opposite of enigma’s claim.

                      Not only does he see racism everywhere, he sees it only one way.

                      The electoral college was obviously not racist. There were very few free blacks who might vote. The electoral college was not created to dilute minority votes.
                      They did not need to, few minorities could vote.

                  3. “The electoral college had nothing to do with race.”
                    “The Electoral College had everything to do with race, it was an instrument to ensure Slave Holding states couldn’t be overruled by the rest of the nation. It’s whole purpose was to protect the institution of slavery. If you don’t understand that, no purpose in engaging in conversation/”

                    Nope. The electoral college was to protect states like Vermont. New Hampshire Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticutt.

                    The “slavery compromise” was the decision to count each slave as 3/5 of a person.

                    The south actually ended up with more political heft a decade after the civil war.
                    Blacks now counted as a full person, and after a decade southerners figured out how to disenfranchise them.
                    So the “3/5” compromise actually hurt the south in the electoral college.

                    Math, logic and history are not your forte.

                    I am sorry that your teachers failed to properly educate you.

                    We have done an abysmal job over the past 40 years.

                    That is the core to most of our strife today.

                    So many people are so clueless about:
                    History – particularly american history. You have been taught all the flaws of the country while completely missing that for 250 years this country has been the beacon of freedom for the world – perfect ? No.

                    But you are fixated on slavery – some of Europe eliminated Slavery before the US.
                    But almost none of the rest of the world. There are still countries today where slavery continues, and mean countries where it was legal well into the 20th century.

          2. You need to be more specific with your alleged statistics. White on white crime closely mirrors black on black crime. More white people get killed because there are more white people. Make a valid point and I’ll be happy to respond. I will bring statistics on housing and labor discrimination and the impact of laws intended to hurt black people and other minorities so bring good information.

            1. im just wondering what you make of the fact that black men are a small percent of the population but make a plurality of all homicides.

              in fact black people as a whole are the perpetrators of a majority of homicides, year on year for a long time

              give it a swing at explaining that away Enigma. surely you can think of something. if not, just fall back on the premise that it’s all whitey’s fault in the first place.

                1. give you? harvest them from the FBI crime statistics as i have done. the adjectives i used have meaning and can be verified or disproved from that resource.

                  1. it wont take long to find them on google or various other people trying to spin and massage them one way or another. im confident the assertions I made are well within the facts. but please, go ahead, dig into it, and see what you think. and would like to share. I would welcome to read your thoughts if you have something new to say about them.

                    I fear that we will encounter however, a difficulty that people often find frustrating:

                    stereotypes often find their genesis in valid generalizations taken from facts

                    1. Squeeky – that is funny, however the Tuskeegee Airmen never lost a bomber on a bomb run. They were very, very good. Again systemic racism.

                    2. @PaulCS

                      I know, I was just being silly. But the Tuskogee Airman should be an inspiration. They didn’t quit because the white guys gave ’em a bunch of crap. They did their job, and they should proud of the the job they did.

                      I wish more young black men today would do that. Do what they re supposed to do and screw all the alleged racism. I see black guys who do that all the time. They have dignity, they get married, and they try to do right. That is the only thing that will work in the meantime, Drop down your bucket, as Bucket T. Washington said!

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    1. How about this. Pay me for my time and I’ll explain it. Otherwise, I’m off the clock.

                      Sensing that is not on the table, perhaps you would like to discover it on your own? But i suspect you konw this as well as I do.

                      Or you could just not pretend that I am well within the range of provable fact and start with blaming it on racism and structural whatever.

                      Or just cut to the chase, call me some names and I will let you have the last word on it.

                    2. enigma – what about the Buffalo Soldiers who are revered here in Arizona for protecting us from Indian raids. Is that systemic racism?

                    3. enigma – I can only speak for Arizona, not for Texas. However, I do not a significant amount of black troops fought with the French troops during WWI.

                    4. enigma – they are famous here for the amount of Medals of Honor they won in the Indian Wars.

                    5. Often, America’s recollection of how they treated “heroes” is different than the reality. MLK now has a day after him and has people selectively quoting him that reviled him when he was alive. The Buffalo Soldiers may be famous, my question is, how were they treated” Same benefits as white soldiers?

                    6. enigma – for a while they were the only troops out here. The officers were white, of course.

                    7. “In WW I black soldiers were mostly assigned to menial tasks like diggiging latrines,”

                      Enigma, there was a lot more racism then and we had a Democrat President, Woodrow Willson. He did a lot of unneccessary damage and pushed things in the wrong direction just like the rioters and BLM are doing today.

                    8. Allen – Woodrow Wilson segregated the troops again. They will remain that way until Truman desegregates them. Thanks Democrats.

                    9. Paul, Enigma looks at the portion of the truth that suits his agenda. He forgets about everything else that takes place. Earlier he claimed that the electoral college was created to protect slavery. He forgets all the reasons for the electoral college and forgets that with the popular vote the south would have gotten around 41% and with the electoral vote the south would have gotten around 41%. No difference but I believe the three states voting against the electoral college were N. Carolina, S. Carolina and Georgia. Maybe I am wrong and maybe there are more reasons but to Enigma everything is black and white where he only looks at one side of the coin.

                    10. These are generally known facts – the burden is yours.

                      You are also the one here who has been demonstrably poor at grasping reality.

                      You still have not figured out that the steele dossier was a Russian fraud, That Putin favored Clinton, that the FBI was lying to the courts, and that the whole trump russia nonsense which was obviously stupid to begin with died completely BEFORE comey was fired. That the whole mueller investigation was illegal.

                      You are still selling this horde’s of white supremecists are coming for you.
                      If you are killed by a mass shooter the odds are about 50:50 that are islamic.
                      Of the rest most are mentally disturbed with idiotic political ideaization.

                      You own link to thwarted terrorist attacks. was ISIS almost entirely,

                      And you want to push other people to justify their claims ?

                      Yours have consistently contradicted you.

                      And when you have not provided sources – I have had to look them up only to find what I knew from the start – you were wrong.

                      You clearly do not check your own information.

                      The burden is on you, atleast until you are not near 100% wrong.

                2. Google is your friend. You are unlikely to believe others, you need to find out this stuff on your own.

              1. “How about this. Pay me for my time and I’ll explain it. Otherwise, I’m off the clock.”

                – John D. Kurtz, Esq.
                ________________

                You’ve stumbled into the truth.

                It’s “free stuff” that matters.

                “Free stuff” of any sort is an entitlement for the privileged.

        4. Speaking of “deserving” or “meriting” death is maybe the use of wrong words. If some dude who likes to climb El Capistrano freehand, without any safety gear, comes crashing down to his doom, did he “deserve” death just for being a rock climber??? That is a little hard to swallow. BUT, maybe if you look at it as being foreseeable, then that makes more sense. Floyd did not deserve to die for the $20 bill, but he most likely died of fentanyl, meth, morphine and pot. Like the rock climber, he died doing something he loved, and while a shame, he kinda asked for it. 64,000 people died of drug overdoses last year and everyone of them was aware of the dangers and did it anyway.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. ” but he most likely died of fentanyl, meth, morphine and pot.”
            That guy with his knee on his throat for almost 9 minutes while he begged for his life had nothing to do with it then? Quite the rationalization.

            1. Not ‘knee on the throat’ but ‘knee on the muscle on the side of the neck.’ Such a holddown does not interfere with breathing. Nor does it compress veins or arteries. A more likely source of not being able to breathe may have been the officer kneeling on his back compressing his chest. Or he may have been another suspect crying wolf. Or he may have been having a reaction to fentanyl which causes shortness of breath.

              1. or the covid could have made his lungs weak, etc. fine. but nonetheless what was the necessity for the knee on the neck for the subdued and cuffed suspect. there was none. this was a flawed and negligent police incident and i find no need to defend chauvin. let his lawyer do that.

                i have tried to point out that police go overboard sometimes, it happens to white suspects too, and all this protesting, rioting, and looting, etc. has almost nothing to do with tempering police abuses, it is about 99% just about bullying white people and cops in general.

                has anybody mentioned the police abuse of asset forfeitures, for example? this used to be a “thing” that police critics talked about. i wasted my breath on it plenty. NOT ONE WORD of that from the “protesters.”

                and dont get me started on waco and ruby ridge. police should do their jobs and be held accountable for gross negligence and crimes of their own. did lon horiuchi ever get tried for murdering unarmed, baby holding vicki weaver in cold blood FROM AFAR with his sniper rifle? NO. he was actually charged with manslaughter but CHARGES WERE DROPPED

            2. Im going to say something at the risk of sounding moderate. i wouldnt want you guys to get the wrong idea about that.

              but personally, i found the arrest of george floyd to be flawed and negligent police work at best. i have no problem with them being charged and given a fair trial, and whatever the jury decides is fine by me.

              so long as it’s not just locking him up because of external pressure that is.

              chauvin is not my cause. my cause is law and order and conditions that let me thrive and survive in society. incompetent police like chauvin undermine that

              I won’t call it racism however, one of the four cops was black, light skinned, and one was Vietnamese American, i find no proof for all this racism stuff

              now one more thing. choke holds have a place in policing, even though this chauvin guy failed badly in his duties. deleting them from the playbook is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. if you can’t subdue a suspect humanely they may just get shot

              i dont really like this particular knee hold stuff, it comes from Israeli tactics which are obviously from the west bank, where they have to keep hands free for shooting the rest of the pack. there was no pack running with floyd, i can’t see how it was necessary at all to kneel on his neck that long. really pathetic incident even if old george floyd was hopped up on dope and all. that’s besides the point.

              now i am a lot less sympathetic about the big black guy yesterday at mcdonalds who was about to be cuffed for DUI then he sprung on the cops, beat up the two cops took shoots from their taser, then stole the taser, and got shot with a gun., i dont know what these guys were supposed to do. this one seems different to me.

              I know these nuances hardly matter to people in general, but maybe they should

              1. “now i am a lot less sympathetic about the big black guy yesterday at mcdonalds who was about to be cuffed for DUI then he sprung on the cops, beat up the two cops took shoots from their taser, then stole the taser, and got shot with a gun., i dont know what these guys were supposed to do. this one seems different to me.”

                That’s the Fox News version of events. It was a Wendy’s not that that matters. Perhaps you should watch the District Attorney laying out the case. What he wasn’t supposed to do was shoot him twice in the back. They had his car, his license, his address, where was he going to go? Would you be in fear for your life from someone running from you and 18 ft away? Something I learned today, after a taser has been discharged twice (as happened in this case) it’s no longer effective. Shot twice in the back and you justify it. No risk of you sounding moderate.

          2. Squeeky Fromm, read the coroner’s report regarding the cause of death.

            Don’t just Make Stuff Up.

            ♏ )

            1. I have read the autopsy reports, and the one that counts said no signs asphixiation. Plus look at the level of drugs in his system. I said this early on, and now somebody else is saying it too. An excerpt:
              —————–
              These six facts are as follows:

              George Floyd was experiencing cardiopulmonary and psychological distress minutes before he was placed on the ground, let alone had a knee to his neck.
              The Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) allows the use of neck restraint on suspects who actively resist arrest, and George Floyd actively resisted arrest on two occasions, including immediately prior to neck restraint being used.
              The officers were recorded on their body cams assessing George Floyd as suffering from “excited delirium syndrome” (ExDS), a condition which the MPD considers an extreme threat to both the officers and the suspect. A white paper used by the MPD acknowledges that ExDS suspects may die irrespective of force involved. The officers’ response to this situation was in line with MPD guidelines for ExDS.
              Restraining the suspect on his or her abdomen (prone restraint) is a common tactic in ExDS situations, and the white paper used by the MPD instructs the officers to control the suspect until paramedics arrive.
              Floyd’s autopsy revealed a potentially lethal concoction of drugs — not just a potentially lethal dose of fentanyl, but also methamphetamine. Together with his history of drug abuse and two serious heart conditions, Floyd’s condition was exceptionally and unusually fragile.
              Chauvin’s neck restraint is unlikely to have exerted a dangerous amount of force to Floyd’s neck. Floyd is shown on video able to lift his head and neck, and a robust study on double-knee restraints showed a median force exertion of approximately approximately 105lbs.

              and:

              This level of fentanyl is dangerous. One review of fentanyl overdoses found a median amount of ng/mL in an overdose to be approximately 10 ng/mL:

              Despite the ubiquitous presence of multiple drugs in these decedents, the effects of fentanyl were evidently so strong that there were no statistical differences in the fentanyl level (mean and standard deviation) with or without the presence of these co-intoxicants. The range of fentanyl levels was wide, from 0.75 to 113.00 ng/mL, with an average of 9.96 ng/mL.

              https://medium.com/@gavrilodavid/why-derek-chauvin-may-get-off-his-murder-charge-2e2ad8d0911
              ————–

              There is a lot of info at the link, and several examples of deaths by EsDS with NO police restraint. You should read the whole thing.

              Personally, I think Floyd was already dying when the cops first got there.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

    2. It is ?
      Then you should be able to demonstrate that.

      The waves of intolerance running though this country today are not coming from the right.

      A few weeks ago lockdown protestors, went to state capitols – the appropriate place to petition government. They were armed with automatic weapons causing much foaming and frothing by the MSM and the left. They protested peacefully and they left. No buildings were burned, no rioting, no looting. no police cars trashed, no confrontations with anyone. No protestors get int he face of police and had to be pushed away. Nothing. The protestors were disprortionately small business owners, black, white, male female, hispanic. They got along with each other they got along with police.

      Decades ago it was southern democrat police cheifs sicing dogs and fire hoses on black protestors. If we are to accept that the police are systemically racist – that would have to be against blacks in cities run by democrats for 50 years or more, with democrat and usually black mayors, democrat and usually black city counsels, Democrat and usually black police cheifs and often with mostly black police forces.

      This is where you are finding the evidence of systemic racism ?
      It is certainly not from the right.

  11. Not just a good letter.An important one. Thank you for bringing attention to it. The recent Rayshard Brooks incident brings to the front the two issues at hand. 1: A transformed, more effective, and professional Law Enforcement. 2: A transformed citizenry, respectful of our laws and the people who enforce them. Only one of these is being represented by BLM, the protests and the “news” media. The evidence shows that neither are possible without both. Neither will be possible without the freedom to discuss ideas without fear of public, private or social reprisal.

  12. None of this is surprising. For years, including all of the Obama years, university faculty and many politicians whose vision does not go past the next election have tolerated and even encouraged the silencing of anyone with an opposing view. Disagree with President Obama? You are a racist. Things now are so bad that whomever wrote the letter felt he or she had to be anonymous because to argue perfectly reasonable things is not allowed if it deviates from the current party line. That will get you fired. That may even get you killed. And there will be dozens of wimpy anti-American fascist faculty members calling for your head and that of anyone who dares support you.

    For years, democrats have played with fire, encouraging true fascist like BLM and even Antifa to spew their hatred of all things America. These groups of thugs and spoiled brats are no different from the Taliban but no one dares challenge them conduct. Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and every major network among many others make it all sound so good, even praising those who have physically seized control of part of a city and chased the police away. Pandering is so easy when you have nothing on the line– when the fascists are nowhere near your neighborhood.

    Like Alice’s wonderland, the good cops who have to deal with a passed out drunk who breaks bad are condemned for shooting a criminal who was an obvious danger to them and society. Who else but a wild man would fight the police, grab a weapon and fire it at them? What did he think they would do? Or is this now acceptable behavior from someone if they happen to be black? The new rule for every pandering politician and police chief is that any black person can do whatever he or she wants to so long as the magic word “racism” is used. And, they can be assured that there will be many people, like the trolls on this blog, who hate conservatives and this country so much they will say that these weak people are true patriots.

    1. HLM:

      The guy was on Covid parolee and was afraid of going back to jail. That and the alcohol motivated the conduct that resulted in his death.

  13. When Truth and Reason “go against your values”, it means that Lies and Insanity are your values. Welcome to the Democratic Party!

  14. Ah the orthodoxy of the “tolerant”” Left. The only proper learned response is “F ‘em” — and a suit for violating civil rights.

  15. “An anonymous letter has been circulating, purportedly written by a @UCBHistory professor. We have no evidence that this letter was written by a History faculty member. We condemn this letter: it goes against our values as a department and our commitment to equity and inclusion.”

    Wow, I mean really, wow. How stupid are the people that wrote this. “it goes against our values as a department and our commitment to equity and inclusion.” I think they have proven that they have no values of equity and inclusion.

    Sad, truly sad. Do they not realize they are what they hate in others?

    1. In my lifetime the UCB left was protesting for free speech not enforced silence.

      What has happened to the left ?

        1. They were ideologues then. Regardless I have no problem with an idelogue – so long and the ideology works.

          The problem with the modern left is that they are postmodernist – that is a nihilist identity rather than class based Marxism.

          It concurrently asserts there is no truth while elevating the personal truth of the highest oppression ranked minority

  16. Imagine that! Tolerance . . what a concept! What ever happened to the notion of , ” I disagree with you but I respect your right to say it. “

  17. Excellent letter. I wish the writer the best of all worlds. 🙂

Comments are closed.