The Disappeared Ones: Osbourne and Others Show The Sheer Panic Of Facing Erasure

The public testimonial of Sharon Osbourne last week was abject, if not hysterical. Osbourne, 68, described how she “panicked, felt blindsided, got defensive & allowed my fear & horror” to control her comments. Osbourne had supported Piers Morgan, who stated that he did not believe Meghan Markle. In a tense interview, Osbourne became highly defensive (and rather rude) after Sheryl Underwood asked whether she was defending racism in supporting a friend. Osbourne asked her co-host to explain where Morgan’s criticism was racist and said she felt she was being put into “the electric chair.” Then the power was turned on as the Internet lit up with calls for her firing. After immediate “reflection,” Osbourne repeatedly professed her “deep respect & love for the black community” in saying that she will “continue to learn, listen and do better” in the future.  The important thing was that she hoped to have a future. Despite the apology, she is now under investigation by CBS and she has been declared “on hiatus” from the show.

The exchange between Osbourne and Underwood could have served a productive purpose in exploring the continuing difficulty in discussing race. That however is becoming increasingly rare, if not impossible. While many call for a national discussion of race, these controversies show how any frank discussion comes at considerable risk. I did not agree with Morgan’s comment in saying that everything Markle said was a lie and thought Osbourne reacted poorly to being asked about concerns over racism. Thus, I have no problem with the criticism of either Osbourne or Morgan. However, if we are going to have a discussion about race, it has to occur without the threat of being summarily cancelled.

A Harvard-Harris poll showed recently that 64 percent of Americans now view cancel culture as threatening basic freedoms. Yet, that view has not impacted the media or these campaigns.  The public overwhelmingly sees the threat to free speech and oppose it. However, free speech requires some breathing space. These cancelling campaigns have only grown with the support of major corporations and the media.

The panic expressed by Osbourne is that she would join the ranks of the banished, a media version of the “desaparecidos” or “disappeared ones.” In today’s hair-triggered cancel culture, celebrities and media figures can be vanished in a single media cycle if tagged on the Internet as racist or reactionary. Such status can result in being banned from social media, boycotted from television, and barred from publications. An array of politicians, writers and professors have openly called for the blacklisting of those with opposing views to prevent others from hearing or reading their views.

The issue came up this week on CNN when host Don Lemon attacked Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.) for his denouncing “woke supremacy” as analogous to white supremacy. Scott, who is black, was responding to MSNBC host Joy Reid dismissing his role as simply “to provide the patina of diversity.” It was an insulting racist trope that would have been widely denounced if it were not used against a black Republican or conservative. There is a legitimate objection to Scott’s analogy given the bloody history of white supremacy in the United States. However, Lemon’s attack deflected any need to address Reid’s own outrageous attack on Scott on the basis of his race.  Again, there were valuable issues to discuss on both sides of the controversy with both the original insult and the analogy but no discussion actually occurred.

What was striking however was Lemon’s insistence that he had never seen “a woke supremacist denying anybody … a job or education.” If so, he has not looked very hard. Across the country, campaigns have sought to isolate and stigmatize anyone with opposing views. Professors effectively disappear. They are not invited to conference. Their publications are barred through effective blacklisting and they are unable to find alternative schools since administrators do not want to deal with any protests. They vanish.

Osbourne’s self-described panic attack is a common response to those forced to the edge of this abyss.  Take Winston Marshall, the banjoist for the band Mumford & Sons. Marshall begged for forgiveness for his “blindspots” and offenses. He promised to enter a period of seclusion and introspection to consider how his actions could be “viewed as approvals of hateful, divisive behaviour.”  His offense? He congratulated conservative journalist Andrew Ngo on his new book “Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy” and calling Ngo a “brave man.”  Ngo was attacked and injured by Antifa supporters in covering protests. It is of course possible to criticize Antifa and still support racial and social reforms. Antifa is a movement based on pronounced anti-free speech principles. Even those of us who opposed efforts to declare Antifa a terrorist organization have denounced the movement for a long history of violence and speech intolerance.

The fear of being cancelled is palpable among professors and students. Many have watched in silence as their colleagues have been subjected to such campaigns with devastating impacts on their careers. Once tagged, professors find it difficult to secure new academic positions or publications. Recently, student governments have moved to impeach fellow student leaders and bar conservative groups.  Few students or professors want to risk such public humiliation even if they can successfully fight sanctions or terminations. By cancelling or marginalizing one professor or student, these campaigns silence 1000 others who think “but for the grace of God go I.”

There are real issues of racism and other issues that warrant a national debate, but there seems little room for anything other than a diatribe. To even question a claim of racism or raise countervailing issues is done at great personal and professional risk in our current environment.

For free speech advocates, it is called the “chilling effect.” The Supreme Court in cases like Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) have ruled against not just the direct regulation of speech but acts that create “inhibitions” on speech. Today, many anti-free speech advocates emphasize that the First Amendment only applies to the government and thus they are free to pursue a wide array of private censorship and campaigns of harassment to silent opposing viewpoints. However, the First Amendment is not the only or exclusive measure of free speech.

Indeed, the line between public and private censorship is being rapidly erased as Democratic members pressure Big Tech and media companies to censor conservative media while threatening possible retaliatory actions. One of the most vocal voices for censorship is Senator Richard Blumenthal (D., NY) who has badgered Big Tech for greater speech controls. Blumenthal challenged CEOs that they appeared to be “backsliding or retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded more “robust content modification” – the new euphemism for censorship.

Free speech is in a free fall in the United States from an unprecedented alliance of governmental, private, academic, and media sources. Those targeted may have as little as one news cycle to seek abject forgiveness before joining the ranks of the disappeared ones. The panic from figures like Osbourne and Marshall shows the reality of today’s digital “desaparecidos.”


Update: Osbourne has been accused of using racial slurs with past hosts.

268 thoughts on “The Disappeared Ones: Osbourne and Others Show The Sheer Panic Of Facing Erasure”

  1. I noticed Senator Tom Scott voted against impeachment conviction for Trump. This was likely out of a fear of being cancelled by Trump and his supporters.

    1. Most likely because he realized the impeachment was silly political theater and he is a man of courage and quality and followed his convictions.

    2. I agree we don’t need to be lectured by Trumpists who know a thing or two about how to cancel people who refuse to remain loyal to Trumpism. Liberals cancel people rhetorically and socially; Trumpists are stockpiling weapons and ammunition.

      1. “Liberals cancel people rhetorically and socially” doesn’t begin to describe what’s happening. You’re all happy because those who are losing jobs and being doxed and threatened, which goes way beyond your gaslighting comment, hold viewpoints that you find threatening and that you oppose. As for stockpiling weapons and ammunition, if anyone is buying either, they are not just what you insultingly call a “Trumpist.” (Speaking of which, let me guess, you are insulted by the term “commie,” right?)

        1. I am insulted by the word “commie” which the Radical Right have used against Leftists for decades to cancel them and their attempts to raise taxes. This is a great country, but it doesn’t come cheap. Somebody has got to pay for it!

          1. And what has made this country great and exceptional is constraints on big central governments and emphasis on individual freedoms.

          2. @jeffreysilberman

            Why don’t we get a divorce? If the country were a couple, it would have occurred long ago. And if we are as deplorable as you think, you should welcome it.

            Of course, I won’t hold my breath.


            1. They consider us all slaves of the government is why. Slaves are not really allowed to chose their own fate. Right?


            2. So Antonio wants a divorce. Antonio: “If I were your husband, I would poison your tea.”
              Me: “If you were my husband, I would drink it!”

              1. That was a famous Winston Churchill comment to (I think) Lady Astor.

                Churchill knew what a NAZI was and how to recognize the type. You apparently haven ’t read much about Churchill.

      2. JS:

        “Liberals cancel people rhetorically and socially; Trumpists are stockpiling weapons and ammunition.”
        Come on over and don’t be that way. We like a fair fight. We’ll share! Ever heard of a blunderbuss?

        1. Mespo, I don’t cling to guns as apparently you do. But I’ll decline your offer of a blunderbuss as they can be more lethal to the user than they are at targeting anyone at a distance of say, 30 feet?

            1. Mespo, it doesn’t surprise me that you would revere a pirate given that Trump himself is a well-known privateer.

              1. Jeffy ; And it surprises me no less that you love socialism/communism/fascism so much. They are all the same thing. Big authoritarian goobermint taxing you and putting your square peg in a smaller round hole with their red hammer. You woke social fascists are the worst of the lot. Mayhem , loot and subjugate are the lefts mantra. If they can’t ush you into their cage they will steer the goobermint to do it for them. And here we are cupcake…. and your taxing and steering a decline…for your woke social love fest. Going down must be something special for you on multiple levels.

              2. Privateers were legal, credentialed by the government to help them fight wars.

      3. @jeffreysilberman

        You lefties really believe your own propaganda. People began buying weapons at record pace last summer due to violence which resulted from the “mostly peaceful protests” associated with St. George of Floyd (peace be upon him). Hey, I’ve got an idea! If a dindu comes calling in your living room, unannounced at 2 am, flash your “good liberal” card. I am certain they would apologize profusely and immediately leave.

        Since I don’t have such a card, I would probably have to resort to other means. I can guarantee the dindu WOULD stop their uninvited and unannounced activity. And I don’t give a d@@n if you call me a slur or think I’m deplorable.


    1. As soon as you quite worrying about being called racist then you’re free to look into the real power relationships that underlie all that jive. Which are far and away more about economics than skin color.

      Perhaps if you parse it long enough, you will see the truth of it: globalist billionaire tyrants, “divide et impera,” keeping whitey off balance for fear we get together politically and arrest them, try them for treason, and expropriate them. Which is precisely what we should do. Sal Sar

  2. Why isn’t some one permitted to doubt Meghan’s truthfulness on this? Doubting the veracity of her accusation does not make one a racist. In fact, since Meghan and Harry refused to identify the royal person whom they allege asked the “skin color” question, it seems to me that an objective observer might have some doubt about its truthfulness.

    I agree that there is no basis — in the interview — for Morgan to doubt every Meghan accusation. However, he may have other sound reasons for doing so.

    Prof Turley is correct in abhorring cancel culture and advocating for full free speech.

    1. Who cares if they say we are racist because we are turned off by the repulsive narcissist MM who misuses her race for her advantage. The question is not are we nobodies racist. That would matter not at all regardless of how it was answered.

      Tthe question is, why are we watching or talking about this wretched women, her pathetic husband, and billionaire Oprah? I feel so sorry for poor Oprah. Or Megan, or Mister Megan Markle, or the Crown for that reason. It’s a sad testament to the lack of cultural gravity in America that we pour over these ‘celebrities” at all. they are for the most part, parasites, with no genuine value to society other than the amusement people seem to derive from observing their shameless self promotion. And that amusement is not a good thing. People could do something useful instead like get some exercise or plant a garden. We’re in a total cultural collapse and this sickening episode is evidence of it from start to finish. Sal

  3. “There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

    Booker T. Washington over 100 years ago.

    There has never been a time in history when emphasizing peoples’ diversity has brought society together.

    Only cultural acceptance and appropriation brings people together.

  4. “However, if we are going to have a discussion about race, it has to occur without the threat of being summarily cancelled.”

    The whole so-called conversation is no discussion. it is a harangue. it is simply meant to politically intimidate white people.

    The beneficiaries of this browbeating are not black people mind you. It’s the billionaires who want to crush what remains of the legacy majority which is socially and economically potent enough to turn on them, lock them up, and expropriate their assets, and save the nation. That’s who’s behind this in the end: billionaire tyrants

    sal sar

  5. Sharon Osbourne is married to Ozzy Osbourne. What does Ozzy have to say?

    Finished with my woman ’cause she couldn’t help me with my mind. People think I’m insane because I am frowning all the time. All day long I think of things but nothing seems to satisfy. Think I’ll lose my mind if I don’t find something to pacify.
    Can you help me, occupy my brain?

    Oh yeah,

    I need someone to show me the things in life that I can’t find.
    I can’t see the things that make true happiness, I must be blind

  6. “The exchange between Osbourne and Underwood could have served a productive purpose in exploring the continuing difficulty in discussing race.”
    That is highly unlikely. You cannot have a discussion with fanatics. They just repeat the party line, start to yell if frustrated, resort to ad hominem attacks, and break things if you do not concede their “truth.” Just ask Glenn Greenwald or Bari Weiss, or that people whom Antifa beat up this past spring and summer.

    “While many call for a national discussion of race, these controversies show how any frank discussion comes at considerable risk.”
    No “frank discussion” is possible so long as one side insists that you use their terms as they define them and accept their version of history. A frank discussion about race would be too embarrassing for BLM and others who promote cancel culture, which is why they prefer accusation and cancellation to discussion.

    “I did not agree with Morgan’s comment in saying that everything Markle said was a lie and thought Osbourne reacted poorly to being asked about concerns over racism. Thus, I have no problem with the criticism of either Osbourne or Morgan.”
    Neither Osbourne nor Morgan need to apologize. They simply expressed their opinions, and Osbourne reacted as she should have, by questioning such a leading question. I assume you would raise an objection if that was a cross of your client?

    Morgan has at least two offers for a new job. He will be fine. Rowling also survived these vicious and petty campaigns. I hope Osbourne does as well, although it is a pity she had to apologize, very reminiscent of the purge trials, not only in the 1930s, but in the 1940s in places like Czechoslovakia.

    Cancel culture is a show trial without even a modicum of due process.
    Please do not defend it.

    1. “You cannot have a discussion with fanatics”

      Sure you can. But you need to have them held at bay on the wrong end of a metal tube to do it.

    2. An old guy, are we not allowed to cancel self-described Neo-Nazis, NAMBLA advocates or anarchists? Where do you draw the line between acceptable cancelling and unacceptable cancelling? And who gets to decide?

      1. Nobody is cancelling pedos. They get a pass until they are caught red handed with crime.

        Nobody is cancelling anarchists. They were caught red handed on tv with crimes of arson and riot all summer and nothing happened.

        Neonazis are a trivial number of disaffected nobodies. They are perpetually cancelled and harassed and serve as an exaggerated danger, a bogeyman to take the eye off the economic issues that cause them to arise in the first place. There are various self described Marxists out there who have made that point and I think they are pretty much right.

        Sal Sar

        1. I am not quite sure “getting caught red handed” is the correct metaphor but shyness prevents me from suggesting the more accurate alternative.

      2. You don’t draw the line. That is why we call it free speech.
        My favorite Neo-Nazis are in the Blues Brothers first film. Should it be cancelled because it has Neo-Nazis? Makes fun of them? I think it’s great. Also love the nun and Jake. That is what freedom of speech is about — making fun of sacred cows, applauding George Carlin, listening to the Smothers Brothers and the LA Police choir sing “We’re poor little sheep.”
        Free speech is not about deciding whom to censor. It’s about making fun of opinions you find ridiculous or dangerous or over the top, not censoring those who hold them.
        When I was at university, the occasional Trotskyite would push the professor away from the podium and rail on until the campus police arrived. Poor sod. He could have railed on to his heart’s content outside the classroom, but the rules did not allow him to manhandle professors.
        There is no acceptable cancelling because of your last question — who decides? You? Certainly not! Me? Come on, man!
        Then who? Zuckerman? Dorsey? The guys running Apple and Google? Are you serious?
        Read On Liberty for a full discussion of free speech and the value of idiosyncratic individuals.
        Anarchists are fine so long as they do not commit crimes. I rather like Fourier and think the idea of having boys collect the garbage might be worth discussing and changing jobs a few times every day to satisfy my butterfly complex. . . .
        I enjoyed Marx. Lots of good insights. I liked Edvard Berstein better, but that’s me.
        I also enjoyed reading Hobbes and Locke, although I found the chapter on slavery in Locke a bit of a stretch.
        Free speech must be a basic societal value, not a legalistic fiction. Alas, we appear to have lost that particular value and replaced it with something that the folks who ran the Inquisition would have favored — not so bad, really, there was due process, torture was regularized, anonymous people denouncing you were balanced by the local lawyer who saw to it that you could defend yourself, and very few were actually executed — most simply have to make abject confessions, do penance, and otherwise appease the authorities. But I guess we are getting used to that now, huh?

        1. That’s all well and good – and I mostly agree. But then there’s advocating pedophilia, torture, and a few other matters that probably should be banned from media. I have searched for Turley’s position on these, but there’s nothing.

          1. I suspect we agree that speech which advocates or solicits criminal acts is not protected speech.
            Pedophilia is illegal, so my guess is that advocating is not protected as free speech.
            Torture is vile, and, last I checked, illegal to boot. Again, not a prime example of free speech.
            Personally, I find a whole range of things objectionable, including episodes of CSI, so I don’t watch the program. But I would not campaign to ban it. I feel the same way about reality TV, but friends and relative love it.
            I do not find saying that you do not believe someone who craves publicity to be on the same level as showing torture at Abu Ghraib. Yet Wikipedia, The New Yorker, and various mainstream sources have delighted in rubbing our noses in it. Lots of other objectionable stuff on the web as well (my opinion, since I’m not an ‘originalist’).
            But neither Piers Morgan nor Osbourne advocated anything criminal. He merely expressed an opinion regarding Markle’s veracity, and her mother’s skin color has nothing to do with whether Markle is credible, so why ask Osbourne that stupid question? Neither Morgan nor Osbourne advocated anything even vaguely ‘racist’ – Morgan said he did not believe Markle, and Osbourne stood by a friend and colleague.
            What dastardly people!
            Honesty and loyalty used to be considered virtues. No longer, and discourse in the media appears to have regressed to the level of playground taunts and mean girls spreading nasty rumors and tattling to the teacher to get at the guys and gals in the other cliques. There no longer seem to be any adults in the room; just a lot of spoiled brats in fancy dress.
            I suspect Turley’s position is that any language which intentionally solicits a criminal act is illegal.
            But I would not pretend to speak for him. I gave up trying to read minds years ago.

        2. “There is no acceptable cancelling because of your last question — who decides? You? Certainly not! Me? Come on, man!
          Then who? Zuckerman? Dorsey? The guys running Apple and Google? Are you serious?”

          Makes me think of this:

          Gandalf, too, said, “Don’t tempt me, Frodo!”

  7. “The issue came up this week on CNN when host Don Lemon attacked Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.) for his denouncing “woke supremacy” as analogous to white supremacy. Scott, who is black, was responding to MSNBC host Joy Reid dismissing his role as simply “to provide the patina of diversity.” It was an insulting racist trope that would have been widely denounced if it were not used against a black Republican or conservative.”

    I can speak from experience but one only gets PC, leftist protection from criticism when one has leftist politics and presents themselves as a victim. I rarely get flack from other Hispanics for having non-leftist views, it is almost always, white, anglo leftist types. They seem to take it personally also.


  8. No matter how progressive or liberal otherwise ONE wrong word or opinion and you delegated to non-person status. And the rules as to what is acceptable is always changing and no amount or groveling or apology will result in absolution.

    The Church of Woke is a “church” with no salvation.

    I want an amicable divorce but don’t think my leftist moral “bettors” will allow me out of this abusive relationship.

    Hope I am wrong but this is not going to end well.


  9. Osbourne said “she will ‘continue to learn, listen and do better’ in the future.”

    Translated from Woke-speak, this means: Blindly obey, submit, bow your head on bended knee. Confess publicly to crimes, real or imagined. Don’t dissent. Don’t think. Don’t exist. You are nothing — our Woke gang is God.

    Whatever happened to American self-assertion?

    1. “Whatever happened to American self-assertion?”

      Sharon Osbourne is a teabag, born in London.

  10. “The exchange between Osbourne and Underwood could have served a productive purpose in exploring the continuing difficulty in discussing race.”

    This is one of those instances where I have to respectfully depart from Professor Turley. There is no productive purpose in discussing “systemic racism.” Systemic racism is a myth invented by black racists to scapegoat others for problems within the black community. Systemic racism is a canard advanced by corporate media at the behest of their masters in Beijing who want to change the subject from Uighur persecution, police brutality in Hong Kong, cultural extermination in Tibet, and the bullying of Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

    We need to call it what it is: “fake racism.”

    1. “. . . I have to respectfully depart from Professor Turley.”

      Wow! You disagreed with Turley, without being hostile or insulting. How did you acquire those magical powers?

    2. Yeah Systemic racism just means all white people are racist even if they aren’t.

      There is no “discussion.

      1. Outside faculty opium dens blacks are more racist than whites by a wide margin.

    3. Diogenes, your charge of systemic racism being a myth invented by black racists reminds me of those Germans who will not forgive the Jews for the Holocaust.

      1. Silver-man comes back with the Holocaust. Wow that is a big surprise. What the Devil has this got to do with Germany? Nothing!

      2. The irony of this remark from Jeff. You know Osborne is Jewish eh? You saying she’s a Jewish anti-Semite? I always get a laugh when I hear that one. As if they had anything to do with this topic. But some people are always bringing that up, milking it for a few more dimes.

        1. Diogenes, I’m not surprised that you believe Nazism is s myth.

          1. Fake Nazism doesn’t suggest Nazism is a myth. It suggest your all-encompassing, self-serving version of it is a myth.

            1. Marvelous!

              Would love to see the columns filled out in the Nazism vs. fake Nazism discussion!


              1. Bug, you’re embarking on a pointless line of argument. Both sides overuse the Nazism thing, and you know it.

          2. Jeffrey, let me sooth your pearl clutching. Nazis are real. They are also marginalized because few people are Nazis. Calm down.

            1. Diogenes, a bigger danger is of wannabe Nazi’s that don’t even recognize that they are wannabe Nazi’s with just a slight difference in focus.

      3. Jeffrey, you sound like the Germans that supported the Nazi movement along with the German Jews that thought they were German and would not be considered any less than that. Those that didn’t wake up in time were killed. You are repeating history.

        1. They came for Meyer and Diogenes, and Jeffrey said nothing.
          Then they came for Greenwald and Weiss, and Jeffrey said nothing.
          When they came for Jeffrey, there was no one around to save him.

      1. It starting dying out in the 50’s with federal court cases. The passage of legislation in the 60’s outlawed it completely. By the 90’s, institutional racism was nothing compared to the impact of drugs, illegitimacy, and crime.

        The biggest problems within the black community must primarily be solved by blacks. You can scapegoat the rest of us all day long, but that only exacerbates the problems by conferring authority on the worst possible actors within the Democrat Party.

            1. Voting Right Act, 24th Amendment, EEOC. Like I said, why are you asking?

              1. Other part of my question, why did these cases ‘end’ systemic racism?


                1. Are you suggesting these laws are incomplete in outlawing racism or are you suggesting systemic racism is a major problem, whether these laws are incomplete or not? Where are we going with this?

                  1. Looks to me like I’m asking a question, no? If it’s going in any predetermined direction it would get to another question. That being, does acknowledgement of a problem mean the problem no longer exists or that an institutionalized response alleviates a condition?


                    1. Bug, I can’t answer open-ended questions. Takes too long, and I’m not sure which answer is relevant to the point you intend to make.

                      I’m assuming from your response that you believe racism still exists. I agree. I assume you also mean significant amounts of systemic racism still exists. I think systemic racism is not prevalent and is not the real problem facing the black community.

                      I strongly believe few Americans want black Americans to fail or be mistreated, and I believe that’s even more true of our institutional leaders. Systemic racism is not the problem, and individual racism is not an obstacle to success.

                      I don’t think you give your fellow Americans enough credit. We have been trying for 60 years to help black Americans succeed, and unfortunately, we have seen less improvement than most everybody hoped for. Blaming the rest of us is only going to create more racism.

                      You don’t have to believe me, but this “systemic racism” jazz is likely to backfire.

                    2. Bug, You are playing a game. Have you looked at black nationalism and BLM. They are both Anti-semitic and today anti-white. Get real.

                      It is your type of attitude that creates racial and religious dysfunction. You provoke racism because racism is essential to your argument whether or not it exists and whether or not your argument of the day creates more racism. Your attitudes support racism and keep certain minorities uneducated and in living in ghettos.

                2. Didn’t end them. Now Affirmative action is systemic racism against whites.

    4. It is true that the CCP does occasionally trot out the alleged historical racism of the US to conceal its own ethnocentric policies. I forget the name of the CCP official that said something about that the other day on twitter.

      Also the influence of the CCP in Hollywood is huge now. They have production companies that seed big money and nobody wants to mess with them.

      Ever notice that the handsome actor Richard Gere is never on the silver screen anymore?

      You know why, right?

      He’s friends with the Dalai Lama. The CCP doesn’t like him. And they have pull.

      But in my estimation, the Western billionaire tyrants get more mileage out of “systemic racism” than the CCP does. I just did a search on race and labor and I got 15 google pages of hits for English language papers all claiming in so many different ways, that racism costs Western economies money. I doubt any of those were seeded by the CCP but rather the likes of Soros and his peers.


  11. It is so far beyond my understanding: why is anyone who questions anything about Markle and/or the tv interview by Windfey labelled a “racist.” Because the woman’s mother is all or partly of African American heritage? Because the woman chose to “play the race card” in a tv interview that wanted to be sensational?

  12. The cnn show about Lincoln is advertised constantly. I am sick of the “top hats”. I’m going to “go South”.

  13. Is it “cancel culture” when Trump and his followers try to cancel those who don’t support Trump forcefully enough? Because there is a heck of a lot of that going on.

    1. Name professors that have been cancelled by Trumpers.

      Name bloggers or producers of youtube videos that have been cancelled by Trumpers.

      You can’t. You are just a Shill with another alias.

  14. Abortion… cancellation rites (i.e. witch hunts, warlock judgments, and summary executions) are legal under the Twilight Amendment to the Constitution. Diversity dogma (i.e. color judgments), not limited to racism, is a progressive condition on a forward-looking basis.

  15. I did not agree with Morgan’s comment and though Osbourne reacted poorly to being asked about racism. However, if we are going to have a discussion about race, it has to occur without the threat of being summarily cancelled.

    Don’t look now JT, but your opinion of Morgan and Osbourne’s comments is an obvious attempt at discouraging your own cancellation.

    1. Can you blame him?

      They ambushed Osborne. The other people on her show had talking points prepped and she had an 8 minute warning.

      She should go IRON MAN on them! — Ssl

      1. Can you blame him?

        In a word, yes. He is probably the most credentialed public defender of the 1st amendment, lamenting the continued to decline of that right. His obvious attempt to appease the cancel culture fanatics and avoid getting in their crosshairs, nullifies his message. He has to be willing to risk it all. He risks nothing, if he simultaneously condemns the tactics of the cancel culture, while agreeing with their motives.

        1. ” He has to be willing to risk it all.” Why? because he’s the last sincere liberal left standing? I am not going to be too judgmental of Turley.

          “tactics of the cancel culture, while agreeing with their motives.”

          he has made the error of taking their motives as positive at all. that’s error. they are not. they are not interested in any phony equality, this is all bullying, presumptively on behalf of some aggrieved and persecuted minorities, and they do it for their own power on social media aka “pull” and they also do it to cotton up to their billionaire tyrant masters who green light it all in the first place.

          I contend that the deepest motivation of “cancel culture” is not the benefit of any persecuted group, it is actually a phenomenon like the Red Guards but instead of being nursed and hatched by Mao, it is nursed and hatched by the billionaire tyrants, who want to crush populist resistance to globalism. How did they accomplish this? Well, many ways, but here’s 3

          1. by underwriting antiracist university programs that target the West/ Europeans/ Whites as taetervolks ie agents of oppression

          2. by underwriting outfits like SPLC or BLM with the big donations

          3. by allowing the cancel culture to proliferate on billionaire owned and controlled platforms like twitter

          World Economic Forum — the Davos boys, the billionaire outfit– has been ‘warning about populism” for years. Ditto that Foreign affairs, a “policy” rag owned by Bezos

          Populism necessarily emerges from the legacy white majority of workers and middle class, or else it would not be “popular,” almost by definition. their fear is that populism veers into legislation and executive priorities that curtail the growth of their global empires.

          We have seen this in play for at least 5 years, nakedly, and in the father distant past it was a thing too. Sal

          1. I received this in an email from a friend of mine. I haven’t verified the accuracy of the points, but even if half of it is true, it would be consistent with your comment.

            Mitt Romney (one of the vocal Rhino Republicans saying Trump should accept the election results) is a stockholder in Dominion

            Smoke equals fire

            Nothing to see here or worry about- let’s see how fast the media deletes all of this!

            Dominion serves 40% of the US market. It is in 30 states.
            – The state of Texas rejected the machines.
            – Admiral Peter Neffenger is on Biden’s transition team.
            – Peter Neffenger was the President and on the board of Smartmatic
            – Smartmatic entered into an agreement with Dominion in 2009
            – Smartmatic counted American votes in Venezuela
            – Smartmatic is connected to Philippine voter fraud
            – Smartmatic is run by Lord Mark Malloch Brown who works for George Soros.
            – Brown chairs the Boards of a number of non-profit boards including the Open Society Foundation,
            – Brown chairs the Centre for Global Development.
            – Open society of course is owned by George Soros
            – Smartmatic partnered with DLA Piper Global
            – Douglas C. Emhoff works at DLA Piper Global
            – Douglas C. Emhoff is Kamala Harris’s husband
            – Guess who owns part of Dominion? Blum Capital Partners, L.P.
            – Guess who owns Blum Capital?
            Richard C. Blum
            – Richard C. Blum is husband to Dianne Feinstein. The California senator who helped head impeachment efforts.
            Blum got much of his dirty money by buying thousands of foreclosed homes cheap during the Obama administration of families who lost their homes and turned them into Colony Homes
            – Nancy Pelosi’s husband is also an investor
            – An aide to Nancy Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, was hired by the Dominion Voting Systems
            – Dominion Voting Systems is literally listed on the Clinton Foundation website.
            – “The DELIAN Project: Democracy through Technology” is the title of the page.
            – Georgia Governor Kemp purchased machines after Texas and Florida rejected them
            – Dominion Voting has a lobbyist named Jared Thomas
            – Mitt Romney (one of the vocal Rhino Republicans saying Trump should accept the election results) is a stockholder in Dominion
            – Jared Thomas was Governor Brian Kemp’s chief of staff and press secretary from 2012 to 2015
            – You must remember the Feinstein-Kavanaugh-Soros connections to understand the depth
            – Debra Katz (Christine Ford’s lawyer) worked for George-Soros at the Open Society Foundation.
            – Debra Katz (Christine Ford’s lawyer) also worked at Project on Government Oversight (POGO).
            – POGO is funded by Soros’s Open Society Foundation.
            – POGO is the co-signer of the letter Diane Feinstein had on Kavanaugh.
            – Kamala Harris did not prosecute OneWest Bank for their fraud
            – Soros owned OneWest Bank.
            – Now you know why a woman who placed 7th in her state is a VP candidate
            – June 2018- Dominion Voting Systems announced it had been acquired by Staple Street Capital, who’s executive board member William Earl Kennard worked under Obama.
            – November 6, 2018- Kennard was appointed to the board of directors of AT & T- who owns CNN- the most pro-Biden network in the media.
            -A 2020 filing lists DVS’s registered agent as Florida based Hengnuo Global (Cogency Global) which has a HONG KONG office. It’s directors are listed as Hooten Yaghoobzadeh, Stephen Owens, and Benjamin Humphrey of Staple Street which has ties to the Carlyle Group and Yunfeng Capital.
            -This past Thursday Pennsylvania invited executives from DVS to a “fact finding” public session. Guess who no-showed at the last minute?

        2. OLLY, Turley has a knack for not wanting to burn his bridges with either side of the political debate. He believed Trump’s Ukraine conduct was impeachable in principle, but not in the manner the Democrats went about it. He thought Trump’s rhetoric on 1/6 was reckless and worthy of condemnation and censure but not Impeachable. He wants to retain his job at TrumpTV without losing his job at GW.

    2. OLLY, are you insinuating that Turley is saying that just to cover his posterior? You don’t take him at his word?

      1. OLLY, are you insinuating that Turley is saying that just to cover his posterior? You don’t take him at his word?

        Why wouldn’t I take him at his word? I have no reason to doubt his personal opinion of those interviews, but his opinion is irrelevant to the actions of the cancel culture mob.

    3. Olly, would you like Turley cancelled? One has to give some leeway. Turley is walking a tightrope.

      1. I don’t want anyone cancelled. But given his stature, that might be the calculated risk he needs to take to bring a different exposure to this mob tactic. Whatever he’s doing now seems to feed into this insanity. On one hand he’s appearing to agree with them on an emotional level and on the other hand he appeals to the rational and reasonable argument supporting the 1st amendment. The cancel mob doesn’t even hear that latter argument.

        1. I think Turley in his present position does more for common decency than if he were to change his presentation and be cancelled. He has to live within his own body, not yours.

  16. ” I did not agree with Morgan’s comment and though Osbourne reacted poorly to be asked about racism. However, if we are going to have a discussion about race, it has to occur without the threat of being summarily cancelled.”

    How exactly did she react poorly? It was obvious she was being set-up, the ole race-card injected into a conversation which has literally nothing whatsoever to do with race. It was race-baiting 101. Such as shame that Osbourne agreed to sell out and release an “apology” courtesy of her publicist using all the “right” pandering “woke” white privilege phrases and verbiage that every publicist, agent and manager must now have pre-written and just a tweet away…just in case.

    1. There is probably some canned format they all use. All it really does is pay lip service to avoid punishment, which seems to be the common reaction these days of the psychologically oppressed to rampant “wokism.”

    2. Why, oh why … was Osbourne even questioned about race, racism, etc. It’s an awful commentary on the USA when every topic is turned into a barrage, explicit or implicit, of accusations of racism. Don’t agree with me = racist or sexist or whatever-phobic, etc.

    1. Consider it Turley attempting to set the narrative about how racism is to be discussed and why conservatives (especially Black ones) are never to be attacked on the basis of race. As for Tim Scott, I give him credit for standing up behind the scenes to fight the appointment of a couple unqualified and racist judges, based on their record. The instances in which he stood up were few and far between but they do exist. Regarding Osbourne, she likely isn’t used to having to defend racist views and was both ignorant and out of her element.

      1. Yes, diversity dogma (i.e. color judgments), not limited to racism, exercised with liberal license, is a progressive condition, path and grade.

      2. “Regarding Osbourne, she likely isn’t used to having to defend racist views”

        What “racist views”?

        Sharon isn’t a racist because she doesn’t believe that an attention whore and gold digger is telling the truth.

        She didn’t utter a word about her racial make up.

        1. I can mention it. Here’s a barely-black Megan Merkle, moneybags, whining to black billionaire Oprah, that she got her feelings hurt. And this stupid ginger sitting their like the pzzy whipped fool that he is. This was a pathetic spectacle and pukeworthy from any perspective. Sal

          1. Sure it is, I just didn’t read her remarks or listen to them. But I couldn’t avoid the abundance of secondary drivel repeating her remarks in the press. I gather she claims “someone” said “something” about her future child’s skin tone. This is now gossip for the whole English speaking world. I suspect people outside the Anglosphere could care less. Count me with them on this one. I could care less if the crusty old monarch said one thing or another. This is frivolity. Sal.

      3. ” Regarding Osbourne, she likely isn’t used to having to defend racist views and was both ignorant and out of her element.”

        Enigma, on ET Sharon Osborne admitted to not knowing what Piers Morgan said that was racist. She asked Underwood numerous times even during a break but Underwood couldn’t answer and neither could one of the other commenters.

        Perhaps you can set me straight using the exact quotes if possible. This business of calling people racists that have no history of being racist is appalling. It is also precisely the way to increase racism between groups. I’m for a color blind society. I am not against helping those economically or educationally disadvantaged, but I want to look at programs and the incentives behind the programs rather than what someone says the program will do (seldom happens)

          1. I’m pretty sure Chinese people are not really ezxcited about that little bit of absurdity. Just another stupid laowei who can’t speak Mandarin is what they would think, based on my experience with them.

            Ching-chong is considered a perjorative term in the West, but, interestingly, it’s not an arbitrary couple of words. Ching sounds like Xin, the dynasty that gives us the word China

            and chong sounds like zhong, Zhonguo is the Mandarin word for China, Middle Kingdom, or, Central state, if you will. 中国,

            Sal Sar

          2. Enigma, you might consider that foolish banter, but that doesn’t make a person a racist? You will have to do better or a lot of Jewish comedians will have to be called anti-semitic. Everyone that jokes around by putting a vowel at the end of a name isn’t a racist.

            Let us deal with real racism, not the BS or personal bias. If one tries to attack BS and personal bias racism will never disappear. It will only get worse. That is not our objective.

            1. Real racism is denied to the point where nothing qualifies anymore. I won’t get into an argument with you aboiut what qualifies because nothing will be accepted. I will ask a question though, is Trump racist? Your answer will speak volumes.

              1. Can we formulate a valid difference between racism and mere ethnocentrism, that will be applicable across all racial, ethnic, and national groups?

                if not then I am not sure racism is a useful term. Useful for political advocacy perhaps, and little else.

                or perhaps you think that there is no such thing as mere ethnocentrism, that is, let’s say, morally licit, as opposed to illicit?

                Sal Sar.

                1. “if not then I am not sure racism is a useful term. Useful for political advocacy perhaps, and little else.”

                  Sal, this statement of yours pretty much says it all. Those most claiming racism (which does exist) have destroyed the term by using it for political advocacy. They are the leading purveyors of racism.

                2. Yes, we can formulate a difference. As an example, if a white person is biased against African Americans, Asian Americans, and American Indians, but isn’t biased against white Americans even when they’re not from the person’s own ethnic background, then that person is racist. Racism isn’t ethnocentrism.

                  1. It seems that some folks suggest that any ethnocentrism from a white is per se racist, and any ethnocentrism from a “person of color” is per se legit.

                    That seems unfair to me, and I think the one who offered the remark for helping me illustrate my point. It’s always about white people getting pushed down, yes?

                    Sal Sar

                    1. I didn’t suggest that “ethnocentrism from a white is per se racist, and any ethnocentrism from a “person of color” is per se legit.”

                      Why on earth did you read that into what I wrote?

                3. “Ethnocentrism” is a thing but watering doiwn real racism to a milder term is worthy of a Texas school book. Suggesting eliminating the term racism is downright Tucker Carlson.

                  1. Enigma, this does not define either ethnocentrism, nor racism, nor help us differentiate between the two.

                    Would you agree with my earlier remark, that the “real” definition is, when whites act with ethnocentrism, they are racism, but when POC do ethnocentrism, they are OK?

                    If not then explain to us how you would differentiate the two activities among the groups on a basis which is not immediately prejudicial to whites. Thanks for your attention.

                    Sal Sar

                    1. I disagree with your premise that acting with ethnocentricism is not racist. Once you move from thought to action, it’s racist.
                      There is a component to systemic racism that requires power, in this country inherently held by white people. White people effectively control the courts, law enforcement, most of the education system, write and approve the history books used and impose societal norms.
                      I do believe people of color can be racist, when they are it is to much less of an effect as they don’t have the capability to impose their racism on the rest of the country.
                      I think in most cases, ethnocentrism is an excuse to avoid dealing with racism.

                    2. Enigma, can you think of actions based in ethnocentrism which would be clearly moral and non-injurious to the out-group?

                      Like if white people want to eat wonderbread and mac and cheese, is that ok?

                      Can they exercise any more preferences than that?

                      Let’s shift this to a smaller ethnic group now. Let’s take Jewish people for example.

                      Is Passover ok?

                      I mean at Passover Jews are remembering when the Egyptian pharoah tried to slaughter the enslaved Hebrews, and then God came and slaughtered Pharoah instead. Oh and not just Pharoah but all the first born egyptian babies, yes? A tough episode for either side!

                      isn’t that pretty ethnocentric? But all they are doing is having a ritual supper. Should that not be an acceptable exercise of ethnocentric folk memory?

                      Let’s move on to something comparable. Kwanzaa? let’s hear from Oprah on that.


                      “Reflecting on the principle of the day.
                      Kwanzaa was founded in 1966 in the United States by activist and educator Dr. Maulana Karenga. Stemming from his Kawaida philosophy of cultural and social change, Karenga created the seven principles, Nguzo Saba, as the cornerstone of the holiday observed by African Americans and the African diaspora. Each night, those who celebrate Kwanzaa not only light a candle, but look inwardly as they contemplate the theme of the day.

                      “We talk about how the different principles have meaning in our lives—what we have been through in the last year, and how we hope to embody the principles in the upcoming year,” says Dr. Monica Coleman, a professor of Africana Studies at the University of Delaware.

                      The seven principles, in order of celebration, are: Unity (Umoja), self-determination (Kujichagulia), collective work and responsibility (Ujima), cooperative economics (Ujamaa), purpose (Nia), creativity (Kuumba), and faith (Imani).”

                      So. Are these principles not “ethnocentrism?” And how could they be acted upon, to use your suggestion, without becoming racist? Please elaborate your thinking

                      Sal Sar

                    3. “There is a component to systemic racism that requires power, in this country inherently held by white people. ”

                      I would agree that white skinned people occupy most positions of true power. If we look over that forbes 400 list we will see mostly white people by far.

                      And yet, I contend, they have zero love for “white people” as a group. In fact I contend they fear and hate “white people” as a group, because the group is by and large white workers and middle class folks who are being decimated and destroyed by billionaire tyrant policies. The billionaire tyrants know this and so have contrived this trope of “systematic racism” to condemn the white people who don’t have a lot of money, to constant abuse.

                      This makes life easier for the rich white people who can always hire security and lawyers to protect them. The white masses are kept off balance.

                      And in the end, it is the white masses who constitute the biggest threat to billionaire tyrants. They could form a narrow democratic majority and strip the tyrants of their rackets. For example, I recommend we agree that Silicon Valley is harming us, and we use antitrust tools to break them into a thousand pieces. I support Elizabeth Warren’s proposals as a starting point for that discussion. This would, in my thinking, help white people as a group. If it helps you too, great! I welcome your support. Let’s do it!

                      But no: see you don’t want to get on board with anything I like, because you have this idea that systematic racism is lurking behind every notion that might help white folks. See the billionaires neutralize our possibilities for cooperation by dividing us and setting you against white people as such.

                      Anyways, I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I do hope that people will understand why I am identifying the billionaire tyrants as our true mutual foe and adversary. Not blacks, not whites, not natives or migrants, not voters of one party or another, but pretty much all of us Americans of any stripe are threatened in our fate by the continuing accretion of power by the billionaires. The only ones who benefit from their growing power, are those who are their direct employees, lackeys, hirelings and mercenaries.

                      so in my thinking, I am not giving any white person a pass for that white skin alone. If they are on the side of the billionaires as a group, then they make of themselves an enemy. It happens that very often, the white people who are out there banging the drum of white racism, are quite often functionaries of some organization that’s received millions of dollars of grants from a billionaire. Follow the money!

                      All they see is green

                      Sal Sar

                    4. Joe says: “Kurtz, Judaism is an ethnocentric religion, which thankfully, not many of it’s modern proponents believe in literally – same with some of the less tasteful parts of Christianity, which at least is universal.”

                      It is true that Judaism is a ancestry based religion whereas Christianity and Islam are universal.

                      I am not sure it is better for worse that most Jews are trending secular. Perhaps you might enjoy a different take on that from Dershovitz in a book he wrote called “The Vanishing Jew” which I found very thought provoking. But the subject is considered at length. In short his thesis is that secularization leads to assimilation and assimilation will lead to extinction. For Dersh, he sees that as a problem. I am sure not all of them feel the same. The phenomenon can be seen by other groups as a potential threat as well. We can see how various European ethnics have become assimilated to American and over 3-4 generations intermarried and assimlated so much that they have ceased to exist as a group. Some consider that a problem. Some see it as a blessing. I like ethnicity– I tend to see it in a more negative light. I am not a fan of the “melting pot” thesis. I prefer, “vive la difference.”

                      “What you have described as Kwanza – and how many know or practice it? – seems to have no ethnocentric tenets.”

                      It has been presented as a black observance so it seemed ethnocentric to me. I am not sure what the “unity” refers to if not ethnocentrism. But I am not an expert in it.

                      “Hey, blow bagpipes, play Wagner, and eat blood pudding until the cows come home, but racial theories, slavery, and slaughters we probably don’t want to revive at your white festival.”

                      Like bagpipes, love Wagner, enjoy Spanish blood pudding, but the last time I had blood in my food was in Chinatown, last week in fact. : 豬紅 . Pig blood, matter of fact. I pretended that I was enjoying some of the famed pig blood broth that the Spartans ate in their heyday.

                      I am not having any “white festivals.” if you had an Irish or Italian festival it might be ok but as soon as you call anything “White” then the government sends in the losers, informants, and provocateurs to mess it all up. So we have eschewed such things.

                      The great thing about being around Chinese people, at least immigrants, is that they are blessedly free of the norm of individualism. They seem to feel free to ee people in terms of various sorts of social groups. Nationality, race, occupation, sex, class, and ethnicity included. I’m sure that some would consider that a flaw. I find it– normal. Perhaps in this way I am not a very good American. For my part, I am not running away from belonging to the circles into which I was born. I embrace it. Sal Sar

                    5. Joe said:

                      “We’re Americans, the world leaders and banner carriers for assimilation, and the world mostly wants to see Tiger Woods, Bruno Mars, Lady Gaga as much as we do. We kick ass culturally and in innovation, though we better crank it up on the latter. It’s worked pretty good for us. Thinking it will stop is nonsense.”

                      I agree that Joe articulates the usual thinking among Americans on these topics. I would call that a majority viewpoint.

                      For my part, I reject the melting pot. You may consider it nonsense, but I am free as an American, to believe in such values as I chose. I chose to believe that ethnocentrism is a normal and natural human instinct. And that it protects humble people in many ways.

                      Not everybody can rise up and climb in American society to a level of affluence where all security is bought and paid for out of savings. Many have little or no savings. It is no accident that people who are not affluent, often reveal more ethnocentric viewpoints and habits.

                      As people climb, they consider non-assimilationist social habits as low-class ghetto behavior. By Ghetto here, I do not mean the Jewish ghetto nor the black ghetto per se, but not to exclude them either. By Ghetto I simply mean a low-income ethnic neighborhood.

                      The “Godfather” series is a trilogy of movies, particularly I and II, that reveals this dynamic. As the Italian family assimilates, it adopts attitudes which comport more with the American business culture, and adhere less and less to traditional concepts of ethnicity and family.

                      It is in Godfather III, much maligned, that we see where this ends up. The Godfather who has tried to escape all his Italian-ness yet finds that he can’t get past it in the end, and his own efforts to outpace it, lead to tragedy. This is my viewpoint. Hubris in him, and hubris in America, that we can ever fully divest of ethnocentrism.

                      The best thing we could do, in my thinking, is to accept it, and learn to live with it, yet remaining in lawful peace and harmony with other ethnic groups. In my view of America, we don’t disown our ancestors. We act in a way that would make them proud, and we keep on living, projecting our people into the future with success, and yet never, ever disowning what brought us here in the first place.

                      Sal Sar.

                    6. In the movie Vito Corleone gets whacked because he won’t sell dope. But that is progress, that is the Turk’s point. And the other families want it that way, as the alter movies reveal. Because they are all about the money. The old thinking about harm to the community being qualitatively worse for selling dope than the usual vice trades, is is considered passe.

                      Michael Corleone tries to get past all that and get out of the rackets. He washes his money. He goes corporate. He marries a wasp and moves up in society. But in the end, it does not work out. His daughter wants to marry her cousin like some sicilian up in a little village. That drives him nuts. He tries to cope. he doesn’t. It doesnt work out for her or for him.

                      In your iteration, Corleone assimilates, enjoys his wealth, and it all works out. Maybe you don’t like the movie. It resonated with me. I see that things have not worked out so well with some of my family and a lot of my peers. Again I think many of our different perspectives come from generational difference.

                      I am doing fine, I am fortunate, I prosper some. But in all sincerity, my parents went farther, faster, and way higher. I have fallen a notch or two. But I am not important so much as I am typical.

                      Out of nearly 20 of my peers in high school who were children of lawyers, there is not a single one of us who ended up doing as well as their parents. We were all honors students, we worked hard, we are doing fine. There is not much to complain about. And yet there is a shared sense that things did not work out, that what was there for them was cut off to us, and that things are eroding fast. I can’t think of a single parent of my cohort that has much empathy with this generational difference. For those few older ones who understand the feeling we have, most of them were not boomers but the preceeding generation who can remember the Depression. It seems like the Depression era people, what few who still live, can seem to understand what it means when things start to slide. Boomers rarely seem to think it can happen or that it is happening. I seem to get the sense from a lot of boomers that you guys just think things are fantastic. Well, the sense of that is not shared between our generations.

                      Sal Sar

                  2. I’m not Sal, but I’m wondering about your comment to him that “I disagree with your premise that acting with ethnocentricism is not racist.” If a white Italian-American prefers other white Italian-Americans to white Irish-Americans, is that person being racist? I’d say that he’s being ethnocentric but not racist. I think there’s a meaningful difference between racism and ethnocentrism.

                    1. Well a lot of people do. People you don’t like apparently. People who are not rising in the economic scheme of things, quite often.

                      I admit I am a retrograde personality. I celebrate ethnicity in its many iterations. I think ethnicity will outlive America in the end. Both will outlive me for sure.

                      Sal Sar.

                    2. JF, I can imagine a variety of things that are associated with an ethnic group — food, dance, music, art, jokes, use of loan words, etc. — where someone who has grown up surrounded by others from that ethnic group has a preference for their own ethnic group over a different ethnic group.

                      Personally, I enjoy things that come from diverse ethnicities, but I also know people who are rather insular.

                  3. “Suggesting eliminating the term racism is downright Tucker Carlson.”

                    Enigma, did Tucker say that the word racism should be eliminated, or was he making a point about something else?

                    Tucker Carlson believes in the Constitution and is somewhat of a libertarian. Is that why you think he is a racist, or is he a racist in your terms because his skin is white and he doesn’t apologize for the color he was born with?

              2. Enigma, When you wish to call someone a racist you should have the ability to provide proof. I note that when Trump governed he did so in a non racist manner.

                Now I will ask you. Is BLM anti-Semitic?

                The reason you deflect from questions that require solid answers is you have none, or your answers indict black people as well as white. It is your unwillingness to discuss based on solid proof and continuous racist actions that perpetuates hate that need not exist. I don’t see a significant difference between the different racial groups, do you? I judge a man based on his character. Do you?

                1. I judged Trump on his character, his history, his policies and his actions. If you think Trump wasn’t racist trhoughout including the way he governed, you aren’t paying attention. His last attempt to disenfranchise large primarily Black cities should have been a hint. Separating brown children from their parents, some forever, Muslim bans, upping mass incarceration, ending Federal supervision of local police forces. He’s come a long way from simply refusing to rent to Black people, having their applicatiions marked “C” for Colored. I can define wht I call anyone a racist, there is no point in wasting my time on those who will accept nothing.

                  1. “Separating brown children from their parents, some forever, Muslim bans, upping mass incarceration, ending Federal supervision of local police forces.”
                    Fascinating how you get it all wrong:

                    1. Obama began the process of detaining illegals and housing their kids separately lest he be called an ogre so I suppose you judge him a racist
                    2. There we no Muslim bans and I defy you to find one. Pew Research Center estimated that Trump’s original executive order would affect only about 12 percent of Muslims in the world and the policy was given explicit SCOTUS approval so under your logic SCOTUS is racist, too.
                    3. Trump actually reformed incarceration (First Step Act) and reduced what you call mass incarceration and I call it giving every man his due including the victims.
                    4. Feds never had supervision of local police forces absent a consent order or decree. Less than 1%.

                    1. Obama didn’t separate children permanently though parts of his policy sucked as well.
                      Trump certainly attempted to impose a Muslim ban and it took three of four attempts to get something that would pass muster.
                      SCOTUS (and the Federal Court system) is racist and has always been so, It’s why Mitch McConnell has been desperate to fill the courts with mainly unqualified people with the right ideology. The process to become a Justice requires professing adherance to the Constitution which is also racist, The whole concept of originalism is a promise to stick to racist beliefs.
                      It’s why SCOTUS has weakened or found unconstitutional every single Civil Rights or Voting Rights ever enacted by Congress. It’s wht racist redistricting and Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression still exist. Of course SCOTUS is racist, which in fairness may be secondary to their need to protect class (which out of necessity is racist as well). America was literally built on racism including all of its institutions. Hiow could you think differently?
                      I tried to find a publication that you couldn’t immediately denounce as liberal when providing a source to discuss mass incarceration under Trump. I went to college in Nashville and can guarantee the Nashville Tennessean is anything but a liberal rag.
                      Regarding federal supervision of local police, I was speaking specifically about consent decrees. Trump stopped supervision of those in existence that he could and refused to enter into any new ones. He effectively removed even the threat of federal supervision which turned loose those who might have otherwise been concerned. As an aside, did you know that Southern police forces evolved from slave patrols? Northern ones evolved from private forces designed to control immigrants which isn’t much different. All of them are geared toward protecting the property and lives of the rich.

                  2. Example of prior discussions with Enigma where Enigma claimed these issues proved Trump guilty of racism. Total hogwash but here they are.:

                    1) So called arrest of Fred Trump: All that is known is that a person was near a rally and did nothing wrong. Because it was in the vicinity of a KKK rally Enigma wants to believe the individual was Trump’s father though that is unknown. Based on that Enigma said Trump must be guilty of racism. Special note: Trump wasn’t even born.

                    2) Housing dispute: Black and white landlords along with landlords of many races and religions were accused of racist renting policies. NYC and the Feds picked one landlord to intimidate all landlords. They picked the wrong one. Trump wasn’t intimidated. In the end they found nothing valid to use against Trump to prove him guilty so they settled. They probably wish they had picked on someone else to set an example. Special note: NYC housing authority separated their low income housing based on race.

                    The arguments by Enigma have no teeth, not even rubber ones, but Enigma will tarnish a reputation without proof and that is why his proof above is a list that doesn’t hold water and means nothing without data. Enigma is not stupid. He blindly hates Trump.


                    1. I love reading you describe what I have said vs what I have actually said.
                      Despite your claim it wasn’t Fred Trump that was arrested, the contemporaneous article and the home address don’t support your claim.
                      Regarding his two settlements with the Feds for housing discrimination. He had the applications marked “C” for Colored. Explain that away? The Feds settled because Trump dragged it out forever and because it’s what they usually do. He’s not innocent, he just never admitted guilt.
                      BTW, I included Trump’s quote about his father not being there, though as you said, Trump wasn’t born yet. How would he know?
                      I never claimed Trump was racist based on his father. He gets his own chapter on racism, on second thought, a book.

                    2. Enigma, I fought long and hard with you regarding Fred Trump’s “arrest” including obtaining the initial newspaper report of it. You called Trump a racist based on your assumptions of what happened to Fred Trump. Donald J Trump hadn’t even been born. That was one of your initial arguments to me that Trump was a racist.

                      On the second issue I went into the housing claims and even provided the address for the agreement with copies of the respective signatures. I explained in depth NYC actions and what they were trying to accomplish. I explained the C to you at the time at great length. Suffice it to say Trump has been involved with huge numbers of rental units and yes I think out of the many employees you pointed out 1 that used the C. I trust you to be accurate in that case, but since that was the unusual not the usual I don’t take it to mean very much.

                      What is important is that landlords do what they do to make money. Whether one was black, white or another color they all faced the same issues as did NYC housing authority which separated people based on race. People have a tendency to separate themselves based on race, religion, etc. When NYC and the feds go after anyone they have unlimited resources paid by the taxpayer, unlimited time, paid by the taxpayer. In the end it is rare and expensive to go to court to prove not guilty or innocence. The feds and NYC couldn’t do more than settle because they had no case and knew they could not prevail. Trump settled because his money was out of his own pocket as was his time. If both Trump and NYC been paid by the taxpayer the entire affair would never have ended.

                      That you are unhappy to be proven wrong doesn’t stop you from creating fictions around the case.

                      You should read some of Thomas Sowell’s books on race. He can show you the raw numbers and why you are wrong about a lot of things having to do with race.

                    3. “9 minutes
                      Enigma, I fought long and hard with you regarding Fred Trump’s “arrest” including obtaining the initial newspaper report of it. You called Trump a racist based on your assumptions of what happened to Fred Trump. Donald J Trump hadn’t even been born. That was one of your initial arguments to me that Trump was a racist.”

                      I have NEVER claimed Trump was a racist based on his father’s actions. He has far too many of his own for me to bother with an illogical argument. You may have heard Allan say I said that which still doesn’t make it so, As far as the practices of Trump’s company (he was the President not some flunky for his father). You can look at the raw data and individual reports of the people affected by his racism. More telling, the second federal lawsuit was for the exact same practices as the first.
                      Your claims about why the feds settle civil cases are ridiculous. It comes down to a civil servamt needing to get something off their desk. Your claim of actual innocence is ridiculous in light of the facts.
                      Your “proof” that I’m wrong is ridiculous and evolves from your own fiction.

                    4. Enigma, to be more accurate you called Fred Trump a racist and said (paraphrase) his son didn’t fall far from the tree. We continued with that discussion for multiple posts while you added other things to prove Trump a racist. The conversation about Fred Trump would never had existed if it weren’t for you trying to pigeon hole Trump as a racist. You did this with many things.

                      We have gone though NYC and the Feds regarding housing and I showed you the final settlement with the signatures. We looked at the raw data and it didn’t prove anything. My claims about settlements aren’t true? Then tell us the truth. You explain the settlement, but you couldn’t then and you can’t now. All you are able to do is make fictitious claims without the evidence to back the claims up.

                      “Your “proof” that I’m wrong is ridiculous and evolves from your own fiction.”

                      The settlement shows you that what you considered proof wasn’t and I note the amount of rhetoric in your present statement which is not matched by any facts on your end.

                    5. Someone else has already put together some of the affidavits so that I didn’t have to,
                      Trump’s bigotry hurts people
                      Lauren Dillon
                      Lauren Dillon
                      Nov 2, 2016 · 5 min read

                      His past history of discrimination is just one reason he cannot be president
                      I want to introduce you to Agnes, Mae, Alfred, and Annette. I’ve spent so much time over the past few months learning their stories by poring over boxes and boxes of legal documents outlining their experiences with Donald Trump and his family.
                      By now, you might have read the New York Times’ damning exposé of the Trump family’s long history of housing discrimination. Now I’m asking you to make sure that everyone you know reads these stories, because no one who treats his fellow Americans this way can ever be our president.
                      In the 1960s, African Americans in New York and Virginia inquiring about vacant apartments in Trump buildings were repeatedly turned away. After investigations by the New York City Commission on Human Rights and the U.S. Department of Justice, the Trumps’ discrimination made its way into federal courts — USA v. Trump was filed in 1973.
                      It wasn’t the first time that Trump and his family had been sued for discriminating against African-American renters. Just four years earlier, an African-American couple in Ohio had sued the Trumps for refusing to rent them a unit at their apartment complex in Cincinnati. While that case flew under the radar, the 1973 case would be different. This time, the Trumps were being sued by the U.S. government in what remains one of the largest housing discrimination cases in U.S. history.
                      Part of my job as a researcher is to go through all of the old court documents in the various lawsuits against a candidate, and Trump has certainly kept me and my team busy. But looking at these documents and hearing these stories in particular moved me. Because when the Trumps’ company instructed its building managers to write “C” for “colored” on applications from African-American renters, that hurt people. They turned Americans looking for a home into nothing more than a letter.

                      An affidavit from a Department of Justice attorney, USA v. Trump
                      When Alfred Hoyt, a Black man, was told that a Trump apartment was unavailable, Shelia Greenberg, a white woman, was sent to check and see if she was given different information when she inquired about the apartment. Where Hoyt was told that he was last on a long list and wasn’t allowed to leave an application, Greenberg was treated cordially, and ended up actually placing a deposit and signing a lease a few days later.

                      From Alfred Hoyt’s complaint against the Trumps

                      Shelia Greenberg’s report included in Hoyt’s complaint
                      The exact same thing happened to Annette:

                      The City of New York Commission on Human Rights recommends probable cause for an investigation against the Trumps
                      Patterns like this are so clear — an African-American renter walks into a management office, is treated with disrespect and turned away. A white renter walks into the management office after them and is treated professionally and offered an apartment. That’s housing discrimination, pure and simple. It happened at Trump buildings across the country — in New York, Ohio, and Virginia. And it hurt people.
                      Look at this complaint filed by Agnes Bunn. She had to check boxes stating that because of her race and because of her color, she was illegally denied housing by the Trumps, and then sign her name. I can’t know the anger and pain she must have felt filling this out, of the time she spent going over to the Human Rights Commission because Fred Trump and his son, Donald, were infringing on her most basic rights.

                      Agnes Bunn’s filing with the New York City Commission on Human Rights
                      And listen to Mae tell her story ­ — it’s so similar to Agnes’ and Alfred’s and Annette’s. It’s clear that the Trumps didn’t value Mae’s rights or dignity. Why would we let someone who so cavalierly discards people become our president?

                      Trump’s version of this story is that they settled the lawsuit with no admission of wrongdoing and that was the end of it. He recently said, “It was very easy to do” and called it, “just one of those things.” But that’s just not true. Just three years after the Justice Department reached a settlement with Trump that prohibited the company from discriminating, the government had to take him back to court for failing to comply with the agreement. Then, four years later, the Trumps were sued again for continuing the same pattern of discrimination against minority renters.

                      A 1977 complaint filed by a housing group documenting continued discrimination at Trump properties even after they agreed to stop in their 1975 settlement with the DOJ
                      I know we don’t need to see someone’s handwriting, or watch their tears, to know that discrimination in any form is wrong and disqualifying for any presidential can. But there are only 6 days left in this election, and going over these pages again, seeing these people’s stories, and knowing that it happened again and again, has given me new motivation to keep pushing through the homestretch. These bold leaders — Agnes, Mae, Alfred, Annette, and others who stood up the Trumps — are inspiring. They didn’t acquiesce. They didn’t just walk away. They stood up for what was right, and we need to follow their lead.

                      Some of your false claims are refuted here:
                      What Trump knowingly did wasn’t an accident or an instance, it was a widespread practice, which he repeated, He is what he is, and his defenders like yourself allow him to continue.
                      BTW, you paraphrasing what you believe I said can be graciously called a lie. Everything I said on the subject is in writing including an article I provided which makes none of the claims you say. I challenge you to prove it.

                    6. Enigma, I went through 2093 characters of the 5,715 character post and no evidence was produced. Your reliance on another wordy person reveals you are shooting blanks. Your world is very narrow.

                      The rest of the report including the link which admitted what I told you above only they spun it as a Trump loss. The big was Trump was forced to read the fair housing law something everyone involved in the field has to do. You can keep dreaming how that was a loss.

                    7. You only had to read the affidavits of the Black testers who were refused housing and the white ones that got in. That you didn’t read it all didn’t surprise me nor that you accept nothing. Racism is allowed to flourish because of those that look away.

                    8. “You only had to read the affidavits of the Black testers who were refused housing and the white ones that got in. “

                      What about them? What did NYC officials or the feds say in their final declaration? Apparently that evidence didn’t prove what you think it did. People are refused tenancy all the time for various reasons even when they are white.

                      Enigma, the proof would have been a serious conviction or a serious settlement, but that didn’t happen.

                      What about these testers? Who are they? Who pays for them? What are their incentives?

                      I know a bit more about the NYC rental market than you do but when it comes to the testers one has to figure out who is the abuser and who is the abused. NYC has a lot of laws unfavorable to landlords. A lot of pressure groups caused great harm to landlords pushing tenants in that didn’t pay and caused significant harm to the building. One doesn’t want a criminal element or drugs to destroy a good building.

                      Landlords have to earn money. You are not concerned with that and neither was NYC under Lindsay. There again the city made things so untenable for landlords that landlords stopped paying taxes and gave the buildings (their property) to NYC no charge (massive numbers). You don’t seem to understand the facts of life. Without landlords there are no housing units. When the city of NY got those housing units they were unable to maintain them under the rules of the city and it cost them more to run. Everyone was worse off so the city returned the units to the owners while forgiving the taxes, fines and building corrections they ordered.

                      Racism as an issue is very complicated but your type of action combined with these partisan groups and the city creates exactly the opposite of what we both want.

                    9. “You are going to great lengths to deny and defend racism. Why?”

                      No Enigma, I am trying to limit its use to those things that are serious and merit attention. You make everything racist so nothing is racist. To solve a problem you must define it. To see what actually happened you have to look at the incentives involved. If the incentives economically force people to do things that might appear racist (not talking about our prior discussion rather the totality) then racism is not your problem. The incentives are. Changing the incentives can be a solution.

                      Deal with that rather than accusing another of racism that doesn’t exist.

                    10. Racism can’t be separated from finances. Many racist choices like colonialism and slavery and, and, and, were made to provide a financial benefit. The French and British economies are still boosted from their earlier (and present) racist policies. America’s economy is the same. Because something has an economic benefit doesn’t mean it isn’t racist, it just means the racists found a way to justify it.

                    11. “Many racist choices like colonialism and slavery and, and, and, were made to provide a financial benefit.”

                      Enigma, that isn’t racism. Let’s define racism.

                      “1: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” __Merriam Webster

                      Racism doesn’t have to exist with slavery. Slavery is exploitation. Why black people could be slaves and not white people was a construct to excuse exploitive behavior and is racist.

                      Slavery has existed all over the world. If you were conquered you could become a slave even if you were from the same race.

                      You have entwined racism into everything so you are unable to separate racism from the rest and that leads you down a very bad and dangerous road. It doesn’t give you a way out.

                      Please, do not ever think I don’t care about racism. I know what it is and I know what it can do. But, blaming everything on racism by decent person like you damages the person.

                    12. Racists now wear their racism like a badge of honor, knowing you and others will look away. I don’t see racism everywhere, you on the other hand see it nowhere. Some racists do resent being called racist, if only they disliked being that way.

                    13. “Racists now wear their racism like a badge of honor, knowing you and others will look away.”

                      Enigma, that is entirely a creation of your mind. It is insulting and demonstrates your own feeling of superiority over others based on race. That smacks of racism.

                      Tell me why hard working people of any race shouldn’t be proud of who they are and what they accomplished?

                      My last response addressed the definition of racism and discussed slavery. Why didn’t you bother commenting on it? Does it bother you to commit to an accepted definition of racism or that racism need not accompany slavery?

                      Why on this topic that seems to occupy your life do you run away from actual discussion of racism. What is it you fear.

                    14. “”

                      If I addressed everything you said I’d waste even more of my time than I have. Saying I run away from discussions on racism is an example of your ridiculous assertions.

                    15. Enigma, what a junky article you have linked us to. Is that your response to honest discussion?

                      I’ll take one of the most inflammatory remarks from the article.

                      “”Let them call you xenophobes,” Steve Bannon continued. “Let them call you nativist. Wear it as a badge of honor. Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker.””

                      Who is the ‘them’ (“let them”)?

                      Is the ‘ them’ the Nazi’s in Denmark when the Danish people said enough of this cr-p and walked out of their homes wearing the Star of David?

                      The them is you and you are doing exactly the same thing the Nazi’s did and we will not be cowered by your actions. We believe all men are created equal and All lives matter, not just one preferred color or religion. We will not be cowered into yielding to the idea that race, religion etc. make one person superior over another. We will link arms, black, white, yellow, brown and red. Our motto is Never Again, never again permit Nazi’s to gain power.

                    16. You’ll have to ask Steve Bannon, former Chief Strategist and top advosor to Trump what he meant. If you don’t like that article, here’s another.
                      and another
                      You don’t seem to be disputing the quotes. He is saying wear the charges of racism as a badge of honor.

                    17. “You don’t seem to be disputing the quotes. He is saying wear the charges of racism as a badge of honor.”

                      Enigma, apparently you don’t bother to read and think about the responses provided to your prior statements. The Danes walked around with a symbol, the Star of David. They attached a picture of it to their clothing because the Nazis demonized the Jews and used that symbol to further demonize them and make them walk the streets carrying that symbol.

                      You have attached the symbol of racists to normal everyday people just like the Nazis did to the Jews to make them appear subhuman. Then the Nazis killed them.

                      The Danes didn’t collaborate with the Nazis and held their heads high. They wore the Star of David proudly on their chests to demonstrate such racist action should not be happening. Here, you and your ilk try to demonize and dehumanize large segments of our population that are good upstanding citizens. To me, it seems like Bannon is acting more like a Dane and you are acting more like a Nazi.

                    18. There you go defending raciosm again. You have redefined racism in your mind to where it no longer exists, except of course, in those people that point it out. Go ahead, defend “C’ for Colored one more time for my amusement. How is that not racist?

                    19. “There you go defending raciosm again. “

                      You can say that Enigma, but that is the way Nazis act and not the way civil human beings act.

                      “You have redefined racism in your mind “

                      No, I let Merriam Webster define the word racism and posted it in my response. In your mind even the appropriate definition of racism is a racist act. That is how the Nazis acted and you are following in their footsteps. They too didn’t care how many of their young fell on the battlefield where such deaths were unnecessary. They too hid those young deaths from the people and singled out others for dehumanization.

                      Enigma, you have tarnished your reputation.

                    20. I’m sorry, I somehow missed your rationalization of “C” for Colored? In the information you partially read it came out that multiple employees indicated they were trained to mark the applications that way and it wasn’t just an aberration. How isn’t that racist?
                      As far as me having tarnished my reputation. Amont the people that I respect and that matter to me, I’m in good standing. If I can’t earn the respect of those who defend or deny racism, I can live with that.

                    21. “I’m sorry, I somehow missed your rationalization of “C” for Colored?”

                      Enigma, I didn’t rationalize it but spoke to it in my response to you. You were too busy trying to think of how to demonize people rather than dealing with what I said and setting aside time for discussion on that specific issue.

                      Take note the question and answer sessions with you go only one way. You ask, I answer, but you don’t respond to my answers nor my questions.

                      “Amont the people that I respect and that matter to me, I’m in good standing.”

                      Do they also reject Merriam Webster’s definition of racism?

                    22. Enigma,
                      I agree that what Bannon is suggesting is wrong and foolish. It is a result of people calling others racist for things that don’t rise to that level (a problem for sure, but still a foolish reason to agree with the accusation).

                      Disagree with the BLM movement? People get called racist. Disagree with affirmative action? People get called racist. Disagree with hate crime laws? People get called racist. These are conversations that need to be had but the conversation gets shut down or sidetracked by the accusation.

                      Is what Bannon is suggesting a sign all those folks are racist or a sign people have had it with being called racist for no good reason, so much so that they are just going to agree with it? It is a terrible reaction. It is not unlike the response kids have to being labeled–eventually, many just accept it as if it represents reality. Not an exact comparison, but is it somewhat comparable to some black people calling each other the n-word?

                    23. As I mentioned lower in this comments section many days ago, there is a problem in defining racism in a way that will be universal across groups, ie, in our usual situatioin, fit both blacks and whites. A fair definition that makes sense is hard to find!

                      There is also a problem in establishing our shared ethical norms upon which we would consider this or that, immoral, or not

                      There is a big irony in the “Left” espousing Antiracism when philosophically, the “Left” has been based on a set of philosophical premises for over a century, which claim that all ethics are fundamentally relative and situational.

                      Because if that is true, then conceivably, some racisms might be ok and others not.

                      I can see why Republicans and conservatives find that troubling.

                      As a white person, I understand that this is a tool of political discourse, and that it is meant to disempower white people, and advantage those who use the accusation. Specifically, it is meant to box me in as a white person, into a trap of either condemning my ancestors, my people alive today, and thus acting like a weakling, or denying the accusation, or perhaps even embracing it, as Steve Bannon suggested, and thus identifying myself as a target for further abuse from those who wield the antiracist tools on their foes. But while I may be a target, I live as a stronger person for refusing to self-denounce as invited by my oppressors.

                      A long time ago, I chose the latter option. I would prefer to be thought of as a racist, than a weakling.

                      I want white people to see this and understand. If you admit to being a racist, if you denounce white people, if you are on the antiracist bandwagon against people of your own color, then you are weak, you are self-abnegating, and you volunteer yourself for further punishment. You have been turned out like a punk in jail and you will continue to be humiliated. I want white people to fully understand that this is a trap set by bullies and the only way out is to stand up for yourself, and if necessary, fight. Die on your feet, not your knees, if you must, but better yet live on your feet.

                      I’ll tell you another thing. This often plays out with white people more importantly than it does with black folks. I have studied a lot of public conflicts about being called a racist, and the worst punishments for it ALWAYS come from white skinned people high up in the food chain, so to speak. The serious penalties for being a socalled racist almost NEVER come from blacks. hmmm. I saw this enough times, I started to stop myself from getting mad at black folks, and ask myself, in the words of ice-T:

                      “and I ask myself
                      Just who had the power?
                      The Whites? The Blacks?
                      Or just the gun tower!”

                      Sal Sar

                      PS that being said, we can live with people of other races in peace, we SHOULD be at peace with our fellow man, including other races. I believe that is righteous. But we can also accept that people are naturally ethnocentric. If we are allowed a reasonable measure of ethnocentrism just as we allow it to others, then we can have a just and peaceful society. That would be great! then we can perhaps work together on asking ourselves, why were we fighting so much in the first place? Who was it, what group in our society, that set us one against another? I have a hypothesis about that question and it is, the billionaires put as at each other’s throats, so we are busy fighting each other, and not them. Just food for thought, folks! Cheers and pax vobiscum!

                  3. I provided 2 examples of Major claims by Enigma which obviously hold no water. Enigma made other comments more than adequately handled by Mespo. Enigma provided a list without content. Why? There is little if any content behind the accusations, however, he talked about what I assume was the border children crossing so let me say a few words about that problem that was disappearing under Trump. Under Biden, that problem has horrifically returned.

                    Does Enigma care about the children or does he just hate Trump? The latter is what one must believe based on what we are seeing today.

                    Children are traveling with drug traffickers frequently parentless where along with women they have been abused. Also along with women, they have been used to get drugs into this country that destroys the lives of our children. Biden is promoting the establishment of cartel havens in the US along with terrorist havens. He is encouraging prostitution and slave labor. Americans have their businesses closed because of Covid, but Biden sees nothing wrong with spreading Covid through illegal aliens. Enigma talks about cages, but those cages were built under Obama and Trump was trying to end the problem. I think yesterday the cages were filled and now there are more children than cage space.

                    American families and minority families that Enigma wishes to protect are now in more danger from drugs, gangs, and all types of violence. Their schools and medical care are being negatively impacted. What Biden is doing will negatively affect the American standard of living significantly for decades.

                    I can go on further but I think the point is made. Enigma, stop hating Trump and start loving the children that you talk about.

                2. “Is BLM anti-Semitic?”

                  Some people who identify with BLM are anti-Semitic and other people who identify with BLM are not anti-Semitic.

                  Just like some Christians are anti-Semitic and other Christians are not anti-Semitic, and some white people are anti-Semitic and other white people are not anti-Semitic, and some Asians are anti-Semitic and other Asians are not anti-Semitic, etc., etc.

                  1. It is the position of some serious people, that Christianity is inherently and theologically anti-Semitic.

                    That is not my position, but it is a real thing.

                    The reasoning is related to what is called “replacement theology.”

                    Likewise perhaps, some people may regard any group that espouses divestment and sanctions against Israel, the Jewish state, is per se anti-semitic.

                    I believe that the constellation of groups which forms BLM is very clearly in favor of divestment and sanctions against Israel. I did a little research on this the other day if anyone wants me to verify the assertion. Sal Sar

                    1. BDS is a movement against Israeli occupation in the West Bank. Lots of Jews oppose the occupation. Do you consider them all anti-Semites?

                    2. “BDS is a movement against Israeli occupation”

                      It’s not an occupation. Occupation means exercising authority over another country’s sovereign territory. Israel has the lawful sovereign right including historical, religious and legal connections to Judea and Samaria along with all of Jerusalem. They are indigenous people of Israel. There is tremendous legal backing to Israeli sovereignty.

                    3. I am not Jewish. It is not for me to determine who is an antisemite. I do realize that some Jews will call other jews antisemitic.

                      As one of my Jewish friends told me once, “the antisemtic Jews are the very worst kind!

                      In fact I am a Catholic, however lapsed, and our Saint Paul, fka Saul of Tarsus, is considered the very type of an antisemitic Jew. This can be hard to understand.

                      As an American, I am free to criticize Israel. Nonetheless, for all our differences, Israel has proven a potent strategic ally in the Middle East for the United States, and its primary detractor, Palestine, has not. Much as I like Arabs and Palestinians whom I have met, as an American, and as little of a dog I have in the fight, I do affirm the existence of the Jewish state of Israel.

                      Accordingly, I do not find BLM’s anti-Israel stance anything of value. I think BLM is funded by George Soros among others, who may themselves be Jewish and yet critics of Israel. Soros as a globalist takes a dim view of national sovereignty as such, and so it’s logical that he opposes Israel.

                      Israel is to be commended, in my thinking, for exercising its sovereign prerogatives to wage war and protect with organized force, its national existence.

                      If you support national sovereignty as a normative concept in international relations, then you have to find Israel impressive on that account. I do.

                      I observe that while in the past the European right was often antisemitic, as advocates of national sovereignty, they have come around to being admirers of Israel for the very same reason. The reason, ethnocentrism as a licit basis for political organization; and national sovereignty as a norm for international relations.

                      This reveals an interesting dynamic: Populist parties, and indeed such places as where they have took hold which could be called popular democracies, let’s say, such as Poland or Hungary, or even Israel, are now often “on the right,” whereas, fans of trans-national and supra-national superstates and globalism, which often are attacking popular democracies with organized riots aka “color revolutions,” and endless lawfare and mass media propaganda asserting human rights ideology, are “on the left” even though we can see the socalled left is staunchly supported by billionaires.

                      Sal Sar

                  2. The Problem is the anti-Semitism is no longer as random in BLM as you assume.

                3. S. Meyer– to Enigma: “I judge a man based on his character. Do you?”
                  The answer to that would be ‘No’ judging by his posts. He appears to look at others with one lens, race, but he is honest enough not to pretend that he is anything but an enthusiastic racist.

                  He does vanish when issues like black on black slaughter in places like Chicago are brought up., or, for that matter, that black men, about 7% of the population, are responsible for 54% of the murders in the country. Looting has been spun as reparations, but I can’t see a reparations angle in black men slaughtering other black people.

                  As I have said before, racism is far more prevalent in the black community than in the rest of the country [excepting academia and government perhaps]. Whites, Hispanics and Asians appear to be working pretty well together excepting a radical or two every now and then.

                  1. Can you bring yourself to admit the rise in anti-Asian hate crimes in the last year?

                    1. Anon: ” Can you bring yourself to admit the rise in anti-Asian hate crimes in the last year?”



                      if you were close enough to see local news you would see that those crimes are almost entirely [maybe entirely] committed by blacks. In the Bay Area black on Asian crimes are shockingly common and little is done about them with their far-left prosecutor in charge. Several of those assaults, some caught on video, show young black men charging elderly Asians attacked at random. At least one attack [maybe more] caused the death of an elderly man who never suspected the young thug across the street was going to charge and slam him to the cement.

                      It is racism wearing its ugliest , murderous face.

                  2. Once again, you rely on your personal convenience sample.

                    Maybe you should consider that less than half of the abuse reported nationally has been reported in CA.

                    1. Some actual information is better than no actual information. You seem to favor the latter.

                    2. Anon: “The problem with random attacks on Asian people is overall, a black on yellow phenomenon.”

                      Yes. Even the national media leaks the truth once in awhile. One clue with the media scoundrels is that when they say hate crimes against Asians are on the rise and they don’t mention offenders’ race they are black. When racist offenders are white the race is always mentioned in screams.

                      Our media stories need to be examined closely to tweeze out the truth the way folks in the Soviet Union had to do.

                    3. A perp known as “YAYA MUSLIM” has been arrested for attacking three old Asian people in Oakland.

                      Is that a cracker name? I don’t think so.

                    4. Anonymous the Stupid, the problem is that Young is correct. This has been seen in major metropolitan cities, NYC included.

                  3. “Some actual information is better than no actual information. You seem to favor the latter.”

                    You have an overactive imagination.

                    I don’t have to rely on your personal convenience sample in order to obtain information. I favor getting information from reliable sources. If you think they’re not available, you’re mistaken.

                    1. In law there is a big difference between personal information and secondary information. The first is admissible and the second is hearsay.

                      You prefer hearsay because it confirms your bias even if not true.

                      Turley’s post above about Wa Po getting suckered into error by ‘reliable sources’ demonstrates the dangers of that practice.

                      You might be a reporter but you have little knowledge of evidence law, or truth.

                  4. “You prefer hearsay because it confirms your bias even if not true.”

                    You again demonstrate your overactive imagination.

                    Here’s a hint: if you want to tell me what I prefer, don’t. Because you are not a mind reader.

                    I prefer random or representative samples to convenience samples. ALL of them involve “personal information.”

                    1. “I prefer random or representative samples to convenience samples. ALL of them involve “personal information.”
                      Actually, NO. Pick up a little evidence law and learn the difference between admissible evidence and hearsay.

                      But since you insist on this point I notice you have provided nothing to suggest that attacks on Asians are not predominantly done by blacks.

                      You prefer a type of secondary evidence but don’t provide any.

                      You could work for Wa Po or NYT. They often blow smoke with no fire and are caught at it.

                    2. It occurs to me that with your talk about convenience samples you are blurring the signicant difference between a witness and an investigator.

                    3. Anon– Nice rant!

                      I noticed you still haven’t given any evidence in any form you prefer to demonstrate that most attacks on Asians lately are anything other than attacks by blacks.

                      That’s probably why the eyeball rolling foam at the mouth rant.

                      You are cornered.

                  5. “Actually, NO.”

                    Actually, YES.

                    “learn the difference between admissible evidence and hearsay.”

                    I already know the difference. You need to learn methods of sampling. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, as you apparently don’t understand that one can gather personal information with a variety of sampling methods.

                    “You prefer a type of secondary evidence…”

                    You’re a liar. Too bad that you didn’t take my advice: if you want to tell me what I prefer, DON’T. Because you are not a mind reader.

                    “with your talk about convenience samples you are blurring the signicant difference between a witness and an investigator.”

                    I’m not. The more you say, the clearer it is that you don’t know what you’re talking about and are projecting garbage onto me because of your own ignorance.

                    1. Response should have gone here:

                      Anon– Nice rant!

                      I noticed you still haven’t given any evidence in any form you prefer to demonstrate that most attacks on Asians lately are anything other than attacks by blacks.

                      That’s probably why the eyeball rolling foam at the mouth rant.

                      You are cornered.

                    2. “I already know the difference. You need to learn methods of sampling. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, as you apparently don’t understand that one can gather personal information with a variety of sampling methods.”

                      Learn about selection.

                    3. Anon: “I don’t know anyone who is breaking the data down by race. But it’s certainly easy to find reports of whites attacking Asians, for example:”
                      What a b.s. report. That is what you came up with? Did you even give it some thought. Very little mention of ‘attacking’ by whites or anyone else. about 98% of the incidents were nonphysical and at least one included ‘isolation’ because other customers sat away from the whiner. I sit away from everyone because I am not particularly fond of any strangers. Not that fond of non-strangers come to think of it. I prefer to read in quiet.

                      If that activist document is the best you can come up with you are still in a corner.

                      By contrast, one can find lots of actual news items like this:


                      or this:


                      Actual violence against Asians is largely by blacks. Often the media will hide the race of the assailant but you can usually find it somewhere or figure it out by the strange name.

                      And, yes, you did rant.

                    4. “98% of the incidents were nonphysical”

                      You either need to work on your reading or else you’re outright lying. The first page says “Physical assault (11.1%) comprises the third largest category of the total incidents.”

                      Since you prefer convenience samples, will you be including the suspect arrested in the shootings in Atlanta yesterday? 6 of the 8 people killed were Asian women –

                1. I don’t pretend to know what’s on Jesse’s mind. As far as his recent communication with Trump, (I take you at your word this is so) he may be one of many so-called Black leaders who thought he could work with Trump whether to benefit Black people or line their own pockets. The list is lengthy enough; Jim Brown, Kanye, Pastor Mark Burns, Dr. Darrell Scott, Candace Owens, Diamond & Silk. None of them accomplished a damn thing.

                  The picture you provided is quite old. There was a time where Trump was enamored by rappers, celebrities, and others who bought the hype, Perhaps unaware of his record. Most of them feel differently now though there still is Herschel Walker.

                  None of that takes away from who Trump is and what he has done.

              3. Everyone is racist (or ethnocentric or parochial, take your pick) to some degree and trying to force-change human nature never works. We’re biologically driven to favor similars and disfavor non-similars. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t resist our nature to some extent but condemning people for biological inclinations never works and taking away people’s ethnic or racial pride is dehumanizing. What we should do and we have done is level the playing field via the law as best we can. That has resulted in the destruction of traditional institutional racism and not so coincidentally given rise to reverse racism against whites in the form of government affirmative action, racial quotas and woke intersectionality which is avowedly and unapologetically racist.

                I agree with Morgan Freeman. The best way to stop racism is quit talking about it and using it as a wedge or advantage for some groups against others. It’s a fools errand like all those months and days named for some leftist ideal designed only to divide.

                  1. Enigma, we all face problems and many or most of us have faced problems far worse than yours so stop with the BS. It’s painful to us who have lost most of our families and the survivors were tortured and enslaved. You don’t know what real adversity is.

                    You create hate where it need not exist. That hate is killing people especially the black community but you place politics in front of solutions.

                    1. You need to categorize me to feel better about yourself. I don’t create hate, there’s plenty enough to go around. There are many causes of adversity in the Black community, some driven by racism. Refusing to address those causes is both acceptance and perpetuation of the status quo.

                    2. “You need to categorize me to feel better about yourself. “

                      Enigma, no need to characterize you at all. It’s painful to see you acting in a fashion that hurts future generations. Despite your education with a scholarship you continue to work towards the division of people rather than bringing them together. You have politicized the use of the word racism. Despite all your complaints what you show of yourself is a total disregard of the deaths of black youths in major cities. You do the same with regard to educating the young in predominantly black communities.

                      If you want to address the problems do so, but that is not what we are hearing. You sound like a NYC politician that talks about ending racism but when it comes to educating black children in charter schools where they have tremendous success you talk about getting rid of those schools.

                    3. “many or most of us have faced problems far worse than yours”

                      You have no way of knowing what Enigma or most other people have faced, so this is just arrogant invention on your part, Allan.

                      “You create hate where it need not exist.”

                      Once again you’re projecting, Allan.

                    4. Anonymous the Stupid, in the past Enigma revealed a bit about himself and where he came from. From that I know a bit about him. One can actually read books on the subject and get an idea of what Americans and people all over the world have faced and some have faced horrors directly. Perhaps you wouldn’t have any idea because you are Stupid and haven’t read about these things.

                      The suffering of black people in America was terrible especially during slavery which should never have existed, but they are not the only people that have suffered in the world. American blacks today that are not involved in drugs and violence are better off than most people in the world. Many have suffered worse than the non-suffering of Enigma yet get on with their lives and promote healing not hate.

                      You don’t understand these things because you are Anonymous the Stupid.You don’t know very much more than what your job forces you to learn. Your brain remains undeveloped territory.

                    5. “Once again, Allan, your insults only reveal things about you.”

                      Yes, Anonymous the Stupid, it reveals that I know what I am talking about. They also say a lot about you just in case anyone hasn’t already realized the nutcase you are.

                    6. No, Allan, your insults reveal that you get off on denigrating those you disagree with.

                    7. No Anonymous the Stupid. I only get off of denigrating Anonymous the Stupid because you are such a nasty fellow. You insult so many different people I could never keep up with your record.

Comments are closed.