Ethics Observations On The Nick Cannon Meltdown

This is the kind of story that makes me doubt my own cultural literacy. Until the controversy involving Nick Cannon, I had never heard of the guy, and wouldn’t recognize him if he walked into my living room.  Yet he’s been around for 20 years as a juvenile TV star, a rapper, comic, actor, producer, director, the TV host of all sorts of shows I didn’t watch, and since 2012 he’s had his own show on MTV called “Wild and Out.” He also has a podcast.

The news that ViacomCBS had fired Cannon resonated throughout the popular media, and qualifies, apparently, as a Big Deal. In the June 30 installment of Cannon’s podcast, “Cannon’s Class,” he interviewed Professor Griff, a rapper who was a part of the group Public Enemy before being forced out after he said in an interview with The Washington Times, “The Jews are wicked. And we can prove this.” He also said that Jews were responsible for “the majority of wickedness that goes on across the globe.”

“I’m hated now because I told the truth,” Griffin told Cannon, who was immediately sympathetic. “You’re speaking facts,!”  Cannon said. “There’s no reason to be scared of anything when you’re speaking the truth.”

After referring to Dr. Griff as a “legend,” Cannon said he wished that Louis Farrakhan, the anti-white demagogue with a long history of anti-Semitic comments, had not been blocked by Facebook.

Then Cannon endorsed Griffin’s contention that six dominant media companies were controlled by Jews, comparing it to the power of the Rothschilds, the banking family at the center  of various  anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. “I find myself wanting to debate this idea and it gets real wishy and washy and unclear for me when we give so much power to the ‘theys,’ and ‘theys’ then turn into illuminati, the Zionists, the Rothschilds,”  Cannon said later in the podcast.

Got it. He’s an anti-Semite.

That podcast was signature significance. Those who are not anti-Jewish bigots don’t say things like that, praise Louis Farrakhan, or tell rappers who say that  Jews are the  cause of  the “majority of wickedness that goes on across the globe” that they are speaking “truth.” Not even once.

ViacomCBS, the parent company of MTV and the cable channel TeenNick, both of which have prominently featured Cannon for years, said through a spokesperson that because Cannon had refused to acknowledge or apologize for his statements on the podcast,  the company, which ” categorically denounced all forms of anti-Semitism,” was terminating its relationship with him.

Cannon initially responded this week on social media by saying that he has “no hate in my heart nor malice intentions” and doesn’t condone hate speech. He also said that he holds himself “accountable for this moment” and takes full responsibility for his actions. Then he began getting support from the Twitter mob and elsewhere, so thus emboldened, he posted a defiant message on Facebook, saying in part,

“If I have furthered the hate speech, I wholeheartedly apologize. But now I am the one making demands. I demand full ownership of my billion dollar ‘Wild ‘N Out’ brand that I created, and they will continue to misuse and destroy without my leadership! I demand that the hate and back door bullying cease and while we are at it, now that the truth is out, I demand the Apology!”

Calling his screed “Truth and Reconciliation,” Cannon began by writing that he is “deeply saddened in a moment so close to reconciliation that the powers that be, misused an important moment for us to all grow closer together and learn more about one another.” He continued,

“Instead the moment was stolen and highjacked [sic] to make an example of an outspoken Black man. I will not be bullied, silenced, or continuously oppressed by any organization, group, or corporation. I am disappointed that Viacom does not understand or respect the power of the Black community,…My hope and original goal was to use this moment to show healing and acceptance and prayed that Viacom would use their powers for good. Instead I am now receiving death threats [and]hate messages….Viacom’s goal to keep me from providing for my family and lineage will be foiled. They can try to kick me while I’m down or force me to kiss the master’s feet in public for shame and ridicule, but instead I stand firm on my square with my fist in the air repeating my mantra, ‘You can’t fire a Boss!’”

The rest of the post was devoted to quoting the supporting messages of his fans, reciting his many successes, and claiming he personally reached out to ViacomCBS chair Shari Redstone “to have a conversation of reconciliation and actually apologize if I said anything that pained or hurt her or her communityrecieving no response (which ViacomCBS denies).

In the latest chapter of this fiasco, Fox announced that Cannon would keep his job as host of its moronic competition “The Masked Singer” because Cannon had apologized.

Fox blathered that  it believes this moment “calls for dialogue,” and will help Cannon advance what it called an important conversation. “When we were made aware of Nick Cannon’s interview with Richard Griffin on YouTube, we immediately began a dialogue with Nick,” Fox said. “He is clear and remorseful that his words were wrong and lacked both understanding and context, and inadvertently promoted hate. This was important for us to observe. Nick has sincerely apologized, and quickly taken steps to educate himself and make amends.”

Observations:

1. Cannon revealed himself as an anti-Semite. There’s no controversy about that. His remarks were unequivocal, and the there is no “context” that can justify them. The man is 39; he’s not going to be educated if he’s still spouting anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and defending Louis Farrakhan.

2. His apology was ridiculous, as pure and perfect a version of a Level Ten apology on the scale as one could imagine:

An insincere and dishonest apology designed to allow the wrongdoer to escape accountability cheaply, and to deceive his or her victims into forgiveness and trust, so they are vulnerable to future wrongdoing.

It was also another iteration of Rationalization #44, “It isn’t what it is,” Nah, Cannon has “no  hate in my heart nor malice intentions,” he merely said he agrees that Jews are wicked.

3. ViacomCBS had to fire him. It would have been wildly irresponsible not to do so. No company in the United States, and especially not one in a communications and entertainment business,  can ethically continue to promote an employee who expresses approval and admiration when a podcast guest spouts unequivocal anti-Semitic opinions.

4. Fox, to be blunt, is a pathetic, venal, principle-free whore. “The Masked Singer” is a big hit, so it will blithely pretend that it is not hosted by a blatant anti-Semite to avoid messing with a successful formula. Following Cannon’s Facebook rant, how could they possibly say that his apology was sincere without giggling.

5. Finally, Cannon, as so many African Americans have been programmed to do, quickly defaulted to “systemic racism” as the reason for his dismissal, and played the race card to “Get Out Of Accountability Free.” If he believes that, he is illustrating the tragedy of how blacks in the U.S. have been crippled by, first, a culture that too often has been biased against them, and second, their own leadership that has encouraged a mindset of blaming others for every personal failure, mistake, setback or misfortune.

If he doesn’t believe it, but is just exploiting the current madness of the George Floyd Freakout to weasel out of responsibility for his own words, he’s truly despicable. Cannon is playing victim while trying to exacerbate racial distrust and simultaneously attempting to benefit from it.

Now I know who Nick Cannon is.

 

34 thoughts on “Ethics Observations On The Nick Cannon Meltdown

  1. Well, I suppose he could simply market his goods to that powerful black community to which he speaks. Nothing is stopping him. His billion dollar brand depends on alot of people who are not black.

  2. Jack said:

    Until the controversy involving Nick Cannon, I had never heard of the guy, and wouldn’t recognize him if he walked into my living room.

    Well, unfortunately my wife loves “America’s Got Talent” formerly hosted by Nick Cannon, and now by the estimable Terry Crews, thank God. Also, Cannon hosts an even more absurd celebrity love fest, “The Masked Singer,” which my wife also loves.

    To me, this is just an extension of the current BLM freakout. Fox is abasing itself to BLM by suggesting Cannon’s anti-Semitic diatribe is somehow part of an “important conversation.” I am at a loss on how this is so. If this had been a non-black man professing anti-black sentiment, it would be denounced as racism and the perpetrator made as radioactive as Chernobyl’s reactor compartment on April 27, 1986.

    So somehow, if we believe Fox, anti-Semitism is part of an “important conversation?” How, exactly, are Jewish or Jewish descended contestants on “The Masked Singer” supposed to feel “safe” with him on the show? Is that not a fundamental tenet of “woke?”

    The contradictions to “Woke-ness” in this affair are legion, and unresolvable. CBS is right, Fox is wrong, and oh by the way, CBS has committed to 50% of it’s writing being done by non-whites by 2023. We surpassed temporary insanity went into gibbering incoherence so quickly my head is spinning.

    Neither Malcolm X nor James Bennet could be reached for comment.

  3. So, Nick Cannon is the poster boy for the good uses of Cancel Culture? Rather than continue dialogue with him, he’ll be canceled until he learns his lesson and even then, probably canceled forever? Or does this just embolden him to circle the wagons and become stubborn?

    Free speech as a human right needs to be reassessed and if we still believe in a person’s right to have dialogue consider what that should mean for employers when employees use independent forums.

    • Free speech as a human right needs to be reassessed and if we still believe in a person’s right to have dialogue consider what that should mean for employers when employees use independent forums.

      The thing is, we crossed this Rubicon a long time ago. The “right” to “cancel” people for wrongspeak is now an established norm. Just like many cultural norms that are negative and unfortunate, this one is as well.

      The problem with speech as a human right is the question of whether an employer must tolerate all speech made in outside forums regardless of the impact of that speech on their business, and the tacit endorsement thereof by not taking action. Social media has empowered small portions of the public to have an incredibly outsized effect on businesses. Ten years ago, we would’ve seen situations like this only rarely, but in 2020, it is tragically simple to impact a business over what somebody says or does. While I totally agree that we have taken this too far, it is done. It cannot be undone except by legislation. Our society, rightly or wrongly, has given its stamp of approval to “cancellations” for wrongspeak. This is directly attributable to the rise of social media as an activist platform, and the “win at all costs” attitude of a small minority of people.

      The old adage “You may have the freedom to speak, but you don’t have freedom from the consequences thereof” has now become part of our cultural fabric. I think it’s important to understand this, whether or not you agree with it. I know I don’t.

      But having said that, it’s also important for this new norm not to become one-sided. If only people on the right gets “canceled,” it creates a legitimacy problem for the right that, left unaddressed, will be their ultimate downfall, and until now has done them substantial damage. When the rules are re-written over the ethical objections of one side and the objector refuses to play by them, the game becomes rigged, unfair, and likely to end only one way. We have seen this many times, and it never ends well for the good guys.

      Ultimately, society decided what it will tolerate, and they have decided, for now at least, “cancellation” for wrongspeak is just. For now, we have to live with it, but we don’t have to like it. It sucks to celebrate Nick Cannon’s demise for a racist comment he has a First Amendment right to make, but the new rules demand at least accepting it. Ethically, we hate racism, so seeing a bigot pay a price for expressing it seem like justice, and I don’t think our Founders expected even protected speech to be free of any consequence. They notably addressed the First Amendment only to the government, and they could’ve included businesses if they had wanted.

      • Let me take a different approach to Cannon’s “cancellation”. Viacomm fired him for antisemitic comments. Fox, though, didn’t fire him on some theory that a “dialogue” is under way within which Cannon will supposedly see the error of his ways, repent for his sins, and continue now having learned so much and grown in his outlook whereby he will understand the pain he caused the Jewish community.

        But, let’s face it, the Left doesn’t care about antisemitic statements unless they are uttered by someone who is not in a protected class. If Sean Hannity goes on a Rothchilds/Illuminati/Masons/Elders-of-Zion screed, our dear friend Sean will be toast. Cannon has qualified immunity due to pigmentation. Cannon is adored by woke and The Mob, so he can be educated and can learn from this unfortunate experience.

        Fox, though, might just be an ethics hero, no? Rather than can Cannon for his anti-cannon cannon shots about Jews, Fox said that its upper management believed Cannon’s contrition is sincere and offered him penance. Admittedly, there is a show out there that generates tons (tonnes?) of excellent ratings (a show that anybody can do, when you come to think of it, so there is little reason not to cut Cannon’s career short), but is that the driving motivation? Maybe Fox actually believes that people make stupid makes and, on balance, should not be drawn and quartered for them, especially when those comments were made on Cannon’s own time. Fox stands behind Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Greg Guttfeld, even though some of what they say is directly contrary to current trends. Carlson, especially, is getting attacked on all sides for the following issues:

        1. his writer got canned for bad things he said;
        2. the Left gets apoplectic any time Carlson obliterates them for their stupid positions;
        3. he has weathered the storm for calling Tammy Duckworth stupid and unimpressive, and an embarrassment for her lame position on statue toppling and police department defunding, and
        4. The Busters are trying to cause grief for Carlson’s advertisers.

        If Fox were driven solely by circling the wagons to protect the company’s profits in times of crisis, then they surely don’t seem to show it. By not canning Cannon for his anti-canonical cannon shots, especially after his tin-foil hat conspiracy nonsense, and supporting him through this time, Fox is demonstrating ethical values that most companies haven’t even heard of.

        jvb

        • Add 3.5 Carlson calls out antifa, BLM, Sharpton and the other jackasses for the jackasses they are. He took a Republican senator to task last week and would not the guy get away with spewing nonsense.

          jvb

        • Johnburger2013 said:

          If Fox were driven solely by circling the wagons to protect the company’s profits in times of crisis, then they surely don’t seem to show it. By not canning Cannon for his anti-canonical cannon shots, especially after his tin-foil hat conspiracy nonsense, and supporting him through this time, Fox is demonstrating ethical values that most companies haven’t even heard of.

          Interesting, thoughtful take.

      • The problem with speech as a human right is the question of whether an employer must tolerate all speech made in outside forums regardless of the impact of that speech on their business, and the tacit endorsement thereof by not taking action.

        Furthermore, it’s precisely BECAUSE it is the established norm–that people presume all employees speak for their employers–that businesses must act that way.

        If the prevailing culture routinely brushed off someone’s statements with “Well, that’s just THAT GUY’s opinion and he’s just exercising his First Amendment rights.” with no assumption at all that his employer thinks the same, then there would be no necessity at all for businesses to police and/or distance themselves from their employees’ public statements.

        Frankly, I’d much prefer that it WERE that way, rather than the way it currently is–both personally and for the good of society.

        –Dwayne

        • I think that’s right. But perhaps more to the point, there is a powerful element of society that is looking to force employer action for speech they don’t like, regardless of prevailing culture.

    • It’s tough, isn’t it? I kind of waffled too. But freedom of speech and a general stance against cancel culture aren’t suicide pacts, there has to be some kind of line where reasonable people can take a stance.

      There are consequences to speech. The Overton Window does exist. Taken to an extreme; On an individual level, nothing should force you to interact with people you find odious. On a professional level, you shouldn’t be forced to employ people that chase your customers around your place of business, hurling racial slurs at them. Those customers are not required to stand by and put up with it. And yet distancing yourself from those people and firing that person is “cancelling”, as you used it above. Of course, those examples are all hyperbolic, but once you realize that, yes, there are consequences to speech, then it’s a matter of drawing back to more reasonable examples.

      The problem is that the left doesn’t have principles, and not being overly concerned about principles, they have no limiting factors. They don’t care about reason, or logic, or internal consistency, or long term viability… The point is to get immediate gratification, consequences be damned. And so they took the normal limits of consequence-free speech and ripped them into something that we don’t recognize, like the good little authoritarians they are.

      Because their response to every stimulus; from an employee hurling racial epithets on a national podcast, to a mild critique of BLM’s Marxist excesses, to private individuals having a bad day, is identical: DESTROY THE UNBELIEVER. I think we’ve been pushed towards a more rigid and unreasonable defense of free speech, one that we would not have held even five years ago, because we are afraid that if given an inch they will take a mile. It’s not unreasonable, but I still choose not to die on the hill of a public figure getting canned from a media company after raving like a lunatic on air about the wicked Jews that control the media.

      I’m actually a little late to this particular party, but this has forced me to reconsider my prior position on boycotts. I used to think someone saying “I’m not shopping at X, because Y, and neither should you” was an acceptable use of speech, and if that was all there was to it, I think I’d still sit there. But there’s been a change; this built in public-shaming component for people who do not participate in your boycott. It’s one thing to be punished for your speech, it’s another to be punished for a lack of speech. This coercive element is anathemical to free speech.

      That’s the same issue with cancel culture; the coercive element. “All Lives Matter” has neutral or positive connotations around 70% across all racial groups. And yet we’d never know that because the media is really pushing hard on the minority of the minority that treats All Lives Matter like a racial slur.* Saying what is a majority opinion in America should not cost you your job. And yet it will. That is cancel culture. That is what needs opposition.

      * And they’ve done such a good job of it, I was surprised by this: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/social_issues/30_say_black_lives_matter_more_than_all_lives

      • I think we’ve been pushed towards a more rigid and unreasonable defense of free speech, one that we would not have held even five years ago, because we are afraid that if given an inch they will take a mile. It’s not unreasonable, but I still choose not to die on the hill of a public figure getting canned from a media company after raving like a lunatic on air about the wicked Jews that control the media.

        Why does this not surprise me? Of course this would be your position. It sidles up along side one like you sophistically sidle up alongside one. You will, eventually, advocate squarely and directly for the control of that speech which you do not like.

        You are confusing categories: That poor lunatic you cite is a man who, for various reasons, cannot reason. His ideas are muddled as are the ideas of the Black Nation in America generally. There are a group of reasons why this is so. And there are a group of reasons that explain what I might call ‘Back confusion’ or Black mystification. One can examine this, and one can say clear and honest things about it.

        But you cannot merely dismiss a topic that you do not like or that you do not feel is valid and you cannot advocate for the elimination of free speech (in America in any case, though I assume such controls already exist on your turn in Canada) when it does to a topic that you simply do not like, and perhaps do not understand.

        Though what I am saying is that you certainly will advocate for this, as you seem to do now.

        As I have been saying — and will continue to say — if you want to *understand* the issues of our day you have to allow everything to come out into the open. EVERYTHING.

        You may not like it, you may indeed hate it, but you will not succeed in suppressing it. You will make the effort though, and you will ally your self with those who enact it today, now.

        [ https://www.bitchute.com/video/jrHfJZni7jQX/ ]

        • “But you cannot merely dismiss a topic that you do not like or that you do not feel is valid and you cannot advocate for the elimination of free speech (in America in any case, though I assume such controls already exist on your turn in Canada) when it does to a topic that you simply do not like, and perhaps do not understand.”

          I can *absolutely* dismiss a topic that I do not like, or that I do not feel is valid, not only *can* I do that, I do it frequently, with you. If a toddler is running around covered in feces screaming “peepeepoopoo”, I don’t need to have an erudite back and forth on the topic of “peepee or poopoo”, I can simply ignore the toddler in the hope that it’s parents will deal with it. Failing that, and if it gets too close to me, I will deal with it. But declining to humor “peepeepoopoo” didn’t curb the free speech rights of the toddler, I just don’t care to be the audience for crap. Freedom of speech does not guarantee an audience.

          • My God, man! Get a grip on your self! These posts of your are embarrassing.
            _____________________

            You can certainly dismiss, personally, whatever topic or idea you wish. That is obviously a given. It does not have to be explained or defended.

            You cannot dismiss — at least in America (yet) — those topics that are understood to be protected by our Constitution.

            The point however — my point — is to draw your-plural attention to what is now being set in motion that will effectively curtain the right to think and say a whole range of things.

            It is true that freedom of speech does not guarantee an audience. But for there to be an audience there has to be access to those *platforms* where that speech occurs.

            I am going to be in Montreal later this Summer. Can we meet so I can beat on you in person?

            • “You cannot dismiss — at least in America (yet) — those topics that are understood to be protected by our Constitution.”

              That’s a very pregnant “our”. And don’t you “constitution” at me, I’ve forgotten more about the American constitution than you ever knew.

              “The point however — my point — is to draw your-plural attention to what is now being set in motion that will effectively curtain the right to think and say a whole range of things.”

              Yeah, that’s happening, but in being the bulwark against those encroachments, we have to also be vigilant about turning into caricatures of stereotypes of ideologies.

              “I am going to be in Montreal later this Summer. Can we meet so I can beat on you in person?”

              I would rather scratch tender parts of my body off with a rusty SOS pad. But even were I to ingest a prolific amount of recreational mushrooms, LSD and heroine, lost my mind completely and decided that I wanted verbal flagellation, Canada is a big place, and Montreal is about 1500 miles away from me.

              • That’s a very pregnant “our”. And don’t you “constitution” at me, I’ve forgotten more about the American constitution than you ever knew.

                Again, that is no argument nor a proper response to what I said. This is typical of you. Perhaps you know a great deal about the Constitution, but you obviously are lacking comprehension on this primary point.

                All my points to you stand.

                You will, eventually, advocate squarely and directly for the control of that speech which you do not like.

                Yeah, that’s happening, but in being the bulwark against those encroachments, we have to also be vigilant about turning into caricatures of stereotypes of ideologies.

                Can you make that a bit more mealy-mouthed?

                . . .and Montreal is about 1500 miles away from me.

                OK, but it is a place to start. The meandering trip will be worhtwhile! 🙂

                • “All my points to you stand.”

                  Alone, in a field, collecting moss. The constitution does not protect freedom of speech generally, it protects American citizens from government censorship. It’s why censorship from platforms like YouTube isn’t a constitutional issue. You’re just wrong.

                  “Can you make that a bit more mealy-mouthed?”

                  “Mealy Mouthed” is a fear of speaking plainly. Let me be explicit: You are an anthropomorphized Ben Garrison Cartoon. Even though you might intend a genuine and well-intentioned crusade against social ills, you are so extreme and cacographic that you are either utterly unable to be understood or absurd. Sometimes both.

                  “OK, but it is a place to start. The meandering trip will be worhtwhile! ”

                  I’m building a fucking wall.

                  • I had a friend that was denied entry to Canada because five years prior he had left a one-off, angry voicemail for his ex-wife. She reported the threat of bodily harm and voila, it was “au revoir, Felicia!” for my friend. I don’t know how speech and the law work in Canada, but I would be using the anti-semite’s threat to beat on you like a fidget spinner. I admire your restraint.

      • Yes, I agree there are consequences for speech. I think Viacom was within their rights to cut ties with Nick, particularly because he’s a promotional face of their product and his public image is associated with their public image.

        I think you’ve begun to articulate the cognitive dissonance waging war inside my brain. I’m trying to resolve the conflicts of Acceptable Cancellation and Mob Mentality. I’ll get there, and I won’t be dying on any hills for any party in this fight. If I have any lucid thoughts on the matter, I’ll contribute again. Thanks for your well articulated post.

    • This isn’t a free speech issue at all. It’s a “you are not free to say anything you want using my money, my name and my reputation and still expect me to employ you” issue.

        • But my position would be the same if it were his personal podcast. If I go on TV and spout racist or anti-Semitic arguments, would you really argue that the D.C. bar would be infringing my rights if they told me they didn’t want me teaching their members ethics any more?

          • But what if they took away your license to practice law? What if they pressured your credit card companies to cancel your cards and your bank to cancel your account. What if they pressured UBER and Lyft to ban you including UBER eats? What if Wal-Mart and the other grocery stores banned you? They are private companies. This isn’t theoretical because all those things have happened to people. What is the level of ‘offensiveness’ before that level of retaliation is allowed?

            Nick Cannon has long stated on his programs that whites are evil, violent, and incapable of kindness because of the lack of melanin in their skin. He claims it is genetic, it happened when they were banished to the Caucasus mountains and they lost their melanin. This is the ‘Sun People, Ice People’ idea that SUNY used to teach in their classes. So, that is OK. It is OK to denigrate whites. It was OK for state universities to teach it as fact. Nick Cannon said nothing that Louis Farrakhan hasn’t publicly stated many times. So why is it not OK for Nick Cannon? The Congressional Black Caucus still meets with Farrakhan. What are the rules? Is this the reality when we reject the linear, rational thinking, written laws, and respect for authority that is ‘whiteness’? Is this type of random punishment without explanation, the obvious double-standards, and toleration of the right type of hatred or the wrong type of hatred from the right people we can expect in our new ‘post-whitness’ utopia?

  4. He has since apologized again. Apparently he had a little one-on-one with Rabbi Abraham Cooper of Simon Wiesenthal.

      • Ha! A rabbi can only forgive you for sins you have committed against him or her personally. Forgiveness must be sought by asking the person you have offended. Absolution cannot be provided by a third party. I’m guessing Rabbi Cooper provided Cannon a brief history lesson.

  5. If you want to understand the developing and continuing ‘critical argument’ against aspects of Jewish influence the better place to get that understanding is through Kevin MacDonald (Culture of Critique) and E Michael Jones (The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit). Both of these men seem to me to be informed by their Catholic perspective, E Michael Jones very certainly. Their critique though spells out an essential antagonism between Christian culture and Jewish culture. The stronger is Christian culture, the weaker is Jewish culture (and influence). The stronger is Jewish culture and influence, the weaker is Christian culture.

    The issue here — whether it is seen realistically, rationally and fairly — or whether it is seen through broad tropes that have that anti-Semitic tinge to them — has to do with ‘undermining influence’. When (or if) you study the tropes of the angry dissidents of today (there is a vast conversation going on in cyberspace which I assume many of the old-timers who participate here are unaware of) you will quickly discover that their essential anger has to do with a sense of being deprived or cheated or perhaps robbed. This can be noted and it can be talked about as a sociological phenomenon.

    But you are very unwise to deny it.

    In the Postwar, and specifically among Jews who lived through the European Catastrophe, there awoke a consciousness of ‘never again’. This is real decisiveness. The broad cultural work of Jews therefore — Jewish interests in its broadest sense — has been to control and eliminate the critical posture against Jews and against Jewish influence and also control. Control if only to check counter-Jewish narratives.

    Jews are problematic because they hang together. Because they have a corporate presence and because of basic dynamism. And they have hung together for thousands of years. They demonstrate an extraordinary will that transcends even time itself. Empires have come and passed and yet the Jew remains an actor within time. The recovery of Israel is, in one sense at least, evidence of *memory* and also *perseverance* through time. There is no other thing like it. No other people have done the same.

    The *problem* is in the question of What Is Served? If a Jew becomes anti-Christian, which is often inevitable because of the central narrative of Christianity and all that is connected with Jewish diaspora, with Jewish Exile, and with what is known as ‘diaspora pathology’, then the Jew becomes ‘problematic’. Jews are problematic because they serve them selves by definition. The closer you get to the traditional source or fount of Judaism (pure Orthodoxy) the closer you will get to core self-service. You are likely all unaware of what sort of messianic conversations are going on in Israel today. How Jews see their restoration. The conversation that goes on here. And what it requires to *cement* this gain.

    A Jew as a Jew has always been problematic for Christian culture (see Malcolm Hay Europe and the Jews) that is simply a fact. And this relates to Jewish exile and to the basic facts of the Diaspora. Jews have never been non-problematic. And the perceived, imagined or the real influence of Jews and Jewish interests — and now that Jews have a State and an intelligence and military apparatus) — is a topic of concern.

    Should it be, you ask? How will you think about this? Will you think about it? Can you think about it?

    I suggest following Jack and giving no thought at all to these matters! They are dangerous for you! Be a good boy or girl and don’t poke at what can only confuse your poor mind. You have enought to think about today. What with Corona Virus, approaching war, and bankruptcy. This material is outside and beyond your scope. Let it be for Heaven’s sake (in a metaphorical sense of course!)

    Similarly, remain within pure superficial reaction to the passing events of your day. Watch them go by. Allow yourself a Two Minute Hate for therapeutic effect. Those damn Democrats! Then calm down. There are many good things on TeeVee today.

  6. You did not know who Nick Cannon was. I had not either when I first heard of him, but that was WAY back on The Chappelle Show. As I recall, he joked about Nick Cannon several times. A sample:

    https://www.quotes.net/mquote/700844

    I think you need to go back and review Chappelle’s work.

    And, he is married to Mariah Carey.

    -Jut

  7. Once again, I tried to share this blog on Facebook. This time it was blocked, not for language some members might find objectional of whatever they said, but this time it was labeled as “Spam”. I had the option to object to their decision, which I did. This is 4 for 4 blocked attempts to share. They are really doing a fine job of censorship. Ugh.

    • You’ve just scratched the surface. I just had a link sabotaged by Facebook. It was a link to the Code Talkers, bur Facebook sent users to a 2019 post that had nothing to do with it, making me look like an idiot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.