Cenk Uygur Misrepresents D’Souza – To His Face

Here I go again, unbelievably defending someone I disargee with: Denesh D’Souza. But Cenk does exactly what he’s done with others – totally twists their words, misrepresents the balance of fact by ignoring the salient facts and screaming the obvious but less relevant facts.

Remember, from here on in this isn’t about the case either is making, though some of the points will be covered, it’s about Cenk’s misrerpesentaiton of D’Souza’s case, right there in front of D’Souza, and D’Souza calls Cenk out on it. Naturally, Cenk passes that by; doesn’t hear it for the challenge it is; even misrepresents that.

Here’s the video: Dinesh D’Souza Destroys The Young Turks Host Cenk Uygur At Politicon 2016.

A significant part consists of an argument over when Republicans and Democrats changed their roles. But eventually we get down to the misrepresentations.

Black People Should Pay Reparations To White People?

Cenk says:

You [D’Souza] wrote a book where you said black people should give white people reparations for liberating them.

Did he? D’Souza denies it and while trying to do so remakes his earlier point that there was a complexity that needs to be understood … but Cenk jumps in with:

It was a real mixed bag. I remember all those whites being owned by black people. [mocking]. See [more serious] that is exactly what I’m going through. You do it on purpose Dinesh. You say, [mocking again] “Wow, we enslaved Native Americans, so slavery wasn’t about racism.” [serious] You are obviously misdirecting people. You do it on purpose. It’s not like white people were slaves.

This of course is nothing like what D’Souza was claiming at all. That Cenk was saying it mockingly, jokingly, is not an excuse in a debate like this. This is a total misrepresentation of the opponent’s case. It’s a direct straw man, framed in a humorous tone, but really is not addressing D’Souza’s actual claim.

D’Souza’s point is that because of the multi-racial aspect of slavery, including black slave owners of black slaves, anti-black racism isn’t the main thing. Of course I think D’Souza is wrong. And in that context it looks like Cenk is making a fair point: if it wasn’t about white-black racism there would be at least some white slaves. However, despite very clear racist dehumanisation of blacks by whites there was in addition other complex relationships, where many very poor whites were little more than slaves. That’s not enough to sustain D’Souza’s main theme (from what I understand of it), but again my point here is the rhetoric that Cenk uses is dishonest, because he does not address D’Souza’s case critically, analytically, but resorts to his usual outrage and point scoring.

D’Souza picks up on this:

I notice, that every time I try to pin you down you try to switch the topic or reframe the vocabulary.

This is indeed how Cenk works. Even when he’s right, he still misrepresents what his opponent is saying.

D’Souza gets back to his point, that the history of liberal values hasn’t been with the Democrats all the time, and that at one time it was the Republicans that were the liberals. This is a point worth making, because a lot of that is indeed lost in history to many of us that have a fairly shallow view of history – What? The Democrats were once the bad guys that were anti-emancipation? No Way!

The argument goes on, and Cenk, questioning, repeats his charge about reparations:

So, do you think black people should give white people reparations?




OK, how about that that you wrote in your book …

Pause right there a second!

Because D’Souza was there and could deny it, Cenk says, OK, and then moves on to what was actually in the book.

Here’s the key point: If that had been Cenk on TYT, without D’Souza there to deny it, that poit would stand: “D’Souza says black people would give white people reparations.”

So, we’ve had the bait, now back to Cenk’s switch, with a little more bait:

OK, how about that that you wrote in your book, they [blacks] should be so happy about being liberated they should give white people money.

Did D’Souza actually say that? D’Souza:

That’s not what I said. Let me tell you what I did say. And this is why, actually, we’re having a debate, with politics and entertainment, but we can’t get to these issues if we don’t frame the other person’s arguments fairly.



In my movie, in the America film, I brought on leading lefties .. [lists some] .. and let them make their case. And later, after the movie, I go “Michael, did I portray you fairly in the movie?”, and he goes, “You’re not Michael Moore, yes you did.” So I’m trying to frame the argument of the left the way they would put it. But you’re [Cenk] not doing that. You’re basically picking a line .. you don’t even have a quote, you’re just throwing it out their relying on you’re guys to go wild with it. And that’s not really a debate.

Fucking hell, Cenk – nailed you! That is entirely you, Cenk.


Dinesh, if I did that behind your back, you might have a point, you’re here, you have a mic.

He didn’t just say that! He did, didn’t he? Hell, he believes his own shit.

Cenk persistently does that behind peoples backs – in other words he rants and rages on TYT, echoing all the fucked up tripe that Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, CJ Werleman spew, and totally misrepresents people. He then sometimes has his target on his show, they explain very clearly what he gets wrong. Next show, he rants even louder with the misrepresentaitons, the ‘reading between the lines’, the ‘maybe’, the ‘just saying’.

Even when he has the evidence in fron to him, as for the Maher and Palin examples here, he still gets it wrong.

Even when D’Souza is right there in front of him, with a microphone, Cenk still misrepresents him.

Holy fucking cow is there no getting through the Cunk?

Anyway, to continue …

Black Folks Should Be Thankful for Slavery?

D’Souza makes the point: slavery was really bad, inexcusable, should not have happened … but, today, the African American descendents of the slaves are better off than had they lived in Africa now.

This of course is a counter factual comparison – the descendents today would not exist had the salves not been taken to America; some other people would be in their place, in Africa or somewhere else according to how those ancestors might have migrated (in a world with no slavery).

Modern Americans, modern America, owes nothing to African Americans alive today above the fair treatment due to any citizen. Now, you might argue that because of the unavoidable racism that all races have,  added to the history of slavery and the continued influence that has on white supremacy, and white numbers dominating, there is still an unfair bias and treatment of African Americans, even if many have escaped those limitations.

But even so, the simple fact is that African Americans, on the whole, are better off than their current African peers.

This is not, I repeat, not, and excuse for slavery. D’Souza makes this very clear. He is very precise in making it clear.

Slavery was evil. But what about the descendents of the slaves, who were subsequently born in America, as opposed to, let’s say, being born in Africa.

D’Souza repeats the un-PC point made by Mohammed Ali on returning from “The Rumble In The Jungle” – “Thank god my grand-daddy got on that boat.”

Now this is an entirely mischieveous point by Ali, since there’s no way he was condoning slavery. And neither is D’Souza. But the point is fair when modern African Americans ask for reparations themselves.

Does that mean I, as a Brit, can demand reparations from the Romans? The Normans? Or should I be greatful to Hitler, because without WWII, in which my father fought, he wouldn’t have arrived home as he did and met my mother? No, none of those makes sense. We are where we are, and whatever caused it in the past, we have to deal with now – and there’s enough to deal with as far as racism goes today.

Both reparations from whites to blacks, today, or, even more stupid, blacks to whites, is really not sensible at all.

So, with this, D’Souza makes his actual point by analogy:

We immigrants go through great difficulties to come into the orbit of western freedom. This is part of the complexity of the point I was making. [and not the nonsense Cenk was mistruing it to be] The slaves in America were worse off, but their descendents born in the orbit of American freedom, born in the land of opportunity are in fact better off.

Cenk’s response?

I’m glad you put that in context by the way. I’m sure the slaves were so thankful. You made a cogent point there [mocking]. Contratulations, you’ve been put in the orbit of freedom; ironically, through slavery.

Yes, you fucking idiot Cenk. It is sadly ironic, but none the less true. Cenk goes on …

Hundres of years of slavery. That is a curious orbit of freedom. Oh, wait though, you’re great grand kids might be free, after I whip you, I own you, I kill you, I spearate your family, I rape your wife. After all that, your great grand kids might be in the orbit of freedom. Why thank you so much.

But the slaves weren’t put into the orbit of freedom, because it didn’t exist then. And no slave owner was in a position to make that point. This isn’t about the slaves, it’s about now not being about an ancestor’s slave status that warrants some form of reparation. Reparations would only apply to the slaves themselves; and from the slave owners. If you want to make it more complicated you’re going to get into all sorts of detail for which there is no solution, only divisive meaningless rhetoric.

Try to get the point Cenk you knucklehead.

The orbit of freedom evolved, from the early freedoms of the founding fathers, to the nation as a state, and eventually, through both female and slave emancipation, to all people. So, hell yes, African Americans are now in the orbit of freedom, albeit still one that has a lot of work to do.

But, to the point, everything about that rant was not only deflecting D’Souza’s actual point, but represented some sickly comical rhetoric of a slave owner mocking a slave about the future magically foreseen benefits of his slave status. As if that was at all what D’Souza was saying.


So I just finished saying that slavery was a terrible crime and we have to distinguish the slaves from the descendents. That’s what I did say. You werent listening because you’ve trained your ear to jump before you think.

Cenk proceeds to jump again without thinking:

Hey, you guys wanna do a poll of African American people and ask them if they want to thank white people for slavery? How do you think that poll comes out Dinesh?


I don’t think anyone has ever said that.

Sorry, man. It makes not a fucking jot of difference to Cenk whether anyone said it or not, least of all you. He’s saying it because that’s what he wants you to have said.

Cenk goes on to bluster his way through it, to great applause from his crowd:

Do you really believe these things Dinesh, or have you been paid by some right wing guys who are paying you to say this nonsense?


D’Souza tries again, because the thick Cunt still doesn’t get it.

There were peniless Irish, driven out by the potato famine, who came starving to America. There lives were actually in many senses worse. But their descendents, born here, now, in America, obviously enjoy freedoms that their ancestors did not. I don’t know if you’re being vile or stupid [both is my guess] .. you refuse to try to understand what I’m saying.


Yeah, I got it.

Yeah, but what did you get, Cenk, D’Souza’s point, or your fucking lies about D’Souzas point? Wait until D’Souza is next mentioned on TYT: “He said blacks should give reparations to whites and be thankful for slavery!”

Brokeback Mountain Caused 9/11?

Anyway, time for Cenk to switch again, now his crew have taken his bait.

Let me ask you about another book you wrote, where you said 9/11 was because of planned parenthood, Nancy Pelosi and Brokeback Mountain.


Really? Really? That’s what I said?



Keep this in mind. Cenk is saying yes, that’s what D’Souza said in his book. A book you will soon learn Cenk hasn’t actually read.


In my book, The Enemy at Home, I raised the question of when you look at the propaganda of the radical Muslims, wat are the themese that they emphasise to recruit on the Arab street. I said you see foreign policy in there, you see Palestine, you see Saudi Arabia. But many of these guys aren’t in Palestine or Saudi Arabia; they’re in pakistan, tehy’re in Egypt, so what attracts them to the radical Muslim cause? I said this whole notion that America is the great Satanis an attempt to capitalise on the values of Hollywood that are projected abroad. Here, we have to realise that we’re not just talking about radical Muslims. Throughout Asia today there is a slogan that is gathering currency, and it’s called: “Modernisation, yes. Westernisation:no.” And this is traditional people all over the world who want western technology, want constitutional rights, want democracy, but htye don’t like what they see as some of the more shameless aspects of western culture shoved down their throats. This is a real issue world wide.

Look at the recent case in Orlando. If anyone thinks there is no merit to this [case of mine], just read the book [D’Souza’s]. He [Cenk] doesn’t read books. What he does is he makes these one sentence …

Cenk, butting in:

I don’t read his books. There’s a big difference.

O.M.F.G! Cenk is making assertions about a book, which he confesses he hasn’t read. [Remember, he hadn’t read Harris before he started misrepresnting him.] And of course the TYT fans go wild for these … these … not even mis-quotes, because he isn’t mistakenly quoting, he’s engaging in Chinese Whispers. Cenk, you fucking idiot.


You don’t read them, but you talk about them. Because someone gave you the one sentence summary.

Oh, Dinesh .. can I call you Dinesh now? I feel I want to be your friend after all. That was fucking ace! It gets more comical:


Have you watched every one of my shows?




[mocking] How dare you. Don’t talk about anything I say.

Is he a fucking child, or what?


I don’t talk about your shows.

But, too late, Cenk wants to move on.

Is Cenk’s Islamophobe Fear Blinding Him On Islamic Homophobia and Misogyny?

But first, let’s get at what D’Souza is saying. He is saying that third world cultures, that are opposed to feminism and homosexuality, see those values projected as American values, and they don’t want that. This is all D’Souza is saying. Now, as a Chirstian he may object to some of these American values himself, but that isn’t the point he’s making. He is explaining that this is what the third world reject. He is not saying that these things (Brokeback Mountain ’caused’ 9/11) that Cenk is saying he said.


By the way, you just said liberals caused 9/11. That’s what you just said.

Noooooooooo he didn’t! You fucking moron. This is so reminiscent of Cenk on Harris.


That’s not the real America, not the actual American culture, but the projection of American culture abroad, is giving aid an comfort to the radical Muslims who are using it as an effective recruiting tool.

So, this is a fair point. From a liberal perspective Cenk should be agreeing with this: yes, we have these great values that have evolved, where we have the freedom of gender and sexual orientation, along with our traditional secular liberal democracy. And, yes, the conservative Islam abroad is opposed to this, and yes, the radicals are making use of this to demonise American as Satan.

If D’Souza sees these values as bad hmself, then one can see where he’s coming from. But Cenk shouldn’t be denying the fact that many Muslims do in fact reject these values.

And that brings us to the crux of the matter: saying this shows Islam to be the misogynistic homophobic religion it is, and it’s this that Cenk can’t swallow, because, despite criticising Islam himself (I hear) he sees such remarks as demonising all Muslims.

Of course not all Muslims do reject these values of gender and sexual orientation equality – but far too many do, and that too is what makes Cenk and the regressives so uneasy, because they see Muslims as victims – which, ironically they are: victims of Islam.

Cenk is not going to let this go:

So, when you mention the movie Brokeback Mountain it was just a coincidence that it happened to be about homosexuality?

No. It is very specifically the point you are missing.

Look: many Muslims, of a religion where homosexuality is one of THE big sins, see the movie as indicative of the demise of American morality. D’Souza is reporting on this perspective, explaining one of the reasons used by radical Muslims to recruit regular Muslims.

I’m saying that the trumpeting of values like homosexuality, feminism in third world cultures, becomes a way of people to say, “We don’t want that. We don’t want that over here. You join me to fight the great Satan.”


[sarcastically] Pat Robertson says homosexuality caused 9/11. You say the spreading of homosexual cutlure caused 9/11. That’s very sophisticated. I missed that nuance. By the way … [moving on before he can be challenged again.]

Cenk. Pay attention. Pat Robertson is a religious moron that thinks all sorts of crazy shit. He might well think homosexuality is a great sin. So, if he thinks that, and Muslims think that, and it had something to do with the demonisation of America, and that in turn leads to the easy recruitment and programming of jihadists, then in that sense its part of the package that contributes to events like 9/11. But does spreading homosexuality ’cause’ 9/11? No. Islam caused 9/11 when fueled by this ancient religious demonisation of homosexuality and all the other contributory stuff, including American Christianity, including American thurst for oil, including the Iraq war.

Pay attention: If you eat ice cream, doughnuts, Pepsi, … without cleaning your teeth, you will lose your teeth. Did this particualr ice cream cause you to lose your teeth? No. It contributed.

Do freedoms in America that other cultures hate contribute to the demonisation of America that in turn leads to terrorist acts against it? Yes. It’s simple, but, as you say, Cenk, too nuanced for you.

And Brokeback Mountain caused 9/11? The film that came out four years after 9/11? Cenk, please.

Cenk Uygur’s Methodology Becomes Clearer

The oldest trick in the book for people who write obnoxious horrible books is, if a decent person doesn’t read them, “Well, you didn’t read them.” I saw the trailers for your movies, they’re preposterous …

This presumes the person refusing to read the book is decent. Not necessarily so. Not you Cenk.

It also presumes that judging a book by its cover is a decent thing to do. No Cenk – when we do that with humans of various skin colours it’s called racism. When you do it with books it’s being called being an ignorant cunt.

If you choose not to read a book because you think you know what’s in it already, that’s stupid.

I don’t know about you Cenk, but I’ve got a massive reading list of books I suspect I’ll disagree with. But if I’m going t pick holes in one I actually have to understand the ideas it contains and not some misrepresentation of it.

I read the introductions and the summaries of your books. What an enormous waste of time.

Well, yes, if that’s what you base the content on. You should have just looked up what Greenwald, Aslan, Werleman said instead. If you want to miscontrue content by misunderstanding the introduction alone that’s your business.

But here’s the thing, Cenk. You passing yourself off as a critic of D’Sousa without actually reading his stuff. You read what others tell you is true. And TYT spreads all sorts of shit as truth, when it isn’t.

Obama’s Rage


The whole point is to mislead people …[Who? What? Cenk, the irony]

For example, you talk about Obama’s rage. That’s the classic racist trope, the angry black man. Dinesh, do you know that’s a racist trope, or is it a news flash to you that throughout history in America [Eh? Throughout history?] they have used the idea of the angry black man to keep blacks down? [irony again, given the way ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘racist’ are used by Cenk] But Obama? .. rage? Really? The only way you would say that is if  you wanted to say, “Angry black man, will you buy my book, white racists?”

This is another example where Cenk seems to have picked up on some key words, a book title, and taken them out of context. He thinks D’Souza is using them in the racist context, but D’Souza says not.

The trope of black rage is within American culture. It came out of the talk by Malcom-X , the good negro, the bad negro, there’s a whole history – I’ve written a 2,000 page book about this.

My argument about Obama is different. If you actually read Obama’s book he is less a figure of the civil rights movement of America than the great anti-colonialist struggle of the third world. Now there’s recent literature from people in the Obama Whitehouse that confirm this notion, that Obama learned from a young age, not just from Hawaii but Indonesia, his trips to Kenya: if you look at America from the outside in – in this way he’s different from Hillary. You can judge Obama yourself and see if this is a correct angle.

I might be wrong about it, but when you have a guy that’s the president of the United States you can’t immunise criticism of him. It’s not the same thing as me talking about a bunch of kids in the inner city. I’m talking about the president. And if you can’t say he’s angry because you’re appealing to a racist trope of black rage we would not be able to have free criticism of our leaders becasue they would constantly blacking it on this and that.

Well, that’s just what Cenk does, I’m afraid.


I challenge you to find a single line or paragraph I have ever written about Obama that is racist in any way. No one has ever even alleged that. Well, he’s alleging it [who hasn’t read the books to find out – LOL].


The name of the book is “Obama’s Rage”. Yes, that’s my quote.

Oh deary me. Construing the content of a book from its title – not even the whoe cover? I don’t know the specifics herre, but the author of a book doesn’t laways get to set the title. But even so, given the context of the content as D’Souza describes it, Cenk is going a bit far.

There’s another subtlety here. I haven’t ready it either, by the way, so I can’t criticise D’Souza’s representation of his own book. But I can criticise Cenk’s, because his is based only on the title. I’m criticising Cenk’s methodology here, and with it the misrepresentation that’s inevitable if you only read the title of a book.


I think that settles his case.

LOL. That sarcasm will mean fuck all to Cenk. He really will think it settles his case.

The End

The rest of the debate moves on to the economy and politics more generally, with some arguing over facts on deficits and debt, and on to the role of money in politics, Wolf-Pac, and so on. There were a few minor flames by Cenk, but nothing comparable to the above.





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 )

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.