Anglican Unscripted 873 - Just Riot Theory
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2024
- Please Donate www.paypal.com...
/ kkallsen
/ geoconger
Kevin's Links:
/ anglicanunscripted
/ anglicanink
/ anglicantv
----------------------------
Anglican Unscripted is the only online video newscast in the Anglican Communion. In each episode, Kevin Kallsen and Canon George Conger and occasional guests bring you their unique prospective on news around the globe.
---------
Podcast Apps should all find the Podcast by searching for AnglicanTV
Useful links for you: -
Podcast Site - anglicantv.sim...
Podcast Feed - rss.simplecast...
Google Play Music - play.google.co...
Spotify - open.spotify.c...
TuneIn - tun.in/pi6m5
Itunes - itunes.apple.c....
I didn 't know Welby was growing the church?? I thought he was cutting it in half and throwing away the evangelical bit. 😂😂
Thanks again for another mature session of commentaries on various issues across the board. Interceding for you both from HK, China.
Thank you both for speaking the truth! God help us all!
I was amused that the C of E communications wallah was upset that Rose Hudson Wilkin was described as a DEI appointment. She was so unhinged that the Chapter of Westminster Abbey refused to appoint her to be the priest in charge of St Margaret's, Westminster when John Bercow (the most partial Speaker of the House of Commons we ever had the misfortune to have) appointed her as Chaplain to the House of Commons. Subsequently, I have met clergy who have suffered her being their bishop. To call her a DEI hire is quite mild. From all that I have heard, there seems to be compelling evidence that she is a bully, hardly a quality you look for in a priest, let alone in a bishop.
Dear God please protect the United Kingdon. Englishman in Poland. Greetings to the both of you guys.
We prayed in our Bible Study Group that God would cause Britain to realise its need of repentance. This could be part of the answer for a godless people. We have a God who acts: not a false god who requires followers to do "his work".
Thank you for your honesty and openness.
Sadly, whatever they think, the King and Royal Family should not make a public statement against HIS Government
Summons the Prime Minister to the palace and let your opinion be known
But not publicly
Absolutely love "Just Riot Theory" - now to watch the episode....
Does the US grant asylum to people fleeing religious persecution in the UK?
That is being discussed among the right in the US with approbation
@@georgeconger2850 That is hopeful then. I was thinking I'd have to learn Latvian to have a chance at having a future on earth!
Wasn't that how America got started in the 1st place? Pilgrim Fathers and all that. So f course they should!
@@jonlannister345Rod Dreher speaks well of Hungary in that respect, where he's been living for a few years now.
I'm proud of you George! Good man!
England is pre 1984 in practice mode.
Hey George, I'm from Bolton! :)
Oh my, hyperbole biting me in the rear once again!
This theologically moderate priest thinks the appointment is crazy as well so there is that!
George and Kevin love listening to you so encouraging.
Defend our children against islam now. Defending children is not right wing. It's our duty.
Thank you. 🏴🇬🇧
You are wrong gentlemen. You do have a listener in Bolton, England. I have to say though that I was several years ago very offended when you were rude about my husband, at that time a Minister in the Free Church of England. You did by no means have the full story but reported on it nevertheless. Be careful gentlemen. Truth must be the watchword of the Lord’s shepherds.
God bless you, thank you
British retired C of E clerguman saying: Your representation and analysis of the riots and the suppression of peaceful protest is spot on.
What peaceful protest?
@@martineyles oh you have given yourself away comrade.
@@johnhudghton3535 @44:57 "Is it moral to burn down a migrants hotel? Well I believe violence is wrong..." They admit these are not peaceful protests.
@@johnhudghton3535 And whatever do you cryptically mean by "given yourself away"?
@@martineyles 27th July was a peaceful protest attacked and broken up by aggressive riot police. Innocent people were assaulted and arrested for merely protesting.
Of course violence and assault is wrong but it os wrong from the police against peaceful protestors and it os wrong from armed Muslim gangs and yes it is wrong from indigenous hooligans.
However it is clear where your sympathies lie and O do not expect you to agree and have no interest in engaging with one of SStarmers apparatchiks.
Father Conger is Badass! Don't ever change x
I agree! I love you both .. So funny The two of you. Kevin snd george please pray for England . She really needs all the help she can get.
KEVIN & GEORGE: Thank you for your coverage of the situatuion in the UK. The majority of those who bothered to vote (the minority of the Nation) has just elected a Communist Government, which intends to impose Globalist-Communism on us through COERCION (see Friedrich Hayek). The greater the degree of coercion within a society, the less civilised and free it is. Thus, no Islamic Country scores 'low' on the coercion axis: and now the UK - under the three authoritarian influences of Globalism, Islam and Communism - is about to score highly on the coercion axis. As for Rose Hudson-Wilkins, she is definitely a DEI appointment: as was Mullally to the See of London. Neither of these women has the attributes for the role of 'bishop': let alone the one who may become the successor to the dreadful Welby. Their theological acumen is zilch: such that they cannot even perceive the problems with holding to Judeo-Christian 'theism' in an increasingly-secularised Western society: let alone attempt to answer those problems. We need people of stature: and we get DEI appointments; based on sex and skin-colour.
You are both so fun to watch 😂 keep up the good work👍🙏😂
Surprising almost ALL of your British reporting has NOT been shown to be false.
Self promoting Bercow wanted the political kudos from choosing a female, black Chaplin and it suited the mood of the Libertarian House of Commons of the time.
It is getting beyond sinister in the UK it is becoming a dystopian nightmare thanks to two tier Kier and his oppressive ways.
There are ominous comparisons to be drawn between UK 2024 and Germany under the notorious evil chancellor in the 1930's. ( Name omitted due to YT censpoship )
1. Both were democratically elected. Nothing wrong in that in itself but A came to power - not through a violent revolution unlike the Soviet leadership.
2. Both moved quickly once in power to eliminate their opposition.
3. Both used or manipulated the media to support their policies a d personalities.
4. Both used "false flag" operations to discredot the opposition.
5. Both heavily demonised the opposition.
6. Both passed legislation quickly to outlaw the opposition.
7. Both used the police and judiciary to intimidate, assault, arrest and imprison the opposition. ( Criminals let out of prison to make way for political prisoners)
8. Both were supported by irregular forces of bully boys SA and MDL.
SStarmer was elected by a small percentage of the British population. I wonder if we will ever be able tp remove him when such oppressive and unjust methods are being employed. He is clearly trying to gain a larger voting base amongst the immogrant population.
George Orwell could not have written a better representation of a growing and horrific dystopia for those at the bottom of the social pile.
What legislation do you think Labour have actually passed since their election? The king's speech doesn't actually put any legislation in place, just sets the agenda for the year. There have been debates and votes in parliament, but no legislation passed.
@@martineyles the legislation is on its way prohibiting anyone from criticising Muslimness. A blasphemy law in other words. The APPG definition of Islamophobia to be prosecuted in the same way as racism. Watch - this and other legislation is on its way. Off the books there are operational instructions to police via Cobra and threats to social media platforms.
@@johnhudghton3535 It's been an offence in the UK to stir up religious hatred since 2006 and an offence to stir up racial hatred since 1986. Also in 1986. The 1986 bill also codified previous common law crimes around riots. Encouraging or assisting crime has been an offence since 2008, but this replaced incitement to commit a crime which has been part of common law for a very long time.
@@martineyles so what is this all about comrade?
@@johnhudghton3535 Mostly about what has been done over the last 14 years. The new government hasn't changed things.
Great to see you guys, stay rebels, the truth hurts the clowns in the CoE. Keep it up xxxx
My son was police commander in 2 of the rioting cities
I pray God keeps him safe as he does his duty.
Much appreciated
Hi both
A thought keeps going through my mind re St Helen's and the Commissioning. The Diocesan authorities would not want to comment on this because Lay Presidency of the Eucharist has been debated for a while due to the falling numbers of Clergy across the nation and where one priest has 5/6 churches to cover, the canonical rules on Eucharist adherence cannot be met.
It would seem that it should be a wake up call to the decrease in clergy and laity accompanying the abandonment of traditional biblical morals on marriage and on homosexual conduct and, perhaps, acceptance of women clergy.🤔
@@royquick-s5n I agree with you, but the Bishops think they can dig themselves out of a hole and reverse the trend by going down the woke anti theological/biblical route. I don’t understand why they haven’t learnt from what has happened the Episcopalian church in the States, or closer to home the Welsh Church or the Scottish Episcopalians, which have all declined dramatically after pandering to societal claims rather than sticking to Orthodox Biblical values.
@@godsman4180 From my view across the pond, hit the financial strings. The English bishops seem to sway to the tune of Parliament. Where laity contribute, tithe, is where persuasion may be exerted. In the States, some people have walked away. Alternatives have been the Anglican Church in North American and Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. In the U.K.. there are the Anglican Mission in Europe, Anglican Network in Europe, and Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. If push comes to shove, there are Roman Catholic parishes, in which the liturgy is little different. One of the criticisms of the Alliance I have run across is why more deference had not been made to the AMIE or ANIE. There have been holdouts in the Episcopal Church in the U.S. George Conger numbers among them, but the denomination has declined. The Anglican Church in Canada has hit rock bottom. Kevin Kallsen is ACNA.🙂
@@godsman4180 The question remains where orthodox priests and bishops may be found for the sacraments. The Anglican Mission in England? The Anglican Network in Europe? 🤔
Fr. George, did you seriously suggest we don't need a properly ordained priest to celebrate Holy Communion? As a conservative Anglo-Catholic, I'm appalled to hear that. You can't conflate support for same sex marriage with non-clergy communion. A better comparison might be women's ordination, but goodness SSM and "lay communion"? apples and pickles. If you don't think we need bishops, priests and deacons and ordination isn't important, why be Anglican at all?
No, I did not advocate that position. However there is a strand of Anglicanism that does believe this - centered in Sydney. They do not practice it but argue there is no scriptural warrant for sacerdotal celebration only
@@georgeconger2850 Appreciate your clarification, George. 🤔
For anyone following, see about seventeen minutes ten seconds into Episode 873. I agree with you, lindam5512, especially your last question.🙂
Fililoque...I expect God doesn't care about such stuff.
I think Richard Watson of Llandaff was an ancestor of David Watson of St Michael le Belfrey.
Native Welshman?
I refer the gentlemen to the comment ascribed to the 1st Duke of Wellington that being born in a stable does not necessarily make on a horse.
Sarcasm on my part
@@georgeconger2850 I did rather guess that!
You received a complaint because you hit a sore point and they do not like that being pointed out. KEEP IT UP!!!
I guess the royals know. The PM visits with the king each Tuesday ? I think.
Watching the horror show of what is happening today in the UK is a case in point of why we have the 2nd Amendment in the USA, and should fight with all our might to never lose it. I would love to visit Britain again with my wife, but neither of us want to go with all of that Muslim violence.
I suggest that it isn't the 2nd Amendment that makes a difference but the 14th Amendment, i.e. equal protection of the laws.🙂
@@royquick-s5nas the saying goes, ¿por que no los dos?
Or, why not both?
Please don't use the terms left, leftist or left-wing to talk about ideas which are nothing to do with this. If you mean liberal, say that instead!
Someone on the left can and often will hold the view that marriage is between one man and one woman and generally think LLF is going in the wrong direction.
Being on the left is about how you treat the poor, about not exploiting workers and about how you handle things like taxation and financial equality.
I suppose that it makes a difference where the observer sits, i.e. on the right or left. Left seems to be used derogatorily. However, right may be used for extremists, dictatorial (not that the left may not be also dictatorial). In the prior Anglican Unscripted there was a blog or two on terms originally applicable to secular politics not always corresponding to positioning in the church. At one time there was the Via Media, but where has it gone? All to the credit of Newman? Treated derogatorily by Calvinistically inclined "Evangelicals"?🤔
@@royquick-s5n The thing is, when they say left on this video, talking politically or theologically, they pretty much universally should be saying liberal. I've yet to hear them criticise anything that could be thought of as on the left of anything.
@@martineyles Kevin is ACNA. George is TEC, but orthodox, "straight." That may help in understanding the perspective from which they may be calling anything left or liberal. However, in regard to their political preferences, I know not a thing. Neither do I want to know.
@@royquick-s5nCalling things liberal is fine. That terminology is being used correctly. The problem is that liberal and left are NOT the same thing. Not even close!
Would Queen Elizabeth 2 have made a public statement and call the nation to pray if she were alive at this moment? King Charles is oblique on this crisis.
Monarch should be silent
In her coronavirus speech (the only televised address I think I heard her make outside of her Christmas addresses and the state opening of parliament), this was the only mention of prayer:
"And though self-isolating may at times be hard, many people of all faiths, and of none, are discovering that it presents an opportunity to slow down, pause and reflect, in prayer or meditation."
Hit the like button!
Is Tim Walz a three-timer?
A DUI
God Bless, where's God in all this,please explain.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
Thank you for giving the problems in Britain your time and commentary, most of which was highly intelligent and appropriate. I would however take issue with how you perceive the Royal Family. Disorder and chaos actually began with the Brexit vote and at the time I thought the late Queen Elizabeth should have intervened. She didn't of course. And the current king is woke, so I hope he doesn't intervene because it would not be in our interests.
Yes, we were speaking theoretically - of what would change the game - not saying there was a likelihood it will happen. Unlikely the crown would do more than summon the pm and make their views privately known
@@georgeconger2850 Well well I was wrong. The King has commented and "The monarch praised the “community spirit” of Britain that has “countered the aggression and criminality from a few”" In other words he has no ear to listen to the genuine grievances being felt on the other side (and probably the majority of people in the UK)
Things are seriously bad in the UK and I even suspect a "Ptotemkin Village" was being put out by all the MSM during the rioting. I won't go into that as I have no proof.
George and Kevin, you make the charge that a person or person has been remanded for just observing a riot in the UK. Please provide a name (or names) of the accused or a source for your claim so that the credibility of this claim can be checked out.
x.com/Politic56721677/status/1824072939307720956
th-cam.com/video/2xF3Ttd73ac/w-d-xo.html Same video, but on TH-cam.
What does the Bible say about marriage more than about communion?
Filioque. Most people who say the creed think it means that the Holy Spirit is SENT by the Father and the Son. He is. No problem except for picky theologians- and boy, am I usually picky! But not this time.
Gentlemen, being unkind and disrespectful towards liberals and bad actors in the CofE makes life harder for faithful, orthodox anglicans contending for the faith and the future.
Hardly. Orthodox Anglicans in England have a grand tradition of being good losers. Orthodox Anglicans have no future unless they rid themselves of the feminine passive mindset and fight back. Ridicule was the strongest tool in the internal battle against the Soviet state.
There are times when you two are just entertaining yourselves, and careless of both your audiences and the people you are reporting on and often criticizing.
Lighten up
God's word.@@clairebarrett3048
Consider that they are addressing members of the Anglican Church of North America, the Episcopal Church in the United States, Church of England, GAFCON, GSFA, and Anglican Communion simultaneously. No easy task. I would expect viewers who do not see Kevin or George as identifying with the viewer's own particular spot might accuse them as being "careless."
Yes, we do have great fun with the show. And we are not overly concerned with whom we offend. At one primates meeting where we were on the sidelines, a friendly primate told us over a beer that JW laid into us as “bastards” in an informal session. A badge of honor for us I believe
Where is Justin Welby in all this?
Backs Starmer
Waiting for what his globalist bosses will tell him what to do next.
Fast asleep.
Waiting for his globalist bosses to tell him what t do next.
Police certainly not standing idly by!BTW I am a Presbyterian .Riots in Belfast too.Lots of mistakes today men!!
The UK press is NOT socialist. They largely support the right, though some support liberals, but very little of the press supports the socialists/left.
Ridiculous. The British press trends conservative? Not in my lifetime
@@georgeconger2850 Note that I am saying they are not socialist/not left wing. I think you may be confusing the left and liberals. They don't support parties that believe in wealth redistribution or high taxes. They don't support Labour most of the time, though they might if they think their win is inevitable and they can then push the party rightwards (eg. The Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch, generally on the right, temporarily claimed Labour support in 1997). They sometimes support liberal values, but so did the Conservative party from 2010 for quite a few years (the Conservatives introduced same-sex marriage while rolling out austerity). The only left paper is the Mirror, the only liberal papers are the Guardian and the Independent, but none of these supported Jeremy Corbyn when he led Labour. The times, the telegraph, the financial times, the sun, the daily mail, the daily express all lean right. You have magazines like the new statesman who are centre left, but the spectator (chaired by Andrew Neil, who is much more right wing than Ben Shapiro thought) is pretty far to the right. The BBC has had its fair share of right-leaning political presenters (Andrew Neil, Laura Kuensberg, Fiona Bruce) and has been chaired by Conservative party Donors (Richard Sharp) and former Conservative party MPs (Chris Pattern).
@@martineyles not sure what you have been reading? Have you read the Guardian anytime?
@@godsman4180I mentioned the Guardian in my reply to George Conger. They have some writers who are liberal, some who are left and some who are both. I suppose Owen Jones is both of those things, and John Harris is more left than Liberal, so perhaps I should have put it left/socialist with the Mirror. That's still only 2 papers though. The independent is definitely more liberal than socialist/left and pretty much every other paper is on the right. The BBC has been run by conservative donors (Richard sharp) and former Conservative MPs (Chris Patten), had political editors go on to work for conservative prime ministers (Robbie Gibb) and had sitting chairs of right wing magazines as main political commentators (Andrew Neil).
I see a difference between Nativist and Xenophobic rioting and rioting against the police by Black Americans and Black Brits. I would also see a difference between non-violent protests against desegregation and non-violent protests in favor of desegregation. Martin Luther King did not see the protests against his movement as morally or theologically equivalent to his own. The concerns of white segregationists were not valid, his concerns were, and he could defend that, theologically. Legally, the police should have seen them as equal, solely in terms of riot-control and public order maintenance. But, of course, they did not.
Some would agree with Martin Luther King Jr.'s view. Was the view of the racial segregationist of equal merit?🤔
@@royquick-s5n The view of the racial segregationist was not at all of equal merit, though it was almost always the worldview of the majority of the citizens, the legal system and the business community. Interestingly, the church was often more-progressive on that issue, than the less-religious people. Are you a racial segregationist?
Black Americans were something like 20% of the population of the 13 colonies before independence. Their community is as American as apple pie. In Britain, the Muslim population was 0.11% in 1961, is 6.5% today and will be 15-20% by 2060. They are a new community who do not like Britain and feel no affinity for the country. They just dont want to live in countries like Pakistan.
@@robertsheridan1975 No, robertsheridan1975. I am not a racial segregationist, and I lived through the 50s, 60s, and 70s pounding the streets to advance integration. I did church work in the inner cities. I later taught in the inner cities. I experienced what I know. I don't need a youngster telling me how it was.🙂
@royquick-s5n I experienced de facto housing segregation in The Bronx in the 1980's, but I've certainly never been amidst actual legal segregation or a Segregationist society. I'm not clear on why you would ask me if the views of Segregationists are of equal merit, then? Especially as you have opposed them since before I was born
Bishop Rose was chaplain to the House of Commons!!
Yes,and was refused the post of St Margaret’s Westminster which has always gone with the chaplain’s speakers position because she was unsound.
Awful woman
It's sloppy and unfair to conflate opposition to Zionism (or, more often, to some forms of it) with antisemitism. Just as it is unjust name-calling to say that opponents of BLM are "racist," so there is nothing necessarily antisemitic about opposing the Israeli actions in Gaza. In the past, those who opposed the American involvement in Vietnam as a mistake or as immoral were not necessarily un-patriotic or communists or supporters of the Viet Cong. In the present, it is not antisemitic to oppose the policies of the State of Israel and to regard our close alignment and subsidy of its military as a mistake that is damaging to the American national interest.
John Mearsheimer has written a well-argued book about AIPAC and its distorting influence on American foreign policy, in both political parties. I am indifferent to the ICC, as such; but the indiscriminate mass slaugher in Gaza, in combination with leaked Israeli government documents about forcing the entire populaton of Gaza into tent cities in the Sinai, is horrifying. That can plausibly be called ethnic cleansing and genocidal actions. And even if they were justified as collateral damage in legitimate self-defense and anti-terrorist military actions, it would not necessarily follow that the US should subsidize other countries' wars with money and weaponry and technology. I sympathize with Ukraine but don't want to be involved in that war, either. We need to give up the delusion that we can act as the global cop: that has failed disastrously in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, playing a major role in vast waves of Islamic migration to the West. We are making already bad situations much worse. The same applies to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Zionism is a form of secular nationalism. It is as legitimate as any other nationalism, but it is also subject to the same criticisms as other nationalisms and political ideologies. Many have forgotten that, until after World War II, most religious Jews opposed Zionism. The Reform Jews of the United States in the Pittsburgh Platform rejected Zionism, favoring instead the emancipation and enfranchisement of Jews in the countries where they lived. Many liberal and left-leaning Jews still think along those lines. A significant segment of Orthodox Judaism still opposes Zionism or is ambivalent about it. One can't simply equate Judaism with Zionism. It's even a disservice to the secular liberal strand of Zionism that actually established the State of Israel (whose legitimacy within the 1967 borders I do accept, by the way).
Stephen Sizer has written two excellent books criticizing Zionism from a Christian theological standpoint. No less a figure than John Stott expressed agreement with him. Sizer did not deserve the treatment he received from the Church of England. The Palestinian Christians--Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, etc.--should be heard and not casually dismissed.
If not the same as, your blog appears similar to the pro-Palestinian plank of the Democratic Party. It is one thing to apply Christian morals to political parties. Nothing seems wrong by doing that. It is another thing to subjugate Christian morals to party platform, especially during election time.🤔
Hitler gave anti-Semitism a bad name so modern Jew haters call themselves anti-Zionists. Both are beyond the pale
You seem to circumvent that the collateral losses of Palestinians in Gaza have been occurring at Israeli attempts to stop those who have continued to send rockets into Israel and attack Israel generally, and you seem to be silent on Hamas' use of hostages and Hamas' hiding behind or under hospitals, schools, and other civilian structures. You seem to be faulting Israelis for targeting from where they are being fired upon. If they did not make attempts to stop it, they would be the victims of Hamas' rockets and incursions. Upon top of it, are not many Palestinians complicit? Have they called upon Hamas to stop? Organized against Hamas? Called for intervention against Hamas?🤔
I suggest associating what is happening in and around Isreal now with Zionism as you have defined it follows the vocabulary and thinking of Hamas.
@@royquick-s5n Hamas doesn't accept Israel within the 1967 borders. I do. So that's not following Hamas: it's attempting to weigh the issues on their merits rather than using expressions like "antisemitism" or "Islamophobia" to shut down the discussion. As regards the scale of the slaughter, I find persuasive the figures put forward recently by The Lancet, which is a respected British medical journal--hardly a Hamas propaganda outlet.
Also, I support neither Zionism nor "Palestinianism". I support neutrality (ie, no weaponry or money to either side, apart perhaps from humanitarian aid) as being in the best national interest of the United States and also as a morally defensible and preferable policy option. Israel is not the 51st state. Before 1973, the US did not send vast amount of money and materiel to Israel. With the end of the Cold War, this US involvement should have ended. We have no obligation to subsidize other countries' wars.
This is some strange logic. If Diversity, Equity and Inclusion are good things, that doesn't mean that people are hired simply because of DEI, it just means that there is more Diversity than there was before. There was more of an effort to break through the white man clubs, the good ole boy networks. There was an importance placed on everyone not looking and sounding like us. Desegregating the US military was a good idea, but that doesn't mean that Black Officers in Korea didn't earn their ranks. They weren't Desegregation promotions. It devalues and dismisses people to reduce them to being hired just because of DEI, you don't have to take them seriously and you can apply it to all Black people, forever.. I think you both know that, but feel comfortable doing it anyway, which is surprising.
Plenty of useless and unsuitable diversity hires, everywhere, get real
Are you not evading that DEI has been applied in hiring or selection of people? That it devalues having received or attained a position on merit alone?🤔
@@royquick-s5n I have a lot of criticism of the DEI movement, but I think the basic idea of increasing Diversity and Inclusion is a very good one. Equity is more complicated, maybe not even the best goal. If no one does anything to diversify all-white spaces, it won't just happen magically, or because white people hate having an advantage in hiring. The term "DEI Hire" will now be used by conservatives to apply to all Black hires, as a means of reducing the worth of those Black hires, making their job readiness always suspect. It may be an unfortunate byproduct of Affirmative Action PLUS continued white racist defensiveness.
Indeed. Here is amazing man discussing this topic th-cam.com/video/yEL7KtQ673w/w-d-xo.html
@@clairebarrett3048who decides which Black people are DEI hires and which Black people earned their positions?