YouTube Reportedly Shuts Down Farrakhan And The Nation Of Islam

As many on this blog know, I have been a long and vocal critic of Louis Farrakhan, who regularly espouses racist and antisemitic views.  Coming from Chicago, I have criticized Farrakhan for years, including recent posts.  Nevertheless, the move by YouTube to remove the video channel of the Nation of Islam is in my view another example of private censorship of speech on the Internet.  Many of us have denounced Farrakhan, but censorship begins with the most unpopular and obnoxious among us.  This action places the Internet on the slippery slope where more and more speech is likely to be banned as offensive or hateful.

According to the Jewish Journal, the channel was taken down on October 2 with the statement that “We have strict policies prohibiting hate speech on YouTube, and terminate any channel that repeatedly or egregiously violates those policies.”

There is certainly no question that Farrakhan spews hateful and racist viewpoints. However, we have seen in Europe how such regulation of speech leads to a frenzy of new demands from individuals and groups citing their own objections to opposing speakers. This has led to conflicting and troubling bans that raise bias on the part of these companies.

As discussed earlier, there is now a strong movement on the left to regulate and censor the Internet. Indeed, this taste for regulating speech has now become evident in the United States. I recently criticized the calls of Democratic leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff for greater censorship of the Internet and social media.

The Atlantic published an article by Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods calling for Chinese style censorship of the Internet.  They declared that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong” and “significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with society norms and values.”

The reason we need to oppose YouTube’s actions is not to support Farrakhan but free speech. The Internet is the single greatest vehicle for free speech in the history of humanity. Not surprising, politicians and governments want to regulate it and curtail it.  This effort always begins with the least popular figures, but it never ends there. The presence of Farrakhan on YouTube is not nearly as dangerous as the loss of free speech in removing him from YouTube.

74 thoughts on “YouTube Reportedly Shuts Down Farrakhan And The Nation Of Islam”

  1. Turley believes in free speech, I bet he loves the new found freedom of the DOJ to announce that they “may” be doing investigations of political foes. And Barr’s and Trump’s sycophants will be yelling fire in the political theater at will all day long.

  2. Since both Alex Jones AND Farrakhan are now censored on youtube, I am pleased to link to one they did not catch, an interview of Louis by Alex. Let Louis Farrakhan speak for himself
    Listen to what he has to say and don’t take the digital censors word for it

    1. from that interview transcript. it flows better when you listen. Give the censored voices a listen according to their own unedited exchange.

      question who are the 85% who are the 10%
      and who are the 5% and in the answers
      that mr. Mohammed gave that we study 85%
      of the people don’t understand the law
      of cause and effect and they believe
      that all of this great wonder is from a
      mystery God they don’t know that God is
      as real as you and I sitting across the
      table from each other and wherever there
      is an effect that is real the cause is
      just as real though ofttimes
      the hidden hand that’s manipulating and
      creating the effect and the
      circumstances that begin to divide and
      destroy this kind of satanic mind is
      absolutely in control and that satanic
      mind is hiding with a mask of humanity
      and civility but now it is gradually
      being exposed so 10% run 85% 10% of
      those that are privileged those that are
      blessed with education and some degree
      of wealth that 85% don’t share and it
      doesn’t make any difference whether you
      are white or black or Indian or whatever
      your ethnicity is and it doesn’t make
      any difference what your religion is
      whether you’re Christian or Muslim or
      Jew there are those at the
      who guide and govern who are not
      necessarily the friend of the masses of
      the people that they are governing so it
      is the 5% are just a small group who
      know the truth who understand the law of
      cause and effect and they don’t believe
      in a mystery God that some we’re making
      things happen if there is a real evil
      then there’s a real devil if there’s a
      real sent a saint then there’s a real
      good person doing saintly things so here
      we are now a conspiracy absolutely is in
      vogue and I say this humbly but I’ve
      asked certain people who say well you’re
      a conspiracy theorist and they call you
      the same I said but do you read the
      scriptures of the Bible and Quran is not
      Satan real evil is real so Satan is real
      evil is preponderate in the earth and
      that is because the mind of Satan who
      that is being transmitted through
      religion through education through the
      economics and politics of the situation
      so that Satan is in control of a vast
      enterprise of institutions that foster
      ideas that put human beings against
      themselves and against God and against
      each other so there’s real conspiracy
      and we are in the middle of it as we are
      dialoguing that really is a
      revolutionary thought that if you
      questioned the establishment you
      question what they’re saying when
      they’re known liars you’re a conspiracy
      theorist that’s like saying you’re a
      heretic okay well if we’re a heretic
      against the system I guess we’re a
      heretic against the devil because this
      system on down
      you couldn’t call it good and from my
      research that’s my concern the 5% to 1%
      to 1/10 of 1% that actually run and
      control manipulate things they believe
      they’re going to end up winning they
      believe that they’re getting ahead of
      people by keeping folks dumbed down but
      common sense shows and just my gut tells
      me you don’t screw people over and then
      a long term get away with it comes back
      on you and I think the people serving
      this system are some of the most
      deceived out there because they know how
      the world really works but they’ve
      decided to basically try to screw over
      their fellow humans as if they’re gonna
      get ahead by doing that I mean just
      anybody who’s god-fearing in their gut
      level has to know that’s a lie
      well mr. Jones in reality there are
      those who go along to get along and
      there are those who will take money or
      position or promises of nearness to
      power to become an instrument of power
      they know what they’re doing but they do
      not know the vast evil that they are a
      part of so the Honorable Elijah Muhammad
      my teacher said we are living now in a
      very dangerous time he said there never
      has been a time where on the earth there
      is 100% dissatisfaction whites are
      dissatisfied blacks are dissatisfied
      there are Jews and Gentiles that are
      dissatisfied well what is creating the
      dissatisfaction it is the deprivation of
      rights and privileges it is the
      deprivation of truth it is the
      deprivation of justice it is the
      deprivation of equity it is the
      deprivation of equality of
      unity that each human being should have
      to bring out of themselves what God has
      put within that they in their person may
      glorify God and create a world better
      than the world in which we find
      ourselves so the politicians today I I
      looked at the many Republicans and
      Democrats that are trying to win the
      nomination of their party and it says to
      me you know it’s like I don’t want to be
      vulgar but it’s like you in any major
      city you see women undressed showing
      their wares for a John to buy them and
      it’s like politicians who don’t have
      money but have ideas and they parade
      themselves before rich and powerful
      people to get money apparently for their
      ideas that the rich agree with but the
      moment that they become what they are
      looking to become they find that the
      rich have an agenda for them that the
      rich have something to ask of them like
      the John asks of the prostitute and
      that’s one of the things that I admire
      about mr. Trump because he told them all
      I don’t want your money
      and when a politician does not want
      money from the rich he’s freer than the
      others to really do good for the masses
      of the people and I think that today we
      are in the midst of the darkest hour in
      American history
      and so if we don’t make the right move
      with the right people at the right time
      the America that we know we’re not going
      to see it become great again


  3. I would also add that Instagram, that is owned by Facebook (there’s an obvious antitrust breakup ready for action) but Instagram censored Farrakhan already many months ago. I was following a NOI feed on it that posted interesting daily content and poof it just went away

  4. First they will stop the speech of someone you don’t like. Once they know they have the power they will come for your speech. You better walk the line or you will be called for your confession.

  5. Louis Farrakhan and NOI are a mixed bag. They are a far lesser danger to society than the wildlings of BLM and ANTIFA rioting in the streets. They talk fiercely against whites and Jews and so forth but in Chicago they have been a better force for law and order in their social circles than the black narcotics traffickers and other hoodlums.

    They should be reinstated on youtube and every other socalled racist of any color of skin that’s been cancelled by Silicon valley censors in the past 3 years likewise.

    Let the social media treat their forums like the utilities they are or face immediate revocation of section 230 immunity under CDA as well as antitrust enforcement action to smash them up and bring them down from their lofty peaks of power above us all.

  6. If Professor Turley is truly committed to free speech on the internet, regardless of the rights of private companies (and I believe he thinks he is), why does he ban certain commenters on this site? Particularly when there are no rules or guidelines posted for commenters to follow?

    1. There are guidelines.

      There are millions of blogs. Youtube’s market-dominant position renders it approximate to a public utility.

    2. Darren’s banned two commenters in the last several years. One of them was clotting up every thread with acres of her verbiage. The other was given to foul-mouthed tirades against the moderator. (He returned, btw, and comments here using three different aliases).

  7. I despise Louis Farrakhan as a racist anti-semite. However, I also oppose censorship in the digital public square.

    Social media has claimed lawsuit protections as merely operating as a public square. If so, then if it’s legal to say outside, in a park, then it should be allowed to be said on that public square. If Youtube, FB, and Twitter censor, then they are not a public square, and therefor should lose that protection.

    We need an uncensored place to talk online. That means terrible things will be said. Just like in person. The problem is that none of us can just go out and build a digital public space, as easily as we could create a park or a meeting hall.

    1. No, government should not “play a large role” in monitoring our conversions among ourselves. What is this, 1984?

      The main difference between the Democrats and Republicans are their views on the role of government in individual lives. Democrats seek a strong government to care for people from cradle to grave, making many decisions for them, including what kind of health care plan should be available. This requires people to give up their individual rights, to a degree – the right of school choice, the right to work gigs (see CA AB5), among some examples. Republicans believe in individual rights and a limited government. They believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcome. In order to get equal outcome, you would have to take the A grades away from people who studied hard and showed up to class, and redistribute those points to everyone equally, including those who cut class every day and smoked pot on the couch.

      A Republican views online conversations like a telephone call. Not to be monitored or interrupted by the phone company. Democrats view the internet as a realm for them to control, constantly breaking in and hanging up your conversation if they disagreed with your comments. The operator is on the line the entire time, “fact checking” your statements with her similarly biased friends.

      Democrats view most people in America as children, incapable of making their own decisions, or being responsible for themselves. They single out the black community as incapable of even getting an ID, being held to the same behavioral standards as anyone else, or being able to take care of themselves. It’s the bigotry of low expectations. Ever notice that Democrats never say they think Latinos or Asians can’t get ID? If Republicans were rioting, burning, and looting, would Democrats say they were just mad and needed an outlet? They don’t even think blacks are capable of making their own decisions on politics, scolding any black conservatives who leave the plantation.

      1. Wow, is this cleanly explained. I always appreciate the way you express yourself with logic and lack of hysteria, Karen S.

      2. The main difference between the Democrats and Republicans are their views on the role of government in individual lives. Democrats seek a strong government to care for people from cradle to grave, making many decisions for them, including what kind of health care plan should be available.

        You’ve been reading the partisan Democrats here for at least four years, Karen. What gets them out of bed in the morning is hostility to people like you and me. Full stop. They devote masses of pixels to defending gross misconduct by government officials because the misconduct was directed at public officials supported by people like you and me. They hardly care about public policy anymore.

        And you’re off center. Government is merely an instrument as far as these people are concerned. Contemporary liberal social vision sees the world as replicating the social relations of a high school. The liberals are the school administration and the teachers. The rest of us are under their tutelage. Dissent is conceptualized as kids being disruptive. Like in many inner city high schools, this school administration plays favorites. School administrators are commonly bureaucratic CYA types who cannot be straight with anyone to save their lives. Like the media, they lie.

        The Republicans are an omnibus of people dissatisfied with the regnant liberal order. However, they do assume that people have agency and that people who’ve reached their majority have about equal liberty to exercise their own agency in markets and in family life. Christopher Lasch noted a generation ago that the regnant conception of what parents do is to schedule the distribution of services from various occupational guilds, not to be the governing force in their families. Gottfried Dietze predicted 50 years ago what we now know: that the misnamed ‘civil rights laws’ would be a conduit to dictating the terms of every kind of human transaction and distorting and disfiguring the purposes of every kind of human organization. C.S. Lewis taught us two generations ago that the conception of personal responsibility harbored by the social work and mental health trade meant putting the criminal population under indefinite supervision, rather than punishing them for their transgressions and then letting them make their choices with their restored liberty. The state is an instrument for harassing people they loathe. And the mask really is off as sorosphere district attorneys don’t even pretend to be impartially applying the law.

        The real problem is officious malevolence.

        1. Art Deco is right. In my view, the Democrat leadership is no longer “liberal” it is tyrannical and intends to use whatever legal and political tools of power it gains to suppress and disenfranchise its rivals. The average law abiding citizen of flyover is now a target of their ire and that will outlast Trump for however he remains in his post.

          Regular law abiding citizens MUST get out and vote in this election on the fateful day. Vote like your LIFE depends on it because in fact it may

          There’s videos of the BLM riot squads smashing windows of businesses and residences in Wisconsin last night when regular citizens may have been watching debates.

          Their answer is not debate it is violence. We MUST vote Red Republican all the way along the ballot to send a clear message for law and order.

      3. Karen: you don’t know what you’re talking about, again. How can Republicans “believe in individual rights and limited government’, and still oppose a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body? When it comes to health care, the Biden-Harris ticket includes both a public and private option. Democrats do not dictate health care. All Republicans want to do is cancel Obamacare, primarily because it was an accomplishment of Barak Obama. It really chafes the orange man that Obama is and has always been more popular than he is. Despite 4 years to come up with something, anything, much less something better than Obamacare, they have no plan. And, this attack on health care coverage is coming during a pandemic. An “executive order” to protect coverage for pre-existing conditions is not a health plan, and is nothing more than ceremonial.

        Republicans are doing everything possible to try to stifle the vote of those they believe will vote Democratic, including gerrymandering, poll watching, limiting polling places, trying to cast doubt on the validity of mail-in voting, and threatening lawsuits, despite the fact that there is no evidence of fraud. They don’t even believe in equal opportunity to vote, much less anything else. How is this limited government?

        You speak of a “right of school choice”–who’s stopping you or anyone else from their child attending school you choose? What you want is for taxpayers to cover tuition for religious schools, even though some taxpayers are agnostic or even athiests. My parents paid for me and my brothers to attend Catholic schools, and they also had to pay property taxes to pay for public schools, too.

        Democrats are not rioting or burning anything, and Biden and Harris both condemn this conduct. Kamala Harris is black–who ever said she can’t make her own decisions? When did she ever claim black people can’t make their own decisions?

        And, BTW, as has been explained to you previously, Trump and his disciples are not conservatives–they flunk the honesty and personal integrity tests, as well as the conservative stand on limiting the national debt. Any black person who supports Trump supports an avowed racist, and saying so isn’t racist.

    2. I object to Youtube censoring Louis Farrakhan and the NOI. I am neither a Muslim nor black. I do not agree with much of what he says. Much of what he says is preposterous and hateful. Nonetheless this is digital censorship by Youtube which is essentially a utility and should stop deplatforming people which Silicon Valley does not like. I call on Youtube to reinstate not ony Farrakhan and NOI but all the other alleged white racists they have censored in the past 3 years since the Charlottesville debacle. That number of censored accounts is at least several hundred if not thousands of accounts which have been pulled for “conent violations.”

      I also encourage Congress to revoke their section 230 immunities under the CDA.

      Google aka “Alphabet” the owner should also face antitrust action.

      1. They put Dennis Praeger in some sort of walled garden. A mess of tech companies colluded to knock Alex Jones off the air.

        1. Yes absolutely they should reinstate Alex Jones too. It’s unconscionable that they not only censor racial and religious opinions they don’t like but a patriotic flag waver too. Sillicon Valley are titans stamping on us all and un-American to boot. Let them act as the utlitities they are or face section 230 immunity revocation and antitrust enforcement to cut them down to size. It’s long overdue. And now it has bipartisan support the problem has become so overweening and obvious.

          Google, Apple, and Twitter should face these penalties immediately.

        2. Im not sure what they did to Praeger but his channel is excellent. I have often enjoyed his content.

          Youtube and twitter alike are notorious for various forms of quasi censorship and partial deplatforming that won’t draw headlines like an outright ban. That’s offensive too

          I hope that Jewish people like Praeger and his fans understand that the American people of all stripes need to hang together against these Silicon Valley behemoths and their abusive content censorship policies. Please make no mistake, the Jewish community gains very little from youtube deplatforming Farrakhan. This is some kind of lame sop.

          You can bet the Silicon Valley behemoths are usually of the same mind as Soros when it comes to bds. So far the only big Jewish name in Silicon Valley I know of who is pro-Israel is Larry Ellison of Oracle who has a strong lawsuit underway against Google btw. the others and there are more than a handful, I would not know, but i suspect they are like minded as Soros is.

  8. Maybe the reason for the ban is the thoughts of Malcolm X about the left????????

    I have substituted the word that Malcolm used for Blacks do to this Blogs moderation protocol.———
    “The worst enemy that the Blacks have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Blacks and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Blacks have. If the Black wasn’t taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Blacks would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Blacks think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man.”. Malcolm X

  9. The term ‘hate speech’ will invariably be defined in a sectarian manner and the strictures will be used contra people antagonistic toward (or merely critical of) liberal mascot groups. Liberal hate will to on unabated. That’s how this fraud works.

  10. After WWII we shut down the right of Germans to talk Nazi in the media or in public.
    We need to shut up the anti semites like The Gang of Four.

  11. There is a difference between speech on the internet and speech on a website located on the internet.

    The internet should not have censored speech. You are free to create your own website and use it to say most anything you want. Exceptions exist, but are few such as child porn, etc.

    Using someone elses website that they pay for and maintain is, and should be, subject to their rules. They are free to censor!

    Seems to me attorneys and journalist would understand that.

    1. Using someone elses website that they pay for and maintain is, and should be, subject to their rules. They are free to censor!

      Networking effects give Youtube a functional monopoly. Some of these tech firms also have privileges encoded into federal law under the assumption they are neutral platforms. Also, we know they’ve been colluding. They’re analogous to the old AT & T, not to competitive enterprise.

      1. Then congress needs to update or repeal section 230. 230 is the issue. 230 is archaic passed in 1996 when just over 10,000 minor websites were active. It would be another 8 years before Facebook and many more before others were created.

        Idiot congressmen/women included in Section 230(c)(2) that provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”. Why include “objectionable” as a reason when that is a loophole large enough to drive a tank through.

        Well if I had a conservative social media site ( none exist, conservatives just want to ride on the backs if liberal sites) and BLM wanted to posts messages about how republicans were damaging black lives, I could quote “objectionable content for my readers” as reason to block BLM.

        If You Tube wants to block it, that is their right. In doing so, the FCC should use that to repeal 230 for them

  12. So YouTube does not have the right to determine who uses its property? The company loses its rights because it creates a value?! Because it says “no” to a potential customer, it practices “censorship”? When are free speech scholars going to learn the difference between government and private action?

    1. Google is an intellectual property pirate and Oracle is taking them to task

      Antitrust action will follow

      the people mouthing this stuff about private property this and that are actually just Democrat leadership sycophants who could care less about the institution of private property. big lie!

      Not that it matters where a functional monopoly like youtube is concerned

  13. If we are supposed to have Free Speech, then how come we can’t use the N word??? Because I would use it frequently to draw attention to the fact that not all black people are alike.

    For example, the dark skinned person who said Poor Old Michael Brown wuz on he knees wit his hands in de air begging “Please don’t shoot me! Oh Lawdy, please don’t shoot me!” – that person was nothing but a lying N.

    OTOH, the dark skinned people who told the Grand Jury that Michael Brown attacked Poor Darren Wilson were decent and truthful Black people. And, the forensic evidence backed them up.

    Putting all Blacks into the same bloc to wit, African Americans, is just as bad as when White people considered all Black people to be Ns. There are good and bad in every race. Unfortunately when it comes to Blacks, at least half of them suck, and are nothing but Ns. Taleeb Starkes says it is more like 75%. Who knows? Even Ridley Scott has a pretty dim view of the Ns. He is Black, and his work below has been called an obscenity.

    I suggest you save a copy of this, because it will probably be cancelled.

    I do think we need a good word to describe white people who suck, and maybe White Trash is workable. But what do you call Elizabeth Warren who continues to say Michael Brown was murdered??? Because she is worth millions.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. It is PURE HATE…but isn’t that censoring free speech, or is he inciting violence (in which case he shouldn’t have a platform).

    2. “Even Ridley Scott has a pretty dim view of the Ns. He is Black…”

      The little Girl Reporter can’t get her facts straight.

      1. “If we are supposed to have Free Speech, then how come we can’t use the N word??? Because I would use it frequently to draw attention to the fact that not all black people are alike.” -Squeeker, the white girl

        Here you go, Squeeks:

        Greensboro Massacre: City Apologizes 41 Years After Cops Allowed Klan, Nazis to Kill 5 Antiracists

        October 7, 2020

        AMY GOODMAN: Reverend Nelson, we have to wrap up the show, but I wanted to just say one thing. In the clip we played, the Klansman or Nazi used the N-word. And we asked you: Should we repeat that? You said yes. We have 10 seconds. Why?

        JOYCE HOBSON JOHNSON: Because the truth matters, Amy.

        REV. NELSON JOHNSON: It’s as simple as that. People need to know the truth of our history. And that word, which is very derogatory, is part of that history. And it is that simple.

        AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you both for being with us, Reverend Nelson Johnson and Joyce Johnson, survivors of the 1979 Greensboro massacre, co-founders of the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission and now co-executive directors of the Beloved Community Center of Greensboro, North Carolina.

        1. “Greensboro Massacre: City Apologizes 41 Years After Cops Allowed Klan, Nazis to Kill 5 Antiracists”

          ‘Nearly 41 years after Ku Klux Klansmen and American Nazis shot dead five antiracist activists in the town of Greensboro, North Carolina, the City Council there has passed a resolution apologizing for the attack and the police department’s complicity in the killings. We speak with two survivors of the 1979 attack, Reverend Nelson Johnson and Joyce Hobson Johnson, who say the city’s apology acknowledges “the police knew and chose to do nothing. In fact, they facilitated what we name now as a North American death squad.”’

          1. “WITNESS: Now, the Klan, or whoever it was, jumped out and just started shooting in the direction of the thickest concentration of people. They seemed to be aiming at particular people. There were several police in the area who did nothing, until after these murderers left. Police came in, immediately started arresting people who were trying to help those who had fallen. Nelson Johnson, you know, was taken into custody, kicked in the head by the police. He was bleeding from the arm as he was trying to help people. And the police did this, directly or indirectly. They set it up.”

  14. YouTube is a private company and they should be able to freely remove content that does not meet their community standards. The internet is a free market and if another person wants to start up a video streaming service that caters to hate, then they are free to do so.

  15. Free speech to hate speech to yelling fire in a crowded cinema. Precisely what did Farrakhan post? Did he advocate that harm be done to anyone? If he did, then that falls into the ‘fire’ in a crowded cinema category. If he denounced people or a people then the response would be ignore him to suing for libel. The situations in Europe are rarely reported in their entirety and in context. There is a fine line between hate speech and yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded cinema. Free speech is a man made right. It is a necessary right as it is the conduit between people for thoughts and ideas. If it is abused then society has a responsibility to govern it. For Youtube, a private enterprise it is no difference from Foxnews, a supposedly vehicle of free speech that routinely omits the truth and/or skews it completely out of proportion. The NYTimes and WAPO also lean one way; however, both papers tend to print everything.

    Private censorship by omitting views that the entity deems wrong and/or loading the vehicle with views that the entity deems right, goes on more in the right wing media than in the left. Limbaugh, Foxnews, The Washington Times, and countless other vehicles for right wing bias have been active in this adjusting of free speech far longer than any of the left wing vehicles. Yet, Turley, the Republican shill and bushwhacker seems obsessed with denouncing the left. Newton’s third law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This was the case throughout the 60s and early 70s when the despicable actions of the right regarding racism and war profiteering were responded to by the left. Today, we have another right wing threat with Trump and his gang of regressive agents. Perhaps what Turley is exposing here is an equal and opposite reaction, not always just but caused by, in this case, the dangers of the right. Listen to Trump carefully and then say that he doesn’t pose a threat. If only because of his imbecility, Trump needs to be answered. Extremes breed extremes.

      1. So has Trump, in the opposite extreme. Do you think Farrahkan thinks it’s OK that Trump refused rental units to Blacks? Trump hasn’t changed. He’s just learned how to curb his tongue. It comes out.

        1. Trump sued in Florida to allow Jews and Blacks into clubs. He also provided Jennifer Hudson a place for her and her family to stay after she was attacked and couldn’t safely remain in her residence. Keep up if you plan to comment.

        2. I just googled: “law suite against Trump for not renting to blacks”. One of the articals found there was by Politico magazine. Basically, the testimoney of the tenants was predominately that they did not see discrimition at the properties. There is always someone out there who will spoon feed information to those looking for confirmation of their bias. The result of the case? The judge said that the properties needed to put protocols in place to prevent possible bias.

  16. YouTube Reportedly Shuts Down Farrakhan And The Nation Of Islam

    Are they trying to coverup the fact that there are black people who are howling hateful racists?

    Black Lives Matter is also a racist organization, are they going to shut down videos from that organization too?

    1. Nation of Islam for all its many faults, is not the sort of outfit that sends foot soldiers to BLM riots. I would be interested to see any proof of any significant participation of NOI in the last four months of rioting. NOI has actually rehabilitated many convicts into regular productive family men. As a white man I know they dislike me and blame me for whatever, but, they are also a genuine religious community that encourages family, self discipline, and also black community self empowerment. Yes, Farrakhan has a consistent message of black self help and self empowerment, and of economic development inside the community instead of always looking for a handout from Uncle Sugar.

      The story goes back to Marcus Garvey, who was discredited not only by some of his own mistakes, but by his rivals for leadership of the black community, such as WEB Dubois, who were literally backed by Communists at the time. We see this pattern again taking shape today, where the most obnoxious parasites are routinely elevated by the white Democrat leadership, and black nationalists are routinely pushed aside to the margins. Long ago I was told this story by a NOI sympathizer who I used to meet socially from time to time, and also a Jamaican fellow I was friends with, and over time I believe that i have confirmed the pattern which they identified as a persistent one, unfolding before our eyes again.

      White people should not fear a little group of mosques such as NOI operates. It should fear the howling mobs of BLM out there rioting such as last night in Wisconsin running around breaking windows — and fear even more the Democrat party leadership that is using them as voter intimidation squads to gain a leg up in the coming elections.

      I am not promoting Farrakhan and his brand, I am just giving a small credit where it is due, especially since now they’re censored by youtube and people may not be able to confirm these things, which I have observed going back 3 decades and for several years as a resident of 312 area code Chicago.

  17. Farrakhan is an easy target and allows the liberals to show “even-handedness” without giving up much.

    Now censor Don Lemon and I will believe in even-handedness.

Comments are closed.