Stacey Patton, professor of journalism at Howard University, has caused an uproar with her advice to white people who want to oppose this Administration. Patton told them that they had to follow the path of John Brown, who led a bloodbath before the Civil War that included killing white slave owners and pro-slave settlers.
In a blog titled “John Brown Didn’t Ask Enslaved People How to Be A Good White Ally,” Patton told white liberals to stop asking how to be a better “ally” to minorities. She writes:
“It’s a question that always lands heavy. Not because I doubt their sincerity, but because the question itself is still a form of protection that centers the asker’s confusion instead of the target’s danger. It’s a request to be taught, forgiven, and reassured, again and again. It’s another round of homework assigned to the wounded…It’s exhausting as hell because it’s still a form of emotional outsourcing.”
Instead, she tells whites to become modern John Browns and presumably unleash a new era akin to “Bleeding Kansas” and the infamous Pottawatomie massacre.
Brown was a militant slave abolitionist during the pre-Civil War “Bleeding Kansas” period. In 1856, he orchestrated the Pottawatomie massacre. He and fellow abolitionists dragged five Kansas settlers, at least three of whom were pro-slavery sympathizers, out of their homes and executed them.
Patton wants whites to emulate Brown, who “saw the horror for what it was and decided that ending this racist f*ckery mattered more than being understood.” What clearly makes Brown stand out for Patton is his violence: “So when white allies ask, ‘What can I do?’ here’s the answer: Be like John Brown. Ask yourself, what am I willing to burn so somebody else can breathe?”
Of course, a hanging might be a bit stiff for many liberals longing to be Antifa. So, Patton acknowledges, “If you don’t want to die like John Brown, fine. But understand that somebody always does.”
Not surprisingly, the professor has little time for those who want to embrace the alternative, non-violent lessons of Martin Luther King:
“Now, white liberals love to quote Martin Luther King Jr. because he is a man that can be polished into civility. But John Brown doesn’t fit the script. He was a m’fukin’ gangsta! He didn’t ask for gradual change, or healing, or bipartisan cooperation. He saw a nation addicted to violence and knew that moral persuasion alone couldn’t sober it.”
Patton’s column comes after the controversy involving the John Brown Gun Club, which was connected to flyers appearing on campuses like Georgetown reading “Hey, Fascists! Catch!” The phrase was written on unused bullet casings found after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. It went on to proclaim, “The only political group that celebrates when Nazis die.”
The recent charges against Benjamin Song, an Antifa member, also raised the group. Song was charged with three counts of attempted murder of federal agents in addition to three counts of discharging a firearm stemming from an ambush-style shooting at an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas. A dozen others were charged in the plot. He was also reportedly a member of the John Brown Gun Club.
Notably, this is a journalism professor in a school that has long been associated with advocacy journalism and the controversial hire of former New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones.
We previously discussed the release of the results of interviews with over 75 media leaders by former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. They concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
Downie recounted how news leaders today.
“believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
Now, objectivity is virtually synonymous with prejudice. Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor at the Associated Press, declared, “It’s objective by whose standard? … That standard seems to be White, educated, and fairly wealthy.”
Stanford journalism professor Ted Glasser insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He declared that “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
Lauren Wolfe, the fired freelance editor for the New York Times, has not only gone public to defend her pro-Biden tweet but published a piece titled “I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That.”
Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism.
Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared, “all journalism is activism.” Her 1619 Project has been challenged as deeply flawed and she has a long record as a journalist of intolerance, controversial positions on rioting, and fostering conspiracy theories. Hannah-Jones would later help lead the effort at the Times to get rid of an editor and apologize for publishing a column from Sen. Tom Cotton as inaccurate and inflammatory.
Yet, Howard saw Hannah-Jones as perfect for a chair in its journalism school.
Professor Patton seems to have left not just neutrality but sanity behind with her implied support for violent action. It is unclear how such views impact her journalism courses at Howard University. However, she has featured prominently in The New York Times, Washington Post, and The Chronicle of Higher Education as well as ABC News, CNN, and MSNBC.
Part of the reason this hysteria persists is that Donald Trump is unlike any president this generation has ever seen. For decades, Americans were conditioned—almost trained—to believe that the “proper” presidential style was a calm, polished, poll-tested personality who speaks like a lawyer, acts like a bureaucrat, and offends no one. That model was held up as the only legitimate way to lead in a constitutional republic.
Then Trump arrived and shattered that mold. He doesn’t sound like the ruling class. He doesn’t bend to media etiquette. He talks directly to the people—often bluntly, sometimes clumsily, but always without apology. His style is raw, unfiltered, and unmistakably American—closer to the rugged frontier independence that built this country than the sanitized, consultant-driven politics that hollowed it out.
The Left cannot comprehend that strength and constitutional restraint can coexist. They equate forceful leadership with authoritarianism because they’ve never seen a leader willing to fight the establishment from within the constitutional order. Trump used the powers of his office—lawfully, transparently, and under constant scrutiny—to advance national sovereignty, revive economic independence, and reassert that government answers to the people, not to global institutions or party elites.
To those conditioned by decades of polished weakness, such boldness looks like dictatorship. But what they’re mistaking for tyranny is simply what decisive leadership looks like when it’s no longer filtered through committees and consultants.
Trump’s style doesn’t violate the Constitution—it vindicates it. The Founders designed an executive with the energy, independence, and will to stand up to entrenched power. And that’s exactly what enrages the power-mad, egotistical Democrats and their globalist allies: Trump has exposed them as the true authoritarians—the ones who cloak control in compassion, censorship in virtue, and coercion in “democracy.” He’s restoring the only legitimate power that ever existed in this republic: the power of the American people.
“Americans were conditioned—almost trained—to believe that the “proper” presidential style was a calm, polished, poll-tested personality who speaks like a lawyer, acts like a bureaucrat, and offends no one.”
Americans were conditioned—almost trained—to believe that the “proper” presidential style was a calm, polished, poll-tested personality who speaks like a lawyer, acts like a bureaucrat, and offends no one WHILE IN FAR TOO MANY CASES, BEHIND THE SCENES HE IS AVIDLY SELLING OUT HIS COUNTRY. Just thought that was a worthwhile addition…
If people want to see what actual “behind-the-scenes” authoritarianism looks like, we don’t have to speculate—we watched it happen.
– Secret targeting of journalists. DOJ secretly seized AP phone records and treated Fox’s James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator” to get his emails. That is state power used in the dark against the press.
– Mass warrant-lite surveillance. The NSA’s PRISM program vacuumed up internet data at a scope the public never imagined—revealed only by leaks, not transparency.
– War first, oversight later. The 2011 Libya operation sidestepped an explicit congressional authorization and touched off a War Powers fight.
– Political scrutiny via the taxman. The IRS used “inappropriate criteria” that swept up Tea Party–type nonprofits—an official IG finding, not a rumor.
– Policing speech from the bureaucracy. DHS stood up a Disinformation Governance Board—paused after 3 weeks under civil-liberties backlash—and the Supreme Court later tossed Murthy v. Missouri on standing grounds, leaving core First-Amendment concerns unresolved.
– Crossfire Hurricane & secret FISAs. The DOJ IG found 17 significant errors/omissions in the Carter Page FISA process, and Durham later blasted the probe’s predication; an FBI lawyer even pled guilty for altering an email. This is what covert state power looks like.
Now look at Trump. You may hate his style—but his fights are in the open: executive orders published, policies announced in daylight, and every major move dragged through courts, Congress, and nonstop media coverage. Even the Mar-a-Lago search involved a court-approved warrant later unsealed in part; the process unfolded in public filings. That’s not “secret sellout”—that’s visible, litigated power inside the constitutional order.
And when Democrats insist “it’s happening behind the scenes,” I ask the obvious: How would you know? The public record we can all see shows something else—including their own side’s issues: the Biden classified documents case (mishandling found, no charges per Special Counsel Hur) and the Hunter Biden prosecutions and outcomes. Agree or disagree with the decisions, none of that fits the “Trump secretly selling out America” storyline.
Bottom line: Authoritarians hide power. Trump wields it in the sunlight—where the people and the courts can say yes or no. That’s why his opponents confuse strength with tyranny: they’ve forgotten that decisive leadership can still operate within constitutional limits—and that real abuses of power usually arrive quietly, not with a bullhorn.
Olly
What the libs hate most of all. Prez Trump is getting stuff done and following the law.
OLLY,
Great comments!
Biden did NOT look polished or presidential. He look old and feeble.
Yep, agree with your examples. I am generally not fond of Trump’s style, nor of a few of the things he has done that IMO are uncomfortably close to unconstitutional actions engaged in by some of his predecessors. The US military attacks on alleged drug running boats out of Venezuela that are being justified on practical grounds but that imo fail Constitutional muster are one example. On the gripping hand, however, I think he has done quite a good job in very difficult circumstances, is far better than any of his recent predecessors, and is so far superior to the idiot who ran against him this last time that any comparison would be absurd,
GeorgeX posted: Someone send the memo to Stacey Patton: Ultimately, regarding issues of this nature, that which bears is law. Definitively, on January 1, 1863, the Immigration Law of the United States. That law denied admission to become a citizen, ultimately resulting conclusively in compassionate repatriation.
GeorgeX has suddenly reverted from his morning intersectional, bi-racial love affair with his fellow Trump-hating communist, The Black Liars & Marxist’s brilliant journalist, Stacey Patton. He is transitioning a different way this time, reverted to his other identity, Mad King George II, the Democrat Confederate Kluxxer. Who, like his slave owning Democrat Confederates, demands that Patton’s ancestors should have been ethnically cleansed from America once they were no longer Confederate farm animals.
Meaning, Patton should never have been born in the first place to entangle George/X in an illicit, intersectional, bi-racial love affair.
George has transitioned back to his regular Kluxxer theme: her ancestors should have been ethnically cleansed from America through”compassionately repatriation” – to countries where they had never set foot. If that had been done, George/X wouldn’t stand here before us this afternoon as a broken and fallen man, a Democrat Kluxxer seduced by a black voodoo queen’s communist wiles just hours earlier this morning.
There are two obvious questions:
1. Can George/X be Compassionately Repatriated to whatever foreign nation his Confederate Democrat ancestors came from – lands that he has also never set foot on?
2. Given George/X’s multiple and conflicting personalities on display today: is this a key to the mental illness that drives George/X here every single day to obsessively attack his host Professor Turley?
Was that a dazzling debate on law or an inane ad hominem argument?
A thirteen word sentence! A personal best for a rebuttal!
TRUMP GOTTA GO. HE IS SAVING LIVES! ARREST THAT GUY!
What Karl Marx didn’t realize is that water and oil do not mix. Emulsifiers are required. In American history, the forced amalgamation to effect this counterintuitive and impossible witch’s brew is Marx’s wholly unconstitutional redistribution of wealth and social engineering as cash public assistance, affirmative action, quotas, forced integration, forced busing, food stamps, Obamacare, etc.
Sorry, by law then and now, you can’t do that, Karl. The Supreme Court must act retroactively by 150 years to rescind the abject corruption and place Americans squarely back on the original Constitution and Bill of Rights of the Founders and Framers of 1789. The Supreme Court must restore full and complete American freedom.
Yes, the constitution prevents communism.
Our rights are in the way of their evil plans which is why leftys attack civil rights so hard (private property, 1A, 2A,…ad infinitum), then make up imaginary rights like the “right to not be offended” or “trans rights”
Sorry commie! Trump said this will never be a socialist country and as you know, he is always right!
However, the commies commenting here are not the evil ones, they are the useful idiots.
If women in sports cared they’d boycott. I no longer care. If doctors injure patients sue them into oblivion.
Anti-Americans are completely unmasked; moving towards more violence than the BLM riots and the Summer of Love. . . while the Islamists and WEF remain on the path for fundamental transformation.
She can get away with that, because being Black, employed by a Black university, she gets a pass. Is it racist for me to say that or is it racist for her to make that proposition. Or is it racist to defend her words.
How many generations of unconstitutional, anti-American, communist redistribution of wealth and social engineering, as public assistance, public housing, food stamps, WIC, SNAP, TANF, SSI, Medicaid, CHIP, Head Start, affirmative action, quotas, forced busing et al. ad infinitum, ad nauseam, led to Stacey Patton’s “PhD,” which has not been established but very well may have been obtained by a technique not dissimilar to that of Martin Luther King?
Someone send the memo to Stacey Patton:
Ultimately, regarding issues of this nature, that which bears is law. Definitively, on January 1, 1863, the Immigration Law of the United States of America was the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was passed as formal legislation of Congress, a branch of government consisting of elected representatives of the people and citizens of the United States. That law denied admission to become a citizen, ultimately resulting conclusively in compassionate repatriation.
Truth be known!
Sir Ian MacGregor (British Citizen) was a Metallurgist and worked on the development of the Sherman tank during WWII, after the war he became a US Citizen, writing why he said ‘I don’t like unnecessary class distinctions. The Americans waste no time on them. They don’t care who your father was, if you make it to the top and it comes out that your father made moonshine in Tennessee they admire you even more. Now, I like that System.’ Around 1983 he was approved to head the National Coal Board by Prime Minister Thatcher where he was accused of being an American butcher of British industry, wherein he responded he was a plastic surgeon whose job it was to repair the damage caused by the Socialist Mineworkers. The Mineworkers were on strike 1984-1985 when Sir MacGregor commented ‘People are now discovering the price of insubordination and insurrection. And boy, are we going to make it stick.’ I only bring up Sir MacGregor to use his quotes which are pertinent to today’s leftist fool! Mark Twain said in ‘Following the Equator’: “There are several good protections against temptations, but the surest is cowardice.” Asking others to do what you won’t.
This is what moral rot looks like when it’s dressed up as righteousness. A journalism professor—someone charged with teaching truth—openly glorifies a murderer and calls on others to “burn” for her cause. And the media class nods along as if this is courage rather than madness.
History has seen this play before, and it never ends well.
When the Jacobins of the French Revolution branded dissenters “enemies of the people,” the guillotine soon followed. The Bolsheviks declared “class enemies” expendable and drowned Russia in the Red Terror. The Nazis perfected it—calling their neighbors “vermin” until genocide felt like duty. Mao’s Cultural Revolution taught young zealots that to question the Party was treason; millions perished in the name of ideological purity. Even here in America, the moral hysteria of Bleeding Kansas began when radicals believed their cause was so righteous that killing their neighbors was justified.
We’ve seen the same fanatic script in radical Islamism: groups sanctify violence by recasting neighbors as subhuman “enemies of God.” ISIS didn’t just fight a war—it carried out genocide against the Yazidis and ran slave markets for women and girls, all justified by “holy” rhetoric. Boko Haram kidnapped schoolgirls by the hundreds and terrorized entire villages in the name of purity. And Hamas’s own charter calls for the extermination of Jews—a theology that made October 7 possible. When ideology blesses murder as moral, the torch feels righteous, and history repeats itself.
When people are brainwashed to believe their political opponents are “Nazis” and “fascists,” violence becomes a virtue. That’s not progressivism—it’s fanaticism. It’s the same moral blindness that fueled every purge, every revolution, every mob that ever thought its hate was holy.
The Democratic Party and its activist press have fed this delusion for years: that conservatives aren’t neighbors or citizens, but enemies to be destroyed. They’ve replaced debate with dehumanization and called it justice. They’ve traded the ballot for the torch.
This isn’t about right or left anymore—it’s about whether America still believes in reason over rage, truth over propaganda, civilization over chaos. Those who still believe in the rule of law, in objectivity, in the sanctity of human life—must speak up now.
Because history’s warning is clear: once one side decides it’s righteous enough to kill for its politics, the rest of the story is written in blood and ash.
OLLY,
Great comment. It truly is frighting to see how many of these people are embracing this kind of fanaticism.
Exactly Upstate. What’s most dangerous isn’t just the fringe itself, but how normalized this rhetoric has become among people who once would have condemned it. When a generation is taught that political violence can be “moral,” they stop seeing fellow citizens—they see obstacles to be removed.
The tragedy is that the Democratic Party has painted itself into a moral and political corner. For nearly a decade it has preached that Donald Trump and his supporters are not simply wrong, but evil—fascists, threats to democracy itself. That kind of rhetoric can’t be walked back without destroying its own credibility. If party leaders now urge restraint or civility, they risk alienating the radical base they’ve created—a base that hungers for vengeance, not coexistence.
They’ve built a movement that feeds on outrage, not achievement, and now the monster is loose. Like every revolution that devours its children, they can no longer control the forces they unleashed. The pursuit of permanent power has become the iron cage that imprisons them.
History teaches a bitter lesson: once you raise a mob to destroy your enemies, the mob eventually turns and destroys its masters.
At this rate Olly. If the libs fail to elect in 2026 and on. I’m worried there will be blood in out streets.
They hate being out of power and will do what ever it takes to regain it.
John Brown was working to rescue those who were imprisoned and tortured and held in forced labor camps. The US fought a war in America about that and another in Europe for the same reason.
I think the Nazis were pretty angry about getting shot at; you seem to have a similar position.
What side are you on?
If anyone has anything to say about the modern left other than, ‘They are insane. they have reverted back to what they used to be.’, I don’t have anything else to say. Wish I did. Salience is not longer a consideration for them. It is disgusting, and it is unsustainable. We will not let these insane children coax us into tragedy, that will not be necessary or acceptable this time.
Jonathan: In your concluding paragraph to this article, you write: “It is unclear how such views impact her journalism courses at Howard University.” What? It’s “unclear”? Jonathan – please reread your own article. How to you think “such views impact her journalism courses”? I’ll tell you so you don’t have to reread. “Objectivity” is out; “Partisan Journalism” is in.
Jack Brewster says: “What? It’s “unclear”? Jonathan – please reread your own article.”
She and Professor Turley are both Democrats.
And with his fellow Democrats, the professor doesn’t damn them with faint praise. Instead he does the opposite – he saves them with the most gentle criticism.
After a while here, you get used to it.
Professor Turley is not a Democrat. His parents were Democrats, a sheepskin he wears to avoid blame.
The “Professor” needs to reflect on the fact that for every “John Brown” there await many Edmund Ruffin’s just waiting to counter-revolt!
Amazing the sheer stupidity of these academic lunatics!
For every John Brown there arises a Union Army, or Allied Forces.
In this context, formal legislation passed by elected representatives allowed reprehensible slavery to be legal for 246 years in a functioning republic that operated under democratic principles.
Legislation must have formally and legally abrogated reprehensible slavery.
In a society of laws, laws must be strictly adhered to.
In America, they are not.
Someone send the memo to the Supreme Court, with specificity, Article 1, Section 8, and the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
By “white people,” does the affirmative action project, Stacey Patton, mean actual Americans?
OT
Hillary Clinton is deeply concerned with the virtue, integrity, and reputation of the White House???
White House Construction Crew Finds 1,357 More Cocaine Stashes
https://babylonbee.com/news/white-house-construction-crew-finds-1357-more-cocaine-stashes
“Oh, Hillary, we’re saved!”
– Bo Snerdley, Call Screener, Rush Limbaugh Show
Wait, she thinks chattel slavery is still a thing in America?
If she is aware that it was outlawed more than 150 ago by the 13th Amendment, and is still saying whites need to kill whites because of slavery, then she’s a complete lunatic, since that makes no sense.
The only other option is she’s like that well-fed Canadian anarchist driving a nice car in Commanding Heights, who talks about his own “suffering” as a reason to overthrow the government and install communism (let alone the disconnect between anarchy and communism).
“Wait, she thinks chattel slavery is still a thing in America?”
I read her entire screed, which in reality is a blueprint for Somalia-style tribalistic, ethnic warfare.
Nowhere does she explain exactly how modern blacks are slaves. She never bothers to define “slavery.” She gives no parallels to 19th century involuntary servitude.
She simply asserts: I, a black Ph.D., claim. Don’t dare ask questions. Then the inevitable race card: If you dare challenge me, you’re a racist.
She is truly a revolting human being.
Sam – that seems to encapsulate modern liberalism: lack of disciplined or careful thought, emotions over logic, assertions of feelings, and threats toward anyone who dares disagree (“shut up, they explained” -Tucker Carlson).
If her legs were amputated she’d be a slug!
There is chattal slavery still practiced by sex slavers. Young girls and boys are bought and sold by sex slavery gangs and immigrant operators. If only the left could focus on that, instead of something that ended 160 years ago.
She is educated enough to make an analogy and you aren’t educated enough to understand that.
“She is educated enough to make an analogy . . .”
A man once made an analogy between Jesus and sex, on this basis: Jesus is encircled by a halo. In sex, the partners encircle each other.
He was a schizophrenic.
..don’t you just ‘love’ unevolved, arrogant and short-sided folks who use ‘The System’ in spades to their own advantage, securing top jobs, top income, wearing top clothes, driving top cars, etc.. to preach to us about Violently tearing down ‘The System’ in a blood bath as if it’s still 1856… never mind the evolution of Western Civilization which has opened the doors for Blacks to become POTUS, or anything else if ‘professors’ like Patton would spend their time being role models for achievement instead of spreading hate, intolerance and vengeance, and demanding violence against the very ‘System’ which affords them their pulpit of rage…….
So true. One can hardly find a Black American outside of a gated community filled with mansions and sporting multiple golf courses and their own airport. They are so wealthy from working the system they, in turn, haven’t seen any white person in a century.
The West didn’t open the doors for Obama, only the Democrats did. The Republicans made a fresh pot of racism stew and have been eating from it, though gone spoiled long ago, just to spite themselves in reaction.
*. Love it…Whitey, go kill white people and then commit suicide. It’s the right thing to do.
Mangione, Robinson, others heard her Siren’s call.
If Food Stamps are cut off on November 1, then we may see some actual “willing to burn” stuff going on. Fascinating commentary here:
“If Food Stamps are cut off on November 1, then we may see some actual “willing to burn” stuff going on.”
I would eagerly anticipate that happening, but I seriously doubt that either party in Congress has the balls for it.
Stacey Patton is what’s known as a coward. She is ready to send others to kill and die for her pro-Fascist ideology, but is way too scared to do it herself. Leftwing elites like Patton always need weak-minded brownshirt footsoldiers.
“Stacey Patton is what’s known as a coward.”
She is also what is known as a st’unt (that is a contraction).