This week, Hasan Kwame Jeffries, an Ohio State University history professor and the brother of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, joined the mantra of many on the left for citizens to rise up and fight the system “by any means necessary.” However, Jeffries added a menacing element in calling for citizens to emulate John Brown, who murdered white farmers who supported slavery. He is not the first academic to use Brown as a model for political action today.
In a social media post flagged by Libs of TikTok, Jeffries declared that “John Brown understood that the only way to free Americans from the scourge of white supremacy was to get rid of white supremacists by any means necessary. He was right then. He is right now.”
The posting was widely interpreted as a thinly veiled rationalization for political violence, a dangerous contribution to an age of rage marked by rising attacks, including assassinations.
Other academics have pushed Brown as a model for activists in fighting racism, oligarchy, and other ills in society.
Stacey Patton, professor of journalism at Howard University, previously pushed this model in a blog titled “John Brown Didn’t Ask Enslaved People How to Be A Good White Ally.” Patton scolded white liberals to stop asking how to be a better “ally” to minorities. She wrote:
“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.”
Brown is best known for his pivotal role in the period known as “Bleeding Kansas” and the infamous Pottawatomie massacre.
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. His own son, Salmon Brown, said that when his father and his brother heard about the caning of abolitionist Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks, they went “crazy, crazy.”
Brown was eventually captured after his raid on Harpers Ferry and hanged.
I understand that Brown is viewed as a figure who recognized that the scourge of slavery would only be excised from our nation by force. He is viewed as a catalyst of the Civil War by many. However, his murder and kidnapping of whites were efforts to use terror and vigilanteism to achieve the worthy goal of emancipation.
Frederick Douglas wrote beautifully about his divided emotions about Brown, crediting him with being “the thunder clap” that helped spark the struggle for freedom. He spent time with Brown who was a guest at his home and admired his convictions and passion. However, he was also a critic of the raid on Harper’s Ferry and argued for political, not violent, change. ( He wrote that “taking of Harpers Ferry was a measure never encouraged by my word or by my vote.”).
For his part, Abraham Lincoln denounced Brown as an insane zealot, adding that this “was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate.”
Lincoln notably compared Brown to “the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own execution.”
Patton (and apparently Jeffries) now suggest that Brown’s blood-soaked legacy may be worthy of replication. Patton heralded 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?”
She added, “If you don’t want to die like John Brown, fine. But understand that somebody always does.”
Now, Dr. Jeffries is picking up the same call to rally behind Brown’s legacy. Notably, Brown himself dismissed those who believed that real change could occur without a blood-soaked reckoning: “I am quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think vainly, flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.”
According to his university bio, Jeffries teaches in areas such as “Power, Culture, and the State,” “the Black Power Movement,” and “Race, Ethnicity, and Nation.” He was featured by PBS as part of its series Black America Since MLK.
His better-known older brother, Hakeem, has notably been accused of fueling the rage in society, including posting images of himself brandishing a baseball bat. He has remained silent on his brother raising the specter of “Bloody Kansas” as a worthy inspiration for students and activists.
As many celebrate or rationalize the assassinations of figures such as Charlie Kirk and UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the effort to encourage others to embrace the legacy of John Brown is hardly a subtle message. Many will take it as another signal that violence is not just warranted but righteous.
Rage rhetoric has already taken hold of much of our politics and the most extreme candidates garner support from voters.
Democratic voters turned out for a candidate in Texas who has called for the imprisonment and even castration of “Zionist billionaires.”
In Maine, the Democratic candidate Graham Platner has called himself an “Antifa supersoldier,” referring to the most violent and anti-free speech group in the country.
Platner has channeled the most unhinged aspects of John Brown. Indeed, some of his statements are strikingly similar to Brown’s: “There are times in this world when, for the good of tolerance and humanity, you need to kill a motherf—er.” He added the Brownesque twist that “Sadly most people who are true believers in tolerance and humanity find that activity repulsive.”
In my book “Rage and the Republic,” I explore the rise of such radical voices calling for violent action in the context of our 250th anniversary. These “new Jacobins” are unleashing the same impulses that led to “Terror” in France as citizens threw off any restraints to vent their rage. They too dismissed notions of nonviolent political action. As Platner observed, “I suppose [tolerance] is morally good, but pragmatically a shortfall.”
Among the Jacobins, a lawyer stepped forward to advocate for the “pragmatic choice” of violence. His name was Robespierre, and he declared, “Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue.”
Ultimately, Robespierre himself would be guillotined like the tens of thousands of his victims. One of the few surviving central leaders after the French Revolution would offer a cautionary tale to those who seek to fuel such rage to achieve political power. French writer Jacques Mallet du Pan wrote in 1793 that “Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
This column also appeared on Fox.com
Second Attempt – Lincoln’s Fear of ‘Race War’
A short time before his death on April 15, 1865, Lincoln met with General Benjamin F. Butler, who reported that the President spoke to him of “exporting” the blacks.107
“But what shall we do with the n—–s after they are free?,” Lincoln said. “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the n—–s … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.” Along with a request to Butler to look into the question of how best to use “our very large navy” to send “the blacks away,” the President laid bare his fears for the future:
If these black soldiers of ours go back to the South, I am afraid that they will be but little better off with their masters than they were before, and yet they will be free men. I fear a race war, and it will be at least a guerilla war because we have taught these men how to fight … There are plenty of men in the North who will furnish the n—–s with arms if there is any oppression of them by their late masters.
To his dying day, it appears, Lincoln did not believe that harmony between white and black was feasible, and viewed resettlement of the blacks as the preferable alternative to race conflict. ” … Although Lincoln believed in the destruction of slavery,” concludes black historian Charles Wesley (in an article in The Journal of N—- History), “he desired the complete separation of the whites and blacks. Throughout his political career, Lincoln persisted in believing in the colonization of the N—-.”108
There is constitutional freedom of speech, and then there is the communist WordPress rendition of freedom of speech; I missed a couple of Lincoln’s uses of the word “kneegrow.” My, what a linguistic sin; perhaps ideological sin, aka communist sin?
Lincoln tried exporting free Black people to Cow Island near Haiti which failed miserably. Liberia became a colony of Firestone. What has never been tried is acknowledging Black people as equals (Lincoln didn’t) and something other than the attempts to recreate slavery through the Black Codes, and then Jim Crow. The Party of Lincoln made an effort for a dozen years after the Civil War and spent the next 100 years looking away as Reconstruction ended and Jim Crow rose. Now they are the Party of racial gerrymandering which they call partisan gerrymandering but is no different. I wrote about one district in South Carolina which is an example for the rest of the South.
https://williamspivey.substack.com/p/understanding-voting-rights-through
The Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) declared that the new states forming in America could decide to join the country as free states or slave states. The Republican Party was formed to prevent new states from becoming slave states.
After the Civil War ended in 1865, the Republican Party was responsible for passing three Constitutional amendments that established Reconstruction in the South:
The 13th Amendment (1865) said slavery was no longer legal.
The 14th Amendment (1868) said all former slaves were now citizens with equal rights.
The 15th Amendment (1870) gave the freed slaves the right to vote.
Almost all blacks voted for Republicans, who favored Reconstruction and stopping slavery forever.
Almost all Southern whites then moved their votes to the Democratic Party. President Ulysses S. Grant, who was elected in 1868, and the Union Army protected the rights of blacks. Reconstruction was working. Black Republicans began to be elected to public office.
https://www.abhmuseum.org/political-parties-in-black-and-white/
I find nothing wrong with anything you wrote, but after the contested 1876 Presidential election. Republicans traded away those federal troops to win the Presidency. Rutherford B. Hayes (Republican) pulled the troops which ended Reconstruction as part of the Compromise of 1877. The following year he compounded things by ensuring the troops would never come back by passing Posse Comitatus. Then Republicans turned their back on the South and allowed Jim Crow to take over. Over time, the Republican Party has almost switched places with Democrats. One could argue the Democrats of today aren’t as good as the original Republicans and that Republicans of today have less blood on their hands, as long as you don’t count the millions that will die from removing USAID.
Millions of Americans will die from ending the fraud USAID?
Riiiiiiiiight…
Nowhere did I say Americans, I said “millions will die from removing USAID” I guess you don’t consider Africans people? I should have known that.
You’re a pain in the ass.
Why should American taxpayers pay for feeding Africa? Especially, when we have our own people in poverty and veterans living in homeless shelters?
It isn’t only feeding Africa; it’s providing drugs to stop diseases before they come to American shores. The goal is to stop deaths. America bragged about saving millions of lives.
“Aid programs financed by American taxpayers saved approximately three million people every year.”
““USAID saved 92 million lives over two decades.”
These people have now been abandoned and left to die. Of course, China may expand their Belt and Road program in Africa, giving them access to minerals and other natural resources. Anyway, the reason is to save American lives by preventing the spread of disease and to reduce the cost of goods from Africa.
Enigma: “it isn’t only feeding Africa”
Why can’t Africa feed itself?
White farmers in Rhodesia and other Afican places produced enormous crops for home and export.
Why can’t black Africans do the same? It’s the same soil.
Now they still rely on white farmers to feed them, but the farmers are in America.
“Why can’t Africa feed itself?”
I can name that tune in one word, “Colonizers!” You wouldn’t bother to read the long answer, so I won’t try.
“I can name that tune in one word, “Colonizers!” “
All we hear from Enigma is victimhood and the blame game.
Tell us about Sudan, an independent nation for more than ¾ of a century.
I confess to not writing this myself, I just looked it up.
Sudan’s economy was fundamentally reshaped—and in many ways distorted—by colonial rule, especially during the Anglo‑Egyptian Condominium (1898–1956). The core economic impacts fall into three interconnected areas: extraction, structural imbalance, and long‑term underdevelopment.
1. Sudan’s economy was reorganized around extraction, not development
British‑Egyptian administrators redesigned Sudan’s economy to serve imperial needs, not Sudanese prosperity. The British expanded large‑scale cotton production to supply British textile mills, turning Sudan into a raw‑materials appendage of the empire rather than a diversified economy. This shift redirected land, labor, and irrigation toward export crops instead of local food security.
2. Heavy taxation and resource control impoverished local communities
Colonial authorities imposed new tax systems and production quotas that forced Sudanese farmers into cash‑crop dependency. High taxes and compulsory cotton cultivation created widespread economic pressure, especially on peasants, who faced political and economic coercion. This extraction model generated revenue for the colonial administration while deepening rural poverty.
3. Infrastructure investment was selective and designed to benefit colonial extraction
Railways, irrigation schemes, and administrative centers were built primarily to move cotton and other resources to ports—not to integrate Sudan’s regions or stimulate broad‑based development. Northern Sudan received more investment, while the south was largely neglected, entrenching regional inequality that still shapes Sudan’s economic and political instability.
4. Colonial rule disrupted traditional economies and social systems
British policies undermined local economic structures, altered land use patterns, and weakened traditional authority systems. Education and administrative reforms favored a small elite while excluding most Sudanese, especially in rural and southern regions. This created a narrow economic base and limited human‑capital development.
5. Long‑term consequences: dependency, inequality, and fragility
The colonial economy left Sudan with:
Overreliance on a single export crop (cotton)
Deep regional disparities between north and south
Weak industrialization
Limited investment in human development
These structural weaknesses contributed to post‑independence conflict, uneven development, and recurring economic crises. The legacy of colonial extraction continues to shape Sudan’s political and economic struggles today.
Enigma, many of the statements you make are reasonably correct but not necessarily the essential features we should be looking at.
I picked Sudan because it was a British colony just like India. Both had severe problems, including separatism, poverty, and starvation. Sudan is moving in the wrong direction, while India is becoming a world power and technological powerhouse.
For a completely different example, look at Singapore.
As for Africa not feeding itself, it did not produce much food before or after the white farmers made it a success.
Again, why is that a burden placed upon the American taxpayer, especially when they have a crushing debt of $39 Trillion dollars. If you want to fund what you see as noble cause then by all means donate your paycheck. I would venture to say that USAID is akin to every nonprofit organization fund where only 10% of the money actually goes to the cause while the remainder goes to the Administration costs of the charity.
America tax dollars for Americans citizens benefit not the third world!
“Again, why is that a burden placed upon the American taxpayer, especially when they have a crushing debt of $39 Trillion dollars.”
To save American lives and improve the economy.
You just said it was for Africa, how does that save American lives or improve our economy or make our lives better? Are you talking about funding for pharmaceuticals for fighting the AIDs epidemic in Africa?
If you want the facts to the delusion you chase look towards Darwin. When you circumvent the natural order through food programs and medical interventions, you create unsustainable growth in those populations. Without their own means of sustainability, they starve and/or die of disease once the free chit stops. USAID is not helping them, I don’t think you can help them, tough love but that is the reality of it. It does nothing for our economy except increase debt.
🎱, Enigma wants to kill the golden goose.
“America bragged about saving millions of lives.”
America saved millions of lives and pulled much of the world out of starvation. Come, Enigma, say thank you to America and all its people, including the white ones and the billionaires.
Re: USAID and programs in America that were supposed to help millions: They didn’t do their job. You carry your share of the blame because left-wing theft makes these programs fail. You and your ideas are the cause. Blame yourself when people die because you support the criminals who waste our resources.
Thank you America and George Bush who got the ball rolling (in response to a worldwide crisis). F-U to Donald Trump and by implication Congress who now allow the death of millions, because what?
USAID did help millions, more when you consider all the Americans who didn’t get deadly diseases. You didn’t reply about Sudan when I documented how colonialism destroyed the economy. That was your example not mine. Can’t you just admit you’re wrong?
Wrong about what, Enigma? I sent out a reply. If you didn’t get it, I will send another one out in another reply to you. Is this how you deflect from providing a reasonable response to my answer to the present question?
Wrong about Sudan which you ultimately said I was “reasonable correct” before switching to India. So let’s talk about India.
British colonialism left deep, long‑lasting structural effects on India’s economy, society, and political institutions. The impacts are not just historical—they continue to shape India’s development trajectory today.
1. Economic Impacts: Extraction, Deindustrialization, and Structural Distortion
British rule reorganized India’s economy around imperial extraction, not domestic development. Key long‑term effects include:
Drain of Wealth: A systematic transfer of Indian resources, revenues, and profits to Britain, weakening India’s financial base.
Deindustrialization: India’s thriving textile and handicraft industries collapsed under British trade policies and the influx of cheap British goods.
Agrarian Crisis: Land revenue systems (Zamindari, Ryotwari) imposed crushing taxes, destabilized rural life, and contributed to recurring famines.
Forced Cash‑Crop Economy: Shifting farmers from food crops to indigo, cotton, and opium created long‑term food insecurity and poverty.
Infrastructure Built for Extraction: Railways, telegraphs, and ports were designed to move raw materials to Britain—not to integrate India’s economy.
Lasting effect: India entered independence with a weak industrial base, low productivity, and entrenched rural poverty—conditions that still influence development patterns.
2. Social and Cultural Impacts: Identity, Education, and Division
Colonialism reshaped India’s social fabric in ways that endure:
Western Education: English‑medium education created a new middle class and professional elite.
Caste and Communal Divisions: British policies like separate electorates deepened social fragmentation.
Cultural Hybridization: Western ideas influenced literature, art, and reform movements, contributing to a modern Indian identity.
Urbanization: Cities grew around colonial administrative and commercial centers, shaping modern urban patterns.
Lasting effect: India’s social hierarchy, communal tensions, and educational structure still reflect colonial-era interventions.
3. Political Impacts: Institutions, Governance, and Nationalism
British rule left behind political structures that India still uses:
Centralized Bureaucracy: India’s administrative system and civil service are direct descendants of British models.
Legal and Judicial Systems: Courts, laws, and procedures retain colonial foundations.
Divide‑and‑Rule Politics: Communal and regional divisions fostered under colonial rule continue to influence political life.
Rise of Nationalism: Economic exploitation and political repression fueled the independence movement and shaped India’s national identity.
Lasting effect: India’s democracy operates within institutional frameworks originally designed for colonial control.
4. Enduring Development Challenges
Modern analyses emphasize that colonialism’s legacy contributes to:
Persistent poverty and inequality
Underdevelopment in key sectors
Regional disparities
Economic dependency patterns
These structural issues are widely recognized as part of the “deadly impact” of British rule that continues to shape India’s trajectory.
Colonialism left India with a distorted economy, divided society, and governance structures built for control rather than development—legacies that continue to shape India’s political, economic, and social landscape today.
The bottom line is that colonialism has had a lasting effect on every African nation. The colonizers include several European nations and America (Liberia). The original discussion which didn’t include you was regarding why Africa needed assistance with food and medicine and my one-word response in lieu of a book was colonization. I stand by that answer.
You are deflecting. You blamed everything on colonizers. That is why I brought up India. Both India and Sudan were colonized by the British. The question is why Sudan in Africa did so poorly while India in Asia did well.
If your reason for failure in Africa was colonization, why did India do comparatively well? Is there something special about Africa? Is there something special about India?
“The goal is to stop deaths. “
Enigma, didn’t we do that to Inda in the mid twentieth century: food and drugs? What happened? The population grew, and more people died. That is not a solution to a chronic problem. You don’t know your history. You only know how to blame others for your problems while claiming victimhood.
Keep switching countries, who will be next. USAID helped save American lives, what about this country.
Enigma, I provided you with an answer. You’re stuck, so you start playing games and say I am switching countries. I showed you how two different countries reacted to freedom: Sudan, a nation that continues to decline, and India, a nation that is moving in the direction of a world power. When it comes to fact and history, you disappear. Maybe you should consider your ideas of blaming others and victimhood, not good ideas.
Did USAID save American lives? Maybe, but maybe many fewer American lives than if the money were spent differently.
I say you keep switching countries because it’s true.
Switching and comparing are two different things. You seem to be confused.
S. Meyer– “You only know how to blame others for your problems while claiming victimhood.”
I noticed that about Enigma. In his view black folks have no agency in their own lives. Everything bad is because of someone else, usually a white person.
More likely everything good in his life is because of someone else, usually a white person.
We dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki and it is now a gleaming modern city. We dropped a Great Society and a black majority on Detroit and today it looks as if Bock’s Car flew over it.
I bet Enigma lives in a predominantly white neighborhood.
Among all the other laws Lincoln violated was the Naturalization Act of 1802.
It appears that all the freed slaves were and all their descendants are illegal aliens.
The14th Amendment rendered its racial restrictions unconstitutional and effectively superseded its core exclusionary logic. A lot of people considered white now, weren’t in 1802. Are they illegal aliens as well. You’re an example of having a little knowledge making you totally ignorant.
The “Reconstruction Amendments” remain as unconstitutional as every act of Lincoln et al. subsequent to his egregious, unconstitutional denial of not prohibited and fully constitutional secession.
Run your own damn towns and cities any way you want.
The Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then, they had the capacity and acumen sufficient for the task.
What would have compelled Lincoln to “acknowledge” black folks as equals? Perhaps you meant provide compulsory alms for the poor, bias, affirmative action, favor, charity, you know, “free stuff,” and “free status.”
I see why you need an anonymous name to post.
Was that your unassailable rebuttal, Hitch?
He’ll yes, cause you ain’t ever knowing me with your constant harangue.
You want equality with whites? Are you mad? The people who enslaved you and treated you worse than animals is the race you aspire to, equality with the race of the hatefuls?
Anon– “The people who enslaved you and treated you worse than animals is the race you aspire to, equality with the race of the hatefuls?”
Do you mean black people? It was they who enslaved other blacks–still do in parts of Africa.
The slavers were black tribes and Muslim raiders. White people mostly bought the merchandise offered by black tribes.
Now they are the Party of racial gerrymandering which they call partisan gerrymandering but is no different.
That is gibberish. They are not the same at all. The purpose partisan gerrymandering is to discriminate against all supporters of the party out of power, regardless of race. Under the new instructions from SCOTUS, black Democrats must be treated the same as white Democrats, and the same way Dem-controlled states treat white Republicans. What you’re arguing for is special protection for black Democrats, that white Democrats don’t get. That is racist and no longer lawful.
The obvious truth is that neither party gives a damn about race any more. Each party simply wants to maximize the number of districts where its supporters are in the majority. Democrats don’t want to give black or white Republicans more representation than they absolutely have to, and vice versa. And while that may be unfair or even unethical, it’s sanctified by 200+ years of US practice, and SCOTUS has said the courts can’t interfere, so long as it’s not racial.
The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is to win elections, by discriminating. Gerrymandering was used pre-15th Amendment to target Catholics and the Irish but post-15th Amendment it has focused on Black and brown people. Catholics and Irish have spread out over time and aren’t as susceptible to targeting. Irish people are now considered white (they once weren’t) and aren’t of the same interest. Black people have been generally forced and steered into not only cities but sections of cities. During Reconstruction, there were Districts that created majority Black districts because they reflected where people lived. Black people were sent to Congress from Southern states, Some in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi were elected statewide. Then the federal troops were removed and that ended and new redistricting ended all the majority minority districts. South Carolina, who elected eight Black Congressman during Reconstruction, got rid of all their Black representatives in a state that was more than 50% Black and went without Black representation in Congress for 95 years, not because of partisan gerrymandering but because of racial gerrymandering and all the other components of Jim Crow. Jim Clyburn won a seat in 1992, only because a federal law required them to set up the 6th District to allow for a Black elected official. Since Louisiana v. Callais, the Republican legislature is now coming for his seat. The Districts that Southern states are rushing toward are those that eviscerate the majority Black districts even though the majority of people in those districts are Black. In Memphis they divided the Black population into thirds to dilute their voting strength. I encourage you to follow the history of the 6th District in South Carolina which is reflective of what’s happening throughout the South. Look at what is happening and tell me that Black Democrats are being treated the same as white ones. You’re turning a blind eye. Your process of sanctifying something because it existed for 250 years means slavery should be sanctified. Before you tell me slavery started in 1619 in Virginia, I would refer you to La Florida where the Spanish brought African slaves in the early 1500s. I would make the case slavery extended past 1865 via the Black Codes and Jim Crow but I might be asking too much for you to accept that. Baby steps. Yes SCOTUS said partisan gerrymandering is okay if it isn’t racial and then said you can’t consider documentation of racism can’t be used as proof. You yourself say that partisan gerrymandering isn’t fair. Why don’t we start by requiring a fair system. SCOTUS is the same institution that gave us Dred Scott and Plessey v. Ferguson, what makes you think they are necessarily any better now?
https://williamspivey.substack.com/p/understanding-voting-rights-through
voting members of the House 435
black voting members: 61
% black voting members: 14.0%
an additional 2 non-voting black members DC and Virgin Islands
Check back in January. You’ll probably think it’s a coincidence instead of a plan. What good by the way is a non-voting member? How many white non-voting members do we have?
There is no guarantee that the % of a demographic equals the % of such people in a group. We learned that years ago in the Bakke decision and medical school admissions. We also learned that in basketball.
Should the number of blacks fall in the House, it might just be that reverse racism propped up the original number and that the new numbers represented the will of the people.
It will represent the will of the legislators splitting up the people to attain a specific result. Exactly what existed prior to the VRA.
Enigma, you should support using computers to determine voting districts in a way Oldmanfromkansas suggests, or that way with some of your own neutral modifications. I don’t hear that, but I do hear your complaints of victimhood while you try to weasel your way around the playing field.
Computers do what they are designed to do. Who would you trust to do the programming?
You can fix rules similar to those Oldman has talked about. Populations do not remain static and are different elsewhere. One can get pretty close to trustworthy.
It might be possible to get close to trustworthy, none of those currently doing the redistricting are making an attempt.
True, but if you and I agree on this, that is a clear reason for our legislators to discuss this possibility.
Except for the fact they’re legislators.
Enigma– “Black people have been generally forced and steered into not only cities but sections of cities.”
You speak as if blacks have no agency of their own. They must wait for others to act for them.
Black neighborhoods generally are not nice places to live. I have tried it and won’t do it again. White [and Asian and Hispanic] Flight occurs for good reasons. You may deny it but I suspect you live in a majority non-black neighborhood for the same reasons. Obama does. Obama’s racist preacher, Rev Wright, I believe moved into a gated largely white community. Where do prominent Democrat black politicians generally live? Yes, they want to live in better, less dangerous neighborhoods, but why are black neighborhoods dangerous crap holes? Why are businesses closing because of theft and outright looting? Why is it hard to get a pizza delivered in a black neighborhood? Why is it when I read a headline of a brawl on a cruise, on the beach, at a funeral at a graduation I automatically think “black” and am seldom wrong? A glance at the comments shows everyone else thought the same.
When “Black Studies” was first introduced in universities I thought it was a great idea. I thought they would do a serious analysis of the problems in black communities along the lines of what Senator Moynihan did. Find the problems and fix them. instead they made it impossible to even discuss them, much less fix them. It became a whining industry like homeless issues, always needing more money to grift while the problems grew.
Stop whining ‘racism’ and do something positive. In short, Enigma, grow up.
Seriously? You completely ignore the role of the Democratic party regards slavery, Jim Crow, Civil Rights Act.
LOL
Nice try
You need to lie to make a point?
Origins Of Trump’s Slush Fund
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in South Florida, who had been overseeing the lawsuit, had questioned whether the parties were “sufficiently adverse,” because Trump was both a plaintiff and the president overseeing the agencies he was suing.
Williams, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, had asked for briefs from Trump’s lawyers and the IRS by Wednesday. Instead, two days beforehand, Trump’s lawyers moved to voluntarily dismiss the case. No mention was made of any settlement. The same day, the Justice Department announced the nearly $1.8 billion fund.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/05/23/trumps-18-billion-fund-secrecyoutrage-lots-questions/
………………………………
Then presto, there was a ‘settlement’. With almost $2 billion suddenly earmarked to pay off rioters who had injured 150 cops. No wonder John Brown has become a figure of inspiration!
Why don’t you report on the origins of the abject lawfare perpetrated against President Trump et al., which have not been duly prosecuted?
Start with the expansive Obama Coup D’état in America.
Incidentally, the new name of Carmen Mercedes Lineberger, a potential 20-year felon, was added to the co-conspirator list this week.
Why don’t you report on the origins of the abject lawfare . . .
Because the commenter is a Chinese Communist Party bot, programmed to spout off-topic commie talking points every day. Look for this:
……………………………………………..
And you know it’s the commie bot, not an actual human.
Point taken!
“had questioned whether the parties were ‘sufficiently adverse,’ because Trump was both a plaintiff and the president overseeing the agencies he was suing”
While glad to discover an Obama judge who apparently believes in the Unitary Executive Theory, I wonder if she ever tulruled to overturn an agreement between a Democrat-controlled local government and a Democrat-controlled local union.
Summary of WordPress-Censored Historical Data
Shortly before his death in April 1865, Abraham Lincoln told General Benjamin F. Butler he feared a violent racial conflict after emancipation and discussed relocating formerly enslaved Black people abroad. Lincoln expressed doubt that Blacks and whites could live together peacefully, proposed exporting Black people to a separate territory, and worried that armed Black veterans might provoke guerrilla or race warfare. Historian Charles H. Wesley concluded Lincoln consistently supported colonization—separation of the races—even while opposing slavery.
Wow! They didn’t censor the summary. Let me try the actual, historical text again, ya know, the “freedom of speech” thing.
Lincoln’s Fear of ‘Race War’
A short time before his death on April 15, 1865, Lincoln met with General Benjamin F. Butler, who reported that the President spoke to him of “exporting” the blacks.107
“But what shall we do with the n—–s after they are free?,” Lincoln said. “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the n—–s … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.” Along with a request to Butler to look into the question of how best to use “our very large navy” to send “the blacks away,” the President laid bare his fears for the future:
If these black soldiers of ours go back to the South, I am afraid that they will be but little better off with their masters than they were before, and yet they will be free men. I fear a race war, and it will be at least a guerilla war because we have taught these men how to fight … There are plenty of men in the North who will furnish the n—–s with arms if there is any oppression of them by their late masters.
To his dying day, it appears, Lincoln did not believe that harmony between white and black was feasible, and viewed resettlement of the blacks as the preferable alternative to race conflict. ” … Although Lincoln believed in the destruction of slavery,” concludes black historian Charles Wesley (in an article in The Journal of Negro History), “he desired the complete separation of the whites and blacks. Throughout his political career, Lincoln persisted in believing in the colonization of the Negro.”108
– Institute For Historical Review
End federal aid to colleges and states
Defund democrats
I don’t want to fund their fascism
Democrats long time America haters, fighting a 2nd Civil war
They lost the first one and will not likely learn their lesson until they lose the next one.
Im not with the Trump cultists anymore. Had enough stupid. I voted for him 3 times, got the stupid red hat, got the black hat, got the endless annoying texts. No more. And not his quislings either. Enough wars for Israel. Its like Trump said before he apparently got co opted by them. Pathetic
Go join Antifa or BLM then. We don’t care.
But this time, the victims of today’s Ds are make-believe victims. Made into victims by those in the D party who need to create victims for the sake of having victims – preaching at them, encouraging them to do wrong and act unlawfully, leading them into polling places to vote D and only D all the time, etc. etc.
Me:
America is Wyoming.
Law-abiding Americans are the Joe Starrett and Ernie Wright families.
The Democrat Party is Luke Fletcher.
Hakeem Jeffries and his ilk are Stark Wilson.
Donalt Trump is Shane.
VDH along similar lines:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/outsiders-trump-shane-save-the-day-but-are-ostracized/
Turley attempts to use Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln to invalidate John Brown, but his presentation of their views is deeply misleading.
While Douglass disagreed with the specific tactical logistics of the Harpers Ferry raid, he deeply revered Brown. Turley conveniently omits Douglass’s famous declaration that John Brown’s zeal for the enslaved was infinitely greater than his own, stating: “I could live for the slave, but John Brown died for him.” Douglass recognized that peaceful political change had utterly failed to stop the expansion of chattel slavery.
Turley frames Brown’s actions as isolated “vigilanteism,” yet less than two years after Harpers Ferry, the entire United States government adopted Brown’s exact premise: that slavery could only be purged from the land through massive, armed violence. Union soldiers literally marched into battle singing “John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave, but his soul goes marching on.” History proved John Brown right, a fact Turley desperately tries to erase.
To manufacture his “age of rage” narrative, Turley relies on absurd logical stretches. He takes a historical analysis of an anti-slavery icon by a university professor and explicitly links it to the assassination of a modern healthcare executive, a random candidate in Maine, and the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror.
This is not serious legal or historical analysis; it is a coordinated smear campaign designed to conflate the study of radical abolitionism with modern partisan grievance.Systems of oppression have never been dismantled through total compliance and polite requests. By attacking Hasan Jeffries for teaching “hard history,” Turley reveals his true priority: protecting the comfort of the status quo over the uncomfortable truth of how human rights are actually won.
The war began as a campaign to reunite the union. It became a war to end slavery only after the Emancipation Proclaimation went into effect in January of ’63. At that point there was increased resistance to the war culminating in the draft riots that summer. So while it became a w a r to end slavery it didnt begin that way and wasn’t fully supported as such.
Secession is not prohibited and is fully constitutional, and the war was as unconstitutional as the Federal Reserve Act, JFK deploying the military to force integration, which is a free market choice of free people, and any level of government claiming and exercising dominion over any aspect or degree of private property—excluding eminent domain—forced busing, a constitutional right to abortion on the federal level, etc.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
It’s true that Lincoln’s primary interest was to reunite the Union and he could have lived with slavery. That was roughly the opinion of the Republican Party as long as slavery didn’t spread. In the South (who started the war by the way) it was all about slavery as you can tell from reading the individual Articles of Secession of each state. The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategy to disrupt the Southern economy and keep Britain or France from siding with the Confederacy. In truth, there was never a serious commitment to end slavery as it was allowed to continue under the Black Codes and Jim Crow for another century.
At some point you will make a point, presumably.
You’re just too dense to appreciate it.
Not to worry, the democrats will provide you with an affirmative action point at taxpayer expense.
And, by the way, Lincoln deployed a military force in the territory of a sovereign foreign nation, an act of war commencing war.
Oh hell no, Lincoln wanted to move into another economy, mercantilism, ya damn dummy.
Lincoln had no legal basis for any “proclamation,” and the Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect.
Every act of Lincoln subsequent to his unconstitutional denial of secession and war was similarly unconstitutional and must be abrogated and rescinded forthwith.
So now we know where the SPLC lawyers slithered off to.
Esquire above, AI generated.
Changed your name again George?
Nothing Turley wrote seeks to use Douglass to “invalidate” the terrorist John Brown. Turley only wrote a few sentences about Douglass. Included in those few words Turley correctly acknowledged Douglass admired Brown’s “conviction and passion” to end slavery.
Douglass was one of the fiercest defenders of free speech in his time, and spent decades using his voice to seek a non-violent end to slavery.
He seems to have considered Brown’s violent tactics unacceptable. Douglass did not attend Brown’s “convention” in Canada to raise money to support Brown’s terrorism. Nor did Douglass attend the raid on Harper’s Ferry itself.
Only after Brown was correctly executed and the nation had elected Lincoln knowing it would likely lead to civil war did Douglass embrace Brown’s violent tactics in his rhetoric. Until then, he’d spent close to three decades trying to find a non-violent way to end slavery.
Trump said today that he’s a “solid 50/50” as to whether he’ll be able to make a “good” deal or else “blow them to kingdom come.” But that’s a false dilemma–he has other options. He doesn’t have to kill a lot of people–he can seize Kargh Island and that other island where they do their refining, he can start knocking off their leaders and those who take their places until the ones who are left get the message. You can’t make a deal with those liars and killers, but you don’t have to kill a lot of people either–you can defeat them in a more surgical manner.
“If not us, then who? And if not now, when?”
– President Ronald Reagan, September 14, 1981
That was Hillel, not Ronald Reagan!
Wrong he cant seize Kargh Island, they will drone and shell those who “seize” it to bits. They would need resupply and air cover and the US can provide neither right now. The Israelis have suckered dummy Trump into a massive war failure.
There’s a name for JT’s column-theme selection pattern: sensationalist alarmism. Scan the infospace for the most outrageous, inflammatory voice on the left, and then write the day’s article about it. It appeals to a basic human instinct, which is to steer attention toward the most abnormal, grotesque behavior, so the reader can subconsciously see themself by comparison as good and normal.
When political extremism is sensationalized as infotainment, an effect is to arouse innate “us vs. them” information processing. Volumes of cognitive research show how this social instinct works — threat aggrandizement — overestimating the strength and depravity of the “other” group.
Over time, this style of journalism takes a toll on objectivity. It hardens group identity, which stokes ever more paranoia about the what the “other” side is cooking up. Critical thinking in regards to what you are being told by voices within your group is diminished — empathy for members of the “other” group makes your allegiance to your group somehow seem suspect. How eager are you then to reach out and find common ground with the political opposition?
A constant barrage of sensationalist alarmism is dulling to the spirit, divisive to unity, and psychologically addictive. As a conservative, I’d much rather be reading about what John Fetterman or Bill Maher said yesterday, which is going to be much more intelligent than Hakeem Jeffries’s brother’s incoherent blathering.
The thing we choose to pay attention to says a lot about us.
Bianca, just a few days ago a bunch of young adults on a beach in Rhode Island stabbed 3 people. There was gunfire at the WH today. Yes, it’s alarming that there are losses among good citizens wild wolves.
History shows us that slavery takes on many forms.
As for me, I’m enslaved to a government that will take my money and give it to any worthless cause, just so long as that worthless cause kicks back in the form of campaign contributions so that white and black Democrats can stay in power.
History also shows us that white and black Democrats never have cared about the downtrodden.
If they did care, they would have taught the downtrodden to study hard, work hard, and show respect for others, especially young women. They would promote supporting neighborhood businesses, instead of burning, looting and killing their neighbors. They also make the use of drugs as acceptable.
Instead, the white and black Democrats import more of the downtrodden to make the problem worse. They also want to take away our guns so we can’t defend ourselves against these imported thugs.
That’s not your government, that’s the communist government the gradual imposition of which began with “Crazy Abe.” That’s not your government; that’s the communist government, the gradual imposition of which began with “Crazy Abe,” who threw the baby out with the bathwater—the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery. The “manifest tenor” of the Constitution must have been supported at all costs, and the long-suffering freed slaves repatriated compassionately, the overwhelming, sole desire and goal of abductees being returning to their homes.
This is your brain. This is your brain on black studies: a free machete with each diploma.
And here I thought a mind was a terrible thing to waste.
I believe the correct exression is: “a mine is a terrible thing to waste” 🤣
Hear, hear!!!
I completed black studies and learned that africans were the first to develop an atomic bomb and land a man on the moon.
LOL! I believe it. Detroit looks like a testing ground.
John Brown was certifiably insane. So was Nat Turner. So are these idiots. A major point they leave out is that the slaves refused to follow them. Abolition was all by WHITE Congregationalists and Presbyterians, who were descendants of the Puritans, whose idea of God and obedience was whatever they wanted to make it. They believed they were of a higher law and calling than the Bible and the laws of the nation and state.
You got it all wrong Sam.
Patton: “be like John Brown. Ask yourself, what am I willing to burn so somebody else can breathe?”
Seems like these folks have already burned a lot.
And looted a lot.
And killed a lot.
They weren’t the only slaves in history by a wide margin. And, in any event, slavery is long gone in this country.
However it still exists in parts of Africa and the Muslim world. Why don’t they ever say anything about that? No money in it I suppose.
Work remains hard.
https://medium.com/the-polis/the-last-time-i-saw-a-slave-was-yesterday-25334751a31b
If Prof Jeffries, and others like him, really opposed slavery as an institution, they would be demonstrating every day for release of the Uygurs held in China in concentration camps. Those camps are worse than anything Mr Jeffries’ ancestors had to suffer. Yet he and all liberals are silent.
Mahl, Trump seeks to build a series of concentration camps right here in the U.S. using old warehouse space. Trump literally wants to warehouse Hispanics destined for deportations. The whole concept is as ugly as it gets.
Those are not “concentration camps.” Those are detainment centers where criminal illegals are being held until they can be deported.
Yes they are concentration camps. When you put a defined group (i.e, illegals) of people into an enclosed protective structure you are concentrating them, thus, a concentration center, prison camp, detention camp, internment camp, and of course, gulag.
But detainees have the key to their cells at all times. Uncle Sam will fly them home at any time, for free.
Imagine WW II if Hitler had shipped six million European Jews to Palestine, instead of building crematoria.
You’re a ridiculous clown
Understanding euphemisms is not you’re strong point. You make a very good Nazi Farmer.
Trump does not want to warehouse illegals. He wants them to voluntarily deport.
For years our policy was to let them melt into the background, live as if they had full legal status.
Well, Homie (Trump) don’t play that. Illegals can’t participate in our society.
Illegals also counted in census to jack up Dems chances in elections. When I visited Cancun, Mexican gov did not calculate me in their election and I had to leave when my time was up. They also did not pay for my hotel, and never gave me a free cell phone and free food stamps.
Then lobbyCongress to allow Immigration to deport illegal immigrants immediately. Problem solved and in agreement with the law.
You’re assuming the illegal immigrant when caught will cooperate towards speedy deportation. The main way to delay deportation is to refuse to identify which nation you are a citizen of. Make DHS mount a lengthy investigation. Then, claim that you’ll be attacked if sent back home. A Final Order of Deportation has to be issued stating where the illegal is being deported to. I agree deportations should be a speedy process, less than 48 hours. But, if that is not logistically possible, then temporary detainment is necessary.
Solution is simple: automatically deport anyone who skipped safe country on the way and did not made a claim within 24hr. And also go after employers.
No one is against legal immigration.
Except we need to cut H1-B and F1 by 99%
He does not intend to warehouse “hispanics” – whatever you think that means. He intends to use the space for holding and transfer for the deportation of people who came to this country illegally. Let the demographics fall where they may.
I hope he improves his efficiency and deports every last illegal whether there are 20M or 50M.
Did Xi offer them $2600 per person and a free ticket home?
Do you really believe this? If so, poor you! Hate is a terrible thing when it reduces a person to mind rot!
There is a piece of this violence over speech discussion that cuts against the lasting power of violence. Accounts l read are that Robespierre was a forceful maker of arguments. At his arrest he was shot in the jaw. It was wired shut at his trial. All planned on fear that his speech would wreck the desired outcome.
Mike: “Accounts l read are that Robespierre was a….At his arrest he was shot in the jaw. It was wired shut at his trial. All planned on fear that his speech would wreck the desired outcome.”
Good grief! Where did you get accounts like that? Utter rubbish.
Watch this to get a fairly good depiction of Robespierre’s end. He had prepared a list of fellow revolutionaries to be executed and refused to disclose it.
Hakeem and Hasan. I have always found it odd that so many Black Americans are anxious to adopt Arabic names, when in fact the Arabs captured, sold into slavery, castrated, and used as sex slaves untold numbers of Black Africans. Can’t learn from history if one doesn’t undertstand it.
Can’t learn from history if one doesn’t undertstand [sic] it. So what history did you learn from? Obviously from a racist source… your parents perhaps? Obviously you didn’t bother learning why Black Americans” became Muslims or why they adopt Muslim sounding names?
Black Americans adopted Muslim and Arabic names primarily as acts of resistance against slavery and as a means of reclaiming cultural identity. During the era of slavery, many Africans brought to America were already Muslim, but slave owners systematically stripped them of their original names and forced Christian conversions, aiming to erase ancestral connections.
Use whatever name you choose for whatever reason you wish. Have whatever political view you choose. Say whatever you please.
BUT BRING VIOLENCE TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD YOU WILL BET MET WITH VIOLENCE
Spoken like a well trained MAGA Nazi.
All the Nazis I see are on the left. Attacking Jews, heckling speakers they dont like, rigging elections, trying to pack courts when the verdicts arent to their liking, threatening political violence to get there way…. I could go on. The only thing missing are the brown shirts.
Re: “Spoken like a well trained MAGA Nazi.”…No…spoken like ‘America’s Sheriff’…Grady Judd of Polk County, Florida who, during the ‘Summer of Love’, reminded malcontents of ill-will what to expect from the residents therein.
irrespective of your “cultural identity” and especially if you live in Ilhan’s district – assimilate.
Have a great Memorial Day!
Did Hakeem pick his own name, or did his parents? I know Black Millennials with African names bestowed on them by Afrocentric Boomer parents.
What many do not recognize is that for the Brothers Jeffries, and most similar firebrands, is that it is easy to cast out inflammatory rhetoric in the hope that a few useful idiots will take heed and act out, to the demise of the idiot and the target. Yet the Brothers sit in the comfort of their own protected bubble.
I propose that people can benefit from looking at these firebrands, especially politicians and those seeking power, as paper tigers that con others into doing their bidding at the expense of ordinary people who get caught up in the controversy. I doubt that the Jeffries’ would have the guts to put their own selves in jeopardy of life, limb or freedom to off those people whom they imply must be killed. Holding a baseball bat and saying others must die is one thing. Doing it themselves is another. Deep down they know they wont stoop to violence themselves, especially when others can be summoned to do it for them.
Simply put if someone says, “You should go out and kill these people.” You (meaning everyone) would be far better asking, “You want me to go to prison for you? Well screw you. I ain’t doing it.” Humanity would be much better served by not listening to others in cushy jobs or high authority when they demand we fight other people’s personal battles.
Darren, everything you’ve written is right on the money. But it all applies to Donald Trump more than anyone else. For that reason we have always wanted real statesmen in the White House.
You might want to read this and get informed, Willingness to circumvent will of voters, even by cheating, most pervasive among Dem elites: Survey
“Despite broad public sentiment against it, however, support for outright cheating in elections rose dramatically among a group of voters that Napolitan identified as the “Elite 1%.” Of that group, 73% identified as Democrats, 67% were aged 35-54, 86% were white, and 47% embraced “Sanders-like policies.”
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/wkdas-electorate-frustrates-elite-ambitions-contempt-voter-rising-among-dems
Informed? Man are you daft or something? That’s nothing more MAGA propaganda of which you are easily gullible and spread it. You might want to read different sources for a complete picture of that non-issue.
Support for cheating isn’t cheating. That award goes to Republicans who famously have numerous times immediately taken up new laws in opposition to citizen initiatives passed by wide margins.
Speaking of citizens’ initiatives: twice, the citizens of California went to the polls and voted for the proposition that only marriage between a man and a woman would ever be valid or recognized in California. And two Democrat AGs refused to defend the voice of the people in federal court: Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris.
The group that actually defended it was found to lack standing, so it was overturned by the ruling of a single district court judge — a gay man to boot.
Pass the SAVE act!
@ Upstatefarmer,
Before telling anyone to ‘get informed,’ you might want to look closer at the actual math and structure of the survey you just cited, because it doesn’t say what you think it says.
First, the article explicitly notes that the ‘Elite 1%’ demographic being polled is overwhelmingly made up of Democrats (73%). When a subgroup is nearly three-quarters Democratic to begin with, any statistic pulled from that group is naturally going to reflect Democratic voters. It is a textbook example of sampling bias; you cannot claim a trait is ‘most pervasive among Democrats’ when the poll intentionally focused on a group that was already mostly Democrats.
Second, look at the actual numbers: only 35% of that Elite 1% group expressed support for cheating. That means the vast, overwhelming majority (65%) of these so-called elites still completely reject cheating. The article twists a clear minority opinion into a headline that implies it is a ‘pervasive party platform,’ which is flat-out inaccurate.
Finally, the article uses this tiny, hyper-specific 1% slice of wealthy, white, coastal academics and elites to paint an entire political party with a broad brush. In doing so, it completely ignores the fact that 93% of ordinary voters across the country—regardless of party—flatly oppose cheating.
This article isn’t an objective breakdown of voter behavior; it is a carefully spun narrative that uses skewed demographics to manufacture a headline.
Are “coastal academics” being paid more than $150K a year? I could have stayed in graduate school.
Esquire total BS
We ALL know Democrats have little issue with stuffing ballot boxes and multiple voting. It defines them.
“the article explicitly notes that the ‘Elite 1%’ demographic being polled is overwhelmingly made up of Democrats (73%)”
Is it clear now that the Democrats are NOT the party of the working class?
And they haven’t been, for the past 40+ years. The first to notice were the Reagan Democrats, who appeared in Macomb County in suburban Detroit. Chidren and grandchildren of the CIO members who invented the sit-down strike.
But it’s easy to see the Democrats as the party of the NON-working class, ever since the War on Poverty started to give sizable smounts of cash to street gang leaders like Jeff Fort. The more Americans who are dependent on government handouts for survival, the stronger becomes the Democrats grip on the country.
I recall when Trump famously called for people to go to the Capitol and fight or they wouldn’t have a country anymore and then got in a limousine and ran for the safety of the White House while his minions literally climbed walls, staved in windows, bashed police with fire extinguishers, ransacked Congressional offices, and paraded a flag of the Confederacy through the Nation’s legislative core. Many of them did go to prison on behalf of Donald Trump.
Honey, the Secret Service would not LET Trump go down to the Capitol. An aide even testified that Trump had tried to steer the Chevy 3500 from the back seat, to no avail.
Amazing, you left out the peacefully protest. That’s like spinning the word fight into combat, Trump won.
Darren, you are falling into the exact same hypocritical trap as your boss, Jonathan Turley.
Turley sits in a comfortable academic bubble lecturing the public on civility. He praises the American Founders for using radical, disruptive means to overthrow British rule, yet the second a Black historian points out that ending chattel slavery required that exact same radical disruption, Turley panics. It is pure hypocrisy to celebrate historical rebellion when it suits your narrative, but condemn it when it challenges modern systemic issues.
By invoking John Brown, Hasan Jeffries isn’t looking for “useful idiots”—he is forcing us to reckon with a man who actually did sacrifice his life and freedom to fight an existential evil. John Brown was no paper tiger; he paid for his convictions with his life.
If the American colonists had followed your advice—staying in their comfort zones and dismissing every radical voice as an inflammatory firebrand—we would still be subjects of the British Crown. Progress is never made by compliance, and it certainly isn’t made by listening to the selective moral outrage of people like your boss, Turley.
To pretend that we live in a country of inequality commensurate to centuries ago is intentionally obfuscating, stupid, insane, or all of the above. The modern left has nothing to offer the world but hate and tyranny.
Seriously – these people are damaged, and have ironically fully regressed to the mentality of their ideological forebears during the time in question here. It is madness.
The modern left has nothing to offer the world but hate and tyranny.
And what exactly is your comment about?
Jame’s comment has nothing to do with hate and tyranny. He is simply making an observation of the situation, the rhetoric Democrats are making.
You really need to re-take reading comprehension class.
@Anonymous
As always – dang. If you aren’t paid, find something better to do. Pbblt. Nobody cares.
“terror and vigilanteism” is what kept the slaves in slavery. Like sees like. The irony is that the slavers were made uncomfortable by what they themselves had done.