Categories
Consequences for trump supporters Deprogrammed Eugene Robinson Intelwars Nikole hannah-jones

‘There has to be consequences’: Leftists call for Trump supporters to be punished, ‘deprogrammed’

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Rubin Report,” host Dave Rubin said he believes everything he’s been warning against, fighting against, and even wrote a book against, is unfortunately happening now.

Dave discussed Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and New York Times Magazine’s Nikole Hannah-Jones, who agreed that there is a need for “millions of Americans, almost all white, almost all Republicans” to be “deprogrammed” and punished before the country should “move on to reconciliation.

“There are millions of Americans, almost all white, almost all Republicans, who somehow need to be deprogrammed. It’s as if they are members of a cult, the Trumpist cult, and have to be deprogrammed,” Robinson said on MSNBC Tuesday. “Do you have any idea how we start that process?” he asked Hannah-Jones

“There has to be consequences. And then once you get those consequences … people have to take a second look at their actions, and they have to be afraid to do the types of violence that we saw last week,” Hannah-Jones suggested. “What has long been the case in this country, is that we have wanted to quickly move on to reconciliation. We’ve always been afraid that if you actually punish those kind of white nationalist elements in our society, it will only make things worse. But, in fact, what history shows is not reacting, not forcing accountability, only emboldens those people and those movements.”

Dave also talked about a controversial op-ed in Forbes, in which the magazine’s chief content officer, Randall Lane, warned companies not to hire Trump officials, including White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and former Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

“Let it be known to the business world: Hire any of Trump’s fellow fabulists above, and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie,” wrote Lane. “We’re going to scrutinize, double-check, investigate with the same skepticism we’d approach a Trump tweet. Want to ensure the world’s biggest business media brand approaches you as a potential funnel of disinformation? Then hire away.”

Dave said he believes conservatives can, unfortunately, expect much more of this kind of behavior in the coming years. Watch the video below to hear why:

Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Share
Categories
1619 project American History culture History Intelwars Media New York Times Nikole hannah-jones

National Association of Scholars calls on Pulitzer Prize Board to revoke award given to ‘1619 Project’ author

The National Association of Scholars on Tuesday published an open letter calling for the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind its prize awarded to the lead author of the New York Times “1619 Project.”

The letter was signed by 21 scholars and public writers declaring that the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary awarded to Nikole Hannah-Jones earlier this year was given in error, criticizing Hannah-Jones’ essay as “profoundly flawed” and “disfigured by unfounded conjectures and patently false assertions.”

“We call on the Pulitzer Prize Board to rescind the 2020 Prize for Commentary awarded to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her lead essay in ‘The 1619 Project,'” the letter states. “That essay was entitled, ‘Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written.’ But it turns out the article itself was false when written, making a large claim that protecting the institution of slavery was a primary motive for the American Revolution, a claim for which there is simply no evidence.”

Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and one of the signatories, says the impetus for the letter was the recent revelation that the New York Times stealth edited the central claim of the “1619 Project” — That America’s “true founding” was in 1619 when slaves were first imported to North America, not 1776 when the Founding Fathers of the United States published the Declaration of Independence of the 13 colonies. The Times edited that claim out of Hannah-Jones’ essay.

“These actions on the part of both the Times and Hannah-Jones are profoundly irresponsible and disturbing,” Kurtz wrote for National Review. He criticized how Hannah-Jones has repeatedly denied ever claiming that “1619” was America’s true founding, when it is easily demonstrable she’s made this claim repeatedly since her essay was first published.

“Imagine that a Pulitzer Prize for Literature had been awarded to a novel for which it later emerged that the most famous passage had been plagiarized. At that point the prize would rightly be revoked. Now imagine that a Pulitzer Prize for Literature had been awarded to a novel whose author, after receiving the prize, surreptitiously edited out the most famous passage from the e-book and denied repeatedly that the passage had ever been in the novel to begin with. In that case, the prize would not be revoked, but the author would be considered to have gone at least semi-mad,” Kurtz wrote.

“What do we say, then, about a Pulitzer Prize for journalism where the publisher edits out the most famous passage/claim and the author repeatedly denies that the claim had ever been there to begin with (although she herself made the claim repeatedly in a variety of public contexts well after publication of the original text)? What do we say when the author points to the stealthily edited text as proof that the claim edited out was never actually made to begin with, despite the fact that she herself repeatedly made the claim for months on end?”

Since its publication, the “1619 Project” has faced substantial criticisms from historians and scholars of all political persuasions for historical inaccuracies. Conservatives have widely opposed curricula based on it being taught in schools. President Donald Trump in September denounced the project and issued an executive order to create the “1776 Commission” to make recommendations for “patriotic education” to be taught in American schools to counter its “toxic propaganda.”

The National Association of Scholars letter reviews the record of stealth edits to Hannah-Jones’s essay and uses evidence to accuse her of “duplicity” in defending her essay.

“The duplicity of attempting to alter the historical record in a manner intended to deceive the public is as serious an infraction against professional ethics as a journalist can commit,” the letter says. “A ‘sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay,’ as the Pulitzer Prize Board called it, does not have the license to sweep its own errors into obscurity or the remit to publish ‘deeply reported’ falsehoods.”

The Pulitzer Prize Board erred in awarding a prize to Hannah-Jones’s profoundly flawed essay, and through it to a Project that, despite its worthy intentions, is disfigured by unfounded conjectures and patently false assertions. To err is human. But now that it has come to light that these materials have been “corrected” without public disclosure and Hannah-Jones has falsely put forward claims that she never said or wrote what she plainly did, the offense is far more serious. It is time for the Pulitzer Prize Board to acknowledge its error rather than compound it. Given the glaring historical fallacy at the heart of its account, and the subsequent breaches of core journalistic ethics by both Hannah-Jones and the Times, “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written” does not deserve the honor conferred upon it. Nor does The 1619 Project of which it is a central part, and which the Board seeks to honor by honoring Hannah-Jones’s essay. The Board should acknowledge that its award was an error. It can and should correct that error by withdrawing the prize.

Without mentioning the National Association of Scholars by name, Hannah-Jones responded to “efforts to discredit my work” on Twitter, noting how Ida B. Wells received a Pulitzer Prize 100 years after the New York Times called her a “slanderous and nasty minded mulattress.”

She said she takes the criticism as “a badge of honor.”

Share
Categories
1619 project Intelwars New York Times Nikole hannah-jones

New York Times stealth-edits a highly criticized claim of the 1619 Project about America’s founding

The New York Times’ 1619 Project has quietly gotten a significant edit that changes a foundational perspective of the project — and the thing it has been most criticized for, Quillette reported.

The 1619 Project, primarily created by reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones, was an ambitious set of historical essays that sought to frame the founding of America from a different perspective. Instead of viewing 1776 as the beginning of the nation’s history, the project operated on a perspective that put 1619, the year the first African slaves were brought to North America.

Here’s how this idea was presented in the project initially:

The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.

This aspect of the project was heavily criticized. Hannah-Jones has repeatedly been attacked for attempting to essentially rewrite history to fit her preferred narrative about America as a fundamentally racist nation. Hannah-Jones herself has repeatedly reinforced this intention, and branding around the project has emphasized it.

“I argue that 1619 is our true founding,” Hannah-Jones wrote in an August 2019 tweet. “Also, look at the banner pic in my profile.”

At the time of that tweet, Hannah-Jones’ banner picture showed “July 4, 1776” crossed out and “August 20, 1619” written below it. The thread in the below tweets references numerous times Hannah-Jones has referenced 1619 as the true founding of America, as well as her attempts to deny having done so.

As of Sept. 18, Quillette found that the Times statement introducing the 1619 Project had been edited in a small but significant way. Now it states:

The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.

President Donald Trump and numerous other conservatives have been critical of the 1619 Project, and aggressively opposed it being taught in schools. Trump signed an executive order last week to establish the 1776 Commission, which is an effort to ensure “patriotic education” is emphasized in public schools.

Share
Categories
1619 project Financial restitutions Intelwars Nikole hannah-jones Reparations Slavery reparations

‘Time for reparations’: NYT writer, author of the ‘1619 Project,’ now calling for payouts to black Americans​

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the New York Times writer who authored the controversial “1619 Project,” is arguing that the time is now for America to pay “what is owed” to black Americans for its years of economic profiteering off racism.

What are the details?

The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist wrote in an essay published by New York Times Magazine on Wednesday that “if black lives are to truly matter in America” then the country must confront its “sins” by doing what it is “just” — that is, by paying up.

“It is time for this country to pay its debt,” Hannah-Jones wrote. “It is time for reparations.

“Financial restitution cannot end racism, of course, but it can certainly mitigate racism’s most devastating effects,” she added.

Hannah-Jones recently drew fire after claiming that the destruction of property taking place across the county in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis was “not violence.”

In the essay, in which she referred to police as “the oldest and most terrifying tool in the white-supremacist arsenal,” Hannah-Jones credited the Black Lives Matter movement in America for moving the needle on the issue of race to the point where it presently stands.

Which is — following the videotaped killing of George Floyd — “widespread acceptance of the most obvious action we could take toward equality … reforms and laws that ensure that black people cannot be killed by armed agents of the state without consequence.”

“But,” she argued, “on its own, this cannot bring justice to America.”

To do that, the nation must get to the root of the matter, which, according to her, is the “lack of wealth that has been a defining feature of black life since the end of slavery.”

Anything else?

Critics of Black Lives Matter and its related coalitions have long denounced the organization (not the ontological statement, “black lives matter”) for its promotion of financial restitution, among other things.

In a petition following George Floyd’s death, Black Lives Matter formally called for the “national defunding of police” as well as “investment in [black] communities and the resources to ensure Black people not only survive, but thrive” — itself a form of economic socialism.

In 2016, a coalition affiliated with BLM, called The Movement for Black Lives, formally called for “slavery reparations” in its first policy platform release.

Share
Categories
CBS News Intelwars looting New York Times Nikole hannah-jones Protests Riots Violence

NY Times writer, author of ‘1619 Project,’ says ‘destroying property’ — as seen during riots — ‘is not violence’

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the New York Times writer behind the “1619 Project,” claimed on Tuesday that the destruction of property during the violent riots happening across America is not actually violence.

Speaking on CBS News, Hannah-Jones said that violence is what fired Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd — and that it is not comparable to the destruction of property.

“Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man’s neck until all of the life is leached out of his body. Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. And to put those things — to use the same language to describe those two things I think really — it’s not moral to do that,” Hannah-Jones said.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist said “we need to be very careful with our language” in order to not conflate the destruction of life with the destruction of “things.”

“I think any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other people’s property — but these are not reasonable times,” she explained, citing police brutality.

“So when we have people who say that people should respect the law, they’re not respecting the law because the law is not respecting them. You can’t say that regular citizens should play by all of the rules when agents of the state are clearly are not,” Hannah-Jones said.

Share