37: A Shell Game

00:02 Mo Facts with Adam Curry for May 16th, 2020. This is episode number 37, and not even five days after episode 36. We're back. Hey, Mo, how you doing? I'm doing pretty good, Adam. How about yourself? Yeah, very good. I was like, whoa, man, Moe, did you fall out of bed? What happened? You're like a crazy person. Yeah, man. We're getting back on the Saturday cycle. So here we are. Very good. Everything's still good with the family. Everyone's still on lockdown from the Rona, but hanging in. Everybody's doing good. Healthy and just enjoying life, pretty much. Excellent. All right. Kind of the same here, I guess, in Texas.

00:46 Although we have this weird weather, it's like we've got torrential rains every single night. It's like, I don't know how that happens all of a sudden. Very odd. I'm just as confused by the time as I am the weather. Exactly. All right. Let's see what we've got going on for today's MoFax. I have a feeling. I haven't listened to anything, of course. Mo surprises me with what he shows up with. But I did see one or two titles of the clips, and I think I know what it's going to be. But let's wind up the infamous show topic, wheel of topics, and let's see where we're going today. Where this wheel stops, nobody knows. Of course, Mo does know. And today's topic is 1619 Project.

03:37 That's why I always leave that. And it's clearly there trying to, you know, make you feel something with this ad. So to fill people in on what the 1619 project was, it was a multi-part presentation put together by the New York Times. Now, if I can just interject for a moment, because this came on the scene and it was heralded, literally heralded as this is this is the way children need to learn about America. This is the true, the true origins of our country.

04:14 And of course, they came out with a date, which is not something that a boomer slash Gen Xer like myself would recognize 1619. It's like, that's not one of the important dates we learned. So this went into curriculum. I've seen teachers, professors, everybody all jitty about the 1619 project. I've looked at some of it, but I immediately felt that there was an agenda at play. And this is even before we were doing the show, I think, that this thing came around, didn't it? I think it might have cropped up right when we first started. Okay. Okay. I want to say, hold on, let me see. When it came on my radar, I'll say that. New York Times and I stay away from the trauma-based journalism.

05:02 it sounded very much like trauma-based something in that, just in that short little ad by itself. Yes. So these next set of clips are from MSNBC, and it'll give us a background on the whole project. Last August, the New York Times magazine launched the 1619 project in an attempt to reframe America's history through the lens of slavery. The name marks the arrival of the first enslaved people brought from Africa to the then Virginia colony. The sweeping project analyzed how slavery shaped American political, social, and economic institutions.

05:44 Its authors sought to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of our national narrative. Demand for the issue was intense, with New Yorkers lining up on the street to obtain copies. It was one of the most read pieces of journalism produced by the Times that entire year. Really, no, it was like it was a new iPhone. People were lined up on the street. People were lined up on the street to get this thing. I was amazed that it was one of the most read. So that goes to show you how popular the slave narrative is.

06:26 We always talk about the slave narrative on this show, how they take it and make it part of an agenda, as you pointed out. And it was so widespread on the internet. But as I stated before, it didn't pop up on my radar. One, until some people started pinging me about it. And then two is when this ad showed up that we just played previously. Hmm. Interesting. Well, I like the way it sounded. Was that Mika from The Morning Joe? Yes. Who did that clip? Yes. So she started off by saying it's the history of America through the lens of slavery.

07:09 Right. Okay. Right. So it's not really the history of America, but in a way, it's also kind of presented as the history of America. At least that's the way I've felt it, just seeing stories, you know, along the way, but not really stopping to look into it too deeply. And the key term, I'm glad you picked up on that. And the key term that you're going to hear is the reframing. Ooh. This is going to be a repetitive theme in this whole topic. But I guess we can go ahead and get into part two of Mika. The project grew to include a special section in the paper, a live event series, podcasts, books, and even an ad that ran during the Academy Awards.

07:54 But a backlash ensued. Princeton historian Sean Wilens, generally considered to be a liberal, criticized its cynicism and began circulating a letter objecting to the project. Four leading scholars in their field, James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, and James Oakes signed on. And the letter was sent to the New York Times, a version of which was published on December 4th. Okay. This thing called hail from both sides from the political left and, of course, the right.

08:34 Really, I didn't realize that people on the left had huge problems with it. I didn't get any of that. Yes, the political left and the real far left, the Marxists, even they had was up in arms about it. And we're going to get into that later. It was a very, it inflamed a lot of people, including myself after I did my homework. Right. Well, and I figured something was off with it, but you know, I was like, okay. And again, it was very, it was there on the radar and then it died down. And a couple months later, it popped up a little bit. But I, man, I totally missed all the controversy other than what, you know, when it first came out.

09:17 And I even thought, hmm, okay. So I'm very happy we're doing this. Please lead us through it. Let me give you my first opinion so we can do this as it showed up, what I felt about it. I'm thinking, okay, New York Times talking about slavery right around going into 2020. This is to galvanize or blackivate the black voter. Yes. And they're going to use it as a political propaganda to get people to vote. That was my first take on it. When I saw it, I was like, oh, that's probably what that is. Yeah, exactly. But it goes deeper than that. Oh, brother.

09:58 Okay. I was afraid of it. Yeah. So we're going to get in that, but let's finish up with the third clip in the background. Then in February, a counterproject emerged. The 1776 project was launched by Robert Woodson, a black conservative and longtime community activist in Washington. Woodson said the project intended to counter what he called the anti-America propaganda of the Times endeavor. What's troubling about 1619 is that it defines America as being incurably racist, he said.

10:35 It insists that all white people are beneficiaries of privilege and victimizers, and all blacks are victims. Ooh, Roberts. Is this Robert L. Woodson who we are speaking of here? That is correct. Okay. So this touched on something that we've talked about on this show about the victimization mentality and how the slave narrative is used to trigger that mindset in quote-unquote black people. Yeah, I think it also triggers white people.

11:16 It does. And the guilt part. So, I mean, it works both ways. It's the victimization mentality on one side. It's like a smart bomb, really. It works on everybody. It's fantastic. So, in all fairness, in the route, I didn't really take any clips from the roundtable except from Nicole Hannah-Jones and her pushback. Well, let me start by saying I think that intro kind of sums up where we are, which was there was a great deal of time spent on the detractors and almost no time in the intro spent on all of the historians who have stood behind the project.

11:55 This project states explicitly the ideology. We are a journalistic organization, and we said that we were going to do a project that was looking at the legacy of slavery and placing slavery at the center of the narrative. And that's what we did. It's not that we were hiding anything. I find the backlash in some ways unsurprising and in some ways surprising. It makes me wonder if Mr. Page even read the project or if Mr. Page even read my essay, because my essay is about how black people, despite undergoing chattel slavery, legal apartheid, lynching, racial terrorism, segregated schools, segregated housing, segregated military, believed fervently in the founding ideals and have fought generation

12:39 after generation to make those ideals true. And in fact, had a faith in a country that didn't treat us as citizens and expanded democracy for all Americans. I don't think that's victimization at all. As a matter of fact, I think it's probably one of the most patriotic pieces one could read. Woo! One of the most patriotic pieces. Nice. So Nicole is a very interesting individual. And I don't know where to place her because on some topics, she tells the outright truth.

13:14 But on other topics, she's very quiet on. So going into it, and I'm letting people know how I received this before I started doing my digging. I was like, okay, I've heard her. I've heard her before on other platforms, one being the Karen Hunter show. And from what she talked about, I was like, okay, she has some valid points. So I started digging into the 1619 project. And as they said, they had a podcast. Yes. Oh, that's always where you get good clips from, man, from a podcast.

13:55 So I started with the land of our fathers, part one. In the fall of 1864, at the height of the Civil War, one of the most famous Union generals, William Tecumseh Sherman, begins his march out of the city of Atlanta to the sea. And as Sherman and his men make their way through Georgia, black southerners are seeing an opportunity. And so by the thousands, they start to leave the plantations where they've been enslaved and are falling behind Sherman's troops as they make their way to the coast.

14:39 But these newly liberated people were not exactly welcomed. Sherman didn't actually oppose slavery. And so he's really not the sympathetic. to those who are fleeing these plantations. And he also sees them as a drain on his resources. There are families. They are people of all ages, young and old, who need food and care. And they are slowing the troops down. I'll tell you, man, just from a production standpoint, that music is traumatizing me that they got in the background. It's like it's in my head, like it's working. Like a Gregorian chant. Yeah, it's very hypnotic and a little disturbing.

15:22 That's the point of it. Well, yes, I would say it opens you up, just like in the ad itself. They use these low, low, rumbling, low, rumbling, vibrational tones. Yeah. Yeah, and tones. And it does open you up. I mean, if you study sound, and I know you're well aware, but she's starting to lay out some good information here. I'm like, okay, well, at least she's telling that the North wasn't as sympathetic to the slave narrative as you would hear in mainstream history lessons.

16:00 Because the way the Civil War is laid out is the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, and his super soldiers, the North, were all set hell-bent on in their slavery. That's the narrative. That's one of the narratives. Yeah, for sure. That's what's taught in grade school. And at least that's the narrative that's targeted towards black audiences. Well, when she starts to talk like she's talking, she's going to piss some people off because now she's telling the truth about the Union soldiers and how they didn't really, you know, weren't really against slavery.

16:42 And that's not really the reason why they were fighting her take on history. By December of that year, some of Sherman's troops are about to approach Savannah. And they come up on a creek that is both too wide and too deep to cross without a bridge. So the troops start building one. And they instruct the black people who are following them to just wait, that the troops need to cross first, but then they'll be able to come after. But the Confederate Army is on their heels. And once the Union troops cross, they break up the bridge, leaving all those people who had just escaped slavery behind to face either the icy waters or the rebel army that was in pursuit.

17:32 It is a massacre. Some of them drown trying to swim across. Others are trampled or shot to death. And those who remain are captured and re-enslaved. Holy crap. That's not the way it was supposed to go. And remind people, this is, we're talking about the Union Army, not the Confederate. These were the good guys who were supposed to be saving the slaves. Right. So this is very jarring. Yes. Yes. Well, I hate to have American education. All right. I don't have to put the goggles on, but I'm already feeling the

18:18 one of the goals of this 1619 project is just to make sure you know that all white people hate you. It's not just one or the other white person. It's all of them. Well, at least back then. I wouldn't go that far. Okay. She has another narrative, and we're going to get there. All right. But that's. Let's just get into the next clip because I don't want to spoil anything. Okay. When word gets back to Lincoln's Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, he is outraged. He has Sherman pull together a meeting with 20 black church leaders.

18:54 There's a transcript of this meeting, and it shows that these two men, Stanton and Sherman, actually turn to this group of black leaders and ask them, what do you want for your own people? Speaking for the group, one of the men tells them, the way we can best take care of ourselves is to have land and turn it and till it by our own labor. That is, by the labor of the women and children and old men, and we can soon maintain ourselves and have something to spare. Man, they already had the Reverend Al racket going on back then.

19:35 I'm glad you picked up on that. I heard you laugh. Well, you rang your bell while I was chuckling through it. Yeah, of course. Well, this goes to show you that. that this, we've been giving this grief to Margaret Sanger, but this bringing in the pastors predates her. Yes. Yes. So she was just following along with a well-established program. Correct. And what this does is this brings up one of the points of a very popular term, 40 acres and a mule. Right. Which wasn't there an actual 40 acres and a mule spot that was created for this very reason.

20:20 Let's listen to the next clip. And what's remarkable is that Sherman turns that request of those men for land to work for themselves into a government order. Special order number 15. It said that the government would take 400,000 acres that it had seized from the Confederacy and split it up among those thousands of newly emancipated people. This becomes what is perhaps the most famous provision of the Reconstruction period, which we all know as 40 acres and a mule.

21:01 President Lincoln approves the order, but soon after he's assassinated, and Andrew Johnson, a southerner who had once enslaved people himself, takes over the presidency and quickly overturns it. And within a few short months, the small amount of land that had been distributed to black people was returned to white southerners. There's that traumatizing sound effect again. Man. Well, that's really nice of this Andrew Johnson to screw everybody.

21:42 That's not cool. They took the land back from the black people and gave it to the Southerners. How do you like that? It's like, oh, yeah, let me get that back and let's give it to the people that we've been fighting against. As I listen, and I'm like, okay, I'm rubbing my hands again. I'm like, oh, she's on it. She's going, she's on a right track here. Because, of course, we're going to talk about reparations, right? Yeah, you would expect, because especially when Andrew Johnson, I'm pretty sure was a Democrat. No mention of reparations in this whole episode or the 1619 Project. Really?

22:22 Throughout the entire thing, nothing at all? Nothing. And the most interesting thing is Miss Nicole, Nicole Hannah-Jones lays out one of the best definitions of reparation on the Karen Hunter Show. Reparations. What does reparations look like, Nicole Hannah Jones? Is it going to happen? Okay, those are two different questions. This is what I'll say. I think the question of what reparations looks like is not that challenging, right? Reparations looks like a cash payment to those who can trace ancestry. I mean, Sandy Darity, whom you interviewed for your piece, is kind of the chief economist and thinker on this.

23:06 If you can trace a descendant back to American slavery, you qualify for reparations and you can prove that 10 years prior to the discussion of reparations bill, you actually lived as a black person, right? So no racism resolved and whatnot. So it's that. So I think that's actually pretty easy. And I think reparations has to be two things. Anyone who thinks reparations should not come in a cash payment, I think is bought into the idea of white supremacy, right? Wealth was extracted. Wealth needs to be gotten. If I spend my whole reparations check at the Gucci store, that's my damn business. I'm not going to do it. Don't do it. But I'm saying, like, the notion that it's paternalistic to say black people can't be trusted to spend the money that they deserve for restitution for what was taken.

23:54 Wow. A lot in that minute 15 clip. I think that needs, we need to file that under Evergreen. Yeah, not about it. We're going to return to that. Yes, definitely. So, first of all, was she joking when she said you have to prove that for the last 10 years you lived as a black person? I don't think she was. And what I think she means by that is if you take somebody, say, a Jay Edgar Hoover who's been passing and then wants to show back up, you know, your checks are being cut. So that won't be accepted. No, that won't be accepted. And a lot of, I think we mentioned this before, but a lot of the Boulet members.

24:39 members. Yeah, all passing. There's a lot of passing black people. A lot of black people that are passing for white. So if you've been passing for a white, you can't come out of the woodwork by her definition. That's a pretty interesting stipulation. I mean, because so you've, if you, if you are passing and you are living, quote unquote, as a white person, then you lose your, you lose your ADOS certificate. I mean, you don't really, of course, because you still have it in you.

25:20 You have it in you, but if you're able to pass successfully, this is the logic behind it. And I'm on the fence about this one because that's a slippery slope. Yes. I understand her logic because she's saying if you were able to live as a white person, say, hey, I mean, I'm going to use Jay Erica Hoover again. You haven't been impacted by the effects of slavery because you've been living as a, and that's that threshold of white, black, because we're not talking about skin color here. We're talking about the privileges as if you're white, meaning you're pure

26:05 and you're accepted into society. So I think that's what. Okay, but I, wow, I'm, I'm also on the fence about this. Like I said, this is her definition, but through that point, everything else she says, I pretty much agree with. That point, I can see where she's going. And honestly, if your family has been passing for white for, say, Hoover's kids, Hoover's grandkids, great-grandkids, they're all white, right? Yeah. Oh, they are. Yeah, they are. Would it be fair for them to show up and

26:47 you've got all the benefits of passing for white, but then you want to show up and collect a check out of the blue? I think that's what she, and I'm projecting on her, but that's how I interpreted what she was saying about this. Unless we could just sell that. But other than that, you see, she's quite aware of reparations. Right, but I just want to say one more thing. So, Corey Booker grew up with, I'm sorry to say, his situation, when I look at it, two professors, Ivy League, upper, upper middle class, suburban, he pretty much grew up with the privileges of a white person.

27:26 But, and this is where their appearance, I think we're talking more about appearance than being affluent. Because you could take a how can I say this? Corey Booker was never confused for, well, he's never visibly, he's not confused for being a white man. I'm going to tell you what the slippery slope is. And now maybe this will help me explain why it's bothering me. Because when you're saying someone passed as white,

28:08 that is, it's a color issue because it is clearly the color of their skin that enables them to live that way, correct? You got it. It's got to be a factor. Let me explain this to you. And now, a lot of black people can agree with me on this one. And older white, older, in church, there were always one of two families. They appeared like white people physically, but they identified as black.

28:49 So it's not about appearance. It's about you cloaking yourself in whiteness and you were successful at it. And then you pop up out of the blue when it's beneficial for you to collect reparations. I think that's the point of the 10-year rule. I understand. I still just think that it's that particular, the 10-year rule, that particular part is complicated because it still has to do with skin color, even though it's not the main point of it. But you can't pass if you don't look the part. That's just a fact. True.

29:29 Like I said, it's very debatable. I don't think everybody that's pro-reparations is pro this. this point. Um, I can, like I said, I can understand her logic behind it, but it should just be removed from the conversation. I, I, it's like, why are we all, and here's my, maybe this is, God, I, it's really, you really rattled me with this one. Take it out of the conversation. No, take it out of the conversation. It's ADOS, period. Because if you're going to put stipulations in it, it sounds shitty. And, and, and, and exactly the way you said it is, well, but you know, if you were lucky, and you didn't say it, I'm, I'm paraphrasing. Well, if you were lucky enough to be passable and now you're going to show up the check, F you. You know, when the checks are being cut, F you.

30:14 Don't focus on that. To me, it's like, yeah, you're going to have those people. How many really are there that are like that? What's the percentage? Well, you'll be surprised. I mean, this is a good topic. Is it thousands? Is it tens of thousands of people? Where's my book at? Home and Safety. You got a book? Oh, I got a book. All right. But you understand where I'm coming from, right? It's like, why do you need to do that when the whole point is to get reparations? Maybe the people who have been passing, maybe they could be your allies and can talk to with a white privilege the white people who need convincing.

30:55 Just saying. Well, the problem with that is if you denied your identity and then you show up later when it's beneficial to you financially, I think that's the rub. I understand the, I completely understand that. My rub is: if reparations is the most important thing, don't make the first thing you say after reparations, you got to live like a black person for 10 years, because then you're just a dick. I got it. We should have stipulations, but if that's how you're promoting reparations, I think it's very, very annoying and short-sighted. You just said something. You said, if you say that again, you said, if you lived as a white person,

31:39 no, no, let's say passable, living as a white person. Reparations. We're talking about people literally check white on their documentation. So you're saying that how that lets you. Yes, yes. Just stick with me for a second. Stick with me. And then I want to hear the percentage that you think of ADOS that passes and lives as white. So let's say someone is ADOS, has been living as white, all the white privileges, but maybe, possibly, has felt really guilty their entire life because it's really not fair what I've done.

32:20 I'm just giving an example. Maybe this is not true at all, but this is the thing that strikes me. And then reparations come around. This person, very much like a closeted gay person, might go, oh my God, I've been living this lie all my life and now I really want to be a part of it, but now I'm getting punished because I took a way out that was seen as cowardly. And that's really what it is. You're kind of being told you're a coward because you knew it, but you didn't come out as it. Does that make any sense? It makes sense. It makes sense, but

33:03 I think it's the fact of you reaped all the benefits of portraying yourself as one way. And the only reason now, the only reason now you want to identify as quote-unquote black is because it's beneficial to. So that makes you even a shittier person. I understand. I understand. But think with me for a second. The people the examples you gave was J. Edgar Hoover. I'm sure there are other examples of very prominent fake white people in society who are at very high levels because they denied their true selves and

33:48 were imposters. And now there's a real chance for reparations. Let's just say that's a real possibility. They could actually, in their position, be incredibly powerful allies. So while I understand the, hey, man, if the money's coming, now you show up, but I would say consider not making that such a huge point because there may be some people who pop up who can be incredibly helpful towards the end goal. That's what I'm saying. I can understand your point, but this is the last point I'll make on this particular, just one subject. subject.

34:30 How would a Jewish person be viewed if they lived as a Nazi, but then once the money shows up for Jewish reparations, they say, oh, no, no, no, no. You almost perfectly describe George Soros because that's exactly what happened with him. And that's, and you see how he's castigated. But do you see what he's getting for quote-unquote his people? You make a valid point there. All right. But it doesn't. I understand what you're saying. I understand your point. You're saying they could be allies. Yeah. My only point is, and it's not to you.

35:13 My point is to Miss Johnson. What's her name? Jones, Miss Jones. Is just go chill on that. That one point. Just say, hey, you know, here's the deal, ADOS, reparations. And don't sit around with a bunch of ADOS laughing about how those douchebags won't get anything because if you didn't live it for 10 years, we're going to hammer you. I'm just saying it's a negative approach where you can always do that later. Let's get through it first and see if someone, who knows what we'll learn about people who have been living this way. Or not. I don't know. It's not true. But I understand what you're saying. Well, in my heart, of course, I understand what you're saying.

35:57 It's like, hey, bro, screw that. I got it. I got it. Right. And the point I want to make from this whole thing is, and I'm glad we had this conversation. Me too. But the point I want to make about this is she's so adamant about who should get reparations and she's knowledgeable on the subject, but it's missing from a 1619 project. Yeah. I was going to be publishing this. Well, of course. That's my thing. It's like, oh, you're going to be as stringent to say who can get it and 10-year rule and all of this. But then when it's convenient for you, you go, you know, silent. Oh, she goes, coward. It's cowardly. So she's exactly like the tennis.

36:41 It's called projection. It's called projection. That's exactly. Okay, will we agree on that? Excuse me. Can you hit that one time for me in Dutch? Sure. You are what you say others are. That is. Bingo. Yes, that's exactly. It's pure projection. Okay, well, we certainly agree on that. That she is a huge projector. Well, let's go and hear, we're going to listen to the Heritage Foundation. And Mr. Ben Shapiro has Alan Guzlow. I think it's Alan. Guzzo. Guelzo, Guzzo. Yeah. Yeah, something like that.

37:21 He's going to give his right-wing perspective on a 1619 and Mrs. Jones. Excuse me. So let's talk about the 1619 project and the reward that was just given to it, the award that was just given to it by the Pulitzer Committee. So there are serious holes in this project. I've been discussing some of them. It seems to me that the basic premise of the 1619 project is what the Pulitzer Committee was rewarding here, not the essay that was graced with a 500-word correction. The basic premise of the 1619 project, having read the entire thing, was that American history was founded in evil, and basically that evil has infused the entire body politic in every aspect of American life. Do you think that's a fair assessment of the project? I think that nails it fairly accurately.

38:06 First thing that the 1619 project really would like to do is to teach school children, because that's really what's aimed at, is that capitalism is a form of totalitarianism. That's the one essay, the second essay in the 1619 project says this pretty plainly. Slavery is the model for modern American entrepreneurial capitalism. Second goal, we should pay reparations for slavery. They don't say this in the 1619 project, but the lead editor of the 1619 project, Nicole Hannah-Jones, has said this in other places, as though to reverse Lincoln's formula, that every drop of blood drawn by the lash had not been paid for by one drawn by the Sewards in

38:47 the Civil War. Huh. So, Alan, so much wrong with this clip. One. Now, the Heritage Foundation is, of course, very right-wing. Very right-wing. And this is where the Republicans are a non-starter for enticing black people, people like this, make it a non-starter for black people to even consider voting Republican. Two things he said. One, he speaks as reparations as a terrible thing.

39:28 Like, you know, like it's like, like, you know, you know what they really want, you know, they want those reparations, and we can't let that happen. And two, he comes with the thing that Lincoln said that every blood, every, I'm paraphrasing here, but every drop of blood that was lost from the lashes that, right, that was shed. It was like basically every drop of blood that was shed during the Civil War bounced the books for all the blood that was shed during slavery. Well, we've heard and previously, is that a real quote from Lincoln? Is that really what he said? This guy's a Civil War historian, so I'm taking, okay, I'm taking him as his word.

40:09 Yep. But it conflicts with what we've heard. Lincoln was okay with giving slaves 40 acres and a mule, and it only changed because he died, right? So this guy is kind of off base here, in my opinion. Well, I mean, he runs the James Madison program. He's very set in his fundamental ways and understanding of how the country came to be. You're not going to change this guy's mind. He read what he read. This is not the kind of guy that will ever, ever waver from that, in my mind.

40:49 The reason why I brought up this clip was to say even he recognized reparations was missing from the 1619. Yes. And that Miss Jones there was, even though she's the lead editor, she really doesn't do anything about the project itself, which is so odd. Yeah, he picks up on for sure. So why is that? And this is where my wheels start turning. I'm like, huh, I've heard, I heard Nicole Hannah Jones speak before. I've heard her be very adamant about reparations. But when she gets his huge piece on slavery, multi-piece

41:28 in the New York Times to talk about slavery, one of the main topics is completely missing. And she goes right up to the line. Yes. In the land of our fathers, which is basically the genesis of slavery with the 40 acres and mule, but she doesn't cross that line. Now, did she get a lot of pushback? And I'm sure she didn't just say this here on the Karen Hunter show, but she must have said this or been quoted other places as not having mentioned reparations in the project at all. Has this been a real burden for her, an albatross around her neck? Yes, it was. And she was called out by the ADOS political group. I have to specify

42:10 for this by Miss Yvette Carnell. I didn't clip it because it's been kind of redundant, but she was called out for it. Like, oh, you talked about everything except for reparations. Right. And from the ADOS political group, they were like, you kind of stole our thunder with this piece, but you didn't carry it all the way through. Now, this made me think back to she's been told what she can talk about and can't talk about. Well, she works for the New York Times. Hello. This sounds very similar to what Corey Booker said. Oh, this is a throwback clip from last episode? Two episodes. From 35.

42:52 35. But I'm handy. The reparations bill introduced for the first time in the Senate. Thank you very much. It was my, I sponsored the Senate. We're seeing progress on these concepts that we couldn't even talk about. They weren't even being talked about. Reparations was a major difference. That was it right there. We couldn't even talk about it. Didn't even talk about it. Right. So I think she had the same conversation. Like, nah, especially with the New York Times leaning so hard for the Democrats. If you put that into the 1619, you have people lined up around the block to get it. Now you're spreading this whole reparation narrative to the masses.

43:34 So we have to find out who blocked that within the New York Times. I mean, unless the Democrat Party is literally on the editorial board, which it may be. That's a possibility, but we're going to dig into it. So they had Zed Giliani. He was on the Hill, one of my favorite beats. And he explains what's wrong with the New York Time 1619 project. Earlier this week, the 2020 Pulitzer Committee awarded its prizes. One went to Nicole Hannah-Jones for an essay she wrote for the 1619 project. So the 1619 project attempted to chronicle the impact of slavery 400 years after the first slaves arrived in America.

44:16 And since publication, it's faced some criticism from historians, Marxists. Marxists, and a lot of other different people. So much so that the New York Times ultimately issued a correction with an editor's note to the project and the Pulitzer Prize winning essay itself. Oh, I didn't hear any of this. This is juicy. Yes, they had the correction. I have the correction here. I got notes everywhere, man. This thing is deep, man. The correction was written by Jake Silverstein, and he said today we're making a clarification to a passage in the essay from the 1619 project that has sparked a great deal of online debate.

44:57 The passage in question states that one primary reason for colonists fought in the American Revolution was to protect the institution of slavery. The assertion has elicited criticism from some historians and support from others. Now go down to the bottom. It said the five scholars that helped deepen our sense of this period's complexity. One outcome of the 1619 project that we are grateful for is how it has shown all of us, historians and journalists alike, how important it is to continue to work together to illuminate the past. So, yeah, they had a long, they put a pretty long correction piece in here, but yet still they won the Pulitzer.

45:39 Well, people have been winning Pulitzer's for the groundbreaking work they did on the Russian collusion case. They're not giving those back either. Right. So I just find it strange that, you know, maybe the Pulitzer is just a piece of crap. We're going to, we're going to, that's going to be, in their words, illuminated. Yeah, we'll illuminate that for you, everybody. Right. So let's go into the second clip from the Hill. Journalist and friend of the show, Zed Jelani, he's been following the controversy, and he's going to explain to us now via Skype a little bit more.

46:20 Zed, it's great to see you. Thanks for joining us. Yeah, it's great to be here. Absolutely. So, Zed, you were one of the first people I ever saw that was discussing the 1619 project, this essay in particular. Just break for us down where the controversy was. And I think, just to be clear from the outset, this is not like a right-wing thing. The people who actually started criticizing it was the World Socialist Web, to be clear. Yeah, I think largely they took issue with a number of facts that were stated within the text. One, the actual opening essay that received the Pulitzer Prize made a number of claims, the most controversial of which was that the defense of slavery was the impetus for the American Revolution.

47:03 Now, there is a book that posits that theory, but the theory is not considered to be credible. It never took off among mainstream historians. So it seems like they're trying to put the British in a good light. It's an upside-down world. It's very interesting what's going on here. It's a lot of moving pieces here. You have no reparations, which she's strong on outside of this piece. You have America being the bad guy and wanting to keep slavery as the reason why they fought the Revolutionary War. You win a Pulitzer, even though it's full of factual

47:46 errors. Omissions. Errors and omissions, yes. Right. This seems like a very political or from the New York Times? No, I don't see why they would be political. I'm shocked. I'm shocked. I'm shocked, I tell you. Wow. So what is the end goal then? The end goal is just, as always, mind control, brain programming. It must be with the big home. Yes, yes. And it even goes deeper than that. Oh, my goodness. Okay. Well, I'm glad I scheduled five hours for today. It's even more sinister. So let's get into the third clip from the Hill.

48:29 They basically cherry-picked information, in some cases, got facts completely wrong. And then at the same time, the Pulitzer Committee decided that this was the best commentary of the year. Normally, they don't award prizes to material that's considered not to be credible by experts in the field. And the way that I've looked at this, said, is that the 1619 project really was an effort kind of by elite cultural tastemakers to say that the chief dividing line in America is race and it's not class. And I think that that is why the World Socialist Web took such issue with it as well. Well, it's remarkable that they talk about reframing the future and that they talk so little about the future or the contemporary present.

49:08 For instance, they had an article about the wealth gap. It didn't really say anything after the 1930s or or maybe even after redlining. It didn't talk about social and economic reforms in the 1960s or 70s. It didn't talk about the fact the federal government set up multiple programs, outlaid billions of dollars to address redlining. How did those programs work? How did they not work? I didn't talk about deindustrialization, changes in immigration, changes in welfare policy, the fact that, for instance, the family structure collapsed after civil rights reforms, not before it. The family structure was actually stronger under Jim Crow than now. Wow, there's a lot wrong with this, but you know, man, we can get a Pulitzer for this show. I guarantee you. I would think so because we talked about everything he just laid out.

49:53 They didn't talk about. And we talk about the stuff that she talked about. I mean, if that's the standard, hey, put us on the list. From what I understand, it's really easier than you think. It just sounds really important because, you know, it's a Pulitzer. It sounds like a big deal, but I think it's been diluted over the years. Yeah, it's like a Grammy or Oscar, right? I mean, pretty much recognizing bodies things. The Grammys, maybe Oscars, I don't. There's ways to do it, but this is, I think, more like the Nobel Peace Prize than anything. It's not that oriented towards the actual achievement. It's definitely more political.

50:35 I guess the point I'm trying to say with the Oscars and Grammy is: if you want somebody to be taken seriously, they got to have one of those. Yeah, you give them a Grammy right quick. Yeah. Right. And then it's like, oh, yeah, Grammy award-winning, blah, blah, blah. And it puts you at a certain level or gives you a certain clout. I think it's the same way with the Pulitzer. Yes. It's a clout. It's a clout. Clearly, it's not about accuracy in reporting. That we've got. So I guess we'll let Mr. Gelani wrap up with the final clip from The Hill.

51:13 Right. That's exactly right. Right. That's exactly right. I mean, I think what bank is it that's sponsoring the series or what is shell oil? Shell. Yeah. I mean, that just like says it all. Or I saw one by the way that he was sponsoring D-Ray McCather. That event, by the way, was at Houston, which, of course, as you may remember, was battered by Hurricane Harvey. And many of those underprivileged people who were just their lives were destroyed by Hurricane Displacement. You know, that company has bears responsibility for that. But I doubt Nicole Hannah Jones is ever going to write an article about the Shell Oil and their responsibility with the climate and what's happening to underprivileged people in the city. Well, we'll hold our breath waiting. Hold our breath on that one. The Leviathan.

51:57 Yeah. Well, thank you, Zed. I mean, you're not going to hear this anywhere else, and I very much appreciate your analysis on this. So thank you. Well, this is very interesting because, of course, I immediately understand why. This is what you know. I've learned this term, problematic fave. And so this is the problem when you have any type of sponsorship. And this is so lame of the New York Times to allow all of this to happen. Now, was it the she personally was sponsored by Shell from Houston?

52:35 The piece wasn't sponsored. Was it? Was there any Shell Oil Native Ads or sponsorship around the 1619 project itself? No, no, no. They definitely laid in the shadows on this one as far as what was presented in the piece. But I found it one thing that I want people to recognize. Now, these are the same type of people from the New York Times that will tell you, you know, people of color, colored people. Yeah, thank you. Would they're impacted by fossil fuel and

53:18 greenhouse gases and natural disasters and climate change, but then they'll take their, you know, get their palms greased by Shell Oil Company. Yeah, well, of course, in this case, it's even worse because the Shell Oil Company, you know, they have they're responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of OG ADOS in Africa. It's easy to say. And I'm sure, I'm sure. You like the way I phrase that? OG ADOS in Africa. And that, of course, to see her sitting on and looking at it now on a brochure with a little shell logo above her head. I can see why people got a problem with that. In general, forget it. Then you've got the whole Green New Deal

54:03 crowd and everything. Even though Shell pays for most of that as well. But again, it's. again, it's politicization of stuff that really doesn't, to me, it doesn't really matter to what the 1619 project is about or what it's trying to do. It's all ancillary noise, but it's bad optics. Well, it goes to show you these people are disingenuous in their motives. Of course, they are. Duh. Make me look. Moving on to the Karen Hunter show, she had Dr. Greg Carr, which me and him have had words. Real? Oh, that's right. That's right. I do remember this. Yeah, he's not no fan of the Mo.

54:47 He's a Moe game. I don't know. That was early on in my start of my show. Is that the Star Show where that happened? Where that happened? Actually, it was on the Howard University radio show. I actually twirled my car over and called in. That's it. Right, right, right, right, right. Yeah, we had a back and forth. But him and Karen Hunter have a conversation on how you win a Pulitzer. Absolutely. I was waiting all week because since we talked last week, of course, I think you must have had a crystal ball because you said on social media, you predicted that Nicole would win a Pulitzer.

55:25 I thought the work, the amount of work that went into 1619 and the reframing of history, which, you know, people could argue whether it was 100% accurate or whatever. But I thought the conversation that was started with the 1619 project around reframing America was so important. And Pulitzer, again, yes, you said, because I have one. We want a Pulitzer. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. I want a Pulitzer as part of an editorial board at the New York Daily News. And prior to winning the year before, my boss said, We're going to win a Pulitzer. And so we were like, what? Yeah. No, but there's a plan, right? So you have to have 12 to 15 editorials.

56:06 They had to be perfect, no typo. Most of them, you know, the Pulitzer board, they're doing their homework, they're reading. But what they're looking for is a problem that is being solved, or they're looking for something that spins the world on its ass, right? Wow. Okay. Well, geez, what a racket. What did you catch there, Mr. Curry? Well, a couple of things. First of all, it's really important you got no typos because that, I mean, that's the bar. You got to get, you got to be able to do a spell checker. If you can't operate Microsoft Word, then you can't get a Pulitzer. So there's, for a lot of journalists, a high bar. But then you got to do the little jumping through hoops.

56:48 You got to have 15 of those suckers perfectly spelled. And you've got to be solving a problem that doesn't need solving or even exists. And that's how you win a Pulitzer. A couple of things with this clip. One, she even identified herself that this thing might not be 100% factual, right? No, right? But whatever. She actually said whatever. You know, whatever. It doesn't matter. As long as we're changing history, reframing. But you win a Pulitzer for not being factual, but you have to have all no typos. That's a hell of a hell of a standard.

57:31 Two, Miss Jones is a frequent guest on Karen Hunter show. If Karen Hunter has the formula, now this is why I speculate. If Miss Karen Hunter has the formula how to win the Pulitzer, maybe she gave Mrs. Jones the blueprint. This is how you do it. And then Karen goes on to prophesy that Nicole is going to win this thing. And then she happens to turn around and win it. I find that very, the way I see this is, and this is like pure speculation on most part.

58:18 Karen and Nicole have a conversation. Well, you know, you got this 1619 thing. You know, you could win a Pulitzer. You know, if you, you know, make 15 essays, no typos. I know people. You go ahead and do that, you know, and this is how it works. This is my, this is how I think this works. Wow. Okay. So there's, I was just thinking about us for a moment. So there's Pulitzer Prizes. You know, I think they're also doing podcasts now. Paula, there's going to be a Pulitzer for a podcast. Well, we, of course, let me just see if that's correct what I'm saying here.

59:00 Podcast Pulitzer, because we're going to put this to the test. Yes, podcasts can win Pulitzers now. Okay, and they've announced it. Good. I'll put that in the show notes because you know what? This show is solving a problem that I think they would really like. There's no or not. Well, no, I think we could dress it. Yeah, I think so. We could dress it up to make it sound like we're superheroes. And oh my gosh, they're having. Wait, this is the conversation America should be having. See, if we just do that with that voice, this is the conversation America should be having.

59:43 This podcast is very Pulitzer Prize winning. See, we can do this. I think we got a shot. Well, I'll get right on that. In Mr. Jelani's interview with The Hill, he brought up the fact that even the Marxists were pissed off at Nicole Jones. I found this interesting article on World Socialist website, which is published by the International Committee of the Workers' Party. Yeah, the Fourth International, which I don't know what that all means. That's a pretty long part. The International is the socialists

1:00:23 manifesto. Hold on, go ahead, continue. I'll figure it out for you. Who was the first three? Because we're on the fourth one. The Fourth International. Okay, the Fourth International is a revolutionary socialist international organization. There we go. They are the followers of Trotsky. So it's just an organization. Cool logo. Cool logo. This is the real, this is the real left. Oh, yeah. This is the hard left. They look at Bernie and they hang a left. Exactly. Well, luckily, I found a reader for my article, and here it is.

1:01:00 The New York Times 1619 Project. Nicole Hannah Jones, Shell Oil, and Mass Killings in Africa by Trayvon Austin and Bill Van Aachen, 18th of December, 2019. On Wednesday, December 11th, Nicole Hannah-Jones, lead author of the New York Times 1619 Project, delivered a speech in Houston to inaugurate the Emancipation Park Conservancy's lecture series depicting the black experience. The appearance was part of a nationwide lecture tour in which Hannah Jones is promoting the 1619 Project's reframing of the history of the United States as an unending racial struggle of whites against African Americans.

1:01:40 The American Revolution of 1775 to 1783 and the Civil War of 1861 to 1865, according to Hannah Jones, were sham events, unrelated to the struggle for equality and the eventual destruction of slavery. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln were racist hypocrites dedicated to the defense of white supremacy. Man, America just sucks. What a loser country, man. We're no good. And that's thank you, New York Times. They feel better now. Well, there is some hypocrisy with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Adam Curry. Of course. And we're going to point that out later in the show. But did you recognize that voice?

1:02:25 No. Who was that? Let's get to the next clip. I'll give you another shot. Okay. In the next clip, here we go. Hannah Jones's appearance in Texas was sponsored by the Houston-based Shell Oil Company. This is the U.S. subsidiary of the oil and gas corporate giant Royal Dutch Shell, which is confronting international public outrage over its involvement in massive human rights abuses in the African country of Nigeria. The focus of protests has been Shell's collaboration with the Nigerian government in the suppression of the Ogani ethnic group. The company currently faces multiple court cases over its complicity in the murder of thousands, including the Nigerian dictatorship's hanging in 1995 of the well-known Ogoni writer and environmental activist Ken Sarawiwa.

1:03:12 Hannah Jones is unsparing in her condemnation of the moral failings of the democratic revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. She can barely contain her contempt for those who failed to leap out of the historical epoch in which they lived and embrace the rhetoric of the 21st century middle-class identity politics. But the unforgiving code of ethics she imposes upon the historic figures of the past does not seem to apply to herself. Well, it sounds like a white girl. That's all I can say. I don't recognize the voice. That is one Mrs. Hold on one second. That's Dame Jennifer. No, that's our Dame Jennifer?

1:03:54 Uh-huh. Oh, my goodness. Is that why you really work? know, I'm like, I thought this was an audio book or some reading of it. Oh my gosh. This is fantastic. She is perfect. Perfect, right? Yeah, when we need something red, we don't have a clip. Yeah, that's great. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I was surprised by that. Now I know. Yeah, this is that. This is value for value at work, folks. Because we called out last week. We got a lot of volatility. We did. It at least had to be 10, if not one, but at least 10. But so I want to thank everybody. But yeah, she came through and it helps the quality of the show immensely.

1:04:38 I got to tell you, I was sure this was a professional from something. I was like, why isn't Mo asking me? I'm like, what celebrity? I'm trying to identify this voice. It's really nice. And I'm also listening to what's being said. I'm like, I don't. Dame Jennifer, of course. All right. Nice one. We appreciate it. Yes, we do. What we heard in this last clip is actually white supremacy at work. This is the real white supremacy here. Yeah. Let's just go through and hear what she says. Their involvement in mass human rights, massive human rights abuses in the African country of Nigeria.

1:05:18 And they're working with the government. And they're in collaboration with the Nigerian government in the suppression of the Ongani ethnic group. This is what real white supremacy looks like. The real one, the real white supremacy. The real supremacy. Yeah. Yeah. And that's when you call everything white supremacy, you take the emphasis off of this. They even had a lynching. It says here, it says, including the Nigerian dictatorship hanging in 1995, a well-known Agani writer, environmental activist Ken Saroiwa. I think that's how you pronounce it.

1:06:03 Yeah. Wow. She's partnering up. Now, you know, I know people from Shell too. It's Royal Dutch Shell, although the Queen of England, I think, owns the majority of it now. But yeah, this is not the optics you want. And it's a head shaker. Well, you know, the obvious reasoning for this would be that Shell has guilt and they want to coin the phrase, whitewash what's going on with them and their corporate history. Maybe, or other, maybe they have other motives. Oh, it wouldn't surprise me. Did you find anything?

1:06:46 Let's listen to the next clip. Shell's history in Africa has long made it an international pariah. In the 1980s, it was described as the worst corporate collaborator of apartheid South Africa, systematically violating sanctions to provide oil that fueled the racist regime's repressive apparatus. It also carried out mining operations in the country, including at its Reet Spruit coal mine, where striking workers were beaten and forced back to work at gunpoint. Its support for apartheid provoked an international boycott movement against the oil giant. Just two years ago, Amnesty International released an 89-page report titled, A Criminal Enterprise: Shell's Involvement in Human Rights Violations in Nigeria in the 1990s.

1:07:31 Yeah, I think there's been a long-running lawsuit over that, too. There's a couple of them, but I think this was it's been in the courts, I believe, for a very long time. And maybe that's what they're trying to do: deflect from those lawsuits. No, couldn't be. Maybe. Well, at least the socialists think so, as they go continue on this article. Shell's exploitation of oil in Nigeria goes back to the period of British colonial rule. After independence, it became the most important economic actor in the country with immense power over its government.

1:08:12 Shell's operations centered in Agani land, located in the southernmost part of the country along the Gulf of Guinea. 50 years of exploitation and Shell's continuous oil spills have left the region an ecological disaster, with its soil no longer viable for agriculture and its groundwater massively contaminated with carcinogens. The Agani people saw their livelihoods destroyed while they received nothing from the billions of dollars that Shell extracted from the region. In the early 1990s, under the leadership of Sarah Wewa, MOSOP emerged to challenge the destruction of the region by Shell and the Nigerian government. As the protests grew, Shell called upon the government to provide security protection for its facilities while the country.

1:08:54 company offered logistical support in deploying heavily armed police and troops against the Agani people, providing them with transportation, salaries, and even weapons. In some cases, those sent in to murder, rape, and torture wore uniforms bearing the Shell logo. Over the course of these operations, it's estimated that 27 Agani villages were raided, leading to the deaths of as many as 2,000 people and the forced displacement of 80,000 more. Rape was employed as a weapon to intimidate the population, and prisoners were routinely tortured. It truly is a head scratcher that this project got wrapped up with Shell.

1:09:36 It's really like, do you have shit for brains? It's like so easy to see what these guys are up to. And so, yeah, Nigeria filed a $1.1 billion lawsuit against Shell Oil and NE Oil in 2018. And I think so far Shell has paid out $55 million to somebody of the $1.1 billion requested. So there's, you know. And we've talked about these people of being in the room and you get in the call. Hey, Shell calls you. Hey, we need to clean up this mess. We need a distraction. And Mrs. Jones complies.

1:10:18 She's a co-conspirator with colonizers. Now, does she have any response to this that she did that? Do we have any? I'd love to know what she was thinking. I couldn't find anything anywhere. Oh, she just let that slide, huh? And of course, I'm speculating here, but I would assume with her political leaning, she would consider herself a feminist as well. I mean, because these kind of things go hand in hand, but you're taking money from people who use rape as a weapon. Yeah. With a uniform logo. Hey, everybody, it's your friendly Shell rapist here. Scary, man. How does that work? I told you, it blows me away.

1:11:02 And as you said, even in the article, it says, meanwhile, another lawsuit was brought by the Oguni villagers and friends of Earth Netherlands over the environmental devastation of the Niger Delta region has been fought by the company for the past decade with two planets dying in the meantime. Yeah. And of course, it's a Dutch group that is doing part of this activism. And that's because it's a partially Dutch company. Yeah, absolutely. And this is well known. And Shell's not the only one. BP has done similar things. Horrible in, I think, Pakistan or India. But yeah. But in this case, it's just interesting that they would take this.

1:11:46 But yeah, again, it's like, look at all of the clean energy initiatives and foundations. Many of them, you'll see Shell right there. Well, this is where I really start to dig deeper. And before I get into this next set of clips, continue on with this article, we have to remind people who the Boule is. And we have now stepped forward to have a discussion about the black male secret society known as Sigma Pi Phi,

1:12:24 ancronym the Boule, V-O-U-L-E. We will do our best to show you the information related to the Boulet. That's what this lecture is about. I could give the entire lecture and quote every inch of the documentation without looking at it. I know them that well. But this is my responsibility, my night, to show you the information so that you can look at it with me and double affirm the fact that much of our black press, as much as we like it, has not been honest in talking about this group of black men, for they respect it very highly and never speak negatively against it. And who was that again?

1:13:08 We've played this clip, right? That's Steve Coakley. Right. Okay. He's the OG on the Boulet. Right. And as you heard him say, that the press has been silent on the Boule. But I'll go one further than that and say that the press is pretty much made up of the Boule, as we pointed out on the previous 36 episodes of this podcast. And just for a reminder, we're going to let Steve Coke continue to remind you of the other factions of the Boule that are associated with the Boule. And all the Greeks, the Alpha, the Kappa, the Omega.

1:13:49 Omega, and the Sigma. Show you right. The AKA, the Zeta, the Sigma Gamma Row, and the Delta. They will all be informed publicly. Please do not have a public manifestation of the Greek thing. Don't have a big dinner. Don't have a big reception. Don't put it in the paper that you're coming. Because I suggest to you that we're going to start to visit you at your things. That's right. And ask you to prove your Greek thing on the spot.

1:14:28 So we make a suggestion that we're in the process of penetrating a group of circles. And that these circles are webs which are numerous organizations just beyond the boolay. I'd forgotten about that. Did they ever penetrate to the circles and expose them properly? He did, but this is where I continue the work. Exactly. Exactly. This is where the rabbit hole became the boolay hole. Let's get into the boolay hole. Okay.

1:15:10 Let's continue with number 26. The event in Houston underscores the fraudulent and class character of the 1619 project. Hannah Jones's appearance on a platform paid for by Shell Oil makes her politically and morally complicit in the oppression of the Agani people. Her staggering hypocrisy and moral blindness is not merely a personal characteristic. It is typical of an ultra-egotistical, self-absorbed, and affluent, petty bourgeois social stratum determined to make as much money as possible regardless of where it's coming from. It's not at all clear how Hannah Jones' racialist interpretation of history, which claims that North American slavery and all subsequent forms of discrimination in the United States stem from white people's allegedly inbred and intractable hatred of African Americans, would serve to explain her own apparent indifference to the crimes of Shell Oil against

1:16:04 modern-day Africans. As they pointed out here, where they say the bourgeoisie, yes, that pretty much explains the this one sentence explains the bole in a nutshell. And it says, it is typical of an ultra-egotistical, self-absorbed, and affluent petty bourgeoisie social stratum determined to make as much money as possible regardless of where it comes from. Sounds about right. Yeah. That's the definition of the bole up and down. Well, we want to see who that bourgeoisie elite is. And I think this next clip, 3.1, would tell us who we're dealing with.

1:16:47 Shell used Hannah Jones, who was only too willing to be used as part of its public relations operation aimed at diverting attention from the company's crimes as they face fresh exposure. Sponsoring an appearance by Hannah Jones allows Shell to posture as an intrepid corporate fighter against racism. Moreover, the 1619 project's obsessive focus on race conceals the essential economic interests that underline the business practices of Shell. Shell executives obviously sponsored the event in the expectation that endorsement of the 1619 project would counteract the impact of ongoing lawsuits. And they could not have been disappointed by the results of their investment. Everything went exactly as planned.

1:17:29 Shell basked in a moment of public adulation as the event moderator, Melanie Lawson, a local media personality, prefaced her introduction of Hannah Jones with a shout out. I want to take a moment first to recognize tonight's presenting sponsor. And you might know this name. It's a giant in our community, Shell Oil. If someone's here from Shell Oil, will you please stand or wave? Or all of the above? Do we have some Shell folks? There we go. The audience responded with an ovation in which Hannah Jones joined in. Yeah, don't be shy about this. Shell people, stand up so we can thank you. We appreciate you. We know this event would not be possible without your very generous donation, and we appreciate your continued support of Emancipation Park Conservancy.

1:18:12 All right, that is Dame Jennifer's sweet spot now. Oh, man. She nailed that read. She nailed that reading. Hey, folks, any of these cool shell folks here? Yeah, exactly. Very funny. Excellent. I could not do that to say that. No, no. Imagine doing it for real in front of the shell people. That's even crazier you do that. Well, some names popped up here too. Melanie Lawson. Yes. Well, I had to go and look up Miss Melanie Lawson. And let me go. go open up her file here. Uh-oh. You got a file at Mo Central. Yes. Put on alert. Okay, Miss Melanie.

1:18:56 Miss Melanie Lawson. This is from her bio. And she says, despite the glitzy circles she mixes in, and no matter how far away from home she travels, Melie's favorite stories are about the Houston-rich, multi-ethnic communities, especially the stories about children and those quietly working to make a difference in their lives. She also belongs to the Houston chapter of Lynx and aka Alpha Calpa Alpha Sorority. Of course. Now, she's a newscaster. Is that what she does? Yes. For the people that don't know, the Lynx is the female version of the Boulet.

1:19:37 So, and another thing popped up here. Let me go back down. I'm doing all this on the fly, so just bear with me. This Emancipation Park Conservancy. That word, I was like, conservancy. Let me look that up. So that is a body concern with the preservation of nature, specific species or natural resources. That's what oil companies are good at preserving. All of the above. And what species are you talking? Are you talking about so-called black people here? Yeah, I guess so. Another thing is that commission or group officials controlling the Port River drainage basin.

1:20:21 And this is definitely an oil company or energy company word. And it's also the conservation of wildlife and the environment. So I went and looked up this Emancipation Park Conservancy and the leadership of it. All right. So going down the list, going down the list, the chairman of it is one Mr. Raymond Manning. And he's an energy guy. He's the CEO, partner, CEO of a partnership. I mean, Partners for Energy of North America. And if you go down to his bio, Manning has served on the board of the Urban League, Young Professionals, and currently active in the Houston Area Urban League, which is Boulet.

1:21:09 Next on the list. It gets better. Hold on. The vice chair chairwoman is Jacqueline W. Bostic. It says here she also served as the national vice president of Jack and Jill of America. That's the children bule. That's the mini bule. Yeah. This is how you're doing. I had never heard of the Jack and Jill. Oh, we're about to go all the way down the rabbit hole. Oh, brother. She also has been active in the Delta Sigma Theta sorority. Yep. Next is the treasurer who holds the money is Yvette E.

1:21:50 Mitchell. And it says Yvette is a 20-year veteran of Chevron, another oil company. And it says here, she's technology chairman for the Western area, the Lynx, and Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority and a 22 years of consecutive service for the AKA. So that's who makes up this Houston's Emancipation Park Conservancy. Yeah, these are full-time jobs.

1:22:26 That's what they do. It's to, as you already pointed out, is to balance out the destruction that often comes with the harvesting of natural resources. It's a dirty business. And they go into these communities and they build these, you know, the conservancy is like basically a, I have some background on that. It says that, and this comes from the Business Insider. It says the Emancipation Park Conservancy, which was established in June 2015 to oversee a century-old park, a city park with the same name within the city of Houston, has selected its first executive director. And that's

1:23:11 Miss Lucy Bredman. And, you know, she was appointed by Raymond Manning. And the article itself, it says, companies in this article, Alpha Calpa, Alpha Sorority Incorporated. Can't make it up. This is great. You make this stuff up. So now we understand who. I think this is how it goes. Shell Oil says we need some coverage. These bullet members say, okay, we need to find some coverage. They find a 1619 project. They fund it. They tell Miss Hannah Nicole, no, you can't talk about reparations, though. That's no good. And New York Time complies because that's no good for the political timing of it.

1:23:56 And she complies. Yes. So that's how this whole thing works. And we have a final clip from the article. If you want to go ahead and play 4-2. Moreover, Hannah Jones's association with Shell is of an entirely voluntary character. Jefferson and Lincoln were born and lived in an historical situation in which slavery was a major element of the economic structure of the North American and world economy. What objective historical factors have compelled Hannah Jones to associate herself with and profit from collaboration with Shell Oil? What excuse does she have other than personal self-interest for appearing on a platform provided by Shell Oil?

1:24:41 Having promoted herself as the avenging angel of American history, Hannah Jones is obligated to reveal all the facts related to her participation at an event sponsored by Shell. Did she receive any form of remuneration for her appearance in Houston? Why is she serving the publicity needs of a corporation branded as a criminal enterprise complicit in the murder, rape, and torture of African men, women, and children? Okay, so very loaded there. I do have to interject some reality that many, many nonprofits, typically $1 million and less, are funded by corporate philanthropy.

1:25:27 Corporate philanthropy is, and it's interesting because this comes very much from the same group of people who want to protect everybody. And so, oh, you're shamed as a corporation into doing things for the greater good. Now, almost every corporation does things for their community. So there's in Austin, we have a lot of building construction companies, and they support the Ronald McDonald House, and they have budgets specifically for that. And it makes sense. If you keep your community healthy and vibrant, you're going to be able to build more.

1:26:05 So it's not abnormal. Dell, the computer company here in Austin, has huge foundations who in turn give their money to small nonprofits to do all kinds of little things. So this is taking place at Shell in all different areas. It is cherry-picking to say, oh, this is the one. And I can't fault Shell for this is how the business is, how all businesses are run. You take out as much insurance, public relations insurance as possible.

1:26:43 I mean, look at the in the 80s, I'm in the 90s specifically. Look at Reebok and Nike with the Human Rights Now pushback for, you know, for tiny children gluing their damn sneakers together and how horrible those conditions were, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. In this case, it's Miss Hannah Jones could have chosen from any number of very appropriate corporations for their philanthropic attachment. Dell is a great example. So I too am very interested.

1:27:26 Is she really that stupid? Or was there some huge prize for her to do this? Was she really that stupid or was that biscuit really that big? They always give me a biscuit on my birthday. I would like, I bet you had a whole hunk of butter, a whole stick of butter, that butter biscuit. And I'm not. My problem as with all the things I bring on this show is the hypocrisy. Oh, sure. Now, this will be the same person that tells you about the patriarchal system, white privilege, white privilege, rape culture, how environmental and

1:28:14 fossil fuel impacts people of color worse than anybody else. Thank you. And then she takes a check. And you're not even allowed to talk about reparations? Now, did she take, do we know she took a check? Do we have, did this, any, any further reporting on this? No, the reason why I'm saying you take a check is this. Maybe not directly from Shell, but I'm sure she's being compensated by the New York Times. Something. And the New York Times is being compensated by Shell. Yeah, you're right. And you look at the players from this, all the players out of Houston. There's something funny going on. But I digress on the

1:28:59 button. But bottom line is this type of funding of projects typically has a downside, which is that I think the beauty of our show here is we don't have to deal with all of that. Now, of course, we're not traveling first class to Houston and hanging out and drinking and the caviars ready for us, but it ruins stuff. It ruins stuff. I don't know how she can live with herself, quite honestly. I don't either. And I'm glad you brought that up about the value for value and who really supports us. So I think that's a great segue into our donation segment.

1:29:38 I like new money. I don't know if you do, but I hate old money that's wrinkled and dirty and got all the diseases on it. I like new money. And when I give things to people, I like to give stacks of money. It's fun. You ever had a stack of new money? Have you? You haven't? Have you? A little stack. Oh. And so I made the big stack where it was brand new. And I like brand new money. I just, I don't want any money around me. It's not. I'd almost rather have a new one than an old 20.

1:30:20 That's kind of dumb. But there's something about new money that excites you. You like $100 bills? Oh, yeah. I like new money too. Oh, the most beautiful thing on earth is a $100 bill. I haven't seen a woman as good looking as a $100 bill. There's something about $100 bill that excites you. That's right, everybody. It is time to thank our producers for episode number 37 of Mo Facts with Adam Curry. We're coming up on our annual in a bit here. Yeah. It's moving pretty fast. This is a show where, as we just discussed, there's no commercial interest that's paying us to say anything. There's no advertising. We also don't have to do any meetings. But to keep the work going, we do need support.

1:31:05 And that is not just financial. It's all kinds of support that people can do. And this is really what the beauty of value for value is. Something you may do for us could be incredibly valuable to the show. Our show may be very valuable to you. And only you can determine what that means. So we like to say, consider it two hours. You could have gone to a movie. You might have spent $50 for your drinks and your tickets if you took a date. Was the last or when we're done, we're an hour and a half into it or so, but after two, two and a half hours, was that the same value or not? It doesn't matter. All we care about is that you listen, have a good time, and return some value from time to time.

1:31:48 And our top executive producer for today is a shining example, Dame Jennifer Buchanan, who sent it. I'll just read the note here that we got from her. I'm throwing my hat into the ring of available female readers to replace robots as needed. See, another cool thing about this show, everybody's doing AI and automation. We're turning that ship around. We're going from robots to chicks. And she says, I promise not to make it sound like Dvorak's Law and the 900 number ad, which are, and she has done other work for us and for our tribes. So we value this as priceless, Jennifer. Thank you so much for your first valuable contribution.

1:32:32 And of course, you are one of our two executive producers for today's MoFax with Adam Curry episode 37. Also in the executive producer category, and remember, these are real credits. You can use them anywhere. Credits are recognized. And you can put them on your CV, on your resume. Get jobs or impress people. With $55.66, the anonymous film student says, hey, gents, I've been listening from day one and feel bad for not donating, but I get so much value from this show that I actually cited Charles Woods writing in the movie theater quote from episode 28 in an essay.

1:33:11 Oh, this is great. The subject, which I developed from this quote, was media's most important function is to serve as a pressure release valve for society. I got a B plus on the paper, and I have this podcast to thank. Sorry for the long note. I just finished my semester on Monday and got hired. I don't know. an entry-level job at a post-production facility. So I'm pretty drunk. Thanks for all you do. I wish I wasn't so broker. I'd donate more. Semperfy, says the anonymous film student and possibly a member of the Marines. $55.60. Thank you. You're in the credits as such, and we really appreciate it. Our first associate executive producer is Style and Design, $50.

1:33:53 Found Mo Facts through the Grimerica Show. There you go, Moe. Great appearance. I forgot to mention that. It was a couple of weeks ago, wasn't it? A couple weeks back you did the Grimerica show. It was right before I went down with the sword. That's right. Okay, so it was a month ago. It's a while back. Found Mo Facts through the Grimerica Show, which is funny because I'm an avid listener and donate to No Agenda. I've listened to several episodes and have really enjoyed them all, especially episode 32, No Seabow. Yeah, I was a favorite. I will continue to work through the backlog as you produce new episodes. Absolutely. And thank you again for your support. James Neemeyer supports us with $36 and says, hey, Mo, last donation when I wrote, quote, you were a little hard on Diddy last night.

1:34:35 I was making a reference to the meme about the Leave It to Beaver show. Did you ever watch Leave It to Beaver? Yeah, of course. I don't know. I hadn't thought about it that way, actually. Okay, that makes sense. It goes like this: Gee, Ward, don't you think you were a little hard on the Beaver last night? Sorry for the voice. I didn't have enough room on. Go ahead. No, it makes sense now once I got in. Yeah, once we get that, yeah, I think you need the voice to go along with it. Didn't have enough room on the cash app to explain it all. Anyway, I don't know if the joke translates very well across cultural lines, but trust me, it was very funny in my head. Loving the show, Wusas for All.

1:35:26 I'd say that it definitely leave it to Beaver definitely crosses all cultural lines. Torben Peterson, $33.33. No note, but magic numbers are recognized and appreciated. Connor Lawrence, also 33.33. In the morning, gents. I think my note from last week never got sent. Sorry for the mix-up. Just the usual gratitude with a few questions for y'all. Hope you two and your family are healthy. Yes, we're all great. Thank you. Question from Mo. Do you plan on doing an episode on the following topics? Religion in the ADOS community and Malcolm X, similar to the Martin Luther King one.

1:36:05 Yes to both. Yes to both. Question for Adam. Have you seen the documentary Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind? If so, do you think this is a deep state nudge? Or is it legit? You two are the only ones I can get an accurate answer from on that. Well, I'm just going to guess. I have not seen it. However, I'm going to search for this right now, Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind. And if this has anything to do with the Star Academy, then yeah, I'll probably say I think it's more entertainment than anything. But let me see who produced this thing.

1:36:47 Is this, do you know anything about this, Mo? No, this is news to me. I think I may have to look that. I thought it might be these guys who were always, they're all over the place. They were on Rogan. I'll have to watch it. I'll get back to you. But if it's a Star Academy, which I can't see offhand, so it might not be, then I'm very skeptical. Those guys are entertainers. Goes on to say, it's been a long road for most of us, but I feel in my bones that the storm is passing and we'll see the sun shine soon. In 1 John, he wrote that in the beginning was the word and the word was God and the word was God.

1:37:29 The word can be used for good and for evil, but the onus is on us to choose for good to exit our mouths and enter our ears. That is why I mean it literally when I say that what you two do is the Lord's work. And no matter how deep the rabbit hole takes you, God brought you there for a righteous purpose. Myself and the rest of the listeners are living proof of this. And I thank you for this eternally. Can I get a goat Woosa? The goat Woosa for himself and Alyssa and for everyone out there who needs it. And Mo, could you please bless me with the real Mo Karma, not the take that karma.

1:38:11 I need it from the source, the Sultan of SWAT, the Colossus of the Colossus of Thought, the man we all come to hear every week. Mo Karma. So exciting. Connor, thank you very much. Very nice note. 33.33 from you, and that's appreciated. Michael Marengo, $28.50. Also wants a Wusa Goat Jingle coming up. This donation is in honor of my grandmother. She was our Italian-American big mama in New Orleans. Almost everything you said about big, the big, you said about the Big Mama episode applied to her, even down to her having sugar and pressure.

1:38:51 At the end of the show, when I heard Bill Withers' grandma's hands, I had to pull over and see what I could afford to donate. The song means so much to me because my dad sang that to her at her sang that at her funeral. By the way, if Adam Cannite producers, you should be able to give an honorary degree in ADAS studies or something like that. Keep up the great work, Michael Marengo. Very nice note, Michael. Thank you. And here is your goat Wusa. And rounding out our list for today of people who have supported and thus also produced the show, Shazir, Shazir, Shazir, $20, value for value.

1:39:34 V4V is the note. Barbette Bonanza. No note, but $20. Thank you. No note also from G McDonald, 1892. There's some code for you. Ken with $3.33. Value for value for the best podcast in the known universe. And $2, but no note from Michael McGurk. And we thank all of these producers who have supported us for this show. And of course, for many more to come, this episode 37 of Mo Facts with Adam Curry. And you can support us. Oh, wait, I need to do is, did I get his final? Yeah, we got the final Wusas in there, right? Yes. You can support us. Go to MoFax.com. This is where you can find out all about the show.

1:40:16 Of course, links to other work that we do, Mo's YouTube stuff as well. And if you want to go to the donation page directly, you can go to mofundme.com. It takes you straight into the mofax.com donation page, M-O-E-F-U-N-D-M-E.com. And thank you all so much for supporting MoFax with Adam Curry. And can you do me a quick favor before we continue on? Can you give everybody else a Mo Karma? You bet. I'm sending you tons of good authenticity. Take that. Take that. Take that. You've got karma.

1:40:57 There it is, everybody. Mo Karma. Well, the 1619 Project gave me an opportunity to address one of the most misunderstood people and documents in the slave narrative. Okay. And that's Mr. Abraham Lincoln. Very good. Good. All right. So there's top five things, and we have a list here: five things you may not know about Abraham Lincoln. One thing is Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist. Did you know that? You would know it from the schooling and the education and the stories I heard. It was the man with the long hat. He freed the slaves.

1:41:41 Right. It says in a three-hour speech in Illinois in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral and legal and economic opposition to slavery and then admitted that he did not know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system. And contrast to that, abolitionists knew exactly what should be done. Slavery should be immediately abolished and free slaves should be incorporated as equal members of society. All right. Number two, Lincoln did not believe blacks should have the same rights as white. Did you know that? No, the band with the man with the hat freed the slaves.

1:42:24 I don't understand. He was the 16th president of the United States. He said something about four score and seven years ago and he freed the slaves. Can't you get that through your head? And he was, was he a Republican? Oh my gosh. That's where it gets confusing. Oh, he's the party of Lincoln. No, they're the party of Lincoln. And you might want to reconsider that term of being referred to as that. Yes. After this little segment that we have here, it says, though, Lincoln argued that the founding fathers phrase, all men create equal. And by the way, this is from the History Channel. If people want to know the source, it says, although the phrase, all men are created equal, applied to blacks and whites, this does not mean that he thought they should have the same social and political rights.

1:43:11 It says his views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in Illinois. Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting Negro equality. Oh, no. We can't have that. In their fourth debate at Charleston, Illinois on September 18th, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. I will say then that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. Unquote. Oh, hold on a second. My heart is breaking.

1:43:59 That can't be my honest Abe. Yes. And before we go on to get into three, four, and five, let's just get into some clips on Abraham Lincoln. Title on the book is Abraham Lincoln's White Dream. What's that mean? It means that, contrary to what most people think, Abraham Lincoln's deepest desire was to deport all black people and create an all-white nation. It sounds like a wild idea now, and it is a wild idea. But from about 1852 until his death, he worked feverishly to try to create deportation plans, colonization plans to send black people either to Africa or

1:44:53 to South America or to the islands of the sea on December the 1st, 1862, in which he asked Congress to pass three constitutional amendments. One to buy the slaves, second, to declare free all people who had actually escaped. But the third one, his proposed 15th Amendment, asked Congress to allocate money to deport black people to another place. This leads to number three. He's speaking about number three. Lincoln thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery.

1:45:34 So he wanted to buy us and ship us off. How do you like that? You can't be speaking the truth. This is not the story of Abraham Lincoln. You're talking about some other guy. No, this is from Mr. Laron Bennett Jr. And he wrote that book when he was saying. He wrote that book about Lincoln when he was like 80 or something. He was getting up in age, I think, wasn't he? Right. This is written, this is from 2000. Okay. So, yeah. So that's number four. And I guess we can continue on and let Mr. Bennett enlighten us more about Abraham Lincoln.

1:46:15 And I make the point also, and almost everything I say in here, I take from Lincoln or from documents of the time. It was not just something he wanted to push black people out. He had an idea of this great giant vacuum sound, black people leaving, and white people from all over the world coming here and creating this all-white nation. As a matter of fact, I say, as you know, in his I Have a Dream speech at Alton, Illinois, in 1858, he called for a haven, a white haven for free white people everywhere, the world over.

1:46:59 Now, these are Lincoln's words. And the interesting thing about that is that he underlined these four words, free white people everywhere. He underlined them. This was his I Have a Dream speech. He was passionately committed to deporting black people and creating a white nation. Let me say in extenuation, he believed that that was the only way to solve the race problem. I found that offensive and strange, but he believed that that was the only way to solve the race problem. He said over and over again, he did not believe that black people and white people could live together in equality in the United States of America.

1:47:45 All right, I have a couple questions. I mean, I know you for a little while now, and I, of course, am not thinking that this is news to you, that you that this is a great big discovery. Why is it that this is so, I mean, I don't want to answer my own question, but who has been standing up and saying this loudly, you know, except for Bennett Jr. on C-SPAN. You know, like, is there anyone of modern stature who says, hold on a second, this is not exactly the way it went?

1:48:28 No. And I'll see your question, and I'll raise you one more. Why was our 44th president the first black president, quote unquote, first black president to be elected sworn in on Lincoln's Bible? Well, that's how far the narrative goes. Optics. That's what I'm saying. Why do we, and just to speak to one of the letters that we saw in the donation segment in black churches, well, this is MSI baseball folks.

1:49:04 So come closer. We have watch night service where that's kind of like, oh, Lincoln on, you know, New Year's Eve, Lincoln, you know, decided to sign, you know, free the slaves, right? That's that's the narrative. That's the story. And it's ingrained in us that he's the great emancipator. You know, he can't, like you said, he came in with his top hat and he just like put sent all the good guys down there to free the slaves. Hey, but hold on. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. It's just they cut off the clip. It's like he said free the slaves. He said free them. Free the slaves back to Africa.

1:49:44 No, he said, well, if we have to free the slaves, let's put that out of context. If you really got to free them, then we might as well free them over there. Right. They don't want to be here anyway. We got to, you know, send them all over to Africa. No, no. No, hold on a second. From the thinking of the day, I'm sure that the Illuminati white people, our 16th president included, I'm sure that was the thinking. Like, clearly, they don't want to be here. Listen, what was Lincoln's wife's name? Mary? Listen, Mary.

1:50:26 Clearly, these black people don't want to be here. Let's free them back over there. Can't you just see that happening? I see it. Of the day, right? Of the day, of the day. Maybe, but like I said, he didn't really, and he's quoted as saying this: if he could have freed the slave, if he could have won the war or ended the war without freedom slaves, he would have done that. He would have done that. Yeah. Yeah. So I don't think he was losing any sleep over deporting them. And isn't that amazing? Like, yeah, thanks for all that free labor. Yeah, you can see your way out now. Now, so, so, where was the, I'm sorry to do this to you, but where was the 1619 project on this?

1:51:07 Well, they didn't see Lincoln in favorable, and they spoke about it in previous clips. They said that he was part of a white supremacy. Right. So they don't view him. And I just want to bring context that they raised that question. Okay. And then you, here's the problem when you, with 1619, when you discredit that project, you kind of discredit all of it. Even right. And that's very dangerous. Yes. Yes. Because this, because apparently they had part of that right and appropriately so. But they dressed it up in a whole storyline that just, what? Right. So we have Mr. Alan Guzo,

1:51:53 Guzo that spoke for the Heritage Foundation. He revisits the MoFAC show and he speaks on the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a military proclamation. Lincoln is issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in his constitutional capacity as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. It is a war powers proclamation because it is presumed in the Constitution. It's not specifically spelled out, but it's presumed that when the Constitution designates the president as Commander-in-Chief, it also clothes him with certain war powers.

1:52:32 That phrase war powers is not actually in the Constitution, but the assumption has been that if you're going to be the Commander-in-Chief, there are certain war powers that pertain to that role. It was as a war powers proclamation that Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation. It is as a war powers proclamation that the Emancipation Proclamation declares free all the slaves then in Confederate-controlled territory in the South. Did you catch that? Yeah, the very end. Uh-huh. Yeah, let me just roll it back so everyone else can catch catch it.

1:53:10 it. Hold on. This here. I think it's about here. It is as a war powers proclamation that the Emancipation Proclamation declares free all the slaves then in Confederate controlled territory in the South. Yeah. He didn't free all the slaves. No. No. He didn't follow the law. No. He freed them in the areas where he had no control over. It was a military tactic. Damn. Yep. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Yep. Didn't know that either. That's

1:53:51 destabilized the South by putting out this proclamation and, you know, as a form of propaganda. And when the slaves see it in the South, they'll leave their post as slaves, come running north. That'll destabilize all the efforts that they are providing to the Confederacy. And it'll be a big headache for, you know, for the South. Right. While we hold on to our slaves in union states. So it truly was a war tactic. Exactly. Wow. Did you know all this, Mo? Are you just schooling me? Is that what you're doing here? You're showing up once a week? No, no. Well,

1:54:36 I feel stupid. I feel really dumb. I didn't know this. You should not feel stupid because this is the educational narrative. Sure. And everybody just complies to it to the point where a 44 black, 44 president who being so-called black lineage was sworn in on the constitutional lawyer. Let's not forget that. Was sworn in on Lincoln's Bible. And when I saw that, I was like, that was another telltale sign. I was like, oh, you're about optics, not about truth.

1:55:13 I am, excuse me. I am going to purchase forced into glory Abraham Lincoln's white dream from Lerone Bennett Jr. That's probably going to be something I'll enjoy reading. And the point I want to bring up about his book was he, like he said, he used Lincoln's words. Right. It's not any speculation. It's not any, well, I can take this out of context or maybe he meant it this way. He underlined these words. He wanted to create America as a white nation. That's the best part. Let me make sure I don't forget this. Who knew? That's like old yellow highlighter from back in the day. Wow. Well, I'm sure people are saying, well, Mo Allen, he's a right-wing

1:55:57 talking head. So let's go to NPR and their take on emancipation. Well, what the Emancipation Proclamation was, was a presidential proclamation, and it was part of the war plans. So that in essence, what the Emancipation Proclamation did was Lincoln realized that two things were happening. One is that there was a worry that European nations might support the Confederacy. There was also a worry about how do we get more and more people to fight for the Union cause. After the initial year, people were saying, well, you know what? I'm not sure I want to fight for this. Suddenly, Lincoln realized that he could have an impact on the South by taking away workers and labor from the South, encouraging people to then come north, join the Union Army, so therefore you'd have more soldiers, and add a moral tinge to the war.

1:56:47 So all of that was behind Lincoln's thinking when the emancipation was issued. I think that an NPR that they moved to these types of reports, and I'm not exactly sure how long ago this was done or what the context of it was, but having Lincoln being such a hero for just the narrative, right? The one I grew up with, Lincoln, hero, freed the slaves, fabulous guy, very iconic looking, great. Got a beautiful memorial for him. So that's the story. We're sticking to it. But as more and more people understand, and I think that's really what happened in the past election, possibly I would go back to the 2008 election,

1:57:37 that Lincoln was a Republican had to be countered. And I think that's what you're getting here. It's like, we just, because why else do it? Especially as NPR, to discredit him. Why? Republican. I think that is underway. I'm not sure how old this clip was, but I've been noticing this for a while. Yeah, because like I said, the Republicans always like to use two. This is the two. two talking points when Republicans try to communicate. And I'm not saying all I'm talking about that Republican political machine. Yeah. When they try to communicate to black people, they say two things.

1:58:18 One, you know, we're the party of Lincoln and Lincoln set the slaves free. Just so you know. And two, you know, MLK was a Republican, don't you? Which we explored that too, why he went Democrat, you know, but that kind of. But I want to point out one thing about the word emancipation. Notice they, when they talk about us, so-called black people, Ados, Foundational Black, Native Blacks, however you want to say it, they always use the word that we were emancipated, not liberated. Ooh, yes, of course. Very big difference, too. Yeah. Emancipation means you were giving your freedom.

1:59:01 White Americans were liberated from the, you know, from England because they took their freedom. It's interesting. You nailed you nailing it again. I'm looking at the definition here. And there's a set. So the first definition, the fact or process of being set free from legal, social, or political restrictions. But then the second part is the freeing of someone from slavery. And it's an example: the early struggle for emancipation. So that really means like the early struggle to have someone set us free.

1:59:43 Right. That's words matter, man. Words do matter. And that's a matter of time. You never hear the word liberty or liberation or anything used like that when you talk about the Civil War or black people in America. It's always emancipating. Emancipated. Even though we were not emancipated. Well, if you were slaves in the Confederacy, you were emancipated. But yeah. So I just want to point that out. That's a good one. I like that. So if you want to continue on with the second clip from NPR. What about the timing of it? Why did it come when it came on that day at that time?

2:00:23 And as you were just telling us, the U.S. was already two years into the war by the time it was signed. Why that timing? Well, what's clear is that Lincoln felt that if he could end the war and restore the Union without ending slavery, that would be okay for him. But by the time the Emancipation Proclamation is issued, Lincoln realized that he had to do something bold. And part of the timing was that he had been working on this for the whole summer, but he realized that he didn't have the sort of moral power to let this go until there was a union victory. Because after all, what had happened was if he had announced the emancipation proclamation and then there was a battle where the union lost, it would seem like just words on a paper.

2:01:06 So what he did was he waited to release the emancipation till after they won the victory in Antietam in 1862. That then made it seem in the minds of many, Europeans and not that the Union was winning and it gave more power, more moral authority to the emancipation. My boy was a strategist. Yeah. And that's basically that's basically what we were doing. Like, hey, we got to wait till we get some momentum. When the news goes out, and this is serious because this is, I'm going to put myself into that time period as a black person being a slave, right? All right. And news is coming. Oh, you know, the Union soldiers

2:01:51 won their last battle. And, you know, and Lincoln's trying to set us free. That makes me think, okay, they're winning. So I'm more likely to run to freedom. Now, you see how we were treated from the example they gave in the 1619 project itself. And you've seen it in Glory. Glory has a good depiction of how Union soldiers, and I know it's fictionalized, but it wasn't all roses. They crossed the bridge and said, screw it, blew up the bridge and see you later. Right. And oftentimes black Union soldiers was used as cannon fodder. Yeah.

2:02:37 But yeah, it was all strategic. It wasn't like, oh, my heart is torn for these poor black people, and I have to do something about it. You know, it was more, I'm losing the war. This is such a letdown as a white person. We have not done any good here. We're just trying to win the war. Well, yeah, and if you you read, and if you listen to the first NPR clip, he says that the interest in the war from the North was kind of like they were losing steam. They were like, you know what? Yeah, we got to spice them up here. It's still a war thing. I don't really want to fight for this. It doesn't make any sense. So I guess he was trying to gain, you know, get the momentum back.

2:03:18 Well, we have Alan, another clip from Alan. All right. And he's going to give us the last piece of information that we need to have on the Emancipation Proclamation. Now, it's important to notice what the proclamation doesn't do fully as much as what it does. The Emancipation Proclamation, strictly speaking, does not free all the slaves. It frees the slaves in Confederate-held territory, which looks a little strange. That made the London Times make the comment that in those places where Lincoln does have uncontested authority, places like the border states, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware, he doesn't free anybody.

2:04:00 But in the places where he doesn't have any authority, or at least not the muscle to back it up, there he declares people free. And the London Times thought that was terribly funny. And no one else did, because it was very clearly understood that as commander-in-chief, issuing a war powers proclamation, he could only issue that proclamation to cover those areas which were in rebellion, which were at war. Wow. This is great. I love here. I love learning this. This is really, really fantastic. Yeah, so next time somebody tells you that the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves,

2:04:44 you can take them down. As you say, well, I'm sorry, surely you mean the war proclamation, the emancipation, the war order emancipation proclamation. That's how you start. I want to give you a little, you know, a little example. So I learned, like I always point out, my interest in history and these things were really driven by my black history class I took with Dr. Mosley, one of my professors. And this is one of the things we learned in his class because it was from Civil War to civil rights. It was that time period. Because, you know, those are the two mile markers, and everything in between there is kind of glossed over.

2:05:29 But I came home and I was like, dad, you never believe this. Abraham Lincoln didn't free all the slaves. What did your dad say? What the hell are you talking about? Like, he didn't actually believe me. Wow. And, you know, yeah, it's so ingrained. And. Oh, this is interesting. So did you finally bring him around? I'm not sure. I mean, because if you learned that for 50, 60 years. It's hard to unlearn that. And your college kid comes you home and like, oh, now I'm going to teach you something new.

2:06:11 It's very, I think it's very jarring. But these are the facts. I mean, I know now he understands. I mean, we had these conversations, but in that moment, nah, he didn't believe me. Jeez. Well, as you know, I never like to leave the show on a low note because it's not what we do. We like to note. We like to keep our people mentally healthy as well. Mentally healthy. Go into, after this show, continue with your life feeling good about what you've learned. Right. And I found this interesting YouTube channel called Ask a Slave.

2:06:52 And I don't even know how I feel about this, to be honest with you. Ask a slave? Is this like cosplay or what's going on with this? Just play the clip, man. I don't know. All right. Yeah, I just wanted to say, I think if you look at it honestly, slavery isn't that bad. Oh, no, this did not come up in here talking that goddamn man. Hello, you there? What was it you were saying? Oh, yeah, I was just saying I think slavery is a good industrious life where you got room and board for your work. Oh, yes. I built my own damn house, sir.

2:07:31 Wait, what? I built my own damn house, sir. My husband and I built it out of wood we chopped down from the forest. All right. Well, technically, it was probably your master's forest then, which means he gave you the wood, which you have to admit was pretty nice. Oh, yeah, he's real nice. Let me ask you, sir, have you ever built a house before? Nope. Figures. Probably had your slaves do it for you. What is this? What kind of sketch comedy am I listening to? I don't know. And I can't get my head around it because if it was conservative driven, it'd have been off YouTube. But what's the visuals on this? What do we see? It's a lady. She's dressed in

2:08:14 your typical time period attire. But she has people from the present asking her questions. And she answers them from that time period. Oh, interesting. And maybe I didn't set the clip up well, but I'm just because I don't know how to take this. I'm like, hold on. When I saw it, I was like, ask a slave. Automatically, I'm triggered. I'm just going to be honest with you. I'm triggered. I'm like, what kind of shit any is going on here? But the way she answers the questions, as you heard, it's funny and it comes off as

2:08:55 condescending to the asker somewhat. Right. So I just, I just don't, but kind of factual in a way, too. But I just found it funny, but I just, it's one of the things you don't know. I don't really know how to take it. Well, hit me with some more. You got more of this channel? Yeah, but look, two sides of every coin. Slavery wasn't just bad for black people. White people were slaves too, you know. What? What in the world are you talking about? White people ain't slaves? Yes, there were. There were thousands of Irish slaves. Yeah, so what's that got to do with anything? See, I told you there were. Now, wait a minute. You can't be white and Irish at the same time.

2:09:35 Wait a minute. I'm white and I'm Irish. Oh, honey, I see the confusion. Yes, you're pale as bonefish, sure. But any God-fearing white man will tell you you're just turned inside out. What? Glad I could clear that up for you. Next question. Well, I'm glad there's humor about these things today. That's the good news. That's the good news. Yeah. So, wow. That's my wrap on the 1619 project and everything that ensued after the release of it. Well, I think we need a new project. Although this whole episode, I think, kind of suffices in a way.

2:10:17 We come up with a good title to show that that's what we're really talking about here. Mo, thank you so much for this. This was a very good, necessary deconstruction of the 1619 project. I've been looking forward to this for a long time. I've learned a lot. And actually, then beyond that, then some more. And it's good to have this knowledge in your back pocket as we go into the 2020 election. In particular, I would say to pay good attention to Republicans who are touting Lincoln as their big hero. And some having the right information is always helpful.

2:11:02 It can never be too much, in my opinion. And I think this goes to speak about what we spoke of on previous shows about people are becoming more educated and the propaganda can't work as well anymore. Just remember, you heard it here on a podcast. And as I always say, pay attention to everything and the truth will reveal itself. Mo, thank you so much for this. It was quite the pleasure and I'm pretty sure everybody else had a good time. All right, Adam, take care. Take care, buddy. One day, child. I won't have to listen to your blind. On that day, I'll be able to make all my own mind.

2:11:49 You know, I think I've done finally every lie. Yes, I have. And now I think I can put you out of my life. I'm going to be free. Yes, sir, I am. Oh, oh. I'm going to be free, child. I'm going to be free. Oh, oh, oh, oh. One day I'm going to be free, honey. Yes, I will.

2:12:43 And nothing can make mistake. I'm even your money. I know you're gonna think that I'm acting funny. Oh, girl. Oh, but I'm getting away from you, honey. I'm gonna be free, child. Are you listening? I'm gonna be free here. Yes, somehow. I don't need your love it no more. I'm gonna be free here.

2:13:24 I can live without you now, girl. I'm on, gone. Gone, gone. Gone, gone.