The American Left Is Resurrecting The Bloody Legacy Of John Brown

On the same day this week that a leftist sniper unleashed a deadly attack on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Dallas, fliers were spotted on the campus of Georgetown University for something called the John Brown Club. The fliers quoted a phrase that Charlie Kirk’s assassin, Tyler Robinson, inscribed on one of the bullets recovered from his rifle: “Hey, Fascist! Catch!” Under this, the flier read, “The only political group that celebrates when Nazis die.”

The flier includes a QR code linking to a signup page that says, “We’re building a community that’s done with ceremonial resistance and strongly worded letters. If you want to make a real change in your community, let us know below.”

In the context of the ongoing wave of left-wing political terrorism in America, this flier for the John Brown Club should be understood as a direct call to violence. A tide of left-wing terrorism is rising in America, thanks largely to incessant incitement by Democrat politicians and aggressive propaganda from the corporate press. The foot soldiers of the left are drawing on — and actually resurrecting — the bloody legacy of John Brown, the abolitionist who unleashed a reign of terror in the years preceding the Civil War.

It’s time to take the left’s repeated invocations of Brown seriously, because they obviously do.

Consider what happened in Dallas on Wednesday. The suspected sniper, 29-year-old Joshua Jahn, fired from a nearby rooftop at an unmarked ICE van transporting detained migrants. He killed a detainee and seriously injured two others before taking his own life as police closed in. A rifle cartridge recovered from the scene was inscribed “ANTI ICE.”

As of this writing, details were still emerging about Jahn, but he apparently comes from a left-leaning family in suburban Dallas and himself was a Democrat voter whose now-deleted Facebook page included Antifa and communist imagery. Like Robinson, who also inscribed left-wing slogans on his rifle cartridges, it seems Jahn used an older bolt-action rifle to carry out his attack on the ICE facility.

Two months ago, a major Antifa plot to ambush and kill ICE agents in Alvarado, Texas, was foiled, but only after a police officer was shot in the neck. Eleven left-wing extremists, members of a North Texas Antifa cell, were arrested on federal charges of terrorism and attempted murder. They were heavily armed with rifles, pistols, and body armor.

One of the suspects in that case is a man named Benjamin Song, a longtime Antifa agitator who was a member of something called the John Brown Gun Club, which has chapters all over the country.

In 2019, a man named Willem van Spronsen, who was a member of a John Brown Gun Club chapter near Seattle, was killed by authorities when he tried to blow up an ICE facility in Tacoma. Van Spronsen, 69, was an avowed anarchist and member of Antifa. He sent a manifesto to friends the day before the assault on the ICE facility in which he wrote “I am Antifa.” And he was later lionized by members of the group as a “martyr” in a Facebook post.

“Throughout history we idolize figures like John Brown for their courage to take the ultimate stand against oppression, and today we stand strong in our support for yet another martyr in the struggle against fascism,” the post read. “May his death serve as a call to protest and direct action.”

Keep reading

Zohran Mamdani Wants to Spend $100 Million in NYC Tax Dollars on Increased Services for Illegal Aliens

Zohran Mamdani, the communist running for mayor of New York City, wants to spend $100 million in tax dollars on increased services, specifically legal services, for illegal aliens living in the city.

It’s so stunning to see this man admit that he wants to take the hard earned dollars of the citizens of New York City and give the money to non-citizens who are in the country illegally, and yet is leading in the polls. Has everyone in New York City gone insane?

His candidacy is being driven by far left progressive hipsters in the city, but are they really the majority?

Townhall reported:

New York City’s sanctuary policies don’t go far enough for Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, who said on MSNBC’s “The Weekend” he wants to spend even more taxpayer money to help illegal immigrants if he’s elected…

“I would also commit to increasing the staffing of our law department by 200 to bring us back to pre-COVID levels, and to ensure that when we look at this city we are using every tool at our disposal to keep New Yorkers together, to keep families together,” the democratic socialist continued.

Mamdani emphasized the urgency of his plan, claiming “400,000 of our residents are right now in urgent risk of deportation.”

“The city knows that when it provides legal assistance to those same New Yorkers, their chances of going home increase 11-fold, and yet it has only assisted fewer than 200 of those New Yorkers,” he added. “That’s why also a cornerstone of our campaign is a commitment to increase funding for those very legal defense services by more than $100 million so we can ensure we’re taking every step we can to keep New Yorkers safe, to keep New Yorkers together, and to show the world that they are welcome in this city.”

Keep reading

Large-scale syllabi study finds professors only teach left-wing side of controversial issues

Contentious topics are often taught in college classrooms from a uniformly one-sided perspective, according to newly published research that used the Open Syllabus Project, which hosts over 27 million syllabi, to develop its findings. 

The research focused on three topics — “racial bias in the American criminal justice system, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the ethics of abortion”  — to determine how controversial issues are presented.

The research primarily looked at assigned reading materials to conclude that “professors generally insulate their students from the wider intellectual disagreement that shape these important controversies.”

“Personally, I thought we’d find some imbalance, some activist teaching,” co-author Jon  Shields, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, told The College Fix. “I just didn’t expect it to be the norm in the cases we studied. That was genuinely surprising to me.”

The 66-page working paper, “Closed Classrooms? An Analysis of College Syllabi on Contentious Issues,” was also co-authored by Claremont McKenna College Professor of Government Stephanie Muravchik and Scripps College Professor of Philosophy Yuval Avnur.

“We were concerned about the health of liberal education, especially in an age when our democracy needs it so desperately,” Shields said. “One way liberal education supports democracy is by shaping the next generation of citizens. And citizens need to acquire both a fluency with the issues that shape our public life as well as an ability to critically assess them.”

“So, we wondered: How well are we in the university fulfilling this fundamental mission?”

The trio looked at how prominent works pertaining to select issues are taught alongside equally influential or authoritative works that present opposing views. Turns out, not often.

And that’s a problem, the scholars wrote.

“[S]tudents need to acquire some fluency in the intellectual controversies that shape our nation and world,” they wrote. “If all we expose them to are disagreements within cramped intellectual spaces, then we are not preparing them to think seriously about contentious public issues, much less exercise power over them one day.”

‘Distorted sense of social reality’

The Open Syllabus Project contains 27 million syllabi scraped from the websites of universities, mostly located in English-speaking countries. 

According to the research, influential works such as Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow” and Edward Said’s “Orientalism” are taught more often than John Milton’s “Paradise Lost” and William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet.”

The former argues the American criminal justice system perpetuates racial oppression. The latter is highly critical of Israel. Yet neither, the scholars found, are regularly presented with critics of those works. Instead, such works, they noted, are generally assigned with “fellow travelers.”

Conversely, they also found, when critics of Alexander’s or Said’s works are taught, they are typically taught in addition to the more left-leaning works of Alexander and Said, indicating that there does not appear to be a comparable bias by presumably more right-leaning scholars when assigning texts.

With regard to the issue of abortion, the scholars found that although a similar left-leaning bias was present, it was considerably less prominent than that which was identified for classes dealing with the other two issues.

Nonetheless, the scholars argued that their work still reveals a strong bias in the materials selected to introduce students to important controversies in our society and that this has serious implications. 

Students, they wrote, are not being prepared “to think seriously about contentious public issues, much less exercise power over them one day” or acquiring “the civic skills they will need to become citizens in a pluralistic nation.”

Additionally, the scholars noted, “insofar as we’re educating tomorrow’s leaders, they probably won’t lead us anywhere we want to go if they have a distorted sense of social reality.”

Universities should be cultivating “intellectual virtues, like curiosity, critical thinking skills, and intellectual humility,” they stated.  Yet, instead, they noted, universities are cultivating adherence to orthodoxy and presenting false intellectual consensuses.

Looking forward, the trio wrote in their report, “universities must recommit themselves to teaching our disagreements.” 

Keep reading

Charlie Kirk’s Allegedly “Racist” Comments Are Just Uncomfortable Truths

The left keeps portraying Charlie Kirk as a racist. Anyone who has actually watched his debates or listened to his podcasts knows that he is not.

After scouring articles and social media posts for the evidence used to label him a racist, it seems to center on a handful of statements taken out of context which, do not represent racism but rather uncomfortable truths that run against the liberal narrative.

Alleged or documented remarks attributed to Charlie Kirk include the “brain processing power” comment regarding specific Black women, the statement that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to target white people in urban America,” and the accusation that he is antisemitic despite his frequent and explicit support for Israel.

This last charge is especially ironic, since liberals now hate Israel and are openly antisemitic.

On July 13, 2023, Charlie Kirk said one could, “without being called racist,” say that four prominent Black women, Sheila Jackson Lee, Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, were affirmative-action picks. He then showed a clip of Jackson Lee stating before Congress that she was an affirmative-action hire.

He added that they did not have “the brain processing power to be taken seriously” and should yield opportunities to someone “more deserving.”

The statement was attacked as racist, but Kirk was not making a claim about all Black people.

He was criticizing these four individuals, at least one of whom explicitly said she was an affirmative-action hire.

This is yet another example of how conservatives want to judge people as individuals and liberals demand that every interaction be based on skin color, where even arguing with a single person is characterized as a global attack on an entire demographic.

This criticism connects to Kirk’s broader statements on affirmative action.

He previously stated that because of affirmative action, when he sees a Black pilot, he has to consider if the person was hired based on diversity rather than merit.

He made the same observation about an incompetent customer service representative. In both instances, his statement is accurate and consistent with the definition of affirmative action.

Kirk did not say Blacks cannot be good pilots or good customer service representatives.

Keep reading

Politicians Go Out of Their Way To Make Political Tensions Worse

At the Arizona memorial service for Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated two weeks ago, President Donald Trump acknowledged Kirk’s character, saying, “he did not hate his opponents; he wanted the best for them.” And then he added, “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents. And I don’t want the best for them.”

It was an honest moment if an awkward comment to make at a memorial service for a man murdered (to all appearances) by a political opponent. Like too much of the political class across the ideological spectrum, Trump is prone to despising those he disagrees with. It raises questions about why people should ever submit to the governance of those who hate them—and whether politicians realize that they’re a big part of what brought us to this unfortunate moment.

“It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree,” Trump had told the nation on the day of Kirk’s assassination at a kinder and, perhaps, more self-aware moment. “This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today.”

In truth, that day Trump also put the blame for Kirk’s murder on “the radical left” and promised to “find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence,” hinting at something nastier than a criminal investigation. But for a moment, the president seemed to recognize that hating political opponents and wishing them ill might have unhappy consequences. For a moment.

Keep reading

Why did the BBC call Charlie Kirk ‘far right’?

‘Mr Kirk built a huge and devoted following for his far-right views’, said the BBC’s North America editor Sarah Smith on Sunday. The statement came during the BBC’s coverage of Charlie Kirk’s memorial in Arizona, which was attended by tens of thousands of mourners and was addressed by US president Donald Trump.

Smith’s statement is nothing short of astonishing. It would be one thing for blue-haired keyboard warriors on Bluesky to be referring to dead conservatives as fascists. But it is quite another for the UK’s state broadcaster to toe that same line. The BBC pays Smith more than £200,000 a year to report impartially on American affairs. We would hope someone in her esteemed position might pause for thought before smearing a man who was killed for his beliefs.

The BBC isn’t alone in painting Kirk as ‘far right’. In the days following his murder, mainstream media rushed to portray him and his views as beyond the pale. The Guardian, like the BBC, described Kirk as ‘far right’, as well as a man who ‘stood for the darker themes of… US nativism’. The New York Times accused Kirk of leading a ‘hard-right youth movement’. It was also forced to make a correction after falsely attributing an anti-Semitic quote to him.

Needless to say, this is all pretty grotesque. Kirk has just been murdered – seemingly by a genuine extremist. Wittingly or not, smearing him as a fascist, dehumanising him in death, comes dangerously close to justifying or at least sanitising his killing.

In truth, none of Kirk’s political stances could be seen as ‘far right’ in any other time except the strange epoch we live in. Defending the US First Amendment, opposing abortion, being in favour of meritocracy and insisting that men cannot become women are not unusual stances for Christian conservatives or US Republicans. You do not have to agree with these positions to recognise they do not make someone far right.

Keep reading

ABC Hack Jon Karl Angers Americans With a Remark Dismissing the Political Connection Surrounding Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

The corporate media is not happy after learning that a radical leftist with a transgender boyfriend assassinated conservative legend Charlie Kirk and is desperate to hide the truth.

While speaking about the Charlie Kirk murder on Sunday morning, ABC hack Jon Karl tried to ensure the audience would not know a radical leftist took out the conservative icon.

“The murder of Charlie Kirk was not a political act,” he said.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Utah authorities last Tuesday released the text exchange between Tyler Robinson and his transgender lover, Lance Twiggs, sent shortly after Kirk’s assassination.

In the text messages, Robinson revealed why he murdered Kirk, saying, “he had had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” In other words, a radical, pro-trans leftist killed Kirk because he told the truth.

Americans not only called out Karl for his falsehood, but made sure to point out the rhetoric from both Democrats and the corporate media contributed to Kirk’s murder.

Keep reading

Jasmine Crockett Answers Bash On Cooling Down Rhetoric — By Trashing Kirk And Painting Trump As Hitler

After CNN anchor Dana Bash on Sunday played clips of Rep. Jasmine Crockett calling President Donald Trump an “enemy to the United States” and comparing him to Hitler, the Texas Democrat doubled down.

Even after Trump faced two assassination attempts, Crockett called the president a “wannabe Hitler” during a July interview on MSNBC. Bash asked Crockett on “State of the Union” if she had “a responsibility” to cool down her rhetoric, but she said she did not and that the president was using Hitler’s “playbook.”

“I think that my responsibility is to be transparent and to be honest. And the reality is that we are living in a time in which this administration and this regime is not interested in making sure that people understand history,” Crockett said. “We need to understand why they are so problematic.”

“So I am using that language because it is accurate language,” she continued, saying Trump’s policies are “a playbook out of Hitler and I won’t deny it! Like, these are the facts.”

Crockett also insisted Trump has repeatedly “called specifically for violence” before turning her ire on slain Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, not for the first time in the interview — which took place while his memorial was getting underway in Arizona.

“We know that Charlie Kirk was saying things about who should live and who should die. I have never said those kinds of things,” she claimed without evidence.

Crockett continued to rant in a heated manner for over two minutes without Bash interrupting once.

Shortly after Kirk’s Sept. 10 assassination, Crockett similarly justified calling Trump a “wannabe Hitler” on “The Breakfast Club” in an interview published Sept. 12.

“Me disagreeing with you, me calling you a wannabe Hitler, all those things are like not necessarily saying ‘Go out and hurt somebody.’ But when you’re literally telling people at rallies, ‘Yeah, beat him up’ and that kind of stuff, like you are promoting like a culture of violence,” Crockett said.

Keep reading

Trump To Designate More Leftist Groups As Terrorists

President Trump has announced plans to designate not only Antifa but also other radical left-wing groups as terrorist organizations, signaling a renewed commitment to combating what he described as a “vast domestic terror movement” threatening American safety. 

Trump made the announcement during an Oval office briefing in front of the press.

“We have others we’re going to designate too, but we’re going to look at the people that FUNDED Antifa, see who they are, where they came from and why they did it,” he urged.

This move comes just days after the tragic assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, at the hands, it appears, of a suspect linked to left-wing extremism, and builds directly on Trump’s long-standing warnings about Antifa’s role in fomenting chaos.

Trump declared, “Antifa and their radical allies have crossed every line—it’s time to call them what they are: terrorists. We’re designating Antifa as a major terrorist organization, and we’ll go after every group funding or supporting this sick, dangerous radical left disaster.” 

He further emphasized the breadth of the initiative, adding, “This isn’t just about one group; it’s about the entire network of left-wing extremists who’ve turned our streets into battlegrounds.”

“We’ll root them out to protect every American,” he added.

These words, delivered with the gravitas of a leader under siege, underscore Trump’s determination to wield executive authority against domestic threats, echoing his 2020 pledge that never fully materialized due to bureaucratic hurdles.

Keep reading

How a conspiracy theory about Charlie Kirk’s killer being ‘MAGA’ spread online to Kimmel and beyond

An evidence-free conspiracy theory claiming that the left-wing assassin who shot and killed Charlie Kirk was actually right-wing quickly spread among the left since the murder, moving from online social media sites to Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show and beyond.

Authorities announced last week that they had arrested 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, a resident of western Utah, in connection to the killing of Kirk, a popular conservative influencer and ally of President Donald Trump.

Robinson is accused of gunning down Kirk on earlier this month at Utah Valley University during a question-and-answer session at the Turning Point USA event. Although all of the evidence that has emerged has pointed to the shooter having leftist motives and ideology, many on the left spread the claim that the killer was far right.

Kimmel, the host of the ABC late night show Jimmy Kimmel Live!, said on the September 15 episode of his show that “we hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” The baseless implication about the shooter being MAGA had made its way from viral tweets to millions of TV viewers.

Despite the evidence all pointing to Kirk’s killer being on the left wing of the ideological spectrum, the conspiracy theory about a right-wing shooter was pushed by a host of Democratic members of Congress, high-profile left-wing activists, liberal social media influencers, and more.

The most common evidence-free claim on the left has been that the shooter was a follower of far right influencer Nick Fuentes.

The Hitler-admiring online streamer began a speech at one rally by saying that “I love you, and I love Hitler.” At least one segment of Fuentes’s online show featured Holocaust denial, with Fuentes questioning whether 6 million Jews were really murdered by the Nazi regime and laughing as he compared the burning of human bodies to baking cookies in an oven, which he has since said was just a joke.

Fuentes, a frequent critic of Kirk, refers to his followers as the “Groyper Army” — and his “Groyper War” sought to interrupt Turning Point USA events. There was and is zero evidence that the shooter was connected to Fuentes in any way nor that he identified as a Groyper.

Fuentes accurately lamented on X last week that “my followers and I are currently being framed for the murder of Charlie Kirk by the mainstream media based on literally zero evidence.”

Keep reading