Image 01 Image 03

‘1619 Project’ Lead Writer Pushes Conspiracy Theory About Fireworks in New York

‘1619 Project’ Lead Writer Pushes Conspiracy Theory About Fireworks in New York

The government handed out the fireworks to the minority communities “to get us so used to the sounds of firecrackers and other fireworks that when they start using their real artillery on us we won’t know the difference.”

On Sunday night, Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead writer of The New York Times 1619 project, encouraged her followers to read a crazy conspiracy theory that the government gave fireworks to minority communities.

The Pulitzer-prize winning author tweeted out a thread from the account @SonofBaldwin:

The account belongs to Robert Jones, Jr. He is the author of the book The Prophets, which comes out in January.

Jones wrote that he, along with his neighbors, “believe that this is part of a coordinated attack on the Black and brown communities by government forces; an attack meant to disorient and destabilize the #BlackLivesMatter movement.”

Jones explained the government could be doing this to cause sleep deprivation, but also to get the communities used to artillery (emphasis mine):

2. Desensitization as a means to get us so used to the sounds of firecrackers and other fireworks that when they start using their real artillery on us we won’t know the difference. It’s meant to sound like a war zone because a war zone is what it’s about to become.

Jones then insulted these communities “because there is NO WAY IN THE WORLD that young Black and Brown people would otherwise have access to these PROFESSIONAL fireworks.” He claimed they rival those used during July 4th and New Years’ Eve celebrations.

Hannah-Jones deleted her account but eventually reactivated it. She also deleted the tweet.

Jesse Singal, a contributing writer at New York Magazine, lashed out at Hannah-Jones. A friend of his in the area countered the stupid theory:

The left gets on the right for pushing supposed conspiracy theories. Do they? Of course and sane people should call them out for it.

I have not seen any pushback from the left against Hannah-Jones. Something tells me The New York Times will not do anything about it.

Hannah-Jones deleted the tweet and didn’t apologize. What a shock.

[Featured image via YouTube]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | June 22, 2020 at 1:04 pm


But the DNC has a place to send her – CHOPS.

DNC’S ANTIFA-BLM re-invent Segregation for Blacks

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | June 22, 2020 at 1:06 pm

The Media is not House Broken.

Don’t let them into your home.

Examples of the non-stop, made up media lies.

Brandon Straka
“In January of 2017, I bitterly proclaimed on social media that I would never be able to understand how anybody could vote for a man who stood before a cheering crowd & mocked a reporter’s disability.

That’s when somebody sent me this…”


I’m not surprised at all. This firecracker-theory is no less crack-pot than her Project 1619 nonsense. This woman is a complete loon. One could quickly tell by her looks.

    Milhouse in reply to Paul. | June 22, 2020 at 4:15 pm

    It actually reminds me of the crazy theory Jesse Jackson was pushing in the ’80s about the CIA pushing crack in San Diego.

      Paul in reply to Milhouse. | June 22, 2020 at 9:14 pm

      And AIDS too. It’s sad really, how the left destroys so many lives by convincing people they’re hopelessly oppressed. Actually it’s not sad, it’s evil.

    4fun in reply to Paul. | June 22, 2020 at 9:46 pm

    the ny times has dropped in reliability to the point where even calling it a tabloid isn’t doing justice to how bad the supposed reporting has become.

She looks like a clown

How’s the garden going

Asking for a friend

“I can’t be trick all the time .. I’ve got other things to think about” — Boris Badenov

These 1619 liars, by their mere existence, appear to be depriving actual thinking human beings of oxygen for no good reason. To quote something I once heard, “I can’t breathe”.

Sit down, you ignorant turds.

As I posted in another area, Riverside, Ca is having night after night of fireworks in the middle of the night. Major noise and disturbing the community. Those that have seen them… they report major sparking type… and may be the same as those tossed at cops.

Somebody has deep pockets to pay for this. Considering the numerous piles of bricks and stones showing up at protest sites…. this has the appearance of not being a prank.

buckeyeminuteman | June 22, 2020 at 1:25 pm

A miserable Democrat with a hyphenated last name and hair like Pennywise; she must be a sad, angry person. No wonder she blames her problems on everybody else.

Also, did anybody mention to her that most towns aren’t even going to have fireworks this year…

    Her “thinking” (such as it is) comes from the same file drawer than had these news stories 20-30 years ago,

    “AIDS Conspiracy Alive and Well in the Black Community,”

    the conspiracy then being that AIDS was being intentionally given to blacks.

    Does anyone have any doubt that she’s at the NYT for any reason other than AA? AA is rather expensive, isn’t it.

In the next couple of days Biden will come out and tell us how he had to take fireworks away from Corn Pop and his boys as he told them, “come on man, they’re trying put you back in chains! Someday, if your really black you’ll need to vote for me”.

A theory I saw posited elsewhere is that with the number of official fireworks shows across the country being cancelled, whether 4th of July, sporting events, graduations, etc, there’s an underground market for the professional-quality stuff even in places where it’s illegal for Joe Average to have them.

    p in reply to p. | June 22, 2020 at 1:40 pm

    I’ve also read that in some areas where fireworks being set off by civilians this time of year is very much normal but this year’s increased amount and no night of the week is off limits may also be a form of protest.

    They moved our hometown fireworks display (which is rocking, just to say) to Labor Day, most probably because the stuff was already purchased, and darnit, we love to see the boom and pow.

    It’s tradition around here.

“The government handed out the fireworks to the minority communities ‘to get us so used to the sounds of firecrackers and other fireworks that when they start using their real artillery on us we won’t know the difference.'”

I cannot say the firecrackers (and the news choppers) did not cross my mind re: BLM and the mass media that supports it.

You know what firecracker in an urban area are really good for? Messing up gunshot trackers. It is like releasing pigeons into a bank over night to trigger the motion sensors. A few false alarms and no one pays any attention anymore.

As to large fireworks, you can purchase mortars in a number of states, even if they are illegal to set off, under state law.

I thought Ringling Brothers went out of business……or is it she’s a walking audition for her next clown show?

Sad thing is that the LSM will validate her observations as gospel.

#OccupyNewYorkCity. Self-identify as Nazi… leftist. What will the Democrats do?

texansamurai | June 22, 2020 at 2:00 pm

alfalfa’s sister–with even less intellect–her ” theory ” is preposterous–although she may be right about one thing–there ARE some among us with ” commercial-grade ” fireworks, etc. though they intend them for another purpose altogether

Who is in control of NYC, the Gov, the Mayor, two Senators, most House members?

    olafauer in reply to buck61. | June 22, 2020 at 2:20 pm

    There is no one in control in NY – that’s the problem! A bunch of leftist, anti-American communists rule the roost in New York.


Was that the government of Eurasia or Eastasia?

DailyCaller: NYT 1619 Project Lead Reporter Pushes Conspiracy Theory, Appears To Delete And Reactivate Her Twitter Account

I am old enough to remember when journalists pushed the conspiracy theory that the Reagan administration used the CIA to deliberately infected poor black communities with HIV/AIDS. As far as I know, no one in the media lost their jobs for peddling that blood libel.

Joseph Goebbels is the ideological father of modern journalism.

Shazam! I though Bozo the Clown was passe. I guess he/she is back!

“Fireworks? We don’t need no stinking fireworks!”

Chicago’s Weekend Final Stupidity Tally: 14 killed, 97 wounded

(Weekend = 12p Friday 6/19 – 6a Monday 6/22)

Now, the really ridiculous part about the Fireworks Act of 1939: If you lived in Pennsylvania, higher-octane fireworks were strictly off-limits unless you went through a burdensome process of applying for a permit through your municipality. But if you lived in another state, you could buy all the aerial fireworks you wanted in Pa., as long as you agreed to leave the state with those products.

Repeat: Companies doing business in Pennsylvania could not sell certain items to Pennsylvania residents.

    ScottTheEngineer in reply to Neo. | June 22, 2020 at 5:46 pm

    same in Ohio. If you take out of state its ok. They’ll happily sell to anyone in Pennsylvania.

“… also to get the communities used to artillery”

My late Father told me that he slept well when the artillery shells were flying in the Battle of the Bulge.

I always assumed that if you can hear the artillery shells, you knew you weren’t dead (yet).

    alaskabob in reply to Neo. | June 22, 2020 at 3:21 pm

    Same in Civil War… infantry could sleep through artillery but the minute small arms fire… they were awake.

    texansamurai in reply to Neo. | June 22, 2020 at 3:31 pm

    had a couple of friends that were red legs–they said about the same thing: ” you never hear the one that gets you. “

      DaveGinOly in reply to texansamurai. | June 23, 2020 at 3:07 am

      I think that may not be true. After all, once one gets you, you’re no longer around to report that you heard it coming.

        henrybowman in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 23, 2020 at 4:46 pm

        I think it’s based on the fact that nearly all small-arms fire is supersonic, so the noise doesn’t arrive at the target location until after the projectile — a fact that anyone who has ever “pulled targets” at a rifle match has experienced.

To say something like that just shows she doesn’t believe black people aren’t astute enough to know the difference between firecrackers and live fire. She’s willing to sell her people down the river just to support her woke idealism.

No journalism, no peace.

The left gets on the right for pushing supposed conspiracy theories. Do they? Of course and sane people should call them out for it.

How about when they’re posted in this very forum? We have people right here who regularly post theories every bit as wild as those of Jones and Hannah-Jones, and almost as wild as those of CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, and WaPo.

    Please cite a few specific examples. Thank you.

      Milhouse in reply to UJ. | June 23, 2020 at 12:29 am

      There are so many, but here’s one: That Chief Justice Roberts’s adoption of his children had some sort of unspecified legal defect, and that this is being used to blackmail him. There is absolutely no factual foundation to it. It’s just pure speculation, but is being argued by several regular posters here as self-evidently true. That is every bit as insane as the theory this post is about, or the one about the CIA introducing both crack and AIDS in order to harm black Americans.

    I object to the phrase “conspiracy theory”. Just what exactly is that? Is it a conspiracy theory if a claim can be proven, or if there is some evidence to back it up? Or is a conspiracy theory some assertion that is framed in a way that it could never be falsified no matter how much evidence is gathered (like the claim that Trump conspired with Putin to steal the 2016 election)?

      Conspiracy theories are those that are inherently implausible, ignore simple and more likely explanations, and not backed up by anything approaching the the sort of evidence they would require.

        Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2020 at 6:16 am

        I am an adherent of several “conspiracy theories.”

        For instance Hillary Clinton and her aides Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, and at least one other senior aide whose name escapes me conspired to violate the Espionage Act by communicating classified information over an unsecure and unauthorized circuit and knowingly transmitting classified information knowing that it would be stored on an unsecure and unauthorized offsite server. This was also a conspiracy to violate the Federal Records Act since even the unclassified electronic documents were government property and by law could not be removed from a government system without express permission. Which of course the Clinton cabal never got because they never sought it, secrecy being essential to getting away with their felonies.

        When discovered they along with at least one maintenance tech entered into a conspiracy to obstruct justice by slicking or destroying all devices that had stored the information (going so far as to remove the sim cards from their blackberries before smashing them with hammers) so no data could be recovered from them.

        Conspiracy is committed when two or more people enter into an agreement to violate law(s) and when at least one member of the conspiracy takes concrete action toward that goal. Then all members of the conspiracy are guilty of the criminal act. It’s written into 18 U.S.C. § 793, gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, which is the portion of the espionage act they violated as paragraph (g).

        The actual crime of conspiracy isn’t the kind of conspiracy theory you were referring to, Milhouse? The talking heads on the MSM can’t tell the difference. I can guarantee you that airheads like Soledad O’Brien would think it’s just crazy talk to imply that the CEO of GM “conspired” with the heads of the Cadillac and Chevrolet divisions to build cars.

          Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | June 24, 2020 at 10:46 am

          No, that’s not a “conspiracy theory” in this sense, because it has a strong factual basis; it’s inherently plausible, consistent with all known facts, and is the most rational and parsimonious explanation for those facts.

drednicolson | June 22, 2020 at 6:27 pm

Raggedy Anne called. She’d like her hair back.

Hannah-Jones has written so many obviously dishonest things. In the 1619 Project she claims that keeping slavery legal was the primary reason for the American Revolution. Why would colonists in Massachusetts and Connecticut fight a war for slavery? Britain didn’t ban slavery until 1833, more than 50 years after the American Revolution. But, challenging Hannah-Jones would be racissst.

    Milhouse in reply to bw222. | June 23, 2020 at 12:23 am

    Not really true. Slavery within the UK was found to be illegal in 1772, so slave-owners had reason to fear that the trend in opinion was against it and that it was only a matter of time before it would be abolished in the colonies too. And in fact by the War of 1812 there were many escaped slaves in Canada who were free and fought eagerly to prevent the US from conquering Canada and re-enslaving them.

    So it’s reasonable to suppose that some people may have supported the revolution for this reason, though they would clearly have constituted a very small minority of its support. The actual reasons why various people supported the revolution varied, but this one wasn’t even in the top 20.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2020 at 5:49 am

      No, slave owners had absolutely no reason to believe the UK was about to end slavery in the colonies. England’s dirty little secret, which wasn’t such a secret, was that they were making too much money from the slave trade. How were slaves transported across the Atlantic to the Americas? In ships built in Liverpool primarily but also to a lesser extent in other English ports. Owned by Englishmen. Captained by Englishmen. Crewed (mostly) by Englishmen.

      Moreover slavery was far more important to the economies of English colonies in places like the Caribbean than in North America. And therefore a vital component of the Empire’s economy as a whole. It was no great loss for a court to state that English law could not recognize slavery on the British Isles since there were hardly any slaves; generally personal servants. They played no great role in the economies of England, Wales, Scotland, or Ireland (although let’s face it the vast majority of Irish peasants were for all practical purposes slaves). But it was a different story in the colonies where slaves were thought to be essential, abolishing slavery would be crippling, and everyone from the king to the average parliamentarian or magistrate knew it.

      It wasn’t until the Slave Trade Act of 1807 that the slave trade within the British Empire was outlawed (but note the British could still participate in the trans-Atlantic slave trade as long as they only sold slaves in the Portuguese and Spanish colonies). It wasn’t until the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 that the institution of slavery was outlawed throughout the British Empire.

      Nobody in 1776 could have suspected Parliament would abolish slavery nearly sixty years later nor what form abolition would take. Consider, there were far more slave owners in Jamaica in 1833, and far more slaves, than there were in the American colonies at the time of the revolution. Sugar cultivation was far more important to the Jamaican (and there for the Empire’s) economy than tobacco or cotton had been at the time of the America revolution (until the invention of the cotton gin cotton wasn’t even a profitable crop). The planters on Jamaica were a powerful political force. Yet the UK abolished slavery in their colony, depriving them of their slaves yet they didn’t revolt. Why? Because the crown compensated them for the loss of their slaves, that’s why. As they compensated all slave owners throughout the empire.

      Moreover, just because some of the founders were slave owners didn’t mean they thought slavery was anything other than evil. George Washington knew it had to be eliminated from the United States. Thomas Jefferson likened it to “holding a wolf by the ear.” You know you can’t hold on for long, but you can’t just let the wolf go. Years before the war Thomas Jefferson actually wrote King George III and practically begged him to stop bringing in slaves to the American colonies on British ships. The King refused; there was too much money in it.

      Actually under pre-Revolutionary war laws in the Virginia colony it would have been illegal for either Washington or Jefferson to free all their slaves. Since the governments in what became the slave states were primarily concerned about slave revolts they didn’t want too many freedmen walking around inspiring hope in the enslaved people there were strict limits on how many slaves an owner could free. In 1782 the Virginia legislature loosened restrictions on freeing slaves and that led to a flurry of manumissions.

      Of course some slave owners may have done so because they had developed moral objections against buying, selling, and owning human beings like cattle. But others did so because slavery was a money-losing proposition. Washington’s first argument against slavery was economic. He frequently wrote that he could have made money with half his slaves. With the number of slaves he had he spent more feeding, clothing, and housing them than the produce brought in. His moral objections developed over time.

      Washington in particular had other moral issues besides just a general revulsion against slavery to contend with. He thought it was heinous to break up slave families. He didn’t own some of the slaves on his property. Martha Washington had been married to a Daniel Custis who died two years before she and George got married. The Washington and Custis families became intertwined; George adopted two generations of orphaned Custis children. Apparently the Custis family still had warm regard for their former daughter-in-law as the union brought George Washington wealth and property through the prominent and wealthy Custis family. Some of the slaves on Mount Vernon were Custis slaves. Since he had no legal right to free them, and the Custis family wasn’t about to, the only way to keep the families together was to keep his own enslaved.

      Then there are the founders who were devout abolitionists such as “The Pen of the Constitution” Gouverneur Morris (it was a proper name and not an office title when spelled that way). At the Constitutional Convention he have several impassioned speeches against slavery, demanding to know why slaves were the only class of property to be counted on the census. His house in Philadelphia as well as many others were worth far more than a slave. Why shouldn’t those houses, or horses, be counted on the census if slaves were just property? But if slaves were in fact men then free them and let them vote.

      The bottom line is it is an insanely stupid idea that the American revolution was fought to preserve slavery. Norther abolitionists were among the founders. If the British intended to abolish slavery they would have fought as loyalists against the rebels. Hell some of Washington’s own aides were abolitionists. They never would have worked for a slave owner in a war to preserve slavery if that idea had the remotest connection with reality. But it doesn’t; rather it is far more likely that the abolitionist views of some of his aides, such as John Laurens and the Marquis de Lafayette, that influenced Washington’s views on slavery. Nobody in the American colonies had any idea that the UK would abolish the slave trade thirty years after they declared independence, and outlaw slavery in the British colonies nearly sixty years later. And when the British did outlaw slavery in their colonies, nobody revolted. They simply took the compensation and sought other means to get cheap labor for their plantations, such as bringing in Indian labor on a contract basis.

      The whole idea is stupid beyond words. So it’s appropriate that AOC et al believe it.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | June 24, 2020 at 11:04 am

        No, slave owners had absolutely no reason to believe the UK was about to end slavery in the colonies.

        They certainly did have reason to suspect it would happen. It wasn’t “about” to happen, but once the principle of abolition was admitted into English law it was very likely to happen eventually.

        Nobody in 1776 could have suspected Parliament would abolish slavery nearly sixty years later

        On the contrary, many people suspected it, though nobody could be sure it would happen. In hindsight it looks inevitable, though of course it wasn’t; like any “trend” in history it could have been reversed. 100 years ago socialism looked inevitable; it’s been evited.

        Moreover, just because some of the founders were slave owners didn’t mean they thought slavery was anything other than evil.

        Some did. Many didn’t. If they all had, they would have abolished it. Some, like Jefferson, tried to do so but eventually gave up because there were too many who disagreed.

        Actually under pre-Revolutionary war laws in the Virginia colony it would have been illegal for either Washington or Jefferson to free all their slaves. […] In 1782 the Virginia legislature loosened restrictions on freeing slaves and that led to a flurry of manumissions.

        Could you give me some more information on these laws? I know Jefferson, late in his life, wrote that the law prevented him from freeing his slaves, and it would be unethical to sell them to someone who actually believed in slavery, so his only option was to keep them and treat them as best he could. But I’ve never known which laws he was referring to, and what they actually provided. I have wondered if perhaps it was his debts that prevented him, that if he were to free his slaves perhaps his creditors could have repossessed them.

        In any case there’s no question that Jefferson was a lifelong dedicated abolitionist. He explicitly wrote that the only reason he was no longer active in that cause was because he’d concluded that he would not live to see it accomplished, so he chose to devote his energy to causes that he might actually achieve, such as the revolution. He encouraged younger abolitionists to stay with the cause, in the hope that the time would come when they could achieve it.

        The bottom line is it is an insanely stupid idea that the American revolution was fought to preserve slavery.

        It’s a stupid idea that this was the primary reason, or even one of the primary reasons. It is not stupid to suppose that some people fought for this reason, but if so they were a small minority.

“The Pulitzer-prize winning author tweeted out a thread”

It seems the worth of a Pulitzer Prize is about that of a Cracker Jack prize. A dime a dozen would be a lot.

How about the new Project 1620: where the entire ny times staff- and its publisher Arthur Sulzberger – wore blackface every Halloween and used the n-word to destribe their household staff every day.

♪♫♪♫ The world’s comin’ to an end, I don’t even care ♫♪♫♪
♫♪♫♪ As long as I can have my limo & my orange hair ♪♫♪♫

It’s BOZO, the hyphenated, leftist clown!

quiksilverz24 | June 23, 2020 at 9:36 am

These are not professional grade fireworks. The boxes you see are known as “cakes.” Each of these cakes is no more than 500 grams of explosive material. Professional items will have > 1000 grams of powder packed into a single shot.

See below for my 4th of July stash. This is all consumer grade purchased in Tampa.

Is it too soon to look for the NYT straight-down-the-middle story on this strange incident? And all the school districts in the country that signed up for the 1619 farrago/tissue of lies, are they going to carry them to the dumpsters?

ABSOLUTE BAT-SHITE CRAZY…..OF course THIS DOLT would work for the nyt. ONLY this rag would publish such GARBAGE and TRIPE!

Nikole Hannah-Jones, New York Times Magazine Domestic TERRORIST Correspondent

As a retired artilleryman, I guarantee she will know the difference between the sound of artillery rounds and fireworks.

How stupid can people get?

harleycowboy | June 23, 2020 at 12:31 pm

Won’t the sound of the regular gunfire from the hood drown out the fireworks?

henrybowman | June 23, 2020 at 4:42 pm

“because there is NO WAY IN THE WORLD that young Black and Brown people would otherwise have access to these PROFESSIONAL fireworks.”

Really, because they’re so much harder to acquire than, say, automatic weapons, or opiates.

Looking at that ‘do, this creature must go through an entire roll of tinfoil for each hat.

Pretty obvious she spouts a hair-raising scheme. This use to be material for Mad Magazine.

Hannah-Jones’ Bozo wig is appropriate…because she’s a clown.