1619 Project founder Nikole Hannah-Jones sparks outrage with unearthed 2019 podcast saying communist Cuba is among the ‘least racist’ countries in the world because socialism means the ‘least inequality’

1619 Project founder Nikole Hannah-Jones has come under fire after comments she made in 2019 about Cuba being among the ‘most equal’ countries in the world because of its socialist government resurfaced online.

Hannah-Jones appeared on a podcast with Ezra Klein of Vox and The New York Times in 2019 and was asked for her thoughts on places around the world that had a ‘viable and sufficiently ambitious integration agenda’.

She replied that she thought Cuba to be among the most ‘equal’ and ‘multiracial’ country in the western hemisphere due to its socialist society.’The most equal multi-racial country in our hemisphere, it would be Cuba,’ she said.

There is still racism in Cuba.

But CRT advocates teach the racism isn’t an individual idea, it’s material and legal differences between people of different races.

You may or may not have racist ideas in your head but if you are white, since white people on average have higher incomes and savings than black people, the system is racist in your favor and you are guilty of racism.  That is the basic concept of systemic racism.

In Cuba, everyone is oppressed.

In Cuba, everyone is poor.

So individuals may be racist but systemic racism doesn’t exist because nobody has wealth or freedom (except the political class which Communists like Jones see themselves as part of).

The oppression and poverty of Communism isn’t a bug, it’s a feature that eliminates racism by grinding everyone down into the mud.


Spread the love

By J. Kb

8 thoughts on “CRT advocate makes it clear, the mass poverty under Communism is not a bug, it’s a feature”
  1. Two points.

    Not everyone in Cuba is oppressed. Those at the top aren’t.

    Not everyone in Cuba is poor. Those at the top aren’t.

    Which is true about every communist and socialist country.

    Most everyone is oppressed by those in charge.

    Most everyone is poor in order to support those in charge.

    People in feudal societies were more free than the average subject in a communist or socialist society.

    1. The majority aren’t poor to support the upper crust. They’re poor so the upper crust have power over them.

  2. Free people are never equal, and equal people are never free. A truly equal society is a slave society, where everyone is equally miserable…except for the few slave masters of course.

  3. Wonder how hard I’d have to work, or how many brain cells I’d have to have removed to become as stupid as Nikole Hannah-Jones and be able to fail upward to the good life.

  4. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. — Winston Churchill [emphasis added]

    It’s always fascinating to me — in a monkeys-with-machine-guns kind of way — that the people who push socialism and communism are so over-the-top obsessed with “equity” that they’d rather see everyone equal at zero income than have some people making thousands while others make millions.

    I mean, sure, thousands is not as nice as millions, but is not thousands better than zero?

    And is it not better that someone making thousands in a capitalist society could work harder, learn better, and invest more (of him/her self and his/her income) to turn that into more, perhaps even millions?

    None of that happens under socialism/communism; it’s not allowed, and is actively suppressed and punished. The option, the choice, to do better is eliminated in favor of equal poverty — equal misery — for all.

    (And just saying: Every one of those socialism-supporters consider themselves “pro-choice”. *smh*)

    1. Well, they only mean “pro-choice” in the sense of permitting abortion without limit. They don’t mean you should be free to make your own choices about politics, morals, economics, or even basic day-to-day decisions.

      1. Oh, I know. I intended to illustrate the vague and deceitful term “pro-choice” when they oppose most of the choices we take for granted.

        Similarly, they claim to be “pro-equity” as they support an economic system that guarantees the vast majority are equally miserable while also ensuring a fortunate few are fabulously wealthy and connected. (They believe they’ll be among that fortunate few. The reality is, they likely won’t. They’ll be “disappeared” as soon as they’re no longer useful to the real fortunate few.)

        In both cases, they are not what they claim to be — pretty much the exact opposite — but hide behind an benevolent-sounding term that also means something other than what it says.

        Reading through my comment again, I didn’t make that illustration clear. 🙂

Login or register to comment.