Skip to content
Breaking News Alert Ethan Hawke Warns Not To 'Throw Away' Geniuses Like Flannery O'Connor

Pulitzer Prize-Winning New York Times Writer: ‘Destroying Property Isn’t Violence’

New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Nikole Hannah-Jones attempted to justify terrorizing American cities by saying “property can be replaced.”


New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Nikole Hannah-Jones attempted to justify the ruthless rioting terrorizing American cities Tuesday by claiming simply, “property can be replaced.”

“Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man’s neck until all of the life is leached out of his body,” Hannah-Jones said on CBS News. “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.”

“To use the exact same language to describe those two things I think really, it’s not moral to do that. So yes, I think any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other peoples’ property but these are not reasonable times,” Hannah-Jones added.

Meanwhile, CBS’ Vladimir Duthiers offered no pushback and even applauded her deranged analysis.

“It’s a great point that you make, Nikole,” Duthiers said.

Just a month ago, Hannah-Jones was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for an essay she wrote to lead the New York Times’ anti-American 1619 Project which the Times itself admitted was historically inaccurate.

At the end of the piece, the Times pinned the article with a note that reads, “A passage has been adjusted to make clear that a desire to protect slavery was among the motivations of some of the colonists who fought the Revolutionary War, not among the motivations of all of them.”

The note also links to a broader 500-word “update” to the project included seven months after publication, during which the legacy paper pushed the collection of essays to be included in classroom curriculums. This update from the Times Magazine editor-in-chief Jake Silverstein concedes, “We recognize that our original language could be read to suggest that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for all of the colonists. The passage has been changed to make clear that this was a primary motivation for some of the colonists.”

While the two-word error might seem small, it is in fact significant given the Times’ aggressive mission to implement the papers in American classrooms to pin the nation’s origins on the practice of slavery which has been extinct in this country for more than 150 years. The project has since become emblematic of a broader Left-wing movement to paint the United States as an irredeemable breeding ground of white supremacy contributing to the rise of angry mobs terrorizing the very country that has in reality has stood as a beacon of individual liberty and inalienable rights.

Watch this short documentary debunking the historical fallacies of the 1619 Project here.