Dr. Umar Jackson is on but not always. Here’s an example – and he has others - where changing the actual facts to serve a narrative – is not good. When the “Stonewall Riots” happened, it was a blip and did not shift the nation’s attention from Black Rights to Gay Rights, no way. He’s factually wrong. That is more what’s happening now. A case can be made for that – now – but not then. Got to stay with the facts or the logic of his narrative loses strength. When making assertions about what other supposedly murderous people may have decided in private, such statements need to be backed by something solid. When he says – and it could well be true – or maybe not that . . the Hoover Gang decided to eliminate both Fred Hampton and George Jackson, despite the latter’s incarceration, thereby effectively cutting the head off of one of the most revolutionary potential leadership contingencies since the loss of King and X . . . how does he know that this is so?? What is the exact basis of his knowledge since he spouts supposed facts all the time? If he knows, we want to know more details too. We want the substance. When you shoot your guns, the bullets have to be real. If we don’t hold our spokespeople accountable, then the narrative becomes more subjective. What I’m saying is that we can create circumstantial, evidence based on the facts we find, not the other way around. If we’re already freaked out – and who is not - we can let facts slide. I want to trust that authorities like Umar J can be trusted not to revise history. That’s weak. He mixes in points I can easily agree with but the rest is soft on actual facts. IMHO, of course!