Thought-provoking Thursdays 8/17/25

Jesse’s Thought-provoking Thursdays guest on the “Let’s Talk About It” monthly series John Lesiotis offered the thought of the week when he said of redistricting; “Politicians are picking who they want to represent, versus ‘the people’ choosing who they want to represent them.” In the second hour, The World House” weekly guest host Dr. Johnny Mack and “Jesse Jack” waded in the deep water - dipping into the different aspects of violence that are perpetrated on people who usually can’t fight back: physical, systemic, and structural. The results are devastating when people have fallen asleep or gotten too comfortable. If Dr. King were here, he might admonish us, and direct us to “community” where we again, love and do for ourselves. Heavy weight conversation.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Jesse Jackson Junior. Welcome forward to the Jesse Jackson Junior
Show front the La Folk fifteen eighty. It's thought provoking
Thursdays on the Jesse Jackson Junior Show, gaining knowledge week
to week, generation to generation. In our first hour, our
very special guest is John Lesiotis, who is a veteran

(00:20):
of media as a sales and marketing executive with over
twenty five years observing behaviors that drive public action and reaction.
John is a former candidate for public office and comes
to the Jesse Jackson Junior Show as a political activist
an analyst with keen insight and advice. John, Welcome forward
to the Jesse Jackson Junior Show.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
And how are you terrific? Jesse terrific, and thank you
so much for having me. How are you doing today?

Speaker 1 (00:46):
I am particularly grateful that you're here today. I'm doing great.

Speaker 2 (00:48):
Thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
There is a lot going on in the world. I
think probably because of your keen insight on so many
different subjects, I should start with what probably is the
political center of the world, and that is the great Diversion. Yes,
open in the District of Columbia. Both now with the
very quickly organized summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin

(01:13):
in Alaska to distract us from the Epstein files.

Speaker 2 (01:20):
John without without question, Jesse, you hit the nail right
on the head coming out of the chute. And the
good thing I think is a lot of people understand that.
Right now you're hearing a lot of people across different
forms of media for the first time come out and
say that this is a smoke screen, especially the DC

(01:42):
putting the National Guard out and then taking over the
DC police force. I think that serves two purposes. Number
one is the major distraction, so the media stops talking
about Epstein. I mean, he's begged the media to stop
talking about Epstein, so he has to do something. And
I think the second thing that this accomplishes for Trump

(02:03):
is it sets more precedent for him being able to
call out the National Guard in for bogus reasons, but
allow him to do it anyway. And you noticed he's
starting in Los Angeles, DC. I wouldn't be surprised if
he doesn't come to our city of Chicago at some
point in to New York. So I think that's twofold.

(02:26):
Number one is to distract from Epstein and number two
is to send a chilling message.

Speaker 1 (02:31):
And I want to add I want to add the
third if I might. He started in Los Angeles, which
is where we are right now, and he's now in Washington, DC.
You're suggesting he may be coming to Chicago and New
York and other cities. And the one thing that all

(02:51):
of these geographical locations have in common is an African
American mayor or cities run by African Americans. And so
it seems that part of his distraction is always, inevitably
the question of race.

Speaker 2 (03:08):
He's been playing the race card long before he became president.
I was in the eighties or the Central Park five.
He showed who he was to the public at that point,
and then when he started running for president in twenty fifteen,
when he came down the Golden Escalator and started demeaning Hispanics,

(03:31):
he's shown who he was. When the KKK had the
riots in Charlottesville, he again showed who he was. So
he keeps.

Speaker 1 (03:39):
Showing us find people on both sides.

Speaker 2 (03:42):
Find people on both sides. He commented on that. So
when he got into office the second time, he's much
more emboldened and empowered. And you notice one of the
first things he did is he fired a gentleman I
think his name was Charles H. Brown, who was the

(04:02):
first African American joint chiefs of Staff. He fired him
right away. He also fired Tyler Hayden, who was the
first black and female for the Library of Congress. So
he was sending out a message right away to his
followers that all of these people were only put in
their positions because of the color of their skin, and

(04:24):
they were DEI hires, you know. Along with that, he
got rid of DEI and he punished companies that were
still adhering to DEI. So he sent a strong message
to his base about his racist intentions.

Speaker 1 (04:39):
I am I am very appreciative, first of all, of
your clarity on exactly what the president is doing. He
is won distracting us from the Epstein files. I can
only imagine, and I think we just have about one
minute before we come forward, that whatever it is that
has him running from the Epstein files has to be
so devast dating John that he is literally prepared to

(05:04):
reshape the very planet itself.

Speaker 2 (05:06):
Yeah, there is so much intrigue in those files. The
names that we know right that have been bandied about
obviously Clinton. The first thing Trump did is mention that
Clinton was in the file twenty eight times. Tried to
divert attention away from that. But you've got a lot
of movers and shakers. I think Bill Richardson, who was

(05:30):
a Secretary of State under Clinton was in the files,
who since deceased, an ex Prime Minister of Israel allegedly
was over there. A lot of rich, powerful men from
around the country. And one of the connections I haven't
heard yet Jesse is Julane Maxwell. Her father was Robert Maxwell,

(05:52):
who was over in England, and he was a contemporary
of Rupert Murdoch and he owned some newspapers and then
he also held office in the British Parliament. After he
died mysterious death, there was a lot of questions about
him working for John government.

Speaker 1 (06:08):
So John, I'm Jesse Jackson, Junie. This is KBLA Talk
fifteen eighty. Our very special guest in this hour is
John Lesiotis. When we come forward on KBLA Talk fifteen eighty,
we're with John Lesiotis. Let's talk about it.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
Jackson.

Speaker 1 (06:21):
Your show on KBLA Talk fifteen eighty. It's thought provoking
Thursdays Gaining knowledge, week to week, from generation to generation.
Our very special guest in this hour is John lesiotis
a veteran of media and sales and marketing with over
twenty five years observing behaviors that drive public action and reaction.
John is a former candidate for public office and comes

(06:43):
to the Jesse Jackson Junior Show as a political activist
and analyst with Keen Insight and Advise. John, welcome forward
to the show once again.

Speaker 2 (06:50):
Thank you so much, Jesse.

Speaker 1 (06:51):
Thanks John. Just before the break, you were talking about
Bob Maxwell. Bob from in England, also also a member
of the MUSSA, also a counterintelligence officer for the Israeli government.
Bob Bob, Bob was quite a character on the scene,
also a publisher and he had the power. I hope

(07:14):
everyone is paying attention to something here and then I want,
obviously John to comment on it. Blackmail is a very
dark world. When you get a story or information on
someone and you can publish it in the inquirer, or

(07:34):
you can hold a story with the threat of publishing
it until you do what I tell you to do,
or I've got something on you on your family, so
I expect you to behave a certain way. It is
a very very nasty crime. And so many in the

(07:55):
publishing world function off of the information, the pictures, the
salacious details, the stories that they've been able to uncover
about people's lives that in the world of blackmail, even
the powerful become very very weak. So we are talking
ladies and gentlemen when we talk about the Epstein files,

(08:19):
not just was Donald Trump with certain individuals or what
the relationships are between certain individuals and other young individuals.
We're talking about the capacity to blackmail very very powerful
people and extract things from them that benefit other very

(08:39):
very powerful people. Mister lesiotis.

Speaker 2 (08:43):
Well, to your point, we saw, was it David Pecker
from the National Inquirer kills stories about Donald Trump before
the election? So to your point, publishers have an incredible
amount of power. They have these stories and they can
choose whether to release them or to kill them. I
think what they call it catch and kill stories or
whatever they call them. So they have an incredible amount

(09:07):
of power on what just gets published to begin with
and what doesn't get published. Getting back to Maxwell, there's
rumors out there there he is even a triple agent
working for Russia, Israel and even the British intelligence. His
daughter Zayner Julane has always maintained that he was killed
and didn't fall off as yat in nineteen ninety one,

(09:28):
so there's always been that speculation as well. And the
other point is, I don't think the Royal family wants
much more dirty news to come out about Prince Andrew.
I think right now the Royal family's teetering with a
lot of stuff going on with health issues over there.
So I think probably the pr Department's working overtime right
now to make sure that doesn't come out and Prince

(09:50):
Andrews no longer dragged through the mud.

Speaker 1 (09:53):
So people, yeah, there's some pretty powerful people, and you know,
speaking of blackmail and speaking of powerful people and speaking
about the art of blackmail. When you think about the
way the Senate and the Congress of the United States,
ideally under the Founder's framework and structure, is a separate,

(10:16):
completely co equal branch of government from the courts and
from the executive branch, you just almost have to believe
that the amazing silence from the Republican majority may be
tied to a massive amount of information that Donald Trump
has collected on everybody, and he holds things over their head.

Speaker 2 (10:38):
Well, I think a lot of them like their jobs,
like the benefits, like the insurance, like the lifetime medical,
like all the perks go along with it. And anyone
that's crossed Donald Trump has been primaried and beaten or
just chosen not to run. He's got such a stronghold
on the party, they're all afraid to run from them.

(11:00):
I do think it's interesting though, that Russia hacked the
Democratic Committee and the Republican Committee emails and only released
the Democratic Committee emails.

Speaker 1 (11:11):
Wow, that's right. That did almost escape my thinking there.

Speaker 2 (11:15):
And there was one point I forgot what year it was, Jesse,
but on July fourth a bunch of Republican senators and
a couple of Congress people were called over to Moscow
and had a meeting on July fourth, and it was
only Republicans, and there were the two Republicans, at least
two or three Republican senators and a bunch of congress people,

(11:38):
and you had the Russians Lavranov and Kizleyak, the two
Russians that met with Trump in the White House. They
ran the meeting. And there was a lot of speculation
at that time that they were telling the Republicans they
had a lot of dirt on them and that they
were going to release them unless they played along. Because
nothing was ever released on the Republicans, but as you know,
a lot of stuff started trickling out about the Democrats, Podesta, Hillary,

(12:01):
stuff like that. So blackmail is it's it's real.

Speaker 1 (12:04):
It's a very very dark art and it's got to
be something that when the Framers put the country together,
they could not have imagined that almost every level of
government itself can be corrupt. When we look, for example,
at how the issue of the gifts that were given
to members of the Supreme Court, the Clarence Thomas travel

(12:27):
records and the expensive vacations in Europe.

Speaker 2 (12:32):
College tuition for his nephew, just.

Speaker 1 (12:36):
On and on and on, and it appears that the
stories have gone away. We've not heard much about, you know,
what's happening with the Roberts Court with respect to their
ethics and whether or not, you know, Supreme Court justices
can be removed for cause we've heard none of that.
The stories that the publishers have have just gone away.

Speaker 2 (13:01):
You know, as a side note to the Supreme Court
corruption chief Justice not Chief Justice, but Justice Kagan turned
down two dozen bagels from a Jewish group that was
visiting Washington, d c. And this was right in when
she started her term on the Supreme Court, and she
turned down the two dozen bagels because she didn't want

(13:24):
any type of impropriety in anyone to raise any questions
about it. And she actually turned him down. So you
can see the double standard that the two different sides
are playing on.

Speaker 1 (13:35):
What I can also see is, you know, some parts
of it are actually absurd. Yeah, turned down a dunkin
donut because you're afraid of a conflict ofntion, conflict of
interest and whether or not Duncan was actually going to
before the Supreme Court. But I'm just to give you
example of bagels. John Wittles, is going on in the
world that that particularly interests you right now?

Speaker 2 (13:57):
Well, I think the redistricting is something that if you're
not paying attention to it, we have to all pay
attention to them because it's going to affect all of
us at some point. I mean, it's as you can see,
it's just not Texas trying to get five more seats
for Donald because he knows there's a great potential for

(14:18):
a blood bath. In the midterm elections, and they've done
all their numbers, They've counted up all their votes, they
know where all the uh all the voters are at,
so they know the only way they can win again
is to change the rules in the midterms. So they're
going to redistrict and unfortunately, if they are successful, not

(14:39):
only is democracy going to be weakened even further if
we even have one, but the African American voice is
going to be weakened even more because they're they're stripping
away more and more African American voices and jerrymandering it out.
And I should point out that Illinois has has been very,
very guilty of the same sins the Texas and other

(15:03):
states have been guilty of, you know, jurymandering, and we've
done it for the Democratic side and all the other
states have done on the republic side. So we need
to we need to be fair and understand the jury
mandering should be done something on a national basis, on
a nonpartisan basis, and it should be tied to the census,
you know, when the new population numbers come in every

(15:24):
ten years. So you know, it's something that's very serious
and people really have to take notice of.

Speaker 1 (15:30):
This is something that we've talked about for the last
week and have taken very seriously on our show, and
that is that behind the African American, the Hispanic and
other colored people, if you will, in the Congress of
the United States are there the people they represent. I mean,
these districts are made up of different races, different walks

(15:53):
of life. And the Voting Rights Act of nineteen sixty
five specifically allowed states who have protactice who practiced historical
discrimination against people of color to draw lines in the
discinial year in a plan, a state plan that gives
African Americans and others, Hispanics and others an equal opportunity

(16:17):
of getting elected, that is, a majority of them can
come together in a voting booth where people have one
vote per person and make a judgment about who they
want to represent them in a legislative body, both at
the federal level and at the state level. But when
you think about the desegregation of state legislatures and the
desegregation of the Congress of the United States, the Voting

(16:40):
Rights Act itself is largely responsible and must be seen
as a tool coming out of the very segregated period
that was first reconstruction, and obviously Jim Crow the Voting
Rights Act of nineteen sixty five desegregated state and federal
legislatures around the country. When you begin redrawing these lines

(17:02):
and moving African Americans who live on one side of
the street with a line drawn by a legislature, and
moving half of that population on the other side of
the street, and on one side of the street you're represented,
let's say by Donald Trump, and on the other side
of the street, you're represented by Joe Biden. That seems

(17:23):
like democratic and Republican lines, But when you run that
same line right down the middle of an African American community,
you could very well have a conservative, Maga Republican literally
representing a congressional district on the other side of an
African American progressive in the Congress of the United States.
So you are right, These line control the voices and

(17:48):
the freedom that those voices have when they enter these legislatures.

Speaker 2 (17:54):
One percent comes down to, right now, the politicians are
picking their voter instead of the voters picking their politicians,
and that, along with voter suppression, pretty much is the
game plan.

Speaker 1 (18:08):
Now, that's about as insightful as it gets, right, there.
Now the politicians are picking their voters because of how
they draw the lines, as opposed to the voters picking
their politicians. Wow, that's exactly what it is. And I
have to say that one more time. It comes down

(18:31):
to voters no longer being able to pick who represents them.
It's politicians who can. I don't want that block in
my district, correct, because I never win any votes over there,
So get them out of here. I only want people
in the district who represent me or think like I do.

Speaker 2 (18:51):
Yep, that's exactly what's happening.

Speaker 1 (18:54):
It doesn't get any clearer than that. And that's what's
happening in California, prompted of course by the Governor of
Texas and his mid decinial desires along with Donald Trump
to change the lines to protect a Republican majority for
Donald Trump. And now the Democrats are in on the game,

(19:14):
doing it or threatening to do it, and likely to
do it in the state of California. The governor of
Illinois has now gotten in the game and said that
he's interested in doing it, and Jade Vance just left
Indiana trying to convince the Indiana governor and the Indiana

(19:35):
legislature to draw their state in such a way as
to give them a stronger majority in the Congress of
the United States. Again, John Laciotas has hit it right
on the head. The politicians are picking their voters. The
voters are no longer selecting who represents them in the

(19:55):
Congress of the United States and in state legislatures. John,
we have about a minute and a half before we
come forward additional thoughts on the subject.

Speaker 2 (20:03):
Well, I think that that's the first part of the strategy,
and the second partner is voter suppression. I think there
was over three to four million Democratic voters that were
taken off the voter rolls from the two thousand and
twenty election to the twenty twenty four election. There's been
a couple books. A guy by the name of I

(20:24):
think Robert pallaced pa Last has written some books about it.
He's even got a film about the way that the
Republicans have basically gone into heavy Democratic states and looked
at minority sounding names and Martinez or Rodriguez and anyone
that might have that last surname that has a criminal

(20:44):
record in one state was kicked off voter roles in
other states. And if you didn't challenge it, and there
was an estimate that three to four million Democratic voters
were kicked off the voter rolls last time. So it's
suppression in the politicians picking their voters's that's kind of
the one two punch we're dealing with.

Speaker 1 (21:03):
I'm Jesse Jackson Jr. You're listening to John Lesiotis on
the Jesse Jackson Junior Show. It is let's talk about
it Thursdays and thought provoking Thursdays on KBLA Talk fifteen eight.
I'm Jesse Jackson Junior. More when we come forward, I'm
Jesse Jackson Jr. Welcome forward to the Jesse Jackson Junior Show.
Let's talk about it on Thursdays. John Lesiotis, John, Welcome

(21:26):
forward to the Jesse Jackson Junior Show. John. Let me
ask you a question. There seems to be general distrust
amongst Democrats of their basic leadership. They haven't been able
to break beyond twenty six percent, and how the voters

(21:46):
themselves feel about the leadership of the Democratic Party at
this hour. Is there anything that this party can do
to reclaim the mantle of the resistance.

Speaker 2 (21:56):
Oh, definitely, there's stuff they can do, are willing to
do it. I don't see any indication that you're willing
to make those choices. I think their biggest issue with
trust right now is most people see the leadership is
out of touch with the voters. They see Schumer and

(22:18):
Hakeem Jefferies is kind of corporate cheerleaders, if you will,
and I just don't think that they trust them. So
I don't I think the there are things they can do,
but it's going to take bold measures. And number one,
they have to get younger. They have to get young
faces they can talk about today's issues and resonate with

(22:42):
today's voters. Because I just especially young voters and young
voters of color, whether it's Hispanic or African American, people
that would naturally gravitate towards the Democratic Party are drifting
away because they don't feel the party has anything to
offer them anymore. And you know, we could talk talk
about NAFTA, we could talk about letting China into the

(23:04):
World Trade Organization. There's a lot of different issues out there,
but I know that a lot of men specifically feel
like the party has left them. So unless the party
is willing to come up with a different message, and
I think more importantly, different messengers, then they're going to
stay in the twenties with approval.

Speaker 1 (23:28):
I'm a little bit struck in that. It just seems
to me that how do Democrats formulate a message that
reaches out to those voters. I don't know what else
Democrats have to offer, certainly not a legislative agenda. I mean,

(23:50):
they're in the minority. They are in the minority in
both houses. Their candidates are struggling, Their leading candidates are
struggling to draw districts in their states to protect them
democratic majorities. They're putting up a fairly decent fight, maybe
the most serious fight we've seen since Trump's election. But
what is the substantive message that addresses inflation, that addresses

(24:13):
the issues that matter to the American people? Where's that leadership?

Speaker 2 (24:16):
The Democrats have been reluctant to talk about the tough
issues out there, Jesse, They haven't. One of the biggest
Democratic donors this last cycle was Reid Hoffman from Netflix,
and he was on I believe, the advisory board with

(24:37):
Kamala Harris, and he only agreed to keep giving her
money if she would agree to fire the head of
the Federal Trade Commission, Khan kha and I believe it
was her name who was holding up all of these
mergers and doing a real good job. And Reid Hoffman,

(25:01):
who's a Democrat, didn't want her in the job because
he wants to have more mergers for Netflix. So I
think when Democratic voters see that type of message, they're like, well,
they're not fighting for me anymore. You know, they're not
fighting for lower grocery prices at the store anymore. They're
not fighting for lower health care costs. So and when

(25:23):
we do the Democrats do fight for those things like Obamacare,
they don't advertise it enough. They don't take enough credit,
they don't pat themselves on the back and let people know, hey,
we gave this to you. We mentioned it before. When
FEMA hands out checks to people in Florida and in
Mississippi after a hurricane, and it's a Democratic president, we

(25:46):
have to let them know that this is the national
the federal government that's giving you this check. And I
just don't think the Democrats are good enough selling their story.
And I think a lot of us because the age
is just again getting back to the schumers, the Durbans,
those people have been in the office for so long
and it's not even the fact that they've been in
office that long. Their message hasn't changed. I don't think

(26:09):
they've kept up with the times. You know, a guy
like Bernie Sanders has been in forever, but I think
he's much more vibrant and alert and current with his message,
and I don't think his contemporaries are.

Speaker 1 (26:25):
I'm wondering if the party is making a mistake by
looking for a savior absolutely as opposed to looking to
not only a new generation, but a more thoughtful, determined
generation whose interests are wedded to democracy in ways that

(26:45):
the president democratic interests may overlap, but are not wedded
to the idea of democratic reform.

Speaker 2 (26:54):
Well, I think that's really spot on observ about I
think a lot of us are not us me specifically,
but collectively looking for a savior. You know, we've kind
of got that mentality right. We're waiting for somebody to
come riding in the cowboy and the white horse to
save us. It was John F. Kennedy right in the sixties,

(27:18):
and then Clinton gave us, you know, some optimism, and
he was hip, and he was young, and he played
the sacks on our Senio Hall. Then Obama gave us
some hope, and even Reagan to some points gave us hope.
I think, you know, with the beacon on the light
on the shining hill or whatever is saying was so

(27:40):
you do see it out there. But right now, compare
that or contrast at with Trump. You know, everything's hell
hold a dystopia. Washington, as you know, crime ridden, even
though the crime rates are down twenty or thirty percent.
Los Angeles was burning down and it wasn't. So it's
just it's amazing how he's able to convince people that's

(28:03):
something that's totally not true is true.

Speaker 1 (28:06):
If so, let me remove Donald Trump from the equation
for a moment and just ask the hard question. Trump
is not responsible for the current right wing infrastructure that
puts people on the courts, that has candidate after candidate
running for office at every level in this country. If
there's a if there is a Heritage Foundation, maybe we

(28:28):
have the Brennan Center, right, but there is no infrastructure
in the country that even comes close to what they've
been doing for the last fifty years. That challenges, if
you will, the mythology of the savior complex in the
Democratic Party.

Speaker 2 (28:49):
Not only the Heritage Foundation, but then their anciety the
Federalist Society as well, and you see the Federalists Society
basically picks the Federal Court, and then all six Republican
justices were picked by the Federal Society. Antonin Scalia, you

(29:11):
know who was on the court before it was passed away.
He was a member of the Federalist Society. So it's
pretty much prerequisite from the right wing viewpoint that you
have to be a member of the Federalist Society and
believe in all of those viewpoints in order to get
on the bench. And I think nine Supreme Court justices
and we have six Catholics on it right now who

(29:35):
are pretty much pushing a right wing theological viewpoint of
how our society should be run. So you know a
lot of questions about that as well. It certainly doesn't
reflect the makeup in America to me. I mean to me,
I always thought that our elected politicians should reflect us,
our judges should reflect us people that have our shared

(29:59):
experiences life. And it seems like right now that's we're
not being represented that way in elected office or at
the court level.

Speaker 1 (30:08):
I am well, I share that, I share that, but
it seems like on the legal side, that Harvard University
lawyers have been responsible for the liberal wing of the courts,
that they seem to get a different preference in the
selection process for liberals. And I don't separate that at

(30:29):
all from Donald Trump's attack on Harvard University. Now, mind you,
maybe it's happened, but I haven't seen it. He hasn't
attacked Yale. No, No, he has not attacked Yale, but
he has attacked Harvard. So ideologically, Yale graduates tend to
end up in the federalist society and Harvard graduates maybe
at the maybe at the Brenaan Center.

Speaker 2 (30:52):
Maybe there's no. I don't think there's too many coincidences
and and and and how he's picking his targets for retribution.
I mean, he's targeted, you know, whether it's the Democratic cities,
whether it's the law firms, whether it's the Cotley Universities,
anybody that he've used as an enemy, he's gone after

(31:13):
and he's trying to silence them, and for the most parts,
most of them are back down.

Speaker 1 (31:19):
I'm Jesse Jackson Jr. This is let's talk about it
on Thursdays Second Thursdays with John Lesiotis on KBLA Talk
fifteen to eighty when we come forward more with John
Leciotisfew Jackson Junior. Welcome forward to the Jesse Jackson Junior
Show on KBLA Talk fifteen eighty. Our very special guest
in this hour is none other than John Lesiotis. John
is a veteran of media and as a sales marketing executive,

(31:43):
he has over twenty five years of service observing the
behaviors that drive public action and reaction. John looking forward
to the Jesse Jackson Junior Show.

Speaker 2 (31:52):
Thank you so much, Jesse, Thank you so One of.

Speaker 1 (31:55):
Newton's laws has something to do with every action in
the universe having an equal and opposite reaction. I don't
feel the energy right now for Democrats. One might argue
that the protesters on the streets have been discouraged from

(32:17):
protesting because it seems like Donald Trump is prepared to
pull the trigger with the National Guard for basic First
Amendment activity. Another part of it feels like any opposition
to the Emperor is now underground. It's on podcasting, it's

(32:37):
on radio. It's wherever we can speak our voices and
not be criticized or arrested for speaking up. Help me understand,
if you will, John, for me, increasingly, hope is becoming
a cynical scheme in and of itself. When people start
talking about hope, it just doesn't necessarily resonate as a

(33:01):
possibility in the present arrangement.

Speaker 2 (33:06):
I couldn't agree more with you. I think that's what
a lot of people are feeling the same way you're
feeling about it. Because we put our hope on our politicians,
We look for our saviors, as you mentioned earlier in
the show, and I think in many cases liberals, progressives

(33:29):
like myself felt that was Obama. He sold us on
hope and change and how things were going to change,
and instead we got hit after Obama with the white
resentment and with Trump. So I think a lot of
people have become discouraged because of that. They thought that
the country was moving in the right direction, and now

(33:49):
we've seemingly moved back decades, you know, the women losing
the right with Row versus Wade, with marriage equality being
on the chopping block very shortly. So I understand that
a lot of people feel that having optimism as hope

(34:10):
is a fool's game at this time. But I certainly
don't think that young John Lewis felt that way fifty
years ago, or a young Martin Luther King felt that way,
knowing the odds were against him. To your point about
the protest, the big protest, the initial one I knew
through a really good crowd, and then after that there

(34:32):
wasn't a lot of action. There's been smaller protests, but
they seem to be petering out, and I myself am
trying to figure out why that is. And one possibility
just might be the lack of the labor forces being
able to participate unions. Union participations in the past could
organize strikes and could organize boycotts and stuff like that,

(34:56):
and could be effective. And I see that in Israel
some of the anti war Israelis are starting to do
a labor boycott to try to get the government to
change in their opinion in their their activities over in Gaza.
So I thought maybe that was part of the reason
that we don't have the urgency and the energy that

(35:18):
it would seem that this moment would call for, right.

Speaker 1 (35:22):
I would think, But I sense that the crackdown, let's
just call it what it is, it's a crackdown here
in the United States, and no one wants the crackdown
to come their way. So we saw initially the crackdown
the weaponization of the Justice Department in New York. The
mayor of New York, Mayor attict Eric Adams, is not

(35:43):
singing the way he used to saying. He just sounds
different rights. He's a different mayor than the man who ran,
you know, with the energy and strength of a full blooded,
free American citizen. Now he's dangled out there by the
Justice Department. Then, on the other hand, speaking of blackmail,

(36:04):
right right, right, then if you look at you know,
we had city council persons on the program from Washington,
d C. And you know they're standing by their mayor.
I'm certainly standing by Mayor Bowser, inc. But you can
also tell that she's in this precarious position where she
has to kind of work with the guy because he

(36:30):
doesn't want she doesn't want him to dismiss the council
and lock her up and just seize control of every
government function in the district of Columbia. So it's kind
of odd in that even her voice has changed, and
those of us are on the outside are trying to
share with people. That does not mean that she does

(36:51):
not have courage. That does not mean that she is
not who she is. It just means that the dynamic
of the federal of being a federal enclave and having
your budget before the Congress and having to have it
essentially signed by the President of the United States, that
the levers and the strings that he gets to pull
in the district of Columbia are just that deep, and

(37:12):
we have to understand her position.

Speaker 3 (37:14):
But then we have other voices like the mayor of
the City of Chicago who's raising hell every day, and
I mean, he's got the freedom to raise l with
Donald Trump because he's not tied to a criminal prosecution
in New York or a federal ennglavement in Washington, DC.

Speaker 2 (37:31):
Now, the pair of Washington has to do what she
has to do. She has to be very pragmatic. She
understands she's dealing with the chaotic president who has a
very short attention span, and if she can just appease
him and not rile him up in any way, that
he may just go away and ignore her and move

(37:52):
on to the next problem.

Speaker 1 (37:54):
I just want to add that our Mayor karens has
also stood up to Donald Trump, but she's done it
in a very very effective way. Angelus have stood up
to Donald Trump in an effective way. And I think
that the Marines and the National Guard. I mean, increasingly
we're hearing stories of people saying, Hey, we're just tired,

(38:16):
can we go home? Why are we here? We're not
with our families.

Speaker 2 (38:19):
I mean.

Speaker 1 (38:22):
And it's not like the like the National Guard or
American soldiers want to pull heavy warped type weapons on
the American people. So there's this, you know. I was
on the show one day, John, and I said, you know,
why don't you all just take the National Guard some donuts?
I mean, they're your cousins or your nephews. There are
people who live right next door to you. Yes, they
are big and bad in uniform, but the fact of

(38:44):
the matter is he can only control them to a
point because when they take off their uniform, they have
to go back to work.

Speaker 2 (38:51):
That's right. These are all part time jobs.

Speaker 1 (38:54):
For him, That's right. So it's strange times, John.

Speaker 2 (39:00):
Very strange times. But we have to keep motivated, and
we have to keep participating and trying to encourage others,
especially our young to participate, because they're really our future,
and we've got to make sure that they're registered to vote,
that they're still on the voter rolls, that they are

(39:20):
actively engaging other young people to go and vote with them,
not only friends but family members, that they may never
think we're politically active. And they also need to run
for office, a local office, whether it's a school board
or a local library, to get involved and see the
power of participating in this and I think that a

(39:43):
lot of those actions can help people.

Speaker 1 (39:47):
You're listening to the Jesse Jackson Junior Show on KBLA
Talk fifteen eighty. I'm Jesse Jackson Junior. Are A very
special guest in this hour has been none other than
John leciotis one of the nation's top advertising executives. And John,
I am so grateful for your keen insights.

Speaker 2 (40:04):
Thank you so much. Jesse's pleasure talking to you.

Speaker 1 (40:06):
You're always welcome on the Jesse Jackson Junior Show. When
we come forward, it's Johnny Mack on thought provoking Thursdays
on the Jesse Jackson Junior Show. Our very special guest
in this hour is the principal and managing partner of
Johnny Mack Group LC and the founding director of the
World House Project. Well traveled well traveled throughout the America's Africa, Asia,

(40:26):
Europe and the Middle East, explicating Doctor King's call to
restructure the social edifice and its triple evils of poverty, racism,
and militarism with the revolution of values that are affected
through peaceable power. Our very special guest in this hour
is Johnny Mack. Johnny, welcome forward to the Jesse Jackson
Junior Show. Hey, Jesse, good to be here always, Johnny.

(40:47):
The World House this week lost to Washington, DC as
part of its vision for building and restructuring the social edifice.
The President of the United States is presently occupying the
district of Columbia, undermining not only democracy and the basic

(41:09):
functions of that government, but ascending a signal that he
is willing to do it in Baltimore, Chicago, Oakland, California,
and other cities around the world. I'm sorry, around the country.
It just seems to me that doctor King could not
have imagined the personage of Donald Trump.

Speaker 4 (41:34):
Maybe so, Jesse, although I think he was a pretty
prescient guy, and I think that yes, he would be
he would be quite astonished. And we haven't made more
progress in the United States. In fact, the regression, you know,

(41:56):
the two steps forward, three steps back that has occurred
since his death over and over again, has put us
where we are today. And it's a real challenge. You know,
we've talked about this over the last several weeks, Jesse,
and I'm looking forward to our continuing conversation, not only

(42:18):
talking about what Trump and others are doing, but also
talking about what we can do about it.

Speaker 1 (42:30):
My concern, obviously, is the practical nature of what we
can do about living in an authoritarian era, and that
certainly isn't something that King could have contemplated. I think
he recognized the value of the American experiment. I think
he recognized that there was a certain freedom fabric that

(42:51):
covered us all at the at the moment that he
wrote and delivered some of his most prolific speeches. But
there is there are fewer and fewer speeches being delivered now,
there are fewer, fewer protests taking place. Now, the threat
of a of of our marching and nonviolent resistance provokes

(43:15):
and invokes the President to possibly invoke the Insurrection Act.
And this isn't Kennedy, this isn't Johnson, this isn't the
post Brown versus the Board of education presidents that we've
been used to. This is something fundamentally different, Johnny.

Speaker 4 (43:36):
It is fundamentally different. And you know, to your point
about what King might have anticipated the insurrection Act and
acts passed since since the World Trade tragedy, the world
has changed quite significantly, Jesse. As you know, part of

(43:57):
the problem is we're using old school twentieth century strategies
while our opponent is quite schooled in new school strategies
and has you know, out thought and and and out
prepared Jesse, out prepared us whoever us is so to

(44:25):
you know, in the your last guest, you and John
talked about the infrastructure. You mentioned the infrastructure, the infrastructures
that are in place. You mentioned the institutions and some
of the organizations, the Heritage Foundation of the Federal Society
and others, and some of the strategies of Jerahmandering and

(44:47):
and and and and the like that have prepared the
other side for where we are today. Unfortunately, we don't
have those infrastructures. Those infrastructures have I have not been
prepared and we are not well schooled on how to
prepare them. When you talk about the Democratic Party, for instance,

(45:10):
and how it's prepared itself and its constituency no wonder,
it has lost many of those who had hoped for
something better, something more responsive to the challenges and opportunities
to confront, you know, the day to day lives of
its citizens. It's a real challenge and we've got to

(45:33):
figure out what we're going to do about it.

Speaker 1 (45:38):
I'm Jesse Jackson Junior listening to the Jesse Jackson Junior Show.
This is Thoughtful Thursdays with Johnny Mack, where we discuss
the world House Doctor King's vision to restructure the social edifice,
challenging the three triple evils poverty, racism and militarism. I'm
Jesse Jackson Junior listening to the Jesse jacks and Junior

(46:00):
Show on Kambula fifteen to eighty. Talk when we come
forward more with Johnny Mac. Today's our very special guest
is none other than our regular contributor Johnny Mac. Johnny,
welcome forward to the show.

Speaker 4 (46:11):
Thank you, Jesse.

Speaker 2 (46:12):
Jenny.

Speaker 1 (46:13):
I want to say something about the spirit energy that
emanates from the highest office in the land. We see
Doctor King as this warrior for social justice, but the
truth of the matter is we needed his spirit of
love of mercy or redemption and forgiveness. In the White
House itself, he contained more spirit energy than John F.

(46:37):
Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson. In fact, his love ethic and
his non violent ethic really defines the era. Certainly, the
post Kingian period is entirely defined in terms of our
interaction with our brothers and sisters by King's ethic. One

(47:01):
could argue that it's a Christological ethic. But King's interpretation
of the scriptures, his interpretations of Gandhi have led to
our direct engagement and involvement with multicultures, multi racial groups,
multi different approaches to how we fight for social justice.

(47:21):
That's King. That's not even Malcolm, that's not Marcus Garvey,
that's not any leader in the modern era. It's doctor King. Now,
that spirit energy emanating from the White House would be
a fundamentally different spirit energy than the spirit energy we
are confronting right now as a nation, emanating from the

(47:43):
bully pulpit from the White House itself. Even Joe Biden's
spirit energy is different than this. Even Barack Obama's spirit
energy is different than this. Doctor King, I believe, quite frankly,
was in a religion to himself, his practice of the religion,

(48:04):
his practice of the ethic himself, his experiment within the
ethic itself, led to a different spirit energy. And I
don't see that spirit energy forthcoming either on the retribution
side of Democrats of Donald Trump's politics. And I'm watching
very carefully how Democrats respond to Donald Trump, which I

(48:27):
think there has to be a response, but the Democratic
version of this I don't see how it's going to
get much better.

Speaker 4 (48:36):
Yet. Jesse. So you know this notion of spirit energy,
you know, one wonders where does it come from? The
spirit energy that we have today as you as you
as you describe it is one for its time, isn't it.
In other words, what we see coming out of the

(48:56):
White House is what we see coming out of the
out of the body politic writ large, out of the
people themselves. I think at King's time, King's time was
a very different time. It was not only King's energy,
but it was the energy of the people, the spirit

(49:17):
of the people. And I think that the spirit of
the people the movement created King as much as King
contributed to the movement. And I think the movement that
we are seeing today has birth a certain spirit energy
and a certain leadership. If I am right about that,

(49:39):
then what how do we change that spirit energy? What
is it about the people that have no patience for
this notion of love and respect for one another but
hold a sense of its everyone for himself for herself.

(50:02):
If I'm right about that, I think that's the challenge
that faces us.

Speaker 1 (50:08):
It seems like it needs a kind of progenitor, some
kind of person to give it some life, some thrust.
I've seen William Barber, who I am particularly impressed with,
try to do that. I think. I think Reverend sharpened
by the way whom I wake up to in the
morning drinking green juice? Juice who am I listened to

(50:32):
on morning Joe then follow on Facebook? Who then you
know talks me at night?

Speaker 5 (50:43):
Yes, he is a serious daily presence from from from
my thoughts early in the morning, with green juice on
a treadmill, all.

Speaker 1 (50:54):
The way to the end of the evenings. It just
seems to me that the leadership itself, however, ah, I mean,
I'm I'm at a loss. I don't know how it
sustains itself. And maybe because the way in which this
thing is moving so quickly, this leadership doesn't have its

(51:18):
Montgomery moment. It doesn't have its Selma it's if you will,
it's I have a dream moment. It doesn't have its
Selma to Montgomery moment. And my producer would say, now, now,
don't forget the m Mattil moment in there. Don't forget

(51:39):
the Jimmy Lee Jackson moment in there. Don't forget the
almost lynching James Orange moment in there. So it's not
just movement. There are real threats. Don't forget the Viola
Luitzo moment in there, don't forget the James Reeve moment
in there. I mean the tension itself led to the
death of many major heroes, and Doctor King in that

(52:06):
context is still pushing us through. And I don't know
if it's if it's the deaths that are missing that
shape the time, that shape the framework. I don't know
how much better it can how much worse it can get.
We have people in cages being shipped out of the
country without due process. We have cities under occupation. We

(52:26):
have we have the United States Agency for International Development
USAID closing. We have the ransacking of the US Department
of Education. I just don't know how much more the
system itself can take and we are still within the
first year.

Speaker 4 (52:44):
Four Yeah, you know, Jesse, this is indeed a crisis moment.
You know, King King famously famously said we had some
difficult days ahead. What an understatement, right, But Jesse, you
know we have had our moments. We do have our moments.

(53:06):
We had our Sandra Bland moment, our Travon Martin moment,
our George Floyd moment, and and they served a certain purpose.
How did we respond to them and what did we
do after them? You know, we do have our moments.
I think, Jesse, again, one of the things that's missing today,
and there are reasons for this that we had yesterday,

(53:33):
there's a certain sense of solidarity, and I think we've
lost that sense of solidarity in many ways, not only
here in the States but globally. The question is, if
I'm right, what do we do about that? How can
we regain that sense of collectiveness, of oneness, of we're

(53:55):
all in this together. Of Indeed, Jesse, the World House
we used in the mid twentieth century the technologies to
build that solidarity, whether it was the three local networks
for example, AC, CBS and NBC, where it was a

(54:17):
three major magazine time look in US I believe it
was US News and World Report or something like that.
You know, we had those tools of communication then that
focused our attention on those moments, of those killings, of
those events in time of how we using technologies today

(54:40):
in ways that focus our attention. They tend to disperse
our attention, not aggregate them, unless, of course, unless, of course,
you're you're a pop singer who releases her third album.

Speaker 1 (54:59):
Absolutely rue with that. It seems that the distracting leadership,
the SoundBite leadership that emanates from the top, is actually
made for the technology that has presented itself at this
hour now. During this turbulent period in the late fifties
and the nineteen sixties, what did we have ABC, NBC, CBS,

(55:23):
rabbit ear television sets? That's right, So what do we
have Walter?

Speaker 4 (55:29):
Who do we have?

Speaker 1 (55:30):
Walter Kronkite, Who did we have? We had Roger and
David Brinkley, Yes, yeah, Mike Wallas, Mike Wallace. Right. So
the clarity and the interpretation, while it wasn't always right,

(55:52):
it was it vibrated in a way with the spirit
energy of the time that rosa Parks story could be
carried the death of em Attil still haunts mothers in

(56:12):
our society today when they tell their sons to come
home and be home on time, and don't be in
the streets and come home when the street lights come on.
It haunts them to this day. But the way in
which this device in our hands is functioning. I could
tell a lie and it will run down the street

(56:34):
faster than the truth will. I could tell the truth
and it will go absolutely nowhere because no one's interested
in it. And so the way in which the truth
is chopped up is about all we can digest about
fifteen seconds of TikTok. And the other part of it

(56:55):
is the way in which a lie flies. It flies
so fast you can't even reel it back in once
it takes traction.

Speaker 4 (57:05):
So what do we do about that? Again? I want
to go back to your point about infrastructures.

Speaker 2 (57:11):
What are the.

Speaker 4 (57:11):
Infrastructures, the systems, you know, the organizations that are missing
that help us to capture these moments, these issues and
focus our attention. You know, these things that you mentioned
that we carry in our hands are used to draw

(57:33):
us in and shape us while we shape them. And
that's the whole science behind them. How do we rethink
and reorder what we do as ordinary citizens now? Remember, Jesse,
that is precisely what happened in the mid twentieth century,
particularly with African Americans in the modern civil rights movement.

(57:57):
We were locked out of those infrastructures, those institutions, those organizations,
and Jesse, what did we do well? We created our
own We created our own newspapers, schools, hospitals, restaurants, businesses,
et cetera. These were not just institutions that served us.

(58:23):
They were ways of bringing a social solidarity among us
and the understanding of who we are and what we
had to do as a collective whole in order to
advance our interests. We don't have that today.

Speaker 1 (58:42):
Hm. I maybe I was too young to realize how
it structured itself then, Johnny, and I obviously I rely
upon you for that. Well, I'm not suggesting that you're old,
but the things that you relied on upond are not
my frame of reference. I can, you know, expouse the

(59:03):
history of them and layers and try and pack it
together and imagine what's taking place at the same time.
But existentially it's something that you have to live. It's
something you've lived, and it's not something that I've lived,
it's not.

Speaker 4 (59:18):
Something that we lived. For that matter, Just to think
about this, to expand upon the point we had were
our own magazines, own radio stations. We had a whole
social and civic infrastructure. Let me think about that, magazines,
radio stations of you know, schools, a whole education system,

(59:46):
if you will. We have none of that anymore, or
very little of it at all. And we haven't spent
the time thinking about what we lost when those were
taken away, or Jesse Jackson Jr. We gave gave them up.
What then can we do today, if we're right about

(01:00:06):
how they served our interest to bring those kinds of
institutions and infrastructure back into our community, into our lives
using today's technology, not the technology of the mid twentieth century,
but the technology of the twenty first century and beyond.
How do we use AI? How do we use blockchain?

(01:00:29):
How do we use quantum computing. We're afraid of those
things too. Many of us don't even know what they
are or how they work. But we must know, we
must learn, We must build them into the social fabric
of our communities.

Speaker 1 (01:00:48):
I agree. The how, too, is that a church is
a church project. Is it something, Johnny, It just seems
like it just seems like at the most basic level,
from first grade to the present, we have to start over.
Because I'm sixty now, and I know there are people

(01:01:09):
who are older than me who are wondering about this
idea of starting some form of development and structure within
the community itself. That we simply don't have enough time,
and that it's something we should have been taught a
long time ago, and that we missed it. And what

(01:01:32):
is the educational apparatus that is responsible for teaching us this.

Speaker 4 (01:01:37):
Well, Jesse Jackson, One of the apparatus is the very
thing that we're doing now. It's the Jesse Jackson Junior Show.
This is an incredibly important platform, and every platform like it.
What we don't do is we don't connect the dots. Right.

(01:02:03):
We have black businesses, we have black institutions, yes, but
they don't call ess as a collective I'll use this
word as a collective polity. So many other communities I'll
call them have a collective sense of politicalness. That's not

(01:02:25):
a word, but I think you get my point. There's
a certain sense of we're all in this together wherever
we are in the nation and are around the globe,
and somehow we have lost that sense of self and collectiveness.
That's not something that others can give us. It's something

(01:02:49):
that we have to find in ourselves, as we did
nearly well, certainly seventy five years ago, if not one
hundred years ago.

Speaker 1 (01:03:01):
I'm Jesse Jackson Junior listening to Jesse Jackson Junior Show
on KBLA Talk fifteen to eighty more when we come
forward more with doctor Johnny Mack, my XP guest at
this novel, Principle and managing partner of Johnny macgrew, LC
and the founding director of the World House Project, Inc.
Johnny Mack his seminal work, After confrontation then what it's

(01:03:26):
a nice way of saying, after resistance, than what after protesting?
Then what after complaining? Then what? Johnny says he seeks
to rearticulate nonviolence beyond the traditional idea of direct resistance,
to a metallogic that includes direct, structural, and cultural nonviolence,

(01:03:50):
each having its own form of social action. Johnny break
that down for us.

Speaker 4 (01:03:58):
I thought you'd never asked, Jesse. So traditionally we've understood
nonviolence in two basic ways. One as a strategic or
tactical form of resistance, as you've noted, of getting in
good trouble, as John Lewis might argue, by protests, non cooperation,

(01:04:26):
and certain forms of direct intervention. We still do those
things today, particularly commonly understood as political protests in marches.
Those are important, but there are other forms of nonviolence.
The second major thematic approach or way of thinking about

(01:04:46):
nonviolence was a way of life which is informed by
a certain set of moral values. And there are those
are two basic schools of thought Jesse. I don't want
to be too academic here, but those two forms of
thought have pretty much driven the logic of nonviolence through

(01:05:09):
the mid to the end of the twentieth century. What
we failed to realize is that violence, that is the counterposition,
or the many would argue the opposite of nonviolence, has
many forms. We talk about institutional violence, structural violence, for example,

(01:05:30):
And there's a certain idea of cultural violence, imposing one's
cultural framework on others, or having a certain mooris and
norms within the culture that do hurt and harm to
other people. So these are violent forms. So there's direct

(01:05:51):
physical violence, but there's also institutional and structural and cultural violence.
Those are accepted principles an idea, and if there can
be direct physical violence, but also institutional and structural and
cultural violence Jesse that hurt and harm individuals, why then

(01:06:12):
can there not be Why then do we not believe
that there are commensurate non violent forms of structure and culture.
Violent forms are forms of social action. We're recognizing now
that institutions themselves have action which impact the lives of individuals.

(01:06:37):
For example, think about the whole policing infrastructure, the institution
of policing it as a corporate or social framework. Infrastructure
has social action impacts on or social structure impacts on
the lives of individuals and groups. So then can nonviolent

(01:07:04):
forms of social action that are institutionalized into the structure
of the social edifice. Remember King called for a restructuring
of the social edifice because he understood that the social
edifice acts upon the lives of individuals. We've not pursued

(01:07:28):
that prescient idea, that forward looking, forward thinking idea of
Martin Luther King when he admonished us that that is
what we absolutely had to do if we would truly
see the other side of the promised land as he
stood on the mountaintop and look look over. And so
it is in our culture as well. We tend to

(01:07:51):
want to fit into the culture rather than changing the
culture itself. A culture that accepts certain ideas is in
forms of violence, that is, those things that hurt and
harm individuals, as this light is like.

Speaker 1 (01:08:08):
The disrespect of women even in our lyrics.

Speaker 4 (01:08:10):
That's a fact in their music and our lyrics in
our video games, Jesse in ninety five percent of the
movies that we make, we violently. How violent we are
to each other, to other the other gender, how we

(01:08:31):
how we created a vide between generations. These are all
cultural and institutional forms of violence.

Speaker 1 (01:08:42):
They're I mean, they're yes, I'm guilty. I'm guilty of
reducing nonviolence to both a tactical practice m hm uh
when I want to approach a social injustice. I'm also
guilty of a theological practice of asking myself the question

(01:09:09):
what would Jesus do and concluding that to address social ills,
I needed to be non violent in my behaviors and
loving in my behaviors. But when you look at the
social edifice, from the things we read to the things

(01:09:30):
that we're exposed to, from the video games that we play,
from the television programs that we watch, to the amount
of stimuli that enter our space. Yes, and affect our
central nervous systems. We are violent, and the violence isn't

(01:09:52):
just reduced to the two categories of how I approach
the social justice space or how I interpret the theological
meaning of nonviolence and run it through my crystallogical lens.
It is in the way we drive past people on
the freeway and don't turn on our blinking light cut

(01:10:16):
them off, or you're too impatient and won't let an
old lady cross the street, or the way in which
you shouted at or jumped in front of the person
in the line or shouted at or someone who might
have cut you off when they were trying to exit,
or or I mean, it's it's it's it's difficult, Johnny Jesse.

(01:10:42):
It's going to think about the ways in which violence
and and and the way in which violence attacks my space,
my central nervous system.

Speaker 4 (01:10:54):
But Jesse, let's let's be quick also to say what
you were saying once again in the last hour, the
hour before mine, you talked to once again about the
infrastructures that are in place. And while we may find

(01:11:15):
it difficult, there are those who don't find it difficult,
who have laid patiently over time because they understand that change.
As we said in last week's discussion, change does not
only happen in time. More importantly, Jesse, change happens over time.

(01:11:37):
And there are those, particularly, I would argue, on the
right who understand that far better than those on the left.
And so those on the right have patiently followed these
very rules and principles that you and I are discussing now.
They understand that change occurs over time, and so they

(01:11:57):
patiently lay the infrastructure. They patiently create the institutions and
organizations that ensure that that change occurs. And so now
we have seven Catholics among the nine justices on our
Supreme Court. That didn't happen by accident. That's a form

(01:12:18):
of social change. That's the form of changing the social
edifice that people like the Heritage Heritage Foundation and the
Federalist Society and so many others who wrote a Project
twenty twenty five took the time to understand and build
the infrastructure and the frameworks necessary to implement their strategies

(01:12:42):
when the time was right, and I'm to blame.

Speaker 1 (01:12:47):
I'm Jesse Jackson Jr. You're listening to Johnny Mack on
KBLA Talk fifteen eighty when we come forward more with
Johnny Mack Jackson Junior show. This is thought provoking Thursdays
with none other than Johnny Mack. Johnny Mack shares with
us his vision largely from that of Martin Luther King
Junior regarding the World House, and Johnny has done some

(01:13:09):
extraordinary reflection and work in this area that we have
to take into account. It just simply cannot be ignored. Johnny,
Welcome forward to the Jesse Jackson.

Speaker 4 (01:13:19):
Thank you, Jesse.

Speaker 1 (01:13:20):
Johnny. We were saying just before we came forward, and
I realized this is our final segment that the dive
that you have undertaken is far deeper than the nonviolence
as a tactic in the approach to confrontation and nonviolence

(01:13:41):
just as a theological practice through the theological lens of
I guess Jesus would be nonviolent. Now we've seen this
guy overturn some tables too. We've seen him crucified on
a cross with nails in his hands and you know,
a spear in his side and nails at his feet

(01:14:03):
and a crown of thorns on his head. So there's there's,
there's Barabus, there's there is this activity that's taking place
in the midst of Jesus' ministry. That also matters the
context of what's taking place under the occupation of Roman Empire,
which in and of itself was violent. So a colonized

(01:14:26):
people find themselves by virtue of the fact that they
are colonized in a state of violence. Honey, I'd like
you to finish the thought that you were making just
before we came forward.

Speaker 4 (01:14:37):
Yeah, So if we view violence only as a direct
physical a direct physical phenomenon in the human human experience,
that is, one has to physically attacked me, then we
limit our understanding of those things that cause her norm

(01:15:00):
in our lives. But in fact, we don't limit violence
to that direct action. Now, notice that the words I
use here, Jesse, we normally talk about nonviolence and direct action,
but here we're talking about violence and its direct action.

(01:15:24):
In other words, both violence and nonviolence have forms of
direct action. If that's the case, and we understand that
violence also has forms of or also has structural and
institutional forms, then we can also surmise or conclude that

(01:15:50):
nonviolence has structural and institutional forms. And if we can
understand once again that culture has violence and forms within
its framework, we can understand the same with non violence.
This is the whole idea of a metallogic of nonviolence.

(01:16:14):
It's understanding that counterposition or the opposites of each of
those forms, whether it's direct, structural, or cultural, Jesse. We
have to spend the time educating ourselves with that framework. Otherwise,

(01:16:37):
if we don't know what causes our cancer, to use
an example or a metaphor, then we don't know how
to diagnose it and treat it. And such is the
case with the cancer of poverty, racism, and militarism, and
how it is ruining and destroying the body politic of

(01:17:04):
our political lives, how it's destroying the social edifice itself.
That was King's argument, and platforms like this, I would
argue once again, Jesse, or where we can diffuse, we
can disseminate, we can discuss, deliberate and decide on how

(01:17:26):
we can change that social structure.

Speaker 1 (01:17:31):
I'm grateful. That's when I first met Johnny a number
of years ago, he shared with me his thinking and
of course, Tavis was kind enough to grant me this
wonderful opportunity on KBLA, And one of the first people
that our producer, Gina Towns, reached out to was was

(01:17:53):
Johnny Mack. And Johnny had so much to share, but
we wanted to make sure here on k b l A,
and as the show hopefully expands, we wanted to make
Johnny's voice part of that very platform, to use this
vehicle as part of that education process. Johnny, it's it's Thursday,

(01:18:20):
but last Thursday I felt like I just talked with
you yesterday, and the day. The Thursdays are now beginning
to run together so quickly that and so much is
going on. I'm hopeful that next Thursday might provide us
with a little bit of a rest bit to take
a deeper dive into this question of the metallogic. We

(01:18:44):
have about four minutes before the close of the show, Johnny,
A word of hope and your final.

Speaker 4 (01:18:49):
Thoughts, ah, word of hope in four minutes. Well, you
know there's there was the famous here quote of one
Wise Says, who would often say keep hope alive as

(01:19:09):
indeed and and Jesse, that's that's each of our responsibilities.
We've got to keep hope alive. And that's not something
that we simply muse about or dream about. That requires

(01:19:31):
direct action. It requires structural action, and it requires cultural action.
How do we build hope in our culture? In our culture?
How do we build hope in the structures that mediate
our interaction with each other? And how do we incorporate

(01:19:55):
hope in our direct action between each other? There we
must answer those questions and we must work to make
them happen. You think about the church, You think about
our our social media that we control. How much hope

(01:20:18):
are we fostering and explaining and engaging in in the
in those platforms and processes. I think we have to
keep up alive. Jesse.

Speaker 1 (01:20:34):
I think that's uh, that's profound, and I've heard it
somewhere before. Ah, Johnny Mack, you're the very best. Welcome
to our show, and I can't wait for you to
return next Thursday.

Speaker 4 (01:20:49):
I look forward to it, Jesse. I look forward to
that deeper die in this whole idea of non violence.

Speaker 1 (01:20:56):
That's going to happen. You know, one of the great
tragedies of our generation is that we did not benefit
from the life of Martin Luther King Junior fourth nineteen
sixty five. Doctor King departed us in Memphis, Tennessee in
nineteen sixty eight, triggering a series of events in the
body politic of our nation that we have not recovered

(01:21:19):
from as a nation. The reaction to the nonviolent dreamer,
the dreamer with the metaalogic beyond that which we could understand,
left us in riots, in dismay, in the middle of
an ugly war. The wealthiest nation in the history of

(01:21:42):
the world was dropping bombs on the poorest people in Vietnam.
We had to brave that brand new world by ourselves,
without our king. And so much of this exercise is
about the resurrection of our king, not King Trump, not
King George, not King David, oh yes, King Jesus. But

(01:22:07):
also in the form that Martin Luther King Junior delivered
the practice of his life to us matters in the
way in which not only we see ourselves, but it
matters in the way in which we see our neighbors.
So grateful to Johnny Mack for this hour that he

(01:22:28):
gives our show and our nation every week. So grateful
for all of our contributors. In a real sense, So
much of our show this week before we go to
Fat Meet Fridays on Fridays with our producer Gina Towns.
So much of what we learned this week comes together
in Johnny Mack. I'm Jesse Jackson Jr. Welcome forward to
the Jesse Jackson Junior Show until tomorrow