On an August 22, 2016 episode of the National Bugle Radio program, attorney Don Advo was interviewed by Dr. Patrick Slattery — the operator of the website Zio-Watch and a frequent companion of David Duke — to talk about the effects of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case that struck down de jure segregation in public schools.

After walking Slattery through the history of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Brown decision, Advo went on a long-winded rant about how the purpose of the ruling was to actually make white people subservient to black people.

Advo informed Slattery that the Supreme Court, in deciding Brown, ruled that regardless of whether black and white schools were otherwise equal, the fact that they were separate made them “inherently unequal.” Advo interpreted this to mean that black children would be advantaged just by being in class with white children, and that white children were being forced into that situation against their will. Thus, Brown “vested blacks with property rights in white children.”

Advo neglected to mention the bulk of social science used in formulating the Court’s opinion, some of which they mentioned. For example, Chief Justice Warren wrote of another court case in which the black plaintiffs lost, but nonetheless demonstrated that segregation of black and white children had a “detrimental effect” on the black children.

“The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group.” This feeling of inferiority stunted the “educational and mental development of negro children” and deprived them of “the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.”

He also referenced a Supreme Court case called Milliken v. Bradley (1974), which was centered around de facto segregation in Detroit public schools, and whether it was permissible under Brown for that type of segregation to be remedied via busing. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that it was not. Unless school segregation happened due to impermissible racist motives, the Court held, it was not a violation of students’ Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Advo proclaimed that the situation in Detroit — as well as other urban areas — was the result of white flight, or white people who “ran away from inner city schools” in order to “escape…forced racial integration.” White parents, he said, didn’t want their children exposed to low quality education and violence.

What was most astonishing (and ridiculous), however, was his take on civil rights laws more broadly. “And when you look at history, you know, the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed in order to stop black people from running away from white people,” he said.

“And look at the civil rights laws, the judicial opinions, the very Civil Rights Act, and you can see the so-called civil rights regime — the Orwellian, misnamed Civil Rights regime — was designed for the exact opposite purpose. It was designed to keep fugitive white people from running away from blacks. Blacks go out to the suburbs and they got to chase them down.”

Yes, according to this actual lawyer, laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were the moral equivalent of the Fugitive Slave Act. Advo went even further, though, comparing them to slavery as well. After all, slavery “was designed to stop black people from running away from whites” — as well as keep them in a perpetual state of bondage and exploit their labor — while the civil rights laws were designed to “stop white people from running away from blacks.”

Advo: To me this seems really self-evident. You know you read [the decision in Brown v. Board of Education] a couple of times and think it through. It really is self-evident that what the United States Supreme Court created here in Brown — and this is bolstered by a reading of all the decisions that came after Brown — is that they vested blacks with property rights in white children.

And there was a case in Michigan — I forget the name of the case, something versus Michigan, and it was a very famous Supreme Court case, I should know it. The problem in Michigan was that the Detroit school [district], all these white people ran away. They ran away from the inner city schools, so they could escape, you know, forced racial integration. They didn’t want their children to go to school in racially integrated schools because of the diminished quality of education, and because of the, you know, the physical violence.

So, the question was could they cast a net over the suburbs and drag these…and, you know, drag the white children and the suburbs back into the inner city on buses, and could they bus black children to the white schools in the suburbs. And if you look back at the history, you know American history —

Slattery: And when…what time are we talking about with this Detroit case?

Advo: The 1960s.

Slattery: 1960s.

Advo: Late sixties, I think it was [1969], I got the book here in front of me and I should be able to find that. But in any event, it’s an easy case to find, I’ll probably find it two hours after the show is over. But in any case, the issue was whether or not they could pursue these…they could include…they could reach out…See, prior to this decision, prior to the Michigan decision, they could only look in one…You know, Detroit could only integrate its own schools and they were saying, “Yeah, but these dirty, rotten white people are running away.”

And when you look at history, you know, the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed in order to stop black people from running away from white people. And look at the civil rights laws, the judicial opinions, the very Civil Rights Act, and you can see the so-called civil rights regime — the Orwellian, misnamed Civil Rights regime — was designed for the exact opposite purpose. It was designed to keep fugitive white people from running away from blacks. Blacks go out to the suburbs and they got to chase them down.

In the case, they said, “Well, these suburb schools, they’re new school districts, they have no history of discrimination, so there’s nothing to remedy.” And of course the issue isn’t remedying a past injustice, because the victims of that injustice are long gone. The issue is punishing white people, and punishing white schoolchildren. So the issue is not the quality of education. None of these cases are decided on the basis of the quality of education. They are decided on “How do we keep white people from running away from black people?”

There’s no such thing as a white school. There are white children. They don’t want a white school, they don’t want a building that’s been painted white, even by white painters. That’s not the issue. It’s not the issue at all. So what you see here under Brown vs. The Board of Education is the stripping of white children of — the most vulnerable, the most innocent group of people: children — of their legal rights to say, you know, we don’t wanna be thrown into a shark tank full of blacks. And to give blacks the superior legal status to demand and compel the physical presence of white children based on race.

And what the Supreme Court did in Brown and in the decisions that followed was to create a new kind of property right. A property right, a possessory interest in human beings, vested for the benefit of one race — a superior race, the black race — and against the legally subordinate white race. I’m not aware of any opinion that’s ever come down that says white people have a right to force their way into a black school because being next to a black child is some kind of educational opportunity. Of course they came up with the diversity fraud, you know, in I think the 1980s which maybe was the way of dealing with that. But the point of the Brown decision is that it created a legally enforceable property interest, a possessory legal interest in human beings.

Slattery: Okay.

Advo: And this is after we fought a Civil War, ninety years after we fought a Civil War, to do away with that kind of thing.

Slattery: So I wanted to…yeah…

Advo: And that’s my interpretation of the history of the Civil Rights Movement. Slavery was designed to stop black people from running away from whites, and the Civil Rights regime was designed to stop white people from running away from blacks.