LINK An interesting observation: Why so many BLM ultras are white
More and more people are questioning what the BLM movement is all about, and BLMUK doesn't hide it's political agenda. The article makes an interesting observation.
(Irony: the spectacle of a white man attacking a black man for trying to remove BLM posters from a fence. Observe the white man scream at his uppity, negro inferior.)
[twitter.com]
Edit: I'm sure you're also aware that the following perception of BLM is growing:
The form of words that appears on most online posts connected to the group riffs on ‘the black radical tradition’ which counts among its past contributors the Black Panther Movement and Malcom X. BLM happily self-identifies as a neo-Marxist movement with various far left objectives, including defunding the police (an evolution of the Panther position of public open-carry to control the police), to dismantling capitalism and the patriarchal system, disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure, seeking reparations from slavery to redistribute wealth and via various offshoot appeals, to raise money to bail black prisoners awaiting trial. The notion of seizing control of the apportionment of capital, dismantling the frameworks of society and neutralizing and undermining law enforcement are not just Marxist, but anarchic. - The Telegraph
Much appreciate your inputs and discussions in advance.
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
12 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Maybe WE realize that a military dictatorship & too much power in the hands of police are really, really bad for Everybody......duhhhh......
AnneWimsey
Level 9
July 3, 2020
0
Whenever these kind of comments begin with: "More and more people are...," it is already targeting the mob mentality. It would not matter if everyone on the planet was racist, it still would not justify it. Just as if everyone on this planet believed in a god would not prove a god exists.
"That self-hatred should generate in us an eagerness to unite with others seems to suggest that it is primarily against ourselves that we league ourselves with others." - Eric Hoffer
"The fanatic is perpetually incomplete and insecure. He cannot generate self-assurance out of his individual resources - out of his rejected self - but finds it only by clinging passionately to whatever support he happens to embrace. This passionate attachment is the essence of his blind devotion and religiosity, and he sees in it the source of all virtue and strength - He easily sees himself as the supporter and defender of the holy cause to which he clings. And he is ready to sacrifice his life." - Eric Hoffer
nogod4me
Level 8
July 3, 2020
0
@Jetty "Could there be a hidden agenda behind anti-racism movements?"
The only way that question makes sense is if you find the complaints that they are making about racism to be fallacious. Because if their complaints are true, there is no need for a "hidden agenda", it could simply be exactly what they are saying. They are against racism because it manifests in manner that harm people and their abilities to enjoy life.
Since no one said that "toppling statues and spraying graffiti on monuments [would] solve racism", that's just a straw man to toss in to add false support for your already weak argument. You have all these "questions" about the protesters that simply ignore what they are actually saying is the reason why they protest without providing a shred of evidence to support any of your speculation. It's disingenuous at best, dishonest and promoting the concept of ignoring racism at it's worst.
@Jetty The passionate state of mind you are in and the obsession, exaggeration, and desperation in your words show that you are trying to force a counterattack against Black Lives Matters.
Like religion, racism is one of the worst forms of ignorance, it is based on BELIEFS stemming from hate and exaggeration and is rooted in fear and insecurity.
@Jetty It is your words, and the fact that you bring up skin color again shows that it matters more than it should. Any person of any skin color can be a racist.
Lumping arsonists and vandals in with protesters is biased and is what racists have been doing all along in order to disparage the movement.
@Jetty RE: My last post: "Full of rhetoric."
[merriam-webster.com]
Definition of rhetoric
1: the art of speaking or writing effectively
You're right, I was pretty effective in making my points. Thanks for acknowledging that. Or did you not know what the word meant and you believed you were being clever dismissing me?
Regardless, why don't you explain why it's "dishonest" to discuss black oppression today without also including words about how white people were also oppressed in the past? Why must both be discussed at the same time? Why can't one, which can be demonstrated to be more relevant to the current historical context be addressed with a priority?
The idea that one oppressed group must also discuss the oppression of another oppressed group to be credible is a privilege that only someone not a part of any oppressed group can make. It's as obtuse as claiming one man being choked to death can't really complain unless he's also pointing out another man is being choked. Only those doing the choking can make such a psychotic analysis because of being totally removed from the repercussions of their actions. They have the privilege of ignoring the primal instinct of survival in their analysis, which is cruel ignorance.
And this might come as a shock to you because you appear to be purposely obtuse, but black people aren't protesting about slavery, they are protesting about oppression that exists TODAY! Using historical ties to give an argument context doesn't mean that history is the issue. Good students learn that in high school.
The idea that something being a "criminal offense" automatically means it should be condemned is simply childish. It ignores context, something you seem to have a general problem with. It was also against the law to hide slaves from slave runners during times of slavery. Should those people be condemned? It was against the law to run the Underground Rail Road to free slaves and bring them north. Should Harriet Tumbman be reviled for freeing slaves? It was against the law to toss the Chinese tea from Britain overboard dressed as Native Americans in Boston in 1773, should the Sons of Liberty be condemned?
And don't think I've not noticed that you changed from #BLM to irrelevant subjects that don't really address the original article, i.e. "Why so many BLM ultras are white". Is it because your original argument is demonstrably slanted and flawed (as I've demonstrated in another post) and full of unverifiable assumptions by people who aren't part of the movement? Are you purposely trying to change the subject because you can't defend your original premise?
Don't worry, I understand. It's a standard racist tactic, when someone points out you're comments don't makes sense, change the subject and attempt to walk away with some kind of victory, even if it has nothing to do with the original premise. It's pathetically obvious, but when it's all you have ... at least it'll make you feel better.
@Jetty "The dishonesty I mentioned is very much related to the article indicating that many BLM ultras are white."
That claim is BS unless you demonstrate it, which you haven't done. Otherwise it's just a bunch of racist tropes strung together hoping to distract from the fact that you've not made any relevant point to the original premise.
I find the article to be nothing but racist trash. The writer assumes that he knows the motivations of other white people in relation to the #BLM movement so well that he doesn't need to quote a single one. The writer simply assumes that white people can not identify with the message of #BLM, so said interaction is by default, disingenuous. Apparently because the writer can't empathize with the movement, he assumes it's reasonable to project his flaw on the entire white population.
The writer also doesn't bother to talk to the leaders of the movement to get their perspective on what and why they exist, but goes out of his way to find negative definitions by people who share his ignorant assumptions about the #BLM movement. The twitter post is just as insulting and disingenuous as it allows the viewer to infer that that kind of interaction is a norm with people who support #BLM and supplies no objective context.
I find the quote from the Telegraph not enough to judge whatever article that it actually came from, but it would be nice to have had some context. Who is making that definition and how are they affiliated with the #BLM movement enough to define how the movement "self-identifies"?
What I find most telling is the obvious slant in how this was approached. Nothing from what the actual founders of the movement feel about how and why they started the movement or how they see it's future. It appears to be an opportunity for biased people who wish to discredit it to expand on their negative assumptions.
redbai
Level 8
July 3, 2020
3
Yes, you are absolutely correct, it is nothing but racist trash.
We all know what has been happening for centuries. If a person is racist, they know it, they may deny it, but they know it. The acts of one, or a few individuals, does not define the Black Lives Movement.
People spew rigmarole to taint or hinder progress. Changing an oppressive racist system will not be easy because you have to deal with the ignorance of racism indoctrinated into the people. Change will happen, whether it comes from Black Lives Movement or another that will even be better, racists fear that and will always fight it, ...because they are dumb-asses.
nogod4me
Level 8
July 3, 2020
3
Fortunately alot of them are dying off. I live about 2.5 hours from the city that houses the KKK Grand Wizard. Theyre losing control even in his home of Harrison Arkansas.
Every single time I hear about or read about anyone disparaging BLM, I have to question their agendas. For one thing, it's usually always white people doing the disparaging, and that alone is enough for me to take their claims as suspect.
There is so much deeply-ingrained, systemic racism in this country, there are a lot of white people who are completely oblivious to their own levels of racism.
There are also plenty who are completely threatened by the idea that other people want, and are absolutely entitled to, ALL the same rights and privileges as white people.
Personally, I want to see ALL statues and monuments to ALL confederate figures come down. (I'd love to see Stone Mountain turned into countertops, to be installed in the kitchens of every home in Georgia.)
Most of them weren't even erected until the 20th century, and as a means to intimidate black people who were actively seeking to exercise their civil rights, which they already had by LAW.
This nation was built on racism. The rights of the indigenous people to just be on this continent were trampled by white Europeans.
Anyone who doesn't know how native people have been treated in every country on this planet,
needs to learn some damned history.
I'm so sick of the abject ignorance exhibited by those who don't even understand how we
got here.
It's not that hard.
KKGator
Level 9
July 3, 2020
3
Analogizing Antfa to the black shirts of Mussolini is quite a stretch. They were facsist paramilitary units while antifa is literally the opposite.
Also, there is a big contradiction in the article in that, the title states that BLM has so many white members but later it claims that the movement is anti-white. I haven't seen any indication that it is anti-white. They oppose white supremacy of course but not white people generally. And the movment does have massive support from white people.
Finally, the article implies that support for BLM among black people isn't all that strong and is decreasing everyday. They provide no numbers, just the vague idea that many black people are opposed to BLM, which is probably true but if you do look at the numbers, 86% of black people are supportive of BLM and it has majority support from all races.
One more thing, the article concludes that BLM is just some narcissists going after statues and history for their own self aggrandizement. This totally ignores the actual practical efforts being made to reform systemic racism and aggression of police which has very detrimental effects on the black community. This idea that BLM isn't supportive of black interests is absurd. It's the strongest movement in favor of improving the everyday lives of minorities since the civil rights movement.
RoboGraham
Level 8
July 3, 2020
3
there is no such thing as Antifa. Its a buzz word is all it is. If it were an actual organization the CIA and FBI would have found its leadership a long time ago.
I found that figure in this article from the Pew Research Center.
This is true. And it is another difference between they and the Black Shirts.
Antifa is not an organized entity. It is a loose classification of people who are opposed to fascism and willing to try and do something about it.
To me, Antifa is just an adjective to describe people who are anti-fascist, as the name implies. So I consider myself antifa and I hope that everyone else does too.
No problem, cheers
@RoboGraham I mean me being former military I kind of have to be. Our oath is essentially anti fascism.
I find that it is generally white people who try to control and address the BLM movement. Unless you were once black but are black no more you do not have a right to do this. Of course all lives matter but I cannot tell you how to run your BLM movement. Many are "racists unaware" and do not realize that Trump provides us with distraction and disillusion along with misinformation. He is not a nice man.
DenoPenno
Level 9
July 3, 2020
3
In America the white man has voted to give black's the right to vote and end segregation against blacks. A white man started the NAACP. I'll say it again, it should be ALL LIVES MATTERS, we are the human race.
xenoview
Level 8
July 3, 2020
0
That's a very stupid snd miopic remark. How could al the white men you mention could have been anything other than white? A white man gave the vote? Really?
Racism is directly in your statement: It takes white men to help people of color BECAUSE of disenfranchisement. Systemic racism just makes it harder for people to notice.
"The attempt to justify an evil deed has perhaps more pernicious consequences than the evil deed itself. The justification of a past crime is the planting and cultivation of future crimes. Indeed, the repetition of a crime is sometimes part of a device of justification: we do it again and again to convince ourselves and others that it is a common thing and not an enormity." - Eric Hoffer
At no time in American history has the white population had a vote to end segregation or give the black man the vote. I won't even get into the insulting assumption that it was white people who gave black people rights as if it's their's to parcel out to whom they deem worthy.
The sad part is that you're probably entirely unaware of how insultingly condescending you sound ranting ridiculous myths. It's just how many white people are raised, with the assumption that they "gave" POC things that make their lives more meaningful instead of limiting POC at the point of a gun and parceling out second class citizenship as if it's a favor.
I started reading a book by D'Souza some time ago. I stopped reading it because I thought the entire idea was ridiculous and a really huge reach. Given these events of late I am thinking D'Souza may be right in the ideas he presented in the book. It's changed my perspective. I can see where he was coming from.
Flowerwall
Level 7
July 3, 2020
0
Dinesh D'Souza is a convicted felon, right wing conspiracy theorist and agent provocateur who supports Trump and his cadre of corrupt inept family and friends. A liar and a christian to top off his hypocrisy. To give credence to what he writes is in itself an idiotic display of ignorance to science and evidence.
@Mofo1953 I know he was convicted of a felony. I certainly don't agree with everything he's said, or every position he takes. This is a CONSTANT theme I keep finding with so many political commentators, they give some small doses of truth in a soup full of lies. He is not too different. I did agree with what he had said in the instance I am thinking of.
@Jetty I will not repeat the title because I am not backing it completely and I don't know exactly how true/false it is. The criticism, the general direction of the criticism though, I can see as true, which is the destructive nature of some of the tactics used by the dems.
@Flowerwall great, so enjoy reading Mein Kampf, even Hitler said things you might agree with.
That white guy was no BLM activist. He is simply manipulating a situation to his desired outcome. Which seems to be looking for opportunities to assault people. I'm extremely skeptical of any white person claiming to be supportive of this movement yet intent on creating escalation of hostility and violence. They are no longer activists but antagonists.
Amzungu
Level 8
July 3, 2020
3
Exceptions do not make the rule. There are always extremes and outliers, and should not be used to detract from the real message. Even in positive causes there be those individuals that take beyond acceptable or logical ends. They do not define the greater number of people working for
t1nick
Level 8
July 3, 2020
4
Well said
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.