Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Intolerance of ‘Black Lives Matter’ Is Perplexing. I Hope.
The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., led an organized movement against an obvious injustice, using eloquent, simple arguments which were based on sources that few questioned (the Bible and the Constitution), while denouncing violence and emphasizing honesty and integrity. Many argued with him for a while but, eventually, America agreed with him and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By passing this law, white America agreed that the way they had treated blacks was wrong and such abuses would no longer be tolerated. The transformation in American society since then has been remarkable. I was born in 1968 and in my 51 years, I have never seen what Rev. King or his contemporaries would call racism against blacks. I’m sure it happens, but it has become extremely rare. Not only are racist acts illegal but they have also become unacceptable behavior for white people in our society, even in private. As they should be.
The Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests which have been sweeping the country over the past month are ostensibly focused on race. But the similarities to Rev. King’s movement end there. BLM is leading a chaotic and unpredictable movement against subtle concepts that are difficult to specifically define, such as micro-aggressions and white privilege. Their arguments are highly variable, unclear, poorly stated, and do not appear to be based on any set ideology or legal framework. They do not denounce violence and frequently seem to actually encourage it. White Americans are desperately competing with one another to prove they’re less racist than the next guy but they can’t meet the demands of BLM, because they’re not sure what they are, exactly, on any given day. There is, however, one consistent message pushed by BLM and their supporters, and it terrifies me:
They tolerate absolutely no debate or discussion. Blacks who question BLM in any way, no matter how small, are branded “Uncle Toms.” Whites who do so are called racists.
A quick aside: If a white person is called a racist, by anyone, just that accusation (regardless of its merit) can destroy that white person’s life. S/he can lose friends, their job, and their place in society with little to no hope of ever recovering from such destruction. That truth suggests that BLM’s claims of widespread systemic white racism against blacks are apparently not anywhere near correct. But, whatever.
My point is that the BLM movement tolerates no dissent. Even from dead people. They destroy statues and attempt to rewrite history, like Muslim extremists and other tyrants all over the world. If a comedian once made a joke they found offensive, that comedian should not be permitted to make jokes about anything else, even years later. Works of art that don’t share their worldview should be destroyed, rather than carefully considered. If a police officer in Minnesota is suspected to be a racist, then police departments across the country should be shut down. The intolerance of the BLM movement and its supporters is breathtaking.
Intolerance of others is always dangerous. This is the genius of our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers recognized that we would often disagree, and used federalism, three branches of government, a nation of laws and not of men, and various other techniques to allow a diverse group of individuals to co-exist peacefully.
But this particular brand of intolerance – the one pushed so hard by BLM and their supporters, I find particularly concerning. And that is because I can think of only two possible reasons for it. Perhaps you can think of others but these are the only ones that come to my mind:
- BLM does not permit anyone to argue with their ideology or goals, because no one (including BLM) knows what they are. They understand that any effort to debate their point will quickly show that they don’t have one, and they don’t want to look stupid. I don’t think this is the case but I suppose it’s possible. But I hope this is it because the only other possibility I can think of is…
- Their true underlying goals are nefarious and extremely unpopular. They are simply Marxists using their current source of leverage (in this case, racial tensions) to get what they’ve wanted all along – to destroy America. Or, as President Obama put it, “…a fundamental transformation of America.” Make America into something completely different than what it has always been. They despise democracy and capitalism, and seek to transform America into some sort of socialist state with more central control and fewer individual liberties. They denounce racism because they know that most Americans don’t want racism. But they can’t admit that their ultimate goal is Marxism, because they also know that most Americans don’t want that either.
What do you think? Am I overlooking something?
Why are BLM and their supporters so extreme in their intolerance? Rev. King went out of his way to find areas of agreement with American whites. He based his entire movement on the Constitution and the Bible, and he eloquently explained that all black people wanted was the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He relentlessly emphasized his hope to have blacks join American society. BLM appears to seek further separation between blacks and American society.
This seems odd. Any minority movement tends to attempt to broaden its appeal, form coalitions when possible, and build support in order to achieve their goals.
That is clearly not what BLM is doing. Why?
Rather than encouraging people to agree with them, they make it harder and harder for people to agree with them. They say that it is no longer good enough to not be a racist — you must be “anti-racist.” I’m not quite sure what that means, but I suspect it means agreeing with whatever BLM says is important this afternoon. And stay tuned for changes tomorrow morning.
Why are the demands of this minority movement so vague, and yet so draconian? It doesn’t make any sense.
I can think of only two possible reasons. And I think one of them is wrong.
And I really hope I’m wrong about the other one. Because if that one is true, if BLM really is nothing more than a camouflaged Marxist revolution, we may have a very serious problem here. A problem that could lead to a very, very, very messy conflict.
What do you think?
Published in General
http://ricochet.com/773679/blm-is-a-communist-front-pass-it-on/
This is kinda like the witch test. Tie a boulder to a woman accused of being a witch and throw her in a lake. If she sinks, guilty!
Each passing day confirms my belief that the left is not just anti-white or anti-black, but anti-human. They crave death, destruction, debauchery, plague, mindlessness, and bloodshed; even if they don’t realize it. If our leftists friends aren’t all full-fledged Satan-worshipers, it is only because they have not yet advanced fully enough along the “Freedom Road.”
And I’m not ignoring you, but this pretty well give the bare bones to the answer to your question about BLM being Marxist or not.
Sisyphus (hears Xi laughing)
http://ricochet.com/773679/blm-is-a-communist-front-pass-it-on/
Committing violent crimes in the name of a cause that is false and you are concerned that they might have mislabeled themselves?
The nonviolent tolerance of MLK was already considered passé by the 1970s. As inner city conditions deteriorated quickly thanks to economic collapse from The Great Society, Vietnam debt, stagflation, the oil crisis, etc. many looked around and blamed their lack of progress on MLK’s principle of nonviolence and tolerance, and came to subscribe to the conspiracy theory that nonviolent protest was invented by the White Man to keep the Black Man down.
Their founders, for one thing., They proudly admit it.
In addition to Marxists, they are radical lesbians who are declaring war on marriage.
There’s an Irish journalist called David Quinn who has written about this in the past. He gets vilified on Twitter and gets a lot of abuse generally. He published a collection of his articles in a book called How we Killed God. I recommend it, as far as I remember there was one from several years back referencing cultural Marxism.
Fixed it for you…more accurate with respect to these insidiously un-serious times we are in.
Thus the “x” in Lesbiinx?
My wife likes to read the newspaper. The cost of the subscription is astronomical. After being married to her for 36 years, I’ve learned not to fight the little battles:
LETTER TO EDITOR
written by:
Gregory Akridge
Good post.
I’m firmly in camp #2: I think BLM, to the extent that it has a coherent agenda, is Marxist. I also think they have a strong nihilistic streak; what I don’t know is whether they see destruction as a step on the road to collectivism, or rather they see collectivism as a nice excuse for destruction. They’re probably sufficiently diverse and disorganized to have ample numbers of both persuasions, the true collectivists and the smash-and-burn enthusiasts.
I think the Kansas City Star is the only newspaper that ever carried anything about me in public press. I subscribed when I lived in Overland Park.
Nefarious, yes. Unpopular? Evidently not. Half the populations of Western countries have been on board for years with these ideas of binding one’s legal standing to political groupings, silencing and outcasting all rightwing advocates, destruction of politically incorrect histories, icons, and media, theft from the upper and middle classes to forcibly redistribute among favorable groups, centralized control of education, and so on.
BLM’s ideas are not new or uncommon. The momentum is what has changed. Some on the Left saw opportunities to gain control by another fashionable fury, by peer pressure, and by intimidation. With each step gained, they gain confidence for another. The savvy realized that if they press their advantage then they can afford bolder actions.
That momentum must be broken quickly. Freedom of expression is withering with each passing week.
Didn’t all your aunts and uncles send you their copy of that issue of the paper (as if you didn’t already have 5 or 6)? Why don’t you post it on Ricochet, just for fun?
My grandchildren have it for the family history record. But we may have to cancel all that, I mean it’s history. I think the article and picture was about my promotion from serving as the Treasury Department Regional Disbursing Officer and Director of the Kansas City Regional Financial Center to the position in Washington, D.C. as the Chief Disbursing Officer and Director of Field Operations. That was in 1983.
Marx declared war on marriage, and he wasn’t even a lesbian.
I object to the characterization of post-modernism as being inherently Marxist and/or left-wing. There are conservative and/or right-wing interpretations of post-modernism. Once could even argue that mainstream post-war American conservatism has always been a post-modern movement.
I wouldn’t. But what to I know.
Got a couple of inches in the ol’ police blotter, eh?
I completely disagree with the assertion that post-WWII conservatism is post-modern.
I agree that post-modernism is not inherently Marxist. Post-modernism should be inconsistent with Marxism (or neo-Marxism), but this doesn’t seem to bother the advocates of post-modernism.
I think that this is usually because the adherents of post-modernism don’t really believe it, but use it as a tool in advancing their Marxist or, more commonly, neo-Marxist agenda.
Zafar asked some good questions about Marxism.
I think that BLM is technically neo-Marxist, though it’s founders didn’t make this distinction.
The issue is complex, as different ideas can be included within neo-Marxism. The basic switch seems to be the substitution of “oppressor-oppressed” in neo-Marxism in the place of “capitalist-worker” in Marxism.
Many groups claim oppressed status – blacks, Indians, homosexuals, women, and the 57 bizarre and incomprehensible variants of whatever trans might be.
The purpose is the same: overthrow the existing social and political structure, and hope that you come out on top. Oh, and usher in paradise.
This isn’t surprising but it’s not real data. When stuff happens in realtime, there is no data to figure anything out.
I know a little bit about Seattle and I know that very few people are black round those parts. Probably the whole thing all about privileged white folks.
Thank you, that’s truly fascinating.
The SDS/Weatherman early history had a lot about race. The Symbionese Liberation Army began with a group of white women teaching black prisoners to read. The book, “Days of Rage” tells the story.
https://www.amazon.com/Days-Rage-Underground-Forgotten-Revolutionary/dp/0143107976
My one newspaper appearance.
Not just your only appearance. You were on the same page with the one-legged football player! WOW!
The organization, BLM, want to create an Animal Farm where blacks are ‘more equal’ than other races, ethnicities, cultures, etc.
Does that mean that they take factors in addition to economic class into account when considering unearned structural advantages/disadvantages? Are the outcomes still basically measured in material terms?