ALL that money keeps pouring in, never mind that it seems to be going mainly to the greedy 'founders', the inner circle of the 'organization' known as BLM, just as all the money donated to the PLO went to its "leaders" and never helped the people of Gaza or the West Bank rid themselves of the PLO which NEVER did anything of value FOR THE PEOPLE.
The "leaders" lived in luxury while the people lived in squalor.
It's the same today with HAMAS and the "Palestinian Authority", and it's the same set-up in the BLM scam.
The "leaders" call for "warriors" while they themselves avoid the riots, the arson, the looting, the scenes of shootings and beatings of teens, women, the elderly.
Like the PLO, BLM 'founders' are far removed from the dangers they incite their followers to partake in.
What's next for BLM...a call for SUICIDE BOMBERS?
Some sort of AMERICAN JIHAD against Christianity, against any form of a judicial system and against all non-Black races, against those of their own community like Freeman, Owens, Carson, Sowell, Ellis...and Martin Luther King, Jr, who spoke out often against violence?
Black Lives Matter doesn’t hide its radical positions. They are listed right on its website. Who they are and what they believe — it’s right there, in the open.
Are their beliefs yours too?
IF you’re endorsing BLM, I dare you to urge your shareholders and customers to go read what’s on that BLM website.
“Two of three Black Lives Matter 'founders' identify as queer,” according to ABC News. The BLM positions reflect that, claiming to “foster a queer‐affirming network” and opposing “the tight grip of hetero-normative thinking.” The organization vows to “do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege.”
That’s all just an anti-family agenda.
NOT ALL LGBTQ organizations damn those who are 'straight' or Christian.
But BLM gets even more specific: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement.”
They want “extended families and ‘villages’” to raise your children. It takes a village, not parents.
This makes it clear that if we don't subscribe to THEIR agenda, we're RACISTS.
If we aren't an LGBTQ family, we're RACISTS.
If we believe that Jesus and His mother were White, we're RACISTS.
And they DARED people to post that "ALL LIVES MATTER"!
ANYONE SAYING THAT ALL LIVES MATTER IS RACIST, TOO.
ANY BLACKS who don't subscribe to the BLM agenda are called names by BLM "leaders" that Whites aren't supposed to even whisper... "Uncle Toms", "house-ni__ers", and worse.
The son of Muhammad Ali said his father would not agree with Black Lives Matter, referring to the cause as "racist" and its members as "devils".
Many Black leaders reject the "slavery excuse" used by BLM so often.
Economist Thomas Sowell writes: "More whites were brought as slaves to North Africa than blacks brought as slaves to the United States or to the 13 colonies from which it was formed. White slaves were still being bought and sold in the Ottoman Empire, decades after blacks were freed in the United States." This includes the huge role played by Arab-Muslim slavers."
Doesn't matter, shrieks the Left.
You’re either for BLM or against it—and if you’re against it, you’re a racist. You will either support BLM publicly and enthusiastically, or you will be harassed, shunned, and shamed out of mainstream America. If you dare to speak a word against BLM, you will be targeted, mobbed, and probably fired.
That’s the message coming through loud and clear, not just from protesters but from corporations and institutions desperate to seem woke enough to escape the wrath of the BLM movement.
The only thing that can protect you from the BLM movement’s punitive rage is fealty. Bend the knee, and you might be spared. Then again, you might not.
The list of people who have lost their jobs or been suspended for criticizing or even questioning the BLM movement is long—and growing daily. Most prominent on the list is erstwhile New York Times opinion page editor James Bennet, who “resigned” under pressure from woke NYT staffers after he ran an op-ed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton that made the uncontroversial case that the U.S. military should be deployed if police can’t get riots under control.
Then there was Stan Wischnowski, top editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer, forced to resign over a headline of an architecture column that read, “Buildings Matter, Too,” which ran after scores of buildings in downtown Philly had been destroyed by rioters.
Bon Appétit editor-in-chief Adam Rapoport stepped down Monday after a piece he published genuflecting to BLM was deemed insufficient by staffers who claim there’s a discriminatory culture at the magazine. Also, someone posted a 13-year-old photo of Rappaport in a Halloween costume that some people thought was offensive.
Claudia Eller, editor-in-chief at Variety, was forced to take administrative leave after she got into a Twitter spat with a woman of South Asian descent who thought a piece Eller wrote lamenting the lack of diversity at the magazine wasn’t obsequious enough.
On and on it goes. NBA announcer Grant Napear was fired from his sports talk radio program and resigned as the Sacramento Kings announcer after tweeting “all lives matter.” A professor at UCLA was placed on leave after refusing to cancel a final exam following the death of George Floyd. A reporter in Wales was forced to step down as Wales Book of the Year Judge after complaining that a BLM protest violated the government’s social distancing rules.
A cast member for MTV’s reality competition series “The Challenge” was fired after writing “people die every f–king day” in response to an Instagram comment about George Floyd. Professional soccer player Aleksander Katai was “released” by the LA Galaxy not for anything he wrote or said, but because his wife criticized BLM on Instagram. A former Canadian cabinet minister lost three jobs after saying on television that he didn’t think Canada was a racist country.
That’s just a partial list.
BLM Isn’t Interested In Free Speech, It Wants Power
This isn’t an evolutionary movement but a revolutionary one. It doesn’t draw on our tradition of constitutionalism but on Marxism. Its model isn’t the American Revolution but the French Revolution—hence the purges, which for now are confined to the workplace.
It’s fair to say the movement’s power and influence are based on ideological purges. Exposing supposed racists is its modus operandi, and what began on campus has now percolated through into the mainstream of American life.
The lesson in all of this is that the BLM movement is above all interested in power. It seeks to seize power in part by monopolizing the definition of racism and wielding accusations of racism against anyone who doesn’t fall in line with its radical policy agenda.
That means you’re a racist if you don’t support BLM—and even if you do, you might be deemed a racist anyway. And in that case, you’re fired.
The BLM’s website proudly proclaims “this is the revolution.”
And that’s precisely what this is — a revolution.
These are Marxists following the Maoist playbook in China during the late ’60s and early ’70s. The Maoist revolutionaries vandalized temples, tore down statues, and destroyed artifacts. The opposition was marched to 're-education camps'.
The Tibet Journal detailed the account of one lama who saw Marxism up close. The account described how Chinese Marxists “put themselves into a position of monopolizing truth and how it is sought.”
That is terrifyingly similar to what we are experiencing now.
It is not the alleged symbols of racism that Black Lives Matter wants destroyed.
It's America.
BLM is looking to replace a system that they say oppresses Blacks with one that oppresses everyone who is NOT Black and doesn't hold to the BLM agenda. Blacks who disagree with BLM are called "NOT Black" and much worse, despised by BLM and its supporters.
THE RISING COST OF BLM VIOLENCE
16 September 2020
Property Claim Services, a company that tracks insurance claims filed due to riots and the like, found that the left-wing riots that occurred between May 26 and June 8 of this year could reach $2 billion in insurance claims.
That astronomical number isn’t estimating total damage, just the damage that’s insured. So while the number is not helpful in estimating the total damage, it is still a good apples-to-apples comparison with past riots, since all the calculations, 1960s and now, are based on insurance claims.
"If Trump wins re-election in November, you ain’t seen nothing yet," mainstream media warns day after day.
"The rioting and terrorism will be off the charts," they promise in one fear-mongering article after another.
The national media are not even being subtle in threatening more riots if Joe Biden loses:
The far-left Atlantic published last week that...
"A loss by Joe Biden under these circumstances is the worst case not because Trump will destroy America (he can’t), but because it is the outcome most likely to undermine faith in democracy, resulting in more of the social unrest and street battles that cities including Portland, Oregon, and Seattle have seen in recent months. For this reason, strictly law-and-order Republicans who have responded in dismay to scenes of rioting and looting have an interest in Biden winning—even if they could never bring themselves to vote for him."
Here’s another:
"A landslide for Joe Biden resulted in a relatively orderly transfer of power. Every other scenario we looked at involved street-level violence and political crisis."
That unveiled threat came from the ultra far-left Washington Post at the beginning of the month.
If Trump wins, the marauders will maraud like nothing we have ever before seen, and they will do so with the full support of the establishment media and the Democrats.
How do we know that?
Because they are doing so now with the full support of the establishment media and Democrats.
If Biden wins, the Democrats, the media, and their Brownshirts in Antifa and Black Lives Matter will have had their terrorism validated.
So, either way…
Brace yourselves.
Prepare yourselves.
Prepare yourselves before it’s too late to prepare yourselves.
We have never lived in a country where political violence has been normalized and encouraged.
We do now.
Do read "BLM Becomes the PLO" By KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON September 27, 2020.
He wrote...
"The United States is not going to be governed by boutique radicalism and mob violence."
[If you strap explosives onto children and send them off to blow up anyone, your priorities go right to the bottom of my global humanitarian to-do list.
The PLO wanted a palestinian state? The hell they did! They wanted money and wanted it for themselves alone.
Some may say that BLM isn’t quite the PLO — not yet — but the BLM terrorists that are burning, looting, and murdering a widening path through American cities is brutalizing its way to get there.]
Williamson continued:
"In June, 54 percent of the few Americans 'polled' told pollsters they approved of the George Floyd protests, but as the body count of the “mostly peaceful protests” climbed throughout the summer, that support has declined to barely over a third, according to the Associated Press.
Americans of all political stripes were shocked and repulsed by the treatment of George Floyd, and nearly 70 percent of them said in June that they believe the George Floyd episode indicates a bigger and deeper problem with American law enforcement.
As recently as June, a majority of Republicans supported the George Floyd protests.
Not now.
This represents a truly impressive display of political incompetence on the part of Black Lives Matter and its allies. If you came to the American public with an argument that cities such as Louisville and Philadelphia are poorly governed, that this poor governance imposes especially terrible costs on African Americans, that the municipal incompetence naturally extends to police work, and that sweeping reform is called for, you would get a great deal of buy-in from both sides of the aisle. Republicans don’t need a whole lot of convincing that Chicago is a flying circus...
In truth, the Left isn’t especially interested in police reform. If they cared about police reform, progressives would be offering actual halfway serious proposals for police reform, which have been notably few and far between over these past months, drowned out by unserious and irresponsible rhetoric about abolishing city police departments.
The police are a special problem for the Left in that they represent an incompatibility between the Left’s post-1960s Bill Ayers–style radicalism and the realpolitik that recognizes police as unionized municipal employees and hence natural constituents of the Democratic Party.
The scandal of urban America is a stumbling-block for Democrats, for the obvious reason that this is pretty much exclusively their show and has been for generations.
Louisville, currently convulsed by the death of Breonna Taylor at the hands of police, hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since Lyndon Johnson was in the White House.
[THE DEMOCRATS THERE HAVE HAD ALMOST 60 YEARS TO "FIX THINGS" AND FAILED.]
Portions of American cities were ceded to armed militias over the summer, not by Republican authorities accommodating right-wing radicals descending from the hills of Idaho but by the powers that be in impeccably progressive Seattle inviting a left-wing occupation force to set up shop in a corner of that declining city, where they promptly set about shooting a few children.
Because Democrats run the most troubled cities, they are desperate to either change the subject from the performance of the municipal agencies in Minneapolis, Louisville, San Francisco, etc., to something more general and more politically malleable, hence the vapid, empty talk about “white privilege” and “systemic racism.”
It’s bullsh**, and everybody knows it’s bullsh**.
Even the president of Princeton more or less admitted his bullsh** was bullsh** when the Trump administration had the uncharacteristic wit to actually call him on said bullsh** and threaten a civil-rights investigation into the school after he denounced its “systemic racism.”
A vague problem vaguely related to the vaguely racist actions of vaguely identified vaguely Republican people elsewhere is a much more comfortable discussion for the powers that be in Minneapolis than the question of how Minneapolis is run, who runs it, how they run it, who benefits from that, and who pays the worst social costs.
One suspects that Democrats in such cities actually prefer the riots and arson to having that uncomfortable discussion.
Remember when the Minneapolis city council vowed to defund the police department? More bullsh**, as the New York Times reports. Of course they never meant a word of it — they just feel obliged to make certain noises with their faces and perform histrionic pantomime of moral seriousness.
We see this kind of thing all the time. San Francisco doesn’t need to abolish capitalism or eliminate “inequality” to alleviate its affordable-housing problem, but it does need to reform its zoning and land-use laws — something that Nancy Pelosi’s rich San Francisco friends have been fighting tooth and talon for decades. And so San Francisco pretends that San Francisco’s problems are not of San Francisco’s making, that the problem is “white privilege” or some other comfortable abstraction.
BLM could be using the Democratic Party to pursue a reform agenda; instead, the Democratic Party is using BLM to prevent the pursuit of a reform agenda. It’s always the same question: Who, whom?
Because we have 50 states and a great deal of genuine diversity within and between our communities, a federal system of government with checks and balances, and three rivalrous branches of government, it takes a considerable degree of political consensus to get anything very important done in the United States. That is a benefit, not a defect — it protects our liberties and the rights of minorities from the factional passions of temporary majorities.
The tragedy of the months following the death of George Floyd is that a real consensus for police reform, and urban reform more broadly, could have been built.
Instead, we got riots and arson, and roving bands of quasi-Maoist bullies conducting impromptu struggle sessions at Washington sidewalk bistros and alfresco restaurant seating in Dallas, along with a lot of outmoded Marxist rubbish about the secret white-supremacist roots of rhyming poetry, off-Broadway theater, and traffic laws.
465
You want to improve police practices and governance in American cities? I’m your huckleberry, and a great many conservatives are ready to work toward that goal.
You want to smash a few plates of kale-and-quinoa salad, smash windows, and smash capitalism? Then we don’t really have anything to talk about, because you are ridiculous and irresponsible children.
The United States is not going to be governed by boutique radicalism and mob violence. We don’t negotiate with terrorists, and we don’t negotiate with bullies — or cooperate with them.
BLM is pursuing a losing strategy, which is why it is losing support and setting itself up to lose entirely.
[KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON is the roving correspondent for National Review and the author of THE SMALLEST MINORITY: INDEPENDENT THINKING IN AN AGE OF MOB POLITICS.]
In his famous dystopian fiction, 1984, George Orwell outlined the typical manner in which revolutions are carried out. Particularly Orwell outlined that in order for a revolution to be, “successful” it must feature the complete degradation and impoverishment of the middle class so that the welfare class, and subsequently the government, might continue to grow in size and power.
What gave Orwell this idea? History. The simple fact is that George Orwell had only to crack open a history book to understand this basic fact of leftist revolutions throughout history. While the events depicted in 1984 are frightening enough for a work of fiction, even more horrifying is the fact that they are currently playing out within the United States
While BLM claims to stand for the African-American community, their words show that they actually stand only for an extreme fringe which completely rejects all that famous leaders such as Martin Luther King stood for.
King, and other Civil Rights Leaders of old, understood that there was a growing threat in the 1960s of a new breed of slavery being born; welfare slavery, slavery to big government.
King, through his speeches, attempted to show African-Americans the importance of becoming self-reliant and developing a strong work ethic that they might never again fall into the bondage of slavery.
Many young African-Americans find themselves becoming 'useful idiots' for the radical left and, due to having bought into the victim’s mentality that King warned about, sincerely believe they are fighting against a, “racist” system, which in actuality does not exist.
According to Action Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty,, the founding principles of BLM include a guaranteed minimum income for all Black people, free health care, free schooling, free food, free real estate, gender reassignment surgery, free abortion (already disproportionately high among African-American women, “27.1 per 1,000 women compared with 10 per 1,000 for white women,” but apparently unborn Black lives don’t matter to BLM).
Washington, D.C.’s local BLM chapter has even called for “no new jails” (which would likely guarantee an increase in crime, much of it perpetrated in Black communities — see the District’s crime stats, see Chicago, see Los Angeles). BLM also demands reparations and wants to create a “global liberation movement” that will “overturn U.S. imperialism (and) capitalism.”
OVERALL, BLM's wants, its 'doctrine', it's 'strategy', 'foundational spirituality', everything about it except its raw hatred, violence and excessive greed are muddled, scrambled, incoherent.
They claim Marxism, but want ALL the wealth.
They decry racism, but are deeply devout racists.
They rail against cops killing blacks but refuse to discuss blacks killing more blacks daily than cops kill blacks in a year.
And they want to enlist whites to kill cops for them, even if some of those cops are black.
Capitalism must die, they say, but first, fork over all the money to BLM and go shop their high-priced online store.
NO ONE HAS OWNED SLAVES IN AMERICA SINCE THE CIVIL WAR, and never mind that Native Americans, whites, Asians and others were also slaves. Only black slaves matter.
They say that America was stolen from the "Indians", but then demand some, or all, of that land FOR THEMSELVES, FOR FREE.
As more and more Black communities are pointing out, BLM is NOT sharing their mounting wealth with even the poorest black communities.
NO, NOT ALL BLACK LIVES MATTER...not the children lost daily to black-on-black crime and/or domestic violence.
NO, NOT the many Black girls and women raped each day inside those communities.
NO, NOT the unborn babies aborted each day in numbers greater than the 'national average'.
Read my second 'end note', and IF THIS is what you choose to support, you may certainly do so.
They say ignorance has a cure in gaining knowledge, but stupid is incurable.
___________________________
END NOTES:
** REUTERS Transcript:
00:00
Police clashed with anti-racism
00:02
protesters (BLM/Antifa) and
00:03
pushed back members of the press in
00:06
downtown Portland, Oregon
00:07
into early Sunday morning. More than 20
00:10
arrests were made (BLM/antifa members).
00:12
Police declared a riot after they said
00:14
rocks and cans were thrown at officers.
00:17
Social media postings showed police
00:19
pushing protesters and photographers to
00:21
the ground
00:22
and jabbing them with batons as officers
00:25
drove them out of an area near
00:27
Portland's federal courthouse.
00:28
Protesters burned an American flag and
00:31
clashed with police
00:32
as they tried to arrest demonstrators.
00:35
The violence followed a relatively
00:37
peaceful rally
00:38
by the self-declared western chauvinist
00:41
Proud Boys group on Saturday.
00:43
Wearing black and yellow polo t-shirts
00:45
and militarized body armor
00:47
with many brandishing weapons, Proud Boys
00:50
members
00:50
railed against democratic leaders in
00:52
Portland as protests over police
00:54
violence and racism have rocked the city
00:57
for months. Proud Boys chairman Enrique
01:00
Tario:
01:00
"But it isn't protests. They're burning
01:03
down cities.
01:04
What does that do for George Floyd?"
01:05
Anti-fascists (antifa) and black lives matter
01:07
groups held a counter protest
01:09
two miles south ahead of the rally.
01:11
Oregon governor
01:12
Kate Brown declared a weekend state of
01:15
emergency.
01:16
The Proud Boys group forecast the rally
01:18
would draw a crowd of at least
01:19
10 thousand. Police said fewer than 1 000
01:23
showed up.
-------
Tuesday, 19 July 2016
BLM Activist to "White Folks": Your Money and Your Life.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160720171447/https://thenewamerican.com/culture/item/23660-blm-activist-to-white-folks-your-money-and-your-life
Ashleigh Shackelford had a vulgarity-laden article published by Wear Your Voice in which she makes it clear that white people are — at best — second-class citizens in the movement. In fact, she says the proper role of “white folks” is either as human shields, criminal agents, or financiers. Only she is not so delicate or eloquent about it.
Shackelford — a self-described “Radical Black Fat Femme. Queer, Agender Baddie. Writer, Body+ Advocate, & Activist” — shows her (and her movement's) true colors in all their white-hating glory. Her article — entitled 'For White People Who Want to Attend #BlackLivesMatter Protests' — is nothing if not straightforward.
Against the backdrop of the BLM crowd claiming that the movement is just about people wanting to be treated equally, Shackelford's article is a blatant admission of the true nature of BLM.
In 1,585 words, she betrays the pretense of the BLM crowd and — probably without even realizing it — shows it for what it is: a racist hate group built on sensationalizing the deaths of black people for the express purpose of capitalizing on the negative emotions it stirs up while destroying the very fabric of America in the process.
She begins by saying that the last two years of “organiz[ing] around anti-black violence and within the #BlackLivesMatter movement” has taught her to get over her “personal/political naiveté” about having “white allies” in the fight against oppression. She says she came to realize that “trying to work with white people in direct actions became extremely triggering and tasking.” And why is that? She says:
"White people are 400 years too f**king late for a round of applause for a damn tweet with a hashtag, or for showing up to a damn rally. So many white folks use politicization around #BlackLivesMatter to perform woke-ness because they are still praised in doing so. There is a special snowflake card issued to every white person who goes above existing in silence. But the reality is that even when white people “speak up,” those words are often plagiarized from us, they’re almost always given without citation or credit to whichever Black person they heard/read it from and they are almost always in a position to do more than just “talk.”
Shackelford offers her list of “the things that matter the most at this point in time for white people who want to show up to a #BlackLivesMatter protest.”
Numbers one and four on her (did I already say disjointed?) list are, “Ask yourself why you need to go to a #blacklivesmatter protest.” She asks, “Unless Black organizers have specified that you need to come to a rally for buffers against the police, as a legal observer, or to collect other white people, why are you going to a protest when you’re the oppressor?”
One need not listen too closely to hear echoes of “Sit at the back of the bus.” Just to put in the for-what-it's-worth column, I agree with at least part of her question. Since the movement is built on the kind of idiotic racism espoused by Shackelford and other BLM “leaders,” why would any self-respecting white person want to be at a BLM protest? Her acceptable reasons for white people attending include acting as “buffers against the police.” The more descriptive term is “human shield,” which she makes clear next by saying, “If you really believe that #BlackLivesMatter, ask yourself if you’re willing to die for us and to die to dismantle this system.”
As inflammatory as her opening remarks are, though, Shackelford is just getting started. She lists other questions white people should ask themselves and says that “If you cannot answer yes to ALL of these questions, you don’t need to be at a protest.”
"Are you willing to learn everything possible about anti-blackness and its many forms so that you can dismantle it? Are you willing to give up everything you have to make sure Black people can survive, thrive and be safe? If you cannot answer yes to ALL of these questions, you don’t need to be at a protest. There are more ways to actually use your privilege and more ways to challenge the anti-black violence embedded within you without being at a protest that you serve no purpose for. Your presence only triggers the black people that are frightened by you, and you actually don’t change anything by being at a protest if there is no work to match your visibility."
So, to be clear, it's perfectly all right to be anti-white (in fact it's a praiseworthy goal for white people to strive toward), but unless white people are willing to give up everything they own and die to “dismantle” a system of “anti-blackness,” they need not apply. The fact that her argument turns in on itself and commits suicide as it crumbles under its own weight seems lost on Shackelford.
Her second point is neither less inflammatory nor any more logical: reparations. Now there's a word that is sure to stir up controversy. While race-baiting black “leaders” have trotted out this idea for years now and there is nothing really new to say on the subject, Shackelford does manage to make the idea sound even more distasteful than usual. She says to her supposed white audience:
"Nothing you have is yours. Let me be clear: Nothing you have is yours. Also, Let me be see through: Reparations are not donations, because we are not your charity, tax write off, or good deed for the day. You are living off of stolen resources, stolen land, exploited labor, appropriated culture and the murder of our people. Nothing you have is yours." [Emphasis in original.]
This would be a great time to point to all of the millions of hard-working, educated black people who have prospered and made something of their lives. Among them are millionaires and business owners and doctors and lawyers and congressmen and senators and governors and even a president. This would be a good place to point that out, but some logical points are like punchlines: If you have to explain them, they are pointless.
In case "white folks" missed her point, Shackelford spells it out in pure snark:
"We live in a white supremacist, capitalist world, so ain’t no spinning webs of lies around “money isn’t the answer.” It is because money and exploitation and power are interconnected concepts of violence. Y’all spent hundreds of years selling, mutilating, raping and beating our bodies and labor but you think money doesn’t matter to our freedom and liberation? Cute. Write me a check for this shade because it comes with 400 years of trauma."
[MY NOTE: Write HER a check? When was she a slave? Does she want us to believe she was a slave for 400 years or has been "traumatized" for 400 years? Is she totally oblivious to the facts that FREE Blacks immigrated to America WILLINGLY, GLADLY, that the last slave ship arrived in the U.S. in either 1859 or 1860? Where was SHE then? NOT aboard the Clotilda!]
"We need housing, transportation, food, clothes, free space for meetings and work space; we need laptops, cell phones, encrypted systems for communication, solar power and LAND." [HANG ON THERE! ALL LAND YOU COULD GET YOUR HANDS ON WAS ONCE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF INDIGENOUS TRIBES, NONE OF WHICH ORIGINATED IN AFRICA OR EUROPE! YOU WANT TO ROB "INDIANS", TOO? THE HELL YOU SAY! THIEF!]
" Stop playing. Y’all really thought pulling up to the protest in your Hyundai was gonna be enough? Nah. You have to give us everything we need and more, because even if it means you go without — it doesn’t matter because that’s how we been living for 400+ years. Reparations will never be negotiable. So if you’re not willing to talk money, you are not here for #BlackLivesMatter as a movement or for us as individuals."
[BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BLM STANCE AGAINST CAPITALISM? WHAT ABOUT THE BLM WEBSITE THAT STATES CAPITALISM MUST GO? WHAT ABOUT THE FOUNDATIONAL PREMISE OF MARXISM THAT ALL WEALTH MUST BE EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED, O, HYPOCRITE? YOU WANT TO GET RICH WHILE OTHERS GET POOR? WHAT A FAKE YOU ARE! WHAT A SCAM BLM IS!]
Don't let her jab at the connection between “white” and “capitalist” slip by you unnoticed. She and others like her in the BLM crowd mean to lump them both together and eliminate them both together. In the twisted recesses of their minds, wealth comes from nothing and “white” equals “capitalism” and both are oppressive. The only thing that keeps black people down is the oppression of “white capitalism,” and if that were removed and white wealth were redistributed, then black people would all somehow be wealthy. After all, she wants “white” people to give “Black” people “everything [they] need and more, because even if it means [white people] go without — it doesn’t matter.”
In her next point — intentional acts of disruption and shifting of structural power — Shackelford fleshes out her vision of white people as the criminal agents of BLM. Besides “shut[ting] down and boycott[ing] white businesses instead of Black folks having to do it” and giving “all their money to Black folks,” Shackelford says that she wants to see “white allies” (oh, now we're allies) “shut down police stations and highways across the nation for #BlackLivesMatter” and use “violence as a tactic against other white people perpetuating violence against Blacks.” She continues:
"Shifting structural power is key. Reparations falls in line with that as well. I don’t want to see white people holding up a damn sign, I want to see white people doing work that will get them killed because that’s how much they want to dismantle antiblackness. Are you willing to die for us? Because Black folks have a death count of 7 million and up. Are you willing to kill for us? Because we get called violent for protesting “peacefully.” At this point, ain’t no white allyship, b. You either an accomplice (and even then, I don’t trust you) or you ain’t sh*t."
[AN ACCOMPLICE...TO CRIMES? YES, INDEED...CRIMES. MURDER, JUST AS SHE DEMANDS.]
Wait. I thought we were allies; now we're accomplices? And even if white people kill and die for BLM, Shackelford doesn't trust them (which, of course, makes more sense than I am sure she realizes). If white people don't kill and die for BLM, then they “ain't sh*t.” Talk about being damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Again, point four is “See #1” (which is “Ask yourself why you need to go to a #blacklivesmatter protest.”), presumably because Shackelford thought of a few more points that she should have included there and rather than go back and edit her rant, she just stuck those thoughts at the end.
These are not really new points as much as simply her saying the same things in an even more disjointed way than before:
"Ask yourself if you care more about what the world thinks of you or if you care about the safety and protection of Black lives. What is the truth, boo? If you do decide to go to a protest, be ready to write checks and give up your car keys. Be ready to connect with other white people to start planning a highway shut down so that you can involve yourself with the high risk that would harm us more when we do it. Like I said, if you not [sic] about this sh*t, DON’T GO.
[THIS SH*T? GOOD CALL! SH*T IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.]
Whiteness operates in a way that means that using your privilege “for good” often requires Black folks to still be a position to be “saved” or “in need.” We don’t need white saviorism. We don’t need white people to speak for us. We don’t even really need white people to show up to rallies. We need our reparations, we need intentional disruption that involves high risk and we need y’all to stop playing."
Saving the best for last, Shackelford reveals her “victim-for-profit” mentality by listing her PayPal link along with the plea, “Support my emotional and intellectual labor by donating.”
At the risk of Shackelford accusing me of plagiarizing “Black” people, her anger and lack of logic remind me of something Malcolm X once said: “Anger is the wind which blows out the lamp of the mind.” Actually, though, Malcolm "borrowed" that quote from Robert G. Ingersoll, a white man. And while both Ingersoll and Malcolm were almost always wrong, they got this one right. Anger blinds the intellect. So does hatred. So does greed.
Racism, even — and possibly even especially — that which presents itself as anti-racism, is always wrong.
In their victim mentality and anger and thirst for other people's property, Shackelford and others like her in BLM either miss that or deliberately pervert it for their own purposes. Given her PayPal link, I think Shackleford's motives are clear.
-------
