It’s okay to dislike the group Black Lives Matter, and still like black people.
These things are not mutually exclusive.
Black Lives Matter is a group with its own political and social agenda.
Unfortunately, they’ve cleverly chosen a name that makes it hard for people to openly
disagree with them without being labelled as “racist” or “against the lives of
black people”.
They would have you believe that by disagreeing with Black Lives Matter the group, then you’re
somehow supporting police brutality against black people, which is obviously flawed logic.
Of course the lives of black people matter, and of course police brutality is bad, but
does that mean you should blindly follow this increasingly extremist group that is Black
Lives Matter?
I think the answer is a resounding NO!
Just because a group has made a catchy name that uses a bit of clever wordplay, does not
mean that you must blindly support them.
You should base your support for any group on their actions, not their name.
I could invent a group called Puppies Deserve Freedom and get a million Facebook likes,
but if my group goes around hunting endangered wildlife in order to make more room for the
puppies, then I would hope that most people would see through the name and disagree with
our flawed cause.
Black Lives Matter was founded by three ladies: Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and Patrisse Khan-Cullors.
At least some of these ladies describe themselves as “trained Marxists”.
That is, they’re proponents of the writings of Karl Marx, German Socialist Revolutionary.
There’s plenty of evidence of their Marxist links online, and I’ve seen a video myself
with Patrisse admitting as much.
In the video she states, “The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological
frame.
Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers.
We are trained Marxists.
We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.
And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized
by many, many black folk”.
(You can watch the private video for yourself.
I’ve linked to it in the description below).
If you look at their website, Black Lives Matter are openly calling for the defunding
of the police.
This campaign has actually worked to some extent.
Just last month, the New York Police Department disbanded their plainclothes anti-crime unit
under increased pressure over police shootings.
Unfortunately, the gamble didn’t pay off: “Shootings soar 205% after NYPD disbands
anti-crime unit”.
Understandably, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is very concerned with the recent spike in
violence.
One victim, Jomo Glasgow, who was a 35-year-old DJ, was gunned down outside a house party
in Brooklyn on June 17.
That was just two days after the anti-crime unit was scrapped, a unit which had 600 police
officers whose prime responsibility was preventing and reducing violent street crime.
Glasgow’s mother, Hazel Thomas, told the New York Post, “I feel like we are giving
the streets back to the criminals.
They shouldn’t have disbanded it.
Whatever the problem they have, address it.
But don’t disband the unit.
Many lives would have been saved.
Not just my son”.
Black lives matter, right, no matter who does the shooting.
I get it.
I would love to live in a world which is free of crime where we don’t need the police,
but that’s not achieved by simply defunding the police.
Similarly, I’d love to live in a world that is free of disease and injury, but that’s
not achieved by simply defunding hospitals.
As long as there is violent crime, we need the police.
Instead of focusing on defunding the police, Black Lives Matter should instead turn their
focus to understanding crime and why people commit it.
If you can prevent people from committing crime, then naturally, society will need less
police.
I’m not saying it’s an easy task, but when is massive societal change ever easy?
Here are some American crime statistics from 2018 (the latest data I could find) taken
from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Criminal Victimization, 2018 report.
We can see that arrest rates for black offenders (depicted in orange) is much higher per 100,000
population than it is for other races.
The only exception being Offences against the family and children, and Vagrancy, where
American Indians (shown in yellow) have similar rates.
Asian people (shown in green) consistently commit less crime in all offence categories.
Here are some more offences.
Again, black people commit more crime on a per capita basis than any other racial group,
except for Driving under the influence, and Drunkenness where they have similar rates
to white people (shown in blue).
In both these categories, as well as Disorderly conduct, American Indians have the highest
arrest rates.
Of course these statistics are concerning and need to be addressed.
Obviously there are lots of issues at play here, but defunding the police is not the
answer.
On their website, Black Lives Matter also call for the “disruption of the Western-prescribed
nuclear family structure”.
For whatever reason, they don’t like the idea of “a couple and their dependent children,
regarded as a basic social unit”.
If we look at this chart here taken from the United States Census Bureau, rates of single-parenthood
are much higher in black families than they are for the other racial groups.
There’s plenty of evidence online that suggests that children being raised in single-parent
households have much worse outcomes than those being raised by two parents.
I simply can’t understand why Black Lives Matter are advocating for the “disruption
of the nuclear family structure”.
It doesn’t make any sense.
The BBC are starting to see through this flawed ideology and have now banned the wearing of
Black Lives Matter badges and insignia on air.
Bosses at the BBC ruled that “visual symbols of support” for Black Lives Matter should
not be worn on screen.
This comes after BLM’s UK arm publicly criticised Israel and called for the British government
to “defund the police”.
BLM have been accused of “hijacking” George Floyd’s death for political purposes.
It was only a few short weeks ago when politicians were eager to get their picture taken kneeling
in solidarity with Black Lives Matter, but now they seem to be distancing themselves
from a movement which demands moving funds away from police departments.
Many of you already know what I think of kneeling down to somebody.
It’s an act of subjugation, not of solidarity.
Slaves knelt to their masters, and BLM are certainly not my masters.
If you really want to support a group, you can support them in a whole host of other
ways without having to kneel down to them.
“Formula One drivers unite against racism but several refuse to kneel to controversial
BLM movement”.
On top of that, some of the drivers refused to wear masks.
Heaven forbid!
But again, you don’t have to support or even like Black Lives Matter in order to be
openly opposed to racism.
They’re not mutually exclusive.
If you don’t want to kneel down to a controversial activist organisation, well you shouldn’t
bloody well have to!
If you don’t want to wear a mask, you also shouldn’t bloody well have to!
We’re living in a free society after all.
But unfortunately, some commentators are equating not kneeling to Black Lives Matter as some
sort of racist attack.
No, they’re the ones being racist for expecting you to kneel down to them because of their
skin colour.
YouTube have also been caught up in this masquerade that is BLM.
On my channel dashboard, YouTube keep pressing me to watch this video by YouTube CEO Susan
Wojcicki, or whatever her name is, talk about how much YouTube support Black Lives Matter.
The fact that I’m even talking to you about BLM in a negative light will almost certainly
lead to me being punished by my YouTube masters.
But whatever you do to me Susan Wojcicki, I will not bow down to you, or Black Lives
Matter, because I am not your slave.
So, dear listener, I hope you are able to watch this video before it gets deleted, something
that YouTube seem to love to do of late.
To be fair, YouTube and Black Lives Matter are very similar in a way.
They don’t believe in openness and honesty — they believe in censorship and propaganda.
This is their new flag with Karl Marx in the middle.
It took me about five minutes to design.
What do you reckon?
It’s quite fitting, don’t you think?
“Murder of Secoriea Turner raises questions about Black Lives Matter”.
“‘You shot and killed a baby’: Atlanta mayor demands an end to violence after 8-year-old
slain near where Rayshard Brooks died”.
Yes, an 8-year-old girl was shot and killed by some armed thugs.
Atlanta mayor Keisha Bottoms replied, “The reality is this: These aren’t police officers
shooting people on the streets of Atlanta, these are members of the community shooting
each other...
We're fighting the enemy within when we are shooting each other up in our streets.
You shot and killed a baby.
And it wasn't one shooter, there was at least two shooters.”
If Black Lives Matter were true to their name, then surely they should be protesting on the
street about poor little Secoriea.
But they’re not.
So in my opinion, their outfit is a scam for something much more sinister.
Anyway, they’re my thoughts on Black Lives Matter.
I don’t like them.
I think they deserve our scrutiny and suspicion, and that doesn’t mean you’re against black
people in any way.
It’s easy for big companies like YouTube to just “go along” with Black Lives Matter
because BLM have cleverly chosen a name that’s hard to publicly disagree with.
YouTube are probably scared they’ll lose their precious advertising revenue if they
dare disagree with BLM.
But when you look deep down into what Black Lives Matter actually stand for, you’ll
find a group that is founded on radical and extremist ideals that are inherently combative
and ultimately unrealistic.
They’re ideology will not bring about peace like they claim.
It will bring about the opposite.
My only warning to those of you who do publicly praise and support BLM is this: Although you
may support what Black Lives Matter stand for outwardly, you ultimately have no control
over what Black Lives Matter do, now or in the future.
They’re a radical group willing to use any means necessary to achieve their political
and social agenda.
If they start doing things that are seen as extreme, or perhaps things that start bordering
on domestic terrorism, then you may just find yourself in a position where you have to publicly
justify your previous support for the group.
History tells us that the public get extremely angry with ex-supporters of radical groups.
As I said before: Not supporting Black Lives Matter has nothing to do with racism.
Don’t be fooled by their name.
At the very least, investigate who you are supporting.
Don’t blindly bow down to or give money to a group that openly supports the removal
of the police, a group that is founded in the writings of Karl Marx, and a group that
are intent on abolishing the basic social unit, that is, the nuclear family.
But above all — be careful.
Black Lives Matter are not a group to be taken lightly.