As protests from Black Lives Matter (TM) move from declaring that “Black Lives Matter” to “Defund the Police” to tearing down statues, this may be difficult to comprehend.
As I tried to explain before, there are certain tactics that are being used these days that involve lies. I wrote about how private individuals can use these tactics to torture people. Due to a rapidly developing story, I wrote an unexpected piece explaining how motivated lies can be used to prosecute people.
This post tries to bring some clarity to that picture. I make a controversial claim that is becoming less controversial as the days go on. This is a revolution. It is Marxist.
Supporting that claim is going to take some work. That is why this extended piece is organized into four parts:
- The first section is about statues, their importance, and the lies surrounding their destruction.
- The second section is about tactics of intimidation, lies, and violence.
- The third section is about the Black Lives Matter (TM) ideology, and revolutionary goals.
- The final section demonstrates with 1930s reseach just exactly how explicitly Marxist, the Black Lives Matter (TM) organization and ideology is.
So let’s begin.
Statues, Their Importance, and The Lies Surrounding Their Destruction.
This is the biggest thing in the news, so let’s start with statues.
Are Statues Important?
What is the Significance of Tearing Down Statues? I had my own thoughts on the problems with tearing down statues, even apart from doing it through a mob.
But recently, I saw strange agreement on the topic of the removal of statues. And it didn’t come from some “racist” Southern boomer. It came from a young female Venezuelan immigrant. It wasn’t what most people were expecting:
History? Curriculums? Censorship? Is this crazy? Communists? Really? I mean REALLY?
The Dishonesty Behind Bringing Down Statues
“Isn’t this just an understandable reaction to the death of George Floyd? Isn’t this about police brutality? Aren’t Confederate statues just a public symbol of state violence towards black Americans?”
This is the main reaction of the public, and it is understandable. Most people do not care about Confederate statues, because why would they?
But lately, most have noticed that something is changing, and people are confused, including the not-at-all conservative Washington Post. Because of the connection of these mobs to “anti-racism,” people are worried about raising serious concerns. After all, nobody wants to be pro-racism.
But regardless, people are noticing the problem. The statues being destroyed are no longer “Confederate.” They are “American.”
First, after all the available Confederate statues were destroyed, there was the destruction of the statue of people with questionable ties to slavery and the confederacy like Albert Pike.
Though he was an officer in the Confederacy, he was not a slave owner. Even more curious, he was convicted of treason BY THE CONFEDERACY. Why take down his statue? Good question. (But violent mobs don’t care about good questions.)
Perhaps you think this was just confusion. Perhaps you think the real reason that statues are coming down is because they are “hate, not history,” and everybody makes mistakes.
Okay, let’s move on to some more examples.
George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and Thomas Jefferson
Quite strangely, the mobs vandalized or destroyed statues of George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and others. (See that story here.) While it is possible that these mobs are the most ignorant and mentally challenged individuals in all of America, it is much more likely that their stated REASONS for bringing down these statues are not truthful. (Note: Violence and deception do tend to go hand in hand.)
For context, here’s Jamelle Bouie in 2017 claiming that Donald Trump is crazy for thinking that Robert E. Lee’s statue coming down means that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are next.
And today, we have the strange phenomena of the mob proving Trump to be downright prophetic:
- Here is Thomas Jefferson’s destroyed statue in Portland Oregon. It’s interesting that the vandal’s quote about the incident in the headline is “It’s not vandalism.” (Note: it is)
- Here is a story about a George Washington statue being vandalized in Portland Oregon.
Note the description of the destruction of the George Washington Statue vandalized in Portland:
Before toppling the statue, it was vandalized, draped in an American flag, and then lit on fire.
Here is another story about a similar incident in Baltimore.
Does that sound like someone concerned with statues of “Hate, not history”?
“But they were slave-owners, right?” the doubtful say. “Even Ulysses S. Grant supposedly owned one or two slaves before the Civil War, right?”
What a strange argument, but whatever. Let’s move on to more examples.
Officials in New York City announced that the Equestrian Statue of Teddy Roosevelt in front of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City will be taken down. For cleaning because it was defaced by a mob? To be moved somewhere better? No. It’s coming down because the radical mob declared it to be “racist.”
In case you’re wondering, Teddy Roosevelt was born in 1858 in New York, a free state. He was seven years old when the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865. It is literally impossible for him to have either owned a slave or fought for the confederacy. The “racist” allegation is ridiculous, and anyone with a shred of historical knowledge would see straight through it.
Teddy Roosevelt is one of the most “American” and least controversial American Presidents in our history (unless you love corporate monopolies). He even has the distinction of being the first president to invite a black man to dine in the White House (Booker T. Washington), which caused great derision of him, his administration, and his wife. This is NOT about police treatment of young black men. This is NOT about racism. This is not about any of that. It’s a revolution.
But why was it called racist? The Wikipedia page for the statue describes why. Because:
the “pyramidal composition” with Roosevelt at its apex “implies a hierarchy”
The sculptor of the statue, James Earle Fraser, stated the intent with these words: “The two figures at [Roosevelt’s] side are guides symbolizing the continents of Africa and America, and if you choose may stand for Roosevelt’s friendliness to all races.”
In case you’re wondering what merit the “pyramidal composition” point about the statue has, I’ll just let you know that it results from a Postmodernist analysis of the artwork. In other words, it is devoid of truth or merit. See this piece if you’re confused by that explanation.
The real unmasking of the dishonest motivations behind the violent mob is this declaration about the Emancipation Memorial in DC by an activist in front of a potentially violent mob:
And while that may seem like a victory because this particular statue of Abraham Lincoln did NOT come down (after riot police showed up).
Then take note of this story about the Black Student Union and the Student Inclusion Coalition at the University of Wisconsin demanding that a statue of Abraham Lincoln be removed because of his “anti-Indigenous and anti-Black history.”
Some UW-Madison students of color want the university to remove one of its most iconic landmarks, a statue of Abraham Lincoln, because of what they see as the former president’s anti-Indigenous and anti-Black history despite Lincoln’s legacy of ending slavery in the U.S.
Two student organizations, the Black Student Union and the Student Inclusion Coalition, pushed for the statue’s removal in early June, days after George Floyd died in Minneapolis police custody and protests erupted nationally over racial injustice.
The students’ efforts gained newfound attention after protesters tore down two other statues at the state Capitol earlier this week — one of Civil War abolitionist Hans Christian Heg and another of a female figure that represents the state’s “Forward” motto.
Abraham Lincoln. That’s right. The Black Student Union and another “Inclusion” group with obvious ideological underpinnings is targeting ABRAHAM LINCOLN because he was “anti-Black.”
Are you getting the picture? This isn’t a group of people who hate “racism.” They’re people who hate “America.” That’s what the ideology is. George Floyd was just an excuse. “Racism” is just a means. What they hate is the country.
And to top it all off, here is a story about the mob destroying Mount Rushmore because it is “racist.”
Oh, I’m sorry. My mistake, that’s not Black Lives Matter (TM) destroying Mount Rushmore. That’s a 20-year-old news report about the Taliban destroying ancient statues of Buddha because they were “idolatry.”
How on EARTH did I get that radical and violent religious movement mixed up with our current moment!?
“This is all that remains of [the statues], a crumbling pile of rubble. For the [activist group], a defiant display to its critics that it will do as it pleases. Both were condemned as [not allowed by the ideology] due to [the group’s] interpretation of [the moral code]. The destruction continues to spark an international outcry. Even last minute appeals by [seemingly sympathetic outside groups] were ignored.
Now, [the country’s] fundamentalist regime is concentrating on how the world is focusing on the loss of ancient artifacts at the expense of the [nation’s] people. On Monday, it claimed the international community was turning a blind eye to the hardships faced by the common people.
Monday’s display is likely to prompt further display from abroad, but any criticism is not likely to deter [the activist group] from pursuing its objectives.
Sarcasm aside, do you see the parallels?
Tactics of Intimidation, Lies, and Violence
Beyond statues, there are actions against human beings, too.
Aggression and Humiliation as a Calculated Tactic
About ten years ago, I remember a bunch of crazy people talking about a book by Saul Alinsky called “Rules for Radicals.” I always sort of brushed them off, because it seemed like an overreaction to Obama because he had once been a “community organizer.” But as things started to get weird, lately, I looked the book up.
It seems Saul Alinsky was an American communist activist in the 1970s. His book is a set of tactics for mobs to get what they want by circumventing the democratic process. It’s eerily prescient for what we’re watching happen now (see here). Particularly of interest are the following rules:
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on.
Rule 11: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside. Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
This is a Marxist giving rules on how to get what you want in America. If you haven’t seen this tactic in action, then you haven’t been watching. And assuming you haven’t been watching, I’ll give you some examples.
Ridicule and Public Humiliation as a Tactic
What’s clear is that rather than being mere “activist” who move for public policy proposals, the mobs ridicule and demean elected officials — even sympathetic ones — to get what they want. For example:
- On June 8, 2020, here’s a video of Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis being shamed by the crowd after he wouldn’t commit to dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department.
- In response to the mob’s demand, the City Council announced its intention to dismantle the police department on the very same day, June 8, 2020. (See here for that story.)
- That intention was put into action on June 26, 2020. (See here for that story.)
- On November 4, 2019, here’s the mayor of Aurora Colorado being called a F***-boy for not prosecuting individuals in the police department who were obviously innocent of crimes.
- (See the prosecutor’s statement here, or my own writing here if you have questions about the underlying incident)
- In response to the continued pressure of the mob that has grown, on June 25, 2020, the governor of Colorado appointed a special prosecutor to see if it is possible to pursue criminal charges against the officers. (See that story here).
Imitations of Righteousness
Hand in hand with humiliation of the other side is the imitations of righteousness by the revolutionaries.
I have already shown instances in which Black Lives Matters(TM) “protests” are “peaceful” in the daytime, but turn into “mobs” when the night comes. I have already written about how this is the result of an ideology that does not believe that “truth” exists, and that instead believes only “power” exists. Therefore, all CLAIMS of truth (which doesn’t exist to them) are actually just TOOLS to acquire power (which does exist). (See here for that story.)
This is why photos like this are so important to Black Lives Matter (TM), regardless of what the background story was:
Doesn’t the serene beauty of the young woman in a flowing dress say something to your emotions? Don’t the gloved hands reaching out from police in riot gear tell a story in the picture? Doesn’t the fact that the beautiful young woman is black and the two riot-gear police officers are white SPEAK to your SOUL?
Of course. That’s the point. But do you notice that phone with camera facing out? Hm…
Would it change your opinion of the situation if you knew she wanted to get arrested to create a “moment”? That’s what argument and public debate looks like when a group categorically rejects claims of “truth” and only believes in the power of narratives that move on people’s souls in a way that redistributes “power” (which is all that exists to a Postmodernist).
Why was this young lady willing to get arrested? Because she knew that by creating a “moment,” she could sway people’s opinions through their emotions, without having to get into the weeds of “facts” and being “correct.”
Or as rule 11 says: Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
That’s how the mob utilizes these protests. They create highly motivated lies.
The Lie of “Peaceful” Protesters.
And this “peaceful” part of the “protest” is definitely a lie. We can see this even when these “protests” are “sanctioned.”
Here’s an example of a 911 call of a mother with her toddler being threatened and intimidated, and not being allowed to be helped because “peaceful” protesters gained power.
Listen to that command of “Get off my car!” In what universe is that “peaceful”? It’s not. The “peaceful” is a lie, repeated ad nauseum.
In another example, we see instances like this, where, NPR ran this story about people attacking protesters. Take a look at this editor’s note:
Editor’s note: A previous version of this story included a photo of a protester being struck by a car in Louisville, Kentucky. The photo, chosen by editors, does not appear to be an example of the assaults described in the story, and has been replaced. Police have not charged the driver, but have charged two of the protesters involved in that incident. Authorities continue to investigate.
This was the original photo:
Originally, they claimed that this was an example of a car attacking protesters, but here is the original video:
You can see that this is obviously a mob taking over a road. The activists attack the car, trying to get in, with the car trying to get away. You can see the protester yelling at the driver with a megaphone. You can see the protester physically hit the driver through the window with the megaphone. You can see the car speed back in reverse, AWAY from the protesters. The protesters descend and attack the car, trying to get in. The reason the person was hit by the car is that he was attacking the car, and the car was trying to get away.
Now, the violent protesters who attacked the car have been arrested. Allegedly, they pulled a gun on the driver, twice.
And yet, the lie in this NPR story is that the car attacked “peaceful” protesters.
And in case you think that was an honest mistake, and not an ideological tendency of the author, note that the story about cars attacking protesters is still up, and the picture now clearly shows an incident when a car hit protesters. But that picture is from Charlottesville in 2017, not anything recent. THAT’S STILL A MISLEADING LIE TO BUILD A FALSE NARRATIVE.
And when the lie was seen as a lie, NPR then called it an invitation for a “partisan” attack instead of a recognition of their own false claims. See that story here.
And even with the full facts out on this story, we now see that identifying the lie as a lie is attacked. Note this story: “Louisville Metro Councilman receives backlash over tweet criticizing protester hit by car.”
The Mobs and Lies Continue
And the mobs still continue to shut down society. Here’s another incident of protests shutting down a roadway because of Elijah McClain in Denver. Note the picture selection of the woman cowering in fear from a police in riot gear:
These are ideological lies in print. Don’t fall for them.
Here’s a video of the police trying to disperse a crowd that has gotten too unruly to guarantee safety. you can hear the police warning the crowd that if they do not disperse, they may be forced to use chemical agents to disperse the crowd.
- Notice the activists encouraging the “peaceful” protesters to disobey the orders of the police.
- Notice the tactic of phones out.
- Notice the tactic of defying the police as they keep their hands up, inviting the police to use force.
- Notice the slow and non-violent advance of the officers.
- Notice the protester shout “It’s about to get F***ing real!”
- Notice the crowd throwing things at the officers.
- Notice how the crowd is violent and doesn’t follow directions until measured violence (tear gas, advancing line) is used by the police.
- And if you don’t believe the tactic of using a “symbol” to create a moment of bad people attacking innocent helpless people, NOTICE THE MAN AT THE END PLAYING A VIOLIN VERY BADLY IN THE MIDDLE OF A VIOLENT MOB. (What the hell!?)
Why would any of this happen? Look at the rules the Communist activist gave almost 50 years ago:
Keep the pressure on. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside. Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
The goal isn’t to stop “police brutality.” The goal is to INVITE police brutality so that they can use it for their own purposes.
Notice the source and description of this video on Reddit: “The moment when Aurora PD tried to turn our violin vigil for Elijah McClain into a riot.” Study that presentation carefully and how much of a lie it is from what actually happened.
But be careful. Don’t study the headline and what is said as a source of truth. Study it like a disease under the microscope. Look how it attacks so you can resist it.
These are revolutionaries. They lie. They want to trap you in the lies they spread. That is their strategy. Don’t fall for it.
Private Intimidation as a Black Lives Matter (TM) Tactic
On the flip side of creating images of righteous crowds, there are also very clear instances of private intimidation. When the public isn’t watching, the violence comes out.Let’s look at some following examples.
Example 1: “We’re On Your Side!”
This is a classic, and it’s always worth looking at it again.
The marchers don’t need to “convince” people or get people to join them. They only need to intimidate and destroy to get what they want. That’s the point.
Example 2: “Can I get Some Muscle?”
This is an older example, but necessary to show how this is not just some recent invention. It’s an long-standing tactic.
The following is an old video from January 2016, but it was in that year that Black Lives Matter (TM) and the Black Liberation Collective began many “shut-down” protests at universities:
Do you see how this ideological leader calls for “some muscle” to “get this reporter out of here”? Why would she do that? Because this reporter doesn’t take orders and wouldn’t tell the right story. That’s why.
Example 3: “SO THEN APOLOGIZE! I Don’t Understand [Sobs]”
And even when Black Lives Matter (TM) isn’t officially involved, we can see the tactics being used by people who just pick up on it. Just as babies aren’t “taught” to speak English, but merely just pick up on it, young students who aren’t “taught” by an official organization can still pick up on how to utilize the language of aggressive social humiliation.
Do you remember this activist lady and her group confronting an administrator who didn’t bend whenever he would not denounce his own wife who objected to rules for “inclusion” that applied to Halloween costumes for adult undergraduates? See below from 2016:
Do you see the crying people trying to play themselves as victims to acquire judgments of their own righteousness and throw hatred on this person in power? Do you see how they use “racism” to do it?
As a reminder, this individual was fired. The mob won. Their tactics work as long as you let them work.
Example 4: “Delete It!”
I wondered about whether to put this example in the intimidation of public officials, because the person getting attacked is a state senator, who was badly beaten in Madison, Wisconsin. See him knocked out here:
Since the mob didn’t seem to know he was a public official, I’ve left it in the private intimidation section:
You can see the following story about how he was beaten. Note the following quote:
“I don’t know what happened … all I did was stop and take a picture … and the next thing I’m getting five-six punches, getting kicked in the head.”
Note the following quote, too:
“Sad thing I’m on their side for peaceful demonstrations — am a Gay Progressive Dem Senator served 36 years in the legislature.”
And once again, we see that screaming “We’re on your side!” does nothing.
Also, let’s also note the connection between the statues and private intimidation. This is the same protest that tore down statues in Wisconsin. They were not “Confederate” statues. One of them was a statue of “Lady Forward,” which is “an allegory of devotion and progress,” and Han Christian Heg, an abolitionist, journalist, anti-slavery activist, best known for leading a Union regiment at the Battle of Chickamauga.
As we said, “police brutality” is not what this is about at all. That is just an excuse to unleash their own brutality.
In a much more petty example of private intimidation, here’s a video of a Black Lives Matter (TM) person during the days after the George Floyd death, a time in which there was also was rampant racial violence mixed in with the riots, toying with a young white woman who is obviously a little intimidated by him:
The label calls it a “BLM Imposter” (sic), and to a certain extent, that’s true. It’s not true that he “works for” Black Lives Matter (TM). It’s a movement, and it doesn’t have a CEO. Obviously, there’s an element of sarcasm here.
But here is some analysis of this situation:
- What does this man do that Black Lives Matter (TM) doesn’t do?
- Did he invent the kneeling thing?
- Did he invent the idea of showing solidarity with Black Lives Matter (TM)?
- Did he invent the idea of white privilege?
- Did he invent the idea of apologizing for “White Privilege”?
- Did he invent the idea of making people declare their political opinions to escape the threat of violence?
This man isn’t doing anything that is DIFFERENT from Black Lives Matter (TM). He’s just not very subtle.
That’s why he’s an “imposter.” He’s just not good at his job. He’s doing everything that Black Lives Matter (TM) is doing, except he’s just not as good at it. The Black Lives Matter (TM) noobs are forced to pick on vulnerable white women walking alone on the street who are afraid of being the next statistic. The skilled ones get all of society to kneel in “lament” on the news.
Caveat to “Kneel” Example
Here, I’m sure I will get some push back. Many people, seeking to heal and reconcile with their brothers, have knelt — often in prayer — in mass gatherings, to protest police brutality. They don’t have “Black Lives Matter (TM)” mob motivations on their mind. Of course. And I’m sure that just about all of them were happy to kneel, and they weren’t at all afraid or intimidated. I agree.
But in that case, the point is not to intimidate YOU. The point of the activist is to intimidate the people who DIDN’T want to kneel with social exclusion. Nothing is a more powerful motivator than the disapproval of the ones you love.
And yes, even this is being utilized by the activist mob. Let’s look at the following example.
Example 6: Intimidation on the Homefront
Regardless of whatever problems you can identify in this obviously hostile conversation, let’s ask an overarching question: Is there a societal cause that is so important that it calls for children to publicly shame their parents in public like the smug girl above did with this video?
And if you think that’s just a rogue event, take a look at this NPR story where the activist Ijeoma Oluo encourages children to educate their parents on systemic racism. Here’s a similar encouragement in an online publication. Notice the quote:
Many parents might view this conversation as abrasive right from the get-go. They may feel like you’re painting them as the enemy, as if they hate people of color.
Doesn’t that read like an excuse for bad behavior that IS abrasive right from the get-go? Doesn’t that read like an excuse for painting someone as the enemy and blaming on them? Of course. That’s the point. It’s a lie.
Have YOU ever been in these conversations? I sure have, and I can tell you that they are not abrasive from the get-go. They only become abrasive once you dissent in the least bit (if they wait that long).
It should be noted that shaming your elders in public used to be wrong. NOw it is virtuous. For example, take a look at this story: “Teens on TikTok are exposing a generational rift between parents and kids over how they treat Black Lives Matter protests.” I quote one young woman:
I literally hate my family so much,” Izabella said, eyes wet from crying. “It’s just. They just tried to argue with me that George Floyd — like, they just tried to tell me that he deserved that ’cause he did something wrong, and that it was okay. That is not okay. And it’s just making me so upset. I don’t know. I do not wanna live here. I hate livin’ in Louisiana. I hate livin’ around these racist f-cks. Like, I just wanna leave.
And in case you didn’t know, TikTok is a company owned by the Chinese Communist Party that is starting to be recognized as a very real national security threat to the United States.
Example 7: “Racism.”
The most common form of the intimidation isn’t even worth documenting, because of how common it is. I’m sure you’ve seen it. People get called “racist.” That’s the most widely used tool of the mob and of Black Lives Matter (TM).
But of course, as I have explained before, the term “racist” for the activists isn’t what you think it is. They changed the definition of the word without telling anyone. That’s an ideological tactic.
To even disagree with the TITLE of the organization and movement is to say something that SOUNDS racist, AND THAT’S THE POINT.
- To normal people, being “racist” is having thoughts of inferiority or superiority between races, or to do things that are disrespectful or harmful.
- To the activist, being “racist” means to “support a system” — through words, actions, or even your passive failure to work for change — “that works to oppress people of color.”
What is that “system” to the activists? It’s the United States of America as you’ve always known it. What is the thing that fights this system? An ideology that looks SURPRISINGLY Marxist.
The Black Lives Matter (TM) Ideology, and Their Explicitly Revolutionary Goals.
I’ve made a big claim in this piece that THE GOAL of the Black Lives Matter (TM) movement is a Marxist Revolution. They don’t want to bring down “racism.” They don’t want to end police brutality.” They want to invite police brutality so that they can bring down “the system” of America.
And I know that’s a big claim. Even though we’ve seen troublesome tactics and violence, how could I say such a thing? This claim requires evidence. Well, I have it. We’ve already shown the issue with statues. Now, let’s show other facts contained in the Venezuelan woman’s warning. Then, let’s see what Black Lives Matter (TM) leaders say about themselves in their own words. Let’s see how it contrasts with what we’ve always believed about America.
The School Curriculum: The 1619 Project’s Inherently Racist America
While it is not directly organizationally affiliated with Black Lives Matter (TM) as far as I can tell, the 1619 Project at the New York Times is clearly ideologically aligned with Black Lives Matter (TM). This should be quite obvious. (See this piece for more information about what Black Lives Matter (TM) believes).
This “journalistic” enterprise gives a very clear explanation of what they believe America IS. I’ll quote the introduction to the 1619 project, which won the Pulitzer Prize last year:
The goal of The 1619 Project is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year. Doing so requires us to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a country.
That’s LITERALLY propaganda. They’re not even hiding it. They have a “goal.” It is to “reframe American history.” That’s exactly what we were warned about.
As for how it is reframed, let’s let Hannah Nicole Jones’s flagship essay explain:
The United States is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie. Our Declaration of Independence, approved on July 4, 1776, proclaims that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst.
This is a DELIBERATE attempt to re-write history through propaganda. There are only two types of people who would say that “America” did not begin in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence and freedom, but instead, began in 1619 with the oppression of the first African servants that came to Jamestown, Virginia. The first type of people are the mentally ill. The second type are radical Marxist ideologues who lie through propaganda for a calculated end.
Of course, lots of people who actually care about facts have shown huge problems with this project. It has not deterred the people behind it. Instead, we should realize that despite the “factual” issues, this idea about America as inherently racist has been turned into a curriculum deliberately designed to change America’s ideas about history at the level of young children.
So, just like the Venezuelan woman warned, we now have a curriculum. Street names (or at least the huge letters on streets) have changed. Movies have become “unwelcome.”
BLM(TM)’s Textbook-Totalitarian Understanding of the World
If you don’t believe that about this stuff being the product of “Marxist ideologues,” then let’s take a look at the following evidence from Black Lives Matter (TM)’s 4 year report, the language is almost quintessentially totalitarian. I quote:
We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impaced or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.” Black Lives Matter Guiding Principles
In a world where anti-Blackness exists in every location, culture, and continent, and Black people experience targeted oppression in our daily lives through micro-aggressions and overt slurs and assaults on our basic nees, we know that the Black liberation struggle is global.
We see the impact of our work in the U.S. as connected beyond colonial, whit supremacist borders, as our struggle is directly connected to the struggle of Black folks across the world.
. . .
We, too, should ensure that we struggle alongside our Black global family when they protest the very similar murders of Black people by their states, and not let the borders of empire deny us the global Black solidarities we must build.
Organizers of all shapes and sizes, from all different backgrounds and language groups, are part of a legacy that connects Black folks across the world: the legacy of organizing to build power and take our freedom.
. . .
And, we know that none of us are free until all of us are free. There is no liberation within these false borders.
As someone who knows about both National Socialism and International Socialism, I’m struggling to figure out what type of totalitarianism this sounds like.
The international-boundary language makes it sound Marxist. The racial “Black family” language that identifies solidarity around race makes it sound Fascist. Regardless, of which one it resembles, it’s troubling all on its own.
Black Lives Matter (TM) Founder Champions Her Marxist Ideology
And if you think this is some far-fetched theory trying to connect Black Lives Matter (TM) with ideological totalitarian movements, then let me give something much more on-point. The following is a Marxist ideologue by her own description.
The speaker here is Patrisse Cullors, one of the Co-Founders of Black Lives Matter (TM). See what she says when the sympathetic host wants to know that Black Lives Matter (TM) has staying power, unlike Occupy Wall-Street:
What does she say? That Black Lives Matter (TM) has staying power because is fulfills the American Dream? It has staying power because it can fight against police brutality and racism? Because America is becoming freer for Black Americans because of the good work Black Lives Matter (TM) is doing?
No, she claims Black Lives Matter (TM) has staying power because:
We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on ideological theories.
These are the people behind the movement sweeping across our country. These are the people organizing marches and protests that turn into violent mobs. These are the people advocating to “Defund the Police.”
The Contrast With Out American System
There’s a final bit of evidence to give the context of these random facts. This is the contrast of our nation’s previous way of understanding the freedom of different races in our nation to the current moment.
Take a look at Martin Luther King Jr.’s description of America’s founding in his “I Have A Dream” speech in 1964. Look at how he sees our country:
When the architects of our Republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men — yes, black men as well as white men — would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.”
He doesn’t deny the problems. He doesn’t paint America as perfect. He doesn’t even see America as living up to its ideals at the time. But he does see some inherent GOODNESS in the promise that was made.
In contrast, the Black Lives Matter (TM) crowd sees that promise as “a lie.”
Analysis of the Ideology
Here’s a pointed question: If the oppression and brutality and racism that Martin Luther King Jr. mentioned were anathema to the America he wanted to see, then why would Hannah Nicole Jones go to such great lengths to say that our Republic was not founded on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, but instead were “founded” upon slavery and oppression? The answer is how it aligns with Black Lives Matter (TM)’s goals:
Because Black Lives Matter (TM) and the mob doesn’t believe in “America.” To the mob, oppression, brutality, and Racism are not things that exist IN America, which need to be corrected, as King described. No, no. That is what a normal and kind person with a half-way decent education would believe. Black Lives Matter (TM) and the mob believes that oppression, brutality, and racism IS America, and that is all it has ever been. When Black Lives Matter (TM) says they want to end “Oppression,” this conveniently matches up with the belief that “America” is oppressive. They want to end America as we know it.
If you don’t believe me, look at what you’re seeing these days in the aftermath of these mobs. Does it look anything like America as you’ve known it? Isn’t it strange that you could find an opinion that “the Senate Filibuster” (a tool, sometimes abused, but which is as old as the Senate, which is designed to slow the legislative process to keep passion from winning the day) is now being described as “A Monument to White Supremacy”?
Really? The SENATE? I thought this was about police brutality!
And about that Senate filibuster, isn’t it also strange that it was used to reject Republican Senator Tim Scott’s open invitation to Senate Democrats to fix problems of police brutality? Isn’t it strange that every problem the Democrats identified, he offered to let them amend whatever they wanted to amend? (See here for his speech on the subject.)
It was never about police brutality. It’s about America. It’s about Revolution.
The Explicit Marxism of the Black Lives Matter (TM) Organization and Ideology
Recently the President of the United States declared that he wished to designated “Antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization. And that was correct, because that’s exactly what they are. They take pride in violent insurrection. No doubt. But there might be confusion that all the problems that I’ve pointed out are not “Marxist,” but just the work of “Antifa.”
Some people might think that “Antifa” and “Black Lives Matter (TM)” are radically distinct, even if they might be convinced that Black Lives Matter (TM) is Marxist. The problems are with those “Antifa” people. It’s not the Marxists, right?
Well, I’ve got some terrible historical news for you. Do you know who is ideologically anti-Fascist? Marxists. The Soviet Union was anti-fascists.
Exploring Marxism and How It Relates to Black Lives Matter (TM)
I hope you don’t take this as hyperbole. It’s quite an uncontroversial historical fact (until that history is re-written, of course). To prove it, and also to guarantee that my source isn’t poisoned by any political actors in present times, I’ll go back almost 100 years to this important journal article titled “Fascism Versus Communism” in the Southwestern Social Science Quarterly from 1937, Vol. 18, No. 1 (June, 1937), pp. 15-24 (10 pages) by E. E. Hale.
It is frightening how much this article applies to the current day. I recommend you read the whole thing. The following portion may help you understand our current moment:
It is obvious even to the casual observer that our age is one of those revolutionary transition periods in world history which witnesses radical transformations in economic, political, and social institutions and systems. . . .
Events seem to be shaping for a decisive struggle between fascism and communism. . . . For it is between these two that the lines are drawn, and the sharpness of the conflict, together with the momentous issues at stake, doubtless will preclude a middle or neutral position. Opinions generally are that France and Great Britain, with the lesser liberal-democratic nations, would line up with the Soviet Union against the fascist states of Italy and Germany, supported by Japan and some of the smaller European countries of fascist leanings.
What, then are the points in issue between fascism and communism? What sort of economic, political, and social order does each involve? What is the nature of the choice which may possibly confront the peoples of Europe if not the world? The answers to these questions are to be sought in the theories of fascism and communism. . . .
Politically, fascism postulates the unlimited and irresponsible sovereignty of the national state over all phases of life and activity. The state is sovereign not only in a legal sense but also in that it has the function of regulating every department of social life, –education, religion, art, the relations of capital and labor, the processes of production and distribution, and all other phases of the social and economic system. . . .
In communist theory the state is regarded as the product of class struggles, of the division of society into classes with antagonistic and conflicting interests. It is posited as an agency of class power, and organ of class domination, an instrument fashioned and used by the most powerful and economically dominant class for the oppression and exploitation of the economically weaker class. In a capitalist society the communists regard the state as an instrument of power in the hands of the capitalists used to further their class interest, to protect their property rights and increase their profits, and keep the working class in subjection. Likewise, in a communist society the state is equally an agency of class power and domination, an instrument in this instance fashioned and controlled by the working class and used for the exploitation subjection, and eventual liquidation of the capitalist class.
Fascism rejects the dogma of popular sovereignty and the principle of majority rule. . . . All authority flows form the top downward. Thus fascism operates through a dictatorship.
The communists designate the political system of the Soviet Union as the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” . . . This phrase, like so much of communist terminology, doubtless conveys little definite meaning to English-speaking peoples, who in general consider it a euphemism for the dictatorship of Stalin or at least the dictatorship of the communist party. . . . The communists use the term “dictatorship,” however, to refer not to the exercise of authority by an absolute ruler whose word is law, but to the control and use of the state by a dominant class in the protection and furthering of its interest. Since in communist theory the state is an agency of class power, it is by its very nature a dictatorship. The particular form of its government, whether autocratic or democratic, parliamentary or monarchical, is irrelevant to the issue. In a capitalist society, the communists regard the state as the dictatorship of the capitalists, not by virtue of the form of its government but by virtue, in their view, of its strong and resolute administration in the interests of the property owning class. Just so, the proletarian state is the dictatorship of the proletariat because of its equally strong and resolute administration in the interests of the working class.
A few things are clear about the current day when we put it into historical perspective:
- The United States is not fascist.
- Duh. But stay with me:
- Whatever your thoughts are on Donald Trump, no one in their right mind can say that Donald Trump or the GOP believes in “unlimited and irresponsible sovereignty of the national state over all phases of life and activity.”
- Since that’s what Fascism is, we cannot honestly say that Donald Trump is a fascist.
- “Law and order” is not fascism. Domination from top to bottom is fascism.
- Duh. But stay with me:
- The activists in the streets would like to paint the United States as fascist.
- This includes Black-Lives-Matter-(TM)-motivated “peaceful” protesters.
- You can hear it when the call the police “fascist pigs,” even as the police allow them to protest (a very not fascist thing to do).
- You can see it when they name their organization “Antifa,” short for “Anti-Fascist.”
- Though it’s obviously false, it is actually how they view the world.
- They’re not “lying.”
- They’re ideologically possessed.
- This includes Black-Lives-Matter-(TM)-motivated “peaceful” protesters.
- The reason the activists in the street are doing this and the reason they believe this is because they ARE Marxist.
- You can see it in the way they believe:
- “the state is an agency of class power, it is by its very nature a dictatorship”
- “In a capitalist society, the communists regard the state as the dictatorship of the capitalists, not by virtue of the form of its government but by virtue, in their view, of its strong and resolute administration in the interests of the property owning class.”
- “The communists use the term “dictatorship,” however, to refer not to the exercise of authority by an absolute ruler whose word is law, but to the control and use of the state by a dominant class in the protection and furthering of its interest.”
- Replace “capitalist” with “White” and “Communists” with “Black Lives Matter,” and you basically have the Black Lives Matter (TM) ideology.
- You can see it in the way they believe:
Are you getting the picture? Do you see the parallels of the Marxist ideology with the Black Lives Matter (TM) movement? Do you see the very real danger of Black Lives Matter (TM), an organization led by literal Marxists, declaring:
We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position.
Do I need to bring up this video again:
I don’t think that you can understand the current situation properly without considering the role that Postmodernism plays in this. Because Postmodernsim, in many ways, especially how it is played out politically is the new skin that the old Marxism now inhabits.
Watch it all. It’s quite important, quite relevant, and quite chilling.
The Cultural Revolution In America
Additionally, before linked to a story about children denouncing their parents on TikTok, and I made a small connection to the Chinese Communist Party. That wasn’t a small reference.
Many people are not well versed in the Marxist world’s understanding of revolution, and that is why they are not recognizing what is happening.
Perhaps you should start to do some research on the Cultural Revolution, which absolutely turned China upside down in the 1960s. This chilling passage is just copied from the Wikipedia page on that radical Marxist event:
During the Cultural Revolution, much economic activity was halted, with “revolution”, regardless of interpretation, being the primary objective of the country. . . . Chinese traditional arts and ideas were ignored and publicly attacked, with praise for Mao being practiced in their place. People were encouraged to criticize cultural institutions and to question their parents and teachers, which had been strictly forbidden in traditional Chinese culture.
The start of the Cultural Revolution brought huge numbers of Red Guards to Beijing, with all expenses paid by the government, and the railway system was in turmoil. The revolution aimed to destroy the “Four Olds” (old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas) and establish the corresponding “Four News”, which could range from changing of names and cutting of hair to the ransacking of homes, vandalizing cultural treasures, and desecrating temples.
Do I need to make the connections?
Also, remember that the videos of children denouncing their parents is on TikTok AND NOT YOUTUBE. Trust me, I wanted to link to more examples, but I don’t have TikTok, and I couldn’t find anything on Youtube.
Do you think it is possible that a Communist government could utilize what is spread on its platform in order to foment unrest in the United States? Isn’t it rather coincidental that China already knows the destructive force of the cultural revolution on its own country, and it is being spread on that platform in this one? I can’t prove anything, but I do notice the strange coincidence.
It was never about George Floyd. It was never about Elijah McClain. it might have been about them for well-intentioned people, but it was never about them for the real movers and activists, like Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Alicia Garza. For them, these are just opportunities.
The means are allegations of police brutality. The GOAL is Revolution.
Warning and Encouragement
If you are a well-intentioned person who is worried about REAL issues like police misconduct, then by all means, work for that (and no, I’m not at all being sarcastic). Take a look at my own suggestion for revising laws regarding police to keep them accountable here.
But do NOT be co-opted by evil people who would love to use good people for their own bad purposes. By all means, lift your voice to improve your community. This is America. That is not what we do.
But NEVER bend the knee, either literally with your body or metaphorically with your words. This is America. That’s not what we do here. We’re not communists. We’re not fascists. We’re free.
But we’re only the land of the free when we’re the home of the brave. And that is why there are new duties of ordinary citizens. You cannot get by merely by being “not bad.” You must actively be virtuous. (See here for more on that)
You cannot be “innocent.” You must be strong to resist people of ill-will who wish to bring down the nation that you’ve always known. This is not a battle against some foreign enemy. This is a battle of ideas, souls, desires, and intentions. It is by definition, “spiritual.” (See here for more on that).
So, be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you. (Deuteronomy 31:6) Be sober-minded. Be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8) Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7) In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, (Ephesians 6:16-17) for the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
When cops use measured force against evil people, we should recognize that this is a good thing. Do not fall for the lies of “fascist” police attacking “peaceful” and “nonviolent” protesters:
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:3-4)
And remember who the real enemy is:
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. (Ephesians 6:12-13)
And walk blamelessly, because the times are evil.
2 Comments Add yours
The United States is not fascist.
Duh. But stay with me:
Whatever your thoughts are on Donald Trump, no one in their right mind can say that Donald Trump or the GOP believes in “unlimited and irresponsible sovereignty of the national state over all phases of life and activity.”
Since that’s what Fascism is, we cannot honestly say that Donald Trump is a fascist.
fascism isnt binary; trump definitely has fascistic, evil tendencies as outlined by yourself.
That’s true that I once wrote that Donald Trump was fascist. This was back in the 2016 primary. That was before I did the reading to really find out what fascism IS, as opposed to what people think of when they yell “fascist!” at people they don’t like.
The level of lies of Trump against his opponents was definitely troubling, but things seem to have turned out differently than I was expecting. I thought nothing could be worse than Trump in 2016. But surprise: the radical left proved me wrong. Trump lied repeatedly in front of news cameras. The radical left lied repeatedly in congressional hearings (Kavanaugh), in prosecutorial decisions (Impeachment), and in hard news stories in general. All that was the case even as people around Trump have smoothed out the rough edges in his administration. For example, trump in front of a mic says that the presidential authority is “total” over the states. This is obviously wrong, and he got unitary executive theory between the three branches mixed up with federalism. Thanks to those around him (I assume), we never heard that silly statement again. Meanwhile, I’m seeing news reports calling violent rioters “peaceful protesters.”
Fascism is an all-consuming ideology. So of course SOMETHING can match up with fascism, but it would be embarrassingly silly to say that small correlations equals fascism.