ANTIFA and BLM Have Been Highjacked!

Posted On July 30, 2020

I’m going to present a theory to you, that has already been presented by many others, but I’m going to do so with as much understanding and empathy as I can for the left perspective. So here it is:

What if…

What if these groups that have been formed and created for a purpose of good and destroying hatred, have been embraced by another group and claimed as their own? What if the groups were created to take advantage of the injustice suffered by specific groups of people? What if they are subtly manipulating and cajoling the followers of these groups, to influence a specific political agenda? Is it not racist to take advantage of people fighting against racism, in with a strong ulterior motive?

I can definitely understand the outside appearance of people that fight back against movements such as BLM, which was supposedly created to combat racism and create an equal world, ending systematic racism; especially when some of the people that take up against this movement actually ARE racist and do so because they are racists. It doesn’t look good at all. But what if…

ANTIFA has an idea that the NAZIs of Germany would never have come to power if more people openly fought them. This is an idea I can agree with and understand. There is no excuse for genocide, especially not, “I was taking orders!” The idea of fighting back against skinhead racists at punk rock concerts isn’t ignoble. The passion and desire to work for a better world is quite admirable.

Chess

Unfortunately, I fear that there is a group that has made political pawns out of the movements themselves. This woman, Patrisse Cullors is a specific person of interest, as she is one of 3 founders of the group. Her words are very understandable and I commend her passion towards the good portions of her cause. Sexism and racism do, unfortunately, live on. She didn’t want to just accept that anymore! I applaud people that see a problem and take it into their own hands to make a difference! And I most love that she has acknowledged that it is the fault of BOTH political parties.

There was little I disagreed with her interview. I even, personally, have failed to see the point of people shouting, “All lives matter!” Truth is, that, yes, she is correct when she says that there are some people that have said, “All lives matter, ” and meant, “White lives matter.” On their own, none of these statements are overtly offensive. The problem is that there ARE some people that say, “All lives matter, ” and mean, instead, “White lives matter more than black ones.”

On the other side of that token, there are some black people that have said, “Black lives matter,” and meant, “White lives don’t matter.” I agree that the origin of racism towards white people has been created, mostly, by the racism OF white people: it seems defensive, where many black people have learned to be afraid of, or at least suspicious of, the intentions of white people. They have been enslaved, marginalized, and flat out scammed, by many groups of white people, and that knowledge has been passed down through the generations from parents and grandparents that want to protect their families. Ms. Cullors states that the right, “buckled down, and continued to say ‘All lives matter'”, while also noting that the left political side was forced into agreeing with the BLM movement. She has a point.

But she also said…

Later, though, in an interview with The Real News Source, Ms. Cullors openly stated that they are trained Marxists and use this as their ideological frame.

Necessity vs Reality

I have to wonder if it is necessary to create a socialist, communist, and/or Marxist country, in order to make black lives matter? Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil Rights Movement, in general, were able to push forward to make the system change and adapt their flawed thinking, demanding things like integrated schooling system, equal opportunity for jobs (not demand for jobs to be given, but demands for jobs to not be denied based on color), and voting rights or basic equal liberties/stop discrimination and segregation. By contrast, the BLM website shows a set of specific demands and they cite this:

“A progressive restructuring of tax codes at the local, state, and federal levels to ensure a radical and sustainable redistribution of wealth.”–Redistribution of wealth is communism.
“A right to restored land, clean air, clean water and housing and an end to the exploitative privatization of natural resources — including land and water. We seek democratic control over how resources are preserved, used and distributed and do so while honoring and respecting the rights of our Indigenous family.”- A demand to be given land and control over natural resources. More importantly, they want to end the privatization of this, which indirectly states it should be governmentally controlled. That’s a socialist policy.
“An end to all jails, prisons, immigration detention, youth detention and civil commitment facilities as we know them and the establishment of policies and programs to address the current oppressive conditions experienced by people who are imprisoned.”-Death penalty is a national debate among both parties, but has been accepted as something the states must decide for themselves and not on a federal level. Not to mention, does this sound somewhat vague to you? That’s done purposefully. They don’t state what programs would be implemented.
“Financial support of Black alternative institutions including policy that subsidizes and offers low-interest, interest-free or federally guaranteed low-interest loans to promote the development of cooperatives (food, residential, etc.), land trusts and culturally responsive health infrastructures that serve the collective needs of our communities.”–I’m confused as to why they want to reinstate segregation?
“An end to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and a renegotiation of all trade agreements to prioritize the interests of workers and communities.”–Trump already pulled us out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so I’m confused.
“Direct democratic community control of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, ensuring that communities most harmed by destructive policing have the power to hire and fire officers, determine disciplinary action, control budgets and policies, and subpoena relevant agency information.”–There’s a sweeping policy that gives people the power to change just about anything to whatever political platform they prefer.

That is just a few of the demands (listed on https://m4bl.org/).

Why not these types of demands?

I understand that the ideas behind some of these is to better the lives of black and brown people, as one of the problems is that these communities are more poor. But I have to wonder why these types of demands are far more prevalent in the demands of BLM and ANTIFA than demands for things like:

A requirement that law enforcement agencies provide “Use of Force” statistics to the FBI, as it is currently optional.- How can we locate the areas where racism by police is a problem if we don’t map the problem?
Perhaps we need a full study on officer-citizen interactions (also not required reported information). –I acknowledge this would take massive cooperation, nationwide, and an entirely new sector that would map all police involved cases, to find how many police are approaching white vs black to compare to how many are becoming violent and in which neighborhoods, etc. In this way, we could find which patrolling officers are causing problems by showing the beat they cover, and find which officers are actually racist, by following their interactions throughout each day.
Requirements that coroners be medical doctors, as many jurisdictions don’t have this requirement–this means we don’t have full/ accurate statistics in some places, about causes of death, which indeed could prove more police homicides
Having several agencies (objective ones) that look over all “use-of-force” cases to investigate the police narrative vs suspect narrative, as well as having universal requirements that police officers report any and all “use of force” situations, as some jurisdictions don’t require this
Use of body camera requirements, who’s videos are sent to an objective party to review
Harsh criminal discipline for officers that try to cover or change the information on their body cams
Harsh criminal charges for officers that do not intervene with their fellow officers that are using excessive force against any suspect

That’s just a few ways to help specifically with police brutality. If the problem is police that don’t value black lives, then shouldn’t the demands of the movement, be direct and specific towards that problem? I’m not saying these other factors aren’t part to the problem in such communities, but I am suspicious about the fact that almost every demand is very political in nature, vs demands for more accountability from the police community, etc. In fact, they demand that police stop arresting black people, that any black person that is in jail for prostitution and drug violations be immediately released and their record expunged. They even want the police to stop tracking gang activity.

Fishy…

Defunding the police is the only real thing they demand that deals directly with the problem of police brutality, and like another demand I early mentioned, it’s very vague and talks of “In favor of other policing programs”. Considering the movement was created and is run by at least 2 “trained Marxists” doesn’t anyone have a little concern about the vagueness of such a statement?

Their entire set of demands talk of defunding military, free healthcare (even specifically mentioning free abortion, via reproductive rights), free daycare, free…etc. It talks of ending the death sentence, fossil fuels, the Trans-Pacific Partnership that was already ended, pretrial detention, free college, sustainable energy, and even a section on Super Pacs! I don’t say that these are necessarily bad things (I’m not getting into that argument right now), I’m merely saying that it feels quite fishy on the part of the designers of the BLM movement. It doesn’t feel like they want to help the problems with black communities, so much as it feels they want to push socialism, Marxism, and/or communism. They may think Marxism and what not would help black people, but it feels more like they are taking advantage of the plight of their own people as a pawn in a political scheme!

So, really, WHAT IF…?

What if…what if the end goal isn’t about black people but instead about a political atmosphere? What if the goal is to undermine capitalism and the constitutional republic by way of using the suffering of a people to push forward with communist and Marxist aspirations? And what if…there are people jumping on board wiht that, that are also racist, but want Marxism and communism . The method of which Marxism and communism can be input is by tearing down and breaking a current system. It’s to tear down a specific group and instill themselves at the top. Stalin and Lenin blamed the rich. they blame to the Jews. They blame the….And that divide destroys what is, and a select few take over. The BLM leaders may not be the ones to jump into power after that. But there may be racist people that want to take the lead after America as a democracy is decimated. What if…the goal is to destroy the Nation, not to FIX the Nation?