Wednesday, June 24, 2020


These are tumultuous times. Things are changing so fast it’s hard to keep up, much less put events into perspective. It’s reminiscent of a similar struggle to understand things during the sixties when a prosperous, stable, post-WWII America started unraveling with the Kennedy assassination in 1963. I was in 7th grade and lacked the experience and historical knowledge to interpret what was happening. By the time I graduated high school in 1969, societal decline had advanced.

My first year of college included basic courses in western civilization which offered some historical grounding, but my professors weren’t gifted enough to compare and contrast ubiquitous race riots, anti-Vietnam War protests, and ongoing civil-rights struggles with similar events in western history. My English Composition professor tried by offering writing prompts that challenged us to reflect on what was happening around us.

Things were changing fast and my professors hadn’t experienced such tumult before. They were flying by the seat of their pants. After two years I dropped out, worked various jobs, and found myself rubbing elbows with disciples of Saul Alinsky — community organizers who were trying to channel societal unrest toward a communist revolution. One put a copy of Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” into my hands — the first copy I ever saw.

Nearly all smoked marijuana and I did too. It was a leftist ritual of the era. At one point I found a half-dozen leftist radicals in the living room of a tenement we owned in Lowell, Massachusetts. Some belonged to the Socialist Labor Party, some to the Socialist Workers Party, and one was communist. All argued  vociferously about how to foment revolution. I wasn’t too stoned to notice how disorganized and contentious the left was.

Never did I want to make revolution or overthrow the government, but radical leftists around me spoke freely about trying to. I thought they were crazy and moved away from them, but that experience give me perspective on what’s going on in my country today. Again the left is trying to steer public outrage toward a communist revolution, and unlikely as revolution was a half-century ago, the widespread violence of recent months has me concerned.

Leftists still fight amongst themselves, but today they make up an increasingly large part of the Democrat Party which for decades has controlled the cities in which we’re seeing widespread rioting, looting and toppling of statues. Ironically, most of the statues depict historical figures who were Democrat slave owners. As today’s Democrat mayors and governors do almost nothing to stop the violence, the rest of us wonder if that’s because they’re afraid a strong response will trigger more or because they approve of it all.

Some of last weekend's victims in Chicago
After a violent Fathers’ Day weekend in Chicago when 102 mostly black people were shot, very likely by shooters who were also black, those shouting “Black Lives Matter!” sound increasingly hypocritical. White cops are not the problem. So-called “systemic racism” is not the problem. “White Privilege” is not the problem. Gangs of fatherless, young, black men are the problem.

Alleged shooters in Chicago last weekend
These shootings go on every weekend and have for years — in Chicago, and in many other Democrat-controlled cities. Where’s the leftist hand-wringing about that? We don’t hear it. The Marxist “Black Lives Matter” movement looks like a massive red herring to divert attention from what the real problem is: fatherless black boys from dysfunctional families — all the result of bankrupt Democrat social policies of the last fifty years.

It’s getting increasingly tiresome to hear over and over about George Floyd’s death. Yes, the video of his asphyxiation under the knee of a police officer was horrifying, but we keep pretending that the relentless murder of young black men by young black men isn’t far more horrifying. Calling attention to that, however, doesn’t serve the Democrat narrative that it’s a “systemic racism” extinguishing black lives.

Kerry in Lowell, 1972
In 1972 I arranged a meeting in my living room between radical leftist revolutionaries and liberal-Democrat congressional candidate John Kerry. Back then it was unusual for rising Democrats like Kerry to fraternize with leftist revolutionaries, but it isn’t anymore. Today’s Democrat Party willingly plays with fire as senior officials like Deputy DNC Chairman Keith Ellison and others openly support violent, leftist Antifa thugs and Marxist Black Lives Matter organizers.

While John Kerry was considered a far-left Democrat during his failed 1972 congressional campaign, he looks downright moderate compared to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and the rest of today’s rising Democrat stars.


cowboy ted said...

BLM = Black Lives Murder. Fact, over 50% of violent crime is caused by black males between the ages of 18-35. Unfortunately the libtards and snowflakes living in white states have no concept of this fact, but just follow the liberal, leftist, "blaming the victim" academia crap that has been around since the 70's. BLM, founded by lesbian communists, whose agenda is not peace and harmony, but rather imposition of their communist philosophy, displacing American culture, history, etc., with leftists nonsense, and seeking reparations from those who had nothing to do with slavery over 150 years ago.

Montedoro44 said...

Only slightly off subject — regarding Joe Biden's advertising that he's looking for a black female for his running-mate: if he were to adopt Candace Owens for the job, I would seriously think about voting for him.

But maybe, according to his embarrassing bon mot, she ain't black.

Nick Peace said...

So what exactly is this socialist revolution that you think the Left is agitating for? I missed that memo. Healthcare like almost every other major Western country manages to do? A little more economic inequality as in higher taxes on the rich? All quite reasonable to me. And still very far from being a socialist or communist country.

Now on the issue of race, we might agree about something. It is possible to be aghast at police violence and unreasonable use of force. Nobody should lose their life for selling illegal cigarettes or writing a bad check for $20 or being drunk in their vehicle. And there was certainly historic racism and there likely is still some systemic racism now. It is also possible at the same time to look at our "inner city" areas and recognize a number of social pathologies that help create an urban underclass. A weekend where 100 people are killed in Chicago is a perfect example. Poor schools, lack of opportunity, a failed drug war all play a part. So too do broken families and children born out of wedlock. A reasonable person can hold all of these ideas to be true at the same time. They do not need to be exclusive.

I think racism exists. It may always exist. People are scared of people that don't look like themselves. This happens all the time, throughout history, and not just in Black / White relations in the United States. But it does happen here too. Now there is a higher impulse, we can call it religion or moral values or humanism, that asks us to aspire to treat everybody as equals, as brothers. Isn't that what Jesus asked us to do? We have some distance to go from here to there. But that is the challenge of being human.

As a practical matter, it is society's fear of black males that is the root of the current problem. That fear leads to a failure to integrate them in to society, to give them jobs. That lack of jobs leads to broken homes, which leads to continued social dysfunction. Black women do okay. But is a black woman going to settle down with a black man that doesn't have a job? Is a black man going to stick around in a relationship if he can't be a provider? If you want to fix race problems in this country, black men need to have jobs. Not PC and rarely discusses publicly but there it is.

Montedoro44 said...

History, Facts, Data, Synthesis:

cowboy ted said...

The liberal montra from NP. Systemic racism = hiring quotas and affirmative action? Black men who play a boys sport earning more riches than they could have ever imagined. A black president for two terms who had absolutely no resume to become one other than being a "community organizer. " Oprah Winfrey and her millionaire status and so many more. Does racism exist, to some degree, but much more after 8 years of a black president stirring the pot. In the case of Chicago and other cities let's not play the blame game. It is about drugs,a several lack of morality, a very low, if not outright disregard for human life--they kill each other, plain and simple. This is about a very liberal court system that refuses to punish the criminal--how many times the rap sheet a mile long? Lack of punishment, parenting, etc., etc. and a more than willing liberal philosophy that screws the victim and slaps the wrist of the convict. There is NO excuse. Lack of jobs is not an excuse to kill another human being.

CaptDMO said...

I'm shocked that Larry Elder hasn't been "othered", by "popular" demand, or by "our internal safety council", from YouTube (Twitter/ Facebook)

D.J.P., Facilitator said...

Why is BLM referred to as Marxist?

Brian said...

Trying to connect BLM to communism is an incredibly desperate and weak scare tactic. It's like trying to tie the BLM protests to "Antifa". Moronic. This whole column shows how incredibly ignorant Tom is to the BLM movement. Of course Chicago youths are among the lives that matter. What brought about the conditions that have led these youths to such violence? Systemic racism.

Tom makes the ultimate obnoxious privileged white guy comment: "It’s getting increasingly tiresome to hear over and over about George Floyd’s death."

Oh, poor baby has to hear about a violent death at the hands of a racist. His type in the past also found it tiresome to hear about lynchings, and further back were probably annoyed at the slaves who were noisy screamers when getting whipped. Tom sounds as obnoxious and ignorant as a co-worker who said "I don't get it, all this over one black guy?".

Luckily these people are in a dwindling minority who don't understand systematic racism or realize the danger blacks face with cops. The truly hard racists will always exist. One of the good aspects of the Trump "presidency" is bringing such racism to a boiling point and helping us move forward as a society.

Tom McLaughlin said...

The danger blacks face from cops is minuscule. The danger blacks face from other blacks is huge.

Brian said...

Here is an economist from Brown University speaking to your sentiment:

Glenn Loury: I don't personally disagree with the sentiment that you just expressed. But here's what the rebuttal would be, I think. First people would say, “Yes, there's violence in black communities in low-income urban black enclaves. Homicide rates are very high. But this is a consequence of the structural racism that has played out over history and continues to play out today: that confines people to racially segregated neighborhoods; that denies people an opportunity to develop their talents and to live decently with legitimate jobs and so forth; drug trafficking is flourishing; people are concentrated in public housing; gangs are proliferating; young men are idle, so there's a structure that accounts for the behavior, and it's unfair to ask a movement demanding justice from the police to be responsible for patterns of behavior that are deeply embedded in a system over which black people don't exercise any control.” Another rebuttal would be, “These are two different subjects all together. Why are you changing the subject? We came here to talk about police brutalization of black people. And you tell me about something else: that young black people brutalize themselves. I can agree with you and stipulate that the latter is a problem, but it's not the subject I'm trying to talk about. Why are you trying to change the subject?” Those are two possible rebuttals to the position that you just stated.

cowboy ted said...

To Brian, do your research, it is all there--in the latest Time article. BLM is a counter culture organization with communist ideals and founding. Their violent atrocities are unacceptable. The rioting in which they damaged property, assaulted police, and used violent means are not covered by the First Amendment. The First Amendment stresses "peaceful" assembly, not MOB rule.

cowboy ted said...

Liberals just don't get it...can we drum of any more excuses for bad behavior? Your excuses are crutches..many black people have plenty of opportunity to advance, it is their choice to work or will to choose the right and strive for a good life. There are many blacks that make the right choice and aspire to a better life. The liberal philosophy of "systemic racism" is rubbish. The only systemic racism is against whites who do not have the luxury of hiring quotas and affirmative action to artificially enhance a candidates qualifications based on the past. That is systemic racism as well as the colleges that continue on with this crap. Prejudice is not confined to race, it is also economic, cultural, etc.

Brian said...

You should change your handle to "racist ted". Own up. You kind is dwindling. No way in hell now that the racist in the white house wins in November.

Brian said...

Of course BLM is "counter culture" It is countering the systemic racism embedded within our culture. Tell me their "communist" ideals. You can't. There is a minuscule of amount of rioters compared to peaceful protesters. And it is fantastic that statues to racists are being toppled. I attended a great protest in North Conway last week. No violence, no rioters. Only ugly language and verbal assault from one or two haters and lots and lots of support from the public otherwise.

Racists will never understand systematic racisms. That is a big reason they are racists.

Tom McLaughlin said...


if you sling another ad hominem like: "You should change your handle to "racist ted," I will delete your posts and ban you from this forum.

Stick to facts or you're gone.

Montedoro44 said...

Brian and any others of similar worldview, here's a comparison: when a Muslim yells allahu akbar while committing an atrocity against infidels, and even when that Muslim, if he or she lives long enough to explain, assures the world that the atrocity was committed on behalf of Islam -- Leftist doctrine dictates to resist & deny a "systemic" or "structural" explanation for the atrocity. This occurs routinely even though Islamic doctrines, beginning with the Koran, recurring throughout history, and buttressed by many current Islamic scholars & other Islamic leaders make it clear that there is and always has been such practice that is consistent with Islamic tenets.

When an incident occurs in America involving harm to a black person, Leftist doctrine dictates to categorize the incident as not just an act of racism, but "systemic racism" and "structural racism" America's racist "DNA", etc. There is no public voice or public support for any such entities. There is no guarantee that even though the terms exist, that the underlying institutions exist.

So, it is in the mind of the observer in each case how to place the incident in the social & political fabric. Placing it does not make it so. If you miscategorize the incident, you prevent proper understanding of it, and consequently the likelihood of making it better. You make things worse, in particular for the people who are already suffering as victims of such incidents.

Since Leftist doctrine routinely dismisses the commentaries of white people -- privileged goes without saying -- as being of no value, then if you subscribe to contemporary Leftist doctrine, at least expose yourself to what non-white thinkers have to say:

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Jason Riley, Ben Carson, Dinesh D'Souza, Larry Elder, Coleman Hughes, Shelby Steele, Candace Owens

come to mind. These people are mostly educated in history and/or economics, and their comments are synthesized from facts. You owe it to your intellect to at least hear what they have to say before you convince yourself and try to convince others that what you hear -- and especially what you don't hear -- from the worldview to which you already subscribe, is really on target.

If, on the other hand, your highest goal is F--- Trump, no matter what personal and institutional collateral wreckage ensues, then at least say so, and further discussion is unnecessary.

Brian said...

Ooh, looks like a hit a nerve there, Tom. I have been called countless insulting terms here that you were just fine with. And if you held yourself to "stick to the facts or they are gone" there would be no column to begin with. If you yourself did't use ad hominem attacks you would have to delete half of all your columns. Typical hypocrisy. Or am I not allowed to say that?

Yes, Monte, there are radical followers of Islam and Christianity that commit attrocities in the name of their religion and that is a systemic problem. Same when blacks are killed in the streets or have to deal with the prejudices and racism that has existed in our country since its founding, it is an ongoing and systematic problem.

Saying "Leftist doctrine" routinely dismisses the commentaries of white people is dopey. Things are dismissed on their merit. And to include Ben Carson as somebody I should listen to is dopey. The guy that said Obamacare is worse than 9/11 and compared it to the Holocaust? Synthesized from fact? Get real. Again, for all of them regardless of color it comes down to merit. Expand your own world view.

My goal is not at all to F- Trump. My goal is to work for what is best for this country. And that certainly means getting rid of him in November.

Brian said...

Here is what a history professor from the American University in Washington DC has to say about this topic:

He brings up that White supremacist Richard Spencer claims to be “not racist” and says:

“Denial is the heartbeat of racism, beating across ideologies, races and nations. We should recognize that almost every person in history who has been charged with being racist has responded by saying, “I’m not racist.”, Whether eugenicists, pro-segregationists, or white supremacists today.”

“Calling somebody “Racist” is not a pejorative. It is not the equivalent of a slur. It is descriptive, and the only way to undo racism is to consistently identify and describe it — and then dismantle it. The attempt to turn this usefully descriptive term into an almost unusable slur, is, of course, designed to do the opposite: to freeze us into inaction.”

“When we support a powerful person who is expressing racist ideas and supports racist policies, even if you are someone who has a problem with those ideas and those policies, if you are supporting that person and putting that person in power, then you are being racist.”

He then answers this question:
Q. Calling people racist generally shuts down the conversation. How do you get people to be antiracist when the response is to go on the defensive?

A. We must realize why calling someone racist causes the person to shut down the conversation. To be racist is to deny one is racist. When a racist is called racist, they deny it, they refuse to talk about their own racism, they shut down the conversation, feeling offended as if they were personally attacked — when in fact they were described. Being a racist is like being an alcoholic — no one can get someone to recognize their own addiction. They must recognize it for themselves.

Montedoro44 said...

Brian, do you deny that you are a racist?

Brian said...

I am an anti-racist. And you are treading on thin ground, Tom might ban you for such accusations.

Montedoro44 said...

Brian, your response constitutes a denial that you are a racist, and you seem to want to shut down the conversation by invoking Tom's warning to you. 2 strikes, per the definition of 'racist' that you brought to this forum.

Aside from you parsed my question as an accusation. I think that Tom can tell the difference between "You are X." and "Do you deny that you are X?"

Unknown said...

Black men unleash brutal fireworks attack on a white man in Baltimore. Sickening!

Brian said...

Huh? How did I try and shut down the conversation? I carried on with several posts. Tom tried to shut it down by saying I could not make use of my freedom of speech on his forum, and by not otherwise responding to any of the facts and opinions I stated. As he always does. And nobody here can claim it is just because they don't like my attitude. Steve and others make long, polite, well-thought out responses to columns citing numerous facts and the weak cannot respond. I get it, people want to keep it a "safe-place" from progressive viewpoints and feel comfortable with their fellow ditto-heads. Otherwise, how to explain not responding to Steve?

I guess your failed logic somehow made you think you were making a point in asking if I was a racist. Nobody said everybody that denies being a racist is one.

The reaction by somebody to being called a racist is very telling. Responding by saying "Stop it or I will ban you!", or in the case of Trump stupidly making an over-reaction statement like "I am the least racist person in the world" is extremely revealing. This from somebody pointing to a person at his rally and saying “Look at my African-American over here! Look at him!

Tom McLaughlin said...

I have three basic rules for posting here:
No profanity, no anonymous posts, and no ad hominem attacks. More may come as necessary.
I write a column a week and post it here. Anyone may comment within the guidelines.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to every post, reasoned or not.
You seem to relish back and forth posting. I don't. I put out my thoughts and you put out yours. I'm content to leave it at that.
When you have accused me of avoiding argument, I've invited you to appear on my TV show and go at it face-to-face for an hour, but you consistently decline. I've offered to accommodate your time schedule, but you still decline. The invitation remains open.

Brian said...

Interesting when you choose to enforce these rules. It is certainly not when I am being called "libtard" or "Nancy Boy" or whatever other sophomoric attempt at an insult it may be. Fair and balanced? You also seem to find the time to respond to certain posts, but never when you have been presented with hard facts that counter your viewpoint. Those you ignore. And you aren't the only one whose time is precious. Why should others have to spend the day driving to and fro at the convenience of your show's schedule when it could be done just as easily here? And I wonder what the other people's excuses are when avoiding reasoned and relevant counter-points.

Montedoro44 said...

Back to some thoughts born from Tom's article:

Many "woke" folks have come to include breaking the law as justifiable behavior. That includes mob-toppling of statues that that they find offensive, ransacking, burning down a building that houses a police department, creating no-go zones in cities, and other lawlessness. Even though such a woke-person might stop short of condoning beating or killing people who do not share their worldview, it is known that mobs, unless controlled, tend to extend their collective behavior to include such violent activities — witness what happens to people who try to protect such a statue, their place of business, their automobile, their child, their self, etc.

A hysteria sets in, and woke-person can not stop it. Woke-person is complicit in the damages, knowing that he has abetted illegal behavior, even if only to say things like "it is fantastic that statues to racists are being toppled". That happened here, but the same worldview is supported by Black Lives Matter, and apparently by many elected Democrats and their followers and leaders. Knowing that action A is near-certain to lead to event B, it is disingenuous to applaud A and claim no responsibility for B.

A further effect is that if woke-person does not move with the evolving mob, then the mob turns on him; if it differentiates woke-person from the general-opposition person at all, it is likely go worse for woke-person as he became a traitor to the revolution.

Returning to the black thinkers I listed many messages ago — they understand the harm that well-meaning liberals do to the black community. Catch up (on YouTube at least), for example, with Jason Riley, journalist for Wall Street Journal, who authored the book, "Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed". Reasonable people can disagree about one thing or another here, but dismissing voices such as his as irrelevant or crackpot, while continuing to opinionate on the issues, is not only defiantly ignorant, but may reasonably be categorized as an act of racism, as it promotes a worldview for which there is ample evidence that it degrades the black community. Here, for instance is a well-spent 48 minutes:

and it is similarly worth checking out what the others on the list have to contribute to The Conversation.

Brian said...

Some thoughts back at you:

Many "asleep" folks have come to view breaking the law as justifiable behavior. That includes the 54 cases of far-right violence in the name-of-Trump mentioned in this link:

Even though an "asleep" person might stop short of condoning police killing blacks and Confederate flag loving teens shooting up black churches, they still do not actively protest such behaviors and many actually try to vilify the protest movement as a whole instead of the minuscule amount of violent rioters taking advantage of the situation, which all mobs have regardless of cause. Of course violence is wrong, but I view people toppling statues today in the same way I view Germans in the past toppling Nazi statues.

But a Fear Factor is critical in keeping the non-woke asleep. ANTIFA! COMMUNISTS! Hysteria sets in, and an asleep person can not stop it. Asleep-person is complicit in racist behavior, knowing that he has looked the other way, even if only to say things like "well, the victim shouldn't have....", "But blacks kill each other too", or "it is tiresome to keep hearing about George Floyd's death". That happened here, but the same worldview is supported by White Supremacist groups and the Trump Supporter Cult. Knowing that action A is near-certain to lead to event B, it is disingenuous to applaud A and claim no responsibility for B.

A further effect is that if asleep-person does not move along with the mob, then the mob turns on him and has become a traitor. For examples, see: General Mattis “the world’s most overrated general”, General Powell "A real stiff", Romney, Bolton, and on and on...anyone who refuses to keep drinking the Kool-Aid and kissing Trump butt.

You are right, reasonable people should be able to converse about issues here without childish insults such as "libtard", and I should not have taken the bait and responded with a descriptor before his name, no matter how apt I think it may be. That is something Trump does, with his "Sleepy Joe", "Nasty Nancy" etc, etc. It is a shame that the leader of the free world sets the tone by acting like an immature brat. So I apologize. Here we should be able to converse politely, and to me that also includes not staying willfully ignorant by hiding from certain discussions when the facts don't jive with your viewpoints, as is often the case here.

Riley has some good points although he in no way speaks for blacks in general. Growing up with a black foster brother and sister whom I remain close to, I got and get a good personal perspective that I take into account as well, not that they or our group of friends speak for everybody either. If you are interested in some other perspectives on this, here is a good list of books on the subject:

I particularly recommend the "White Fragility" by Robin Diangel.

cowboy ted said...

Just a brief comment, the founder of BLM admitted and is on tape as saying they are a Marxist organization. In addition, she also stated that their number one goal is to get Trump out of office. These are uncontested facts.

Montedoro44 said...

[near x-post with cowboy ted. Patrisse Cullors' statement about her adherence to Marxism is quoted below]

Brian, your mirror-like inversion of my post is a worthy rhetorical riposte. But the two primary sides do not run parallel; they consist of opposing pairs that can hardly co-exist. The few black thinkers that I selected for examination pretty well cover the conservative view; their criticisms and conclusions are fact-based; they believe that not only the current street events, but that government involvement has proven to be detrimental to the best interests of the victimized community. To call them racists is wrong. No, you never did that. But by extension, those of us who share their worldview , support the actions that are necessary to achieve their desired outcomes and speak against the actions that we & they believe prevent it, should also not be counted out as racists. That includes even supporting Trump, as these black intellectuals tend to agree on. If these not-racist black historians et al. conclude that Trump is better for the well-being of the black community than BLM, and that Trump is not a racist, then that grace must be extended to non-black Trump supporters who share the vision of these black supporters, at least because it is the content of one's character that matters, not the color of one's skin.

Or is that no longer the case? To simplify, we have to choose between a set of pairs of irreconcilable views:

> use historical data as a guide to action vs. suppress it (e.g., is Affirmative Action, private school vouchers, more beneficial or harmful)

> emphasize equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome

> reject lawbreaking, violence vs. encourage violence (e.g., street posters containing the phrase "by any means necessary")

> promote intact family vs. BLM “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement . . ."

> promote independence vs. dependence (e.g., welfare that encourages single-mother housholds)

> promote better police enforcement vs. defunding, replacement

> promote capitalism vs. anti-capitalism (e.g., Patrisse Cullors: “Myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories, and I think what we really try to do is build a movement that can be utilized by many, many black folk.”

> reject the concept of reparations on various grounds vs. promote the concept of reparations on various other grounds.

> reject using race as a basis for legislation vs. using race as a basis for legislation

> reject assuming that in cases of inter-racial destructive events that the cause must be racism

To ascribe to all of the 1st positions, as I do and apparently all of the listed conservative thinkers do, constitutes the opposite of racism/hatred.

Where are you on these choices?

Brian said...

No Ted, they did not say the are a Marxist organization. They did say "Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists, we are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories." I see nothing wrong in being educated on various ideological theories. They might also be trained in CPR, which would not make them a "CPR Organization". Can you tell me what actions of the BLM movement is Marxist or communist? And getting rid of Trump is a noble cause when it comes to helping our country. If you are going after racism, why not start at the top with the man who says "good people" march alongside white supremacists, and just yesterday re-tweeted a video in which a man in a golf cart with Trump posters calls out about "white power".

Out-right racism. Which makes it harder and harder for people that support this guy not to be lumped in with racists, no matter what other redeeming choices they make.

Kafir said...

All you could ever want to know about BLM can be found in an extensive article at “Discover the Networks”. It isn’t pretty and yes, Brian and others, they ARE Marxist revolutionaries. And, yes, Brian et al, CAIR has aligned itself with BLM. It’s executive director, Nihad Awad, has said, “Black Lives Matter is our campaign”. It’s referred to as the “Red-Green Axis” or “Unholy Alliance”. What could possibly go wrong with Islamic jihadists hitching their wagon to Marxists who are uniting to destroy our country? Wake up people!

Brian said...

Kafir, you are a victim of fear tactics. BLM and CAIR (who are not jihadists and have denounced ISIS and terror activity) combined have far fewer acts of violence and terror attributed to them than terror activity done in the name of white supremacy and/or far right causes.

And could you tell me something bad BLM has done that could be described as Marxist?

Below is the actual beliefs of BLM:

And I am taking it as a good sign that nobody is even trying to defend the flat-out racism that Trump was spreading with his "white Power" Twitter video.

Montedoro44 said...

DT disavow (KKK)

We condemn hatred bigotry violence 1:55
Racism is evil, neo-Nazis, KKK, White supremacists: 2:44
many (good) people, other than neo-nazis and white nationalists

It is possible that many people, possibly Brian, never heard this DT denunciation of neo-nazis and white nationalists, because much of the mainstream media cut their clips to include only the "many good people on both sides" part. But this version is the complete statement, so in order to not propagate a fraud against DT, you can't say that he never spoke against KKK, white nationalism, racism, et al.

How representative is this guy in the golf cart? If Brian applies the same standards to both sides of the aisle, then let it be this one, regarding the current BLM protests/riots/lawlessness/damage, et al: "There is a minuscule of amount of rioters compared to peaceful protesters."

Minuscule -- Apply the same standard to the golf cart video. A guy retorts (to a loud, obscenely insulting, threatening mob), "white power". Stack up these two words against the death & destruction committed by the minuscule of amount of rioters. "Minuscule" is precious -- the number of Nazis in Hitler's day was minuscule, maybe 3-5%. A minuscule number of Muslims brought down the WTC, killing 3000 people, etc. "Minuscule" is smoke & mirrors. One old fart in a golf cart? Might as well f Trump with it.

Here is one of BLM's denunciations of the destruction they spawned: May 29: "We all need to protest, which takes many forms. Tomorrow night bring your rage, your love, your fire." If DT had said, in any context, "bring your rage" or "bring your fire", what would MSM and Brian make of it? Maybe, the next 4 years of rage & fires in the streets would be his fault, yes?

I wonder if Black Lives Matter would ever officially say "There are good people on both sides".

Brian said...

It's simple. It's not about the jerk in the golf cart, or any of the minuscule amount of A-holes on any side. It is bigger than that. The President of the United States himself tweeted out a video of this cretin shouting "white power". There is no getting around that. And it took him TWO DAYS after Charlottesville to condemn the neo-nazis, and then because he finally realized the backlash he was getting for staying silent at such a time. The not-long-to-be President, the "Hey look at my African American!" buffoon is a racist pig.
People constantly forgiving him, making excuses for him, or looking the other way are in the same boat.

Montedoro44 said...

Good work, Brian — you have turned people who find serious flaws in your worldview, and so oppose it, into a boat full of racist pigs. You just called a lot of educated & scholarly black historians racist pigs.

Dwell on that for a moment — not just racist, but pigs — this is an expression of serious disdain, hatred. What words are there to describe a person who says such demeaning, insulting, vicious, hateful things about erudite and refined black people?

A couple of screens ago, for a moment, you displayed some decency. That's how I want to remember you. It won't be easy.

Brian said...

I am sorry for insulting pigs who did nothing to deserve such comparisons. I should have said greedy, selfish and uncouth, which I can't say is true about pigs. The pig part entered my mind on another tangent, thinking of the "grab 'em by the pussy" part of Trump...again, unfair to pigs. Also unfair to pigs is claiming that calling somebody by their name means "hatred". I've called my daughter a little pig for not cleaning up her room. And I find it interesting that you keep bringing up the skin color of your "scholarly black historians". You do realize that many jews supported Hitler? Many of them educated & scholarly. Yes, I would call them deplorable. Wiki says: "A possible reason why some German Jews supported Hitler may have been that they thought that his antisemitism only was for the purpose of "stirring up the masses". Hmmm....kind of like people say Trump is doing?

Look, there are only so many despicable/racist, mean-spirited things somebody can say or do before it is clear that they are a person not to be looked up to or followed. How can one not assume that those choosing to follow such a person shares many of the same qualities? And deserve the same scorn.

Brian said...

It's weird having Lindsey Graham back me up on this matter...

Montedoro44 said...

A new low for honesty:

It is easy to patch together same-party attack ads:

You diminish yourself to misrepresent such stuff as news, Brian.

Brian said...

I don't get the links you gave. Of course the Graham quotes were from different times, nobody is supposed to think he sat down and said those things all at once. But he said these things and the meanings were not misconstrued. What parts exactly are you having a problem with?

And there is nothing bad to be said about a great American like Mattis (except for pro-Trumpers who dislike his speaking truth to power: