Living things that haven’t (even briefly) come into contact with content related to the killing of George Floyd include house dust mites and North Korean window cleaners.
The reaction to his dreadful death has swept dramatically across the United States like a tsunami. Waves of which that have well and truly started to spread into an immense push to drive this impassioned debate as a priority issue amongst populations around the planet.
To be clearer than the water washing up to a beach in the Bahamas, I can’t stress enough how much I want to see systemic racism rid from our societies. So the reason I bash movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM) is not because I wish for them to fail.
In fact, I want nothing more than to see their core aim of crushing systemic racism result in a sensational success. I bash them because the calamitous way they’re conducting their campaign is doing nothing but crucifying the anti-racist cause.
The anger they emit is absolutely understandable. But it’s an emotion being aimed in the all the wrong areas, and very often aimed at all the wrong people.
When anger is wrongly channelled at chiselling away rationality, all logic is drastically drained from the debate. A debate that is so desperately dependent on logic in order for the whole anti-racist side to eventually see success.
From the very start, Black Lives Matter managed to mobilise the attention of the world. But rather than harnessing that heed and recognition by developing this debate into a process of attempting to produce solid solutions, they’ve instead opted to pursue the path of intense chaos.
If Black Lives Matter was a ship, it would be sailing straight towards the Bermuda Triangle. But if this ship sinks, it sure won’t be marked down as a mystery.
The first thing that they must throw overboard is the reckless rioting and their venomous vandalism, both of which are ultimately done in vain.
Extreme, anarchist hagfishes attempt to brainwash emotional and innocent activists into believing that riots are some universal solution to achieving social change.
Just because a riot has occasionally been followed by results on policy reform in the past, it doesn’t mean that riots are a one-size-fits-all answer to re-shaping society. Riots are rarely the right road to drive down.
As racial justice writer, Kai Wright, states – “though some good may follow a violent riot, such as awareness of the desperate issues which inspired it, the good comes in spite of it, and never because of it”.
What is right to say about riots is that they are an emotionally induced response to oppression & systematic violence, rather than being the solution to severe social injustices.
The lionheart of the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 60’s, Martin Luther King Jr, said that “the ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. In fact, violence merely increases hate”.
Dr King’s words couldn’t resonate more when reacting to the riots that we’ve witnessed. He understood and knew that violence and rioting was a natural reaction rather than a solution.
His words carry even more weight when you consider how far civil rights in the U.S. and UK have come along since his day. Racism still survives, but the platform for voices vying for racial justice is a hell of a lot more solid than it was seventy years ago.
Martin Luther King Jr. managed to peacefully secure some of the most pivotal civil rights reforms in U.S. history in a time where racism was much more rampant – so what’s Black Lives Matter’s excuse? They’ve had a heavily publicised platform for years. So why aren’t they using that platform to propose peaceful solutions whilst rejecting rioting?
It’s not like we can profess that nothing will come from these race riots. Oh no, my friends, they certainly won’t be ineffectual – and I don’t mean that in a positive way. Instead, these riots run the risk of making racial injustice so much more incredibly worse!
Firstly, who are they really helping by directing hostility and destruction at the homes and businesses of black people? How can one claim that they care for black lives, at the same as bringing a blast of blight to these very people?
I mean I would ask you to speak to David Underwood and David Dorn, both of whom are black. But unfortunately you won’t be able to because both were killed by blockheads flying the flag of Black Lives Matter. Clearly, these two black lives didn’t matter.
Next, let’s look at riots and violence volleyed at the homes and businesses of white people. Surely if we want to end systemic racism, we need white people onside. So I don’t think I need to openly declare that destroying their livelihoods will achieve the downright opposite.
Even worse, what if these people are not like you and I. Me and you – we understand that rioters don’t represent the majority of Black Lives Matter protestors. But we can’t ignore the ignorance of the few individuals who aren’t able to distinguish between the two.
When these people are targeted, or when they witness other white people being targeted, there’s a tremendous possibility that riots will only reinforce and accelerate any racial stereotypes they may hold.
Even though logic tell us that these negative stereotypes are a load of old nonsense, we can’t just simply assume that others won’t think as rationally as us about race. This would prove Dr King right when he said – “instead of diminishing evil, [violence] multiplies it”.
But if you still don’t believe me, or arguably the greatest civil rights activist in American history, and want to continue to bolster those who riot, allow me to ask you this; if you back the legitimacy of riots, would you therefore be happy for BLM to burn your house down in the name of racial justice? If so, let me know. I’ll send someone round within the hour.
So now we’ve installed some common sense into our brains on riots, it’s only right to criticise the Black Lives Matter ‘leadership’ for not disavowing this destruction that’s doing nothing but battering their own bruised campaign.
Whilst organisers can’t control each and every one of the people who attend their protest, we wouldn’t be wise to underestimate the power produced if they were to publicly renounce rioting.
If they were to formally disavow and distance themselves from destructive protests, people would begin to start taking them more seriously. If they were to extricate themselves from extremism, their rebranded efforts on racial justice would with no doubt be rewarded.
And that allows us to flow swimmingly onto this following point - Black Lives Matter has been hijacked!
Don’t just take this unfortunate fact from myself. Listen to those activists on the ground who are angry and aggrieved to see their efforts jumped on and seized by bandana bearing, anarchist buffoons.
These are anarchists who care nothing more racial injustice. They’re pathetic, professional protestors who pounce on any opportunity to cause as much trouble as possible.
By the way, these are also rioting anarchists who attempt to remain anonymous to avoid their mummy from spotting on the 6 o’clock news, which would eventually result in banishment to their bedroom.
BLM’s silence on the dreadful infiltration by these slimy groups is deafening. As they say themselves – silence is complicity. Turning a blind eye to this extremism has turned out to be a totally back-breaking blunder.
The blunder gets bigger when you consider that they’re more than willing to bail these balloons out of jail. A fact that they don’t disclose to the people who they accept donations from.
It’s true that some pro-riot donors read between the lines and are very well aware that their cash can go to people causing chaos in both black and white communities.
However, it’s also true that so many people donating don’t realise that their money is being spent on fuelling ferocious riots. Innocent donators are under the impression that their cash is going on bailing out wrong arrested peaceful protestors.
Either way, how can we trust Black Lives Matter when they bail out those who will bounce, belly first, back into causing chaos?
Until Black Lives Matter can guarantee that donations are diverted away from those who are desperate for destruction, I’d emphatically encourage people to pledge their money to organisations like the American Civil Liberties Union as a substitute.
As I understand it, the American Civil Liberties Union are more greatly geared towards ensuring that black people are treated fairly as they argue their case in court. A far superior stance on securing justice than that of Black Lives Matter. This money would ensure that peaceful protestors are justly exonerated, whilst the rioters are rightly punished.
Riots aren’t the only repugnant and illogical iceberg that the Black Lives Matter ship has struck, however. The movement also has a misanthropic-esque tendency to misunderstand various other points of view prevalent in this debate. One prime example being the battle between the “Black lives matter” and the “All lives matter” mantras.
My pants would be on fire if I proclaimed that some people from either “side” didn’t commandeer these proverbs, seeking to wind each other up. But again, me and you – we’re people of common sense. We understand that sincere anti-racists who choose to sport either saying are actually all on the same side. At least we should be.
Therefore, the two should not be seen as being mutually exclusive. Black lives matter because all lives matter, and all lives matter includes black lives mattering. We should accept that there’s nothing wrong with either.
It’s stupid to scorn each other based on the angle we want to attack this issue from. I’m sure you might sense a hint of hypocrisy when I say this, given the nature of this ‘essay’, but BLM spends more time scolding those on their own side than they do scolding the real enemy – the racists.
Then there’s the bombardment brandished by some Black Lives Matter campaigners towards anti-racist white people whenever they put forward an opinion. A bombardment which borderlines on bigotry.
In the eyes of these select BLM campaigners, white people have no right to command any smidge of authority whatsoever to speak out against racism. All because they have not been the subject of it. On the surface, that might standpoint seem to make sense, but when you really think about it, that view is nothing more than illogical vitriol.
Whilst the overwhelming and vast majority of white people have indeed not experienced racism (myself included), how on Earth does than mean we are unable to grasp and understand what barriers hold back and barrage the lives of black people?
I was never groomed or abused as a child. But people would have no problem with me speaking out about and posing solutions to that.
I’ve never been the subject of anti-semitism (as I’m not jewish). But people would have no problem with me speaking out about and posing solutions to that.
I’ve never experienced being shoved into an active volcano. But nobody would claim I don’t have an authority to speak on the subject of not shoving people into volcanos.
See how BLM’s lethargic logic is flawed? Why is the subject of racism any different? Why can’t I speak with authority against racism and propose solutions to the problem?
Don’t let anyone convince you that just because you haven’t fully felt or experienced the consequences of something, that you therefore have no ability to speak with a deep degree of authority on the subject.
To be quite honest, even those who have experienced racism first hand cannot claim to “fully understand” racism, despite what BLM say. That’s owing to the fact that they have have (hopefully) never actually experienced what it’s like to hold racist feelings.
After all, systemic racism relies on someone dishing it out, and someone receiving it. Systemic racism is an “it takes two to tango” situation.
This is where the failed logic that only those who “fully understand” racism can speak as an authority breaks down.
By their logic, do we have to search for a racist who is also the subject of racism to be that authority. For only they understand what it’s like to be racist, and receive racism. They’d fully understand both sides of racism. But that doesn’t sound like a very smart solution, does it? You’re right.
Instead, just like we don’t have to experience racism in order to get a grasp on the barriers it creates for black people, we also don’t have to be a racist in order to grasp where anti-black views may stem from. All it requires is real thorough research through social engagement with both black people and their abusers.
The last thing we should be doing is throwing white people (or those of other ethnicities) overboard. Marginalising white and other non-black ethnic anti-racists from the debate drives dreadful division into the debate. Division that adversely effects all of our efforts to rid our societies of racism. This ship can become sturdy enough to support all of us.
And to reiterate here, I hate to see Black Lives Matter drive themselves into the ground to an early grave. It would fill me with heartfelt happiness to see them succeed.
But if they are going to win – if WE are going to win — Black Lives Matter must harness wholesale reform of their campaign. Only then, will I start to support Black Lives Matter.
Until that day, there will be big difference between believing that black lives matter and backing Black Lives Matter.