I know any criticism of Black Lives Matter (BLM) is immediately construed as proof of police abuse apologism and white supremacist inclinations, but I hope our platform is sufficiently civil to allow nuanced discourse instead of toxic cancel culture. I also hope my long history of posts against statist institutions and racism is sufficient evidence for my good intentions.
My concern does not stem from disdain for minorities or a lack of concern for their complaints. I have been objecting to police brutality, no-knock SWAT raids, racial profiling, etc. for many years. It is an undeniable fact that many laws we take for granted today are rooted in racism and classism, including minimum wage laws, marriage licensing, drug prohibition, business licensing, and even zoning laws. These are all trumpeted as benevolent protections for society now, but the origin and justification alike need to be reexamined. In brief, I hope I am an ally to those who oppose oppression, and have put considerable effort into studying the web of oppression the State imposes against everyone, and especially against those it deems a nuisance.
No, my concern about BLM has nothing to do with the major causes of conflict. I am in complete agreement with objections to the recent murder of George Floyd and the earlier incidents where the Thin Blue Line Gang claims to be "just following procedure" as they kill, steal, and destroy. It is instead with the tendency of political movements to be co-opted by authoritarians with personal agendas and a lack of concern for the initial issue that sparked the protests. And here, I speak from experience.
I was there when the Tea Party movement began, and the first local rally was held. It started out as a libertarian opposition to the bloat of the State in its regulatory power and especially taxation. But even from the first rally, I saw what was coming. The speeches were polluted by nationalism and authoritarianism wearing the costume of liberty. There were speakers filled with passion, but devoid of principle. There were appeals to emotion instead of an explanation of individual rights and pursuit of true justice. People waved and pledged allegiance to the flag of their abuser as though it was a magic amulet of protection. It was insanity disguised as liberty.
This is why I am concerned about BLM. I have always said that riots and violence push the misinformed and uninformed into the arms of the State. I see BLM "leaders" straying far from the core motivations of the population in pursuit of self-aggrandizement and political machinations. I read their proposals, but instead of real reform, they want to seize the reins of power for themselves, and turn the plunder and violence inherent in the State toward their own ends. And the tactics proposed could not be better designed to create division instead of unity.
Don't hack away at the branches, strike the root. And make sure you're hacking at the correct tree in the first place, too. The greatest wisdom is required when the times of greatest trouble and change are upon us. The State seems to have deliberately left us unequipped for such responsibility, so I beg my readers to weigh their choices and actions carefully. Foolish actions for a good cause are not made wise by the cause. Beware of anyone who tries to hijack a cause for their own ends. And above all, beware the urge to create a caricature of dissenters so you can dismiss them.
Black lives matter.
All lives matter, but don't just say that to ignore the real systemic injustices minorities face. If we address the issues that affect the black community, we also address the issues affecting everyone else.
Police lives matter, but if you keep on enforcing unjust laws and covering up corruption among your own ranks, you dishonor yourselves. Don't hide behind your badge as if it is equivalent to skin color or culture. You say if we have nothing to hide, then we should have nothing to fear from your searches and surveillance, and yet you oppose people filming cops or an end to "qualified immunity?" You say, "there are consequences," as you enforce bad laws, but you object to the consequence of people targeting you in response to your mishandling of misconduct?
I hope this has been reasonably coherent. If you have any objections, need clarification, or want to contribute to the conversation, please comment below.
Unfortunately, for those Bureau of Land Management activists, the conversation is already over. When conversations end, battles begin. Emotions are running far too high in order to be able to have a civil discussion at the moment. Hell, we were already having the conversation about police reform for the umpteenth time, but then the riots began and all that stopped. Thus is the false dichotomy made real - you are either on the side of BLM, or you are a racist, oppressive, capitalist pig. This is why black police officers are called "race traitors," among other things. Naming, by the way, is half the battle, and what you said about Black Lives Matter, the organisation, is true of Antifa as well: "if you oppose Antifa, then you are a fascist by definition." The argument is so superficial that a stiff autumn breeze could punch a hole in it.
At the end of the day, what BLM and Antifa want is a fight, not a conversation, that's why they shut down any attempts to reason with them. The solution, as far as I'm concerned, is to get people to not join these groups in the first place - when dangerous ideologues congregate, they can whip up normal people into a frenzy and create an angry mob capable of overthrowing a nation. The crimes of the State, incidentally, are the perfect catalyst (think "Russian Revolution" here). Assuming that the current conflict burns itself out before it amounts to anything (and it looks like it basically has at this point), we can have a serious conversation afterward, and try to turn people away from BLM and Antifa. Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to get someone to believe a lie than it is to convince them that they've been lied to.
Speaking of that other BLM, remember how the Left treated the protesters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge? No vandalism, just occupation of public property during the off season. They were just "a bunch of stupid rednecks who needed to be wiped off the map."
But Occupy Wall Street? That was fine.
People protesting the COVID-19 lockdown were "idiots who wanted to murder gramma just so they could get a haircut. Damn them to hell." Same for the gun owners protesting the various new state gun control measures. Never mind how peaceful they were, they were terrorists because people felt intimidated.
But rioting in the streets and mass arson is OK.
Why is the legitimacy of a protest based not on the cause or the tactics used, but the partisan attitudes toward the ideology behind it?
There is an interesting paradox when it comes to the left: the socialist movement was created by intellectuals who intended to benefit the humble workers. The problem is that left-leaning intellectuals disdain the proletariat that they claim to champion, hence the largely bourgeois makeup of communist groups in capitalist countries. In the event that you meet a communist who is poor, expect them to use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy as soon as you point this out.
(I'm not a fan of stonetoss, but this particular comic is spot on)
I haven't even touched on the methods ("By Any Means Necessary," which is another activist organisation to stay as far away from as possible), but we've already established that we're dealing with a bunch of hypocrites. Right now, the mainstream media is controlled by the left, which is why criticism is directed entirely at right-leaning protesters. Should the right ever control the mainstream media, we'd see the exact opposite, such as a repeat of the Satanic Panic. While I'd like to think that the MSM's approval is at an all-time low, it is still the only source of information for the vast majority of the population, and people really don't like it when you tell them that their favourite news source is little more than a propaganda rag. If only getting people to diversify their news sources wasn't like pulling teeth, I don't think we'd have a lot of the problems that we do.
"We care about the workers... so pay should be based on seniority alone, competence and productivity be damned!"
The Tea Party co-opting was really frustrating to watch and also really frustrating how easy it was. That seems to be a problem with almost all movements though. There is a tendency for people to just go along with increasing degrees of violence and stepping well beyond the initial message they were trying to make. It is a psychological trait of humans and mob rule tends to take over and minimize most voices.
The BLM movement is rooted in a solid message of dealing with the egregious personal violations that continue to happen at the hands of the state. But if that was the only message than I think it would be a lot harder to co-opt. It seems the purpose keeps getting muddier as time goes by.
"Black Lives Matter" Yup.
"Protest in the streets!" OK.
"Arson and vandalism!" Wait, no, that's counterproductive.
"Defund the Police!" Sounds good.
"Tear down statues of confederates!" OK. Seems a bit off-topic when addressing current events, but whatever.
"Well, don't really defund the police, but instead set up a whole new bureaucracy! And trust government again!" No, you've lost the plot.
I find it odd that people scream to gt rid of the systems and then they go and enact ones even more barbaric and orwelian that completely negates the entire point of the movement.
"The selfsame system that created our present problem of corrupt cops, abusive courts, byzantine laws, unjust wars, corporate collusion, an epidemic of regulatory red tape, and immigrant imprisonment needs to run health care and send social workers everywhere. There's no way it can go wrong if we add even more layers of bureaucracy! Also, you owe us more money, you greedy bastards!"
Bureaucrats will bureaucrat. That's why the allegory of "the first to go were the lawyers and politicians" very well may come true.