Forja 081 · 22 julio 2020 · 50.21
Racism and the Crushing of the BLACK LIVES MATTER Movement
Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Fortunata and Jacinta, this is "Que M… de pais" and we will begin to present the series entitled "Criticism of the Black Lives Matter Movement." This will be the first in a series of chapters of analysis of the events that are taking place in the US and other parts of the World, following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Officer Derek Chauvin. I will begin today's episode with a brief comment on racism in general and then deepen into the criticism of the Black Lives Matter Movement. For your edification, I will be quoting some of the statements of its founders, as well as the political demands they raise. In the next chapter, we will do the same with the Antifa Movement. I will tackle the phenomenon of the demolition of historically significant statues and then establish a diagnosis on the geopolitical interests of globalist elites in the face of Spanish-ness and rationality.
The first thing to remember is that the so-called scientific racism, better described as pseudoscientific racism, which had its origin in French Enlightenment. Scientific Racism finds its main area of spread in North European countries and in the United States. It is, therefore, a recent and modern phenomenon, because its ideology has justified the supremacism of some races against others for biological reasons. This body of thinking has presented itself as the fruit of scrupulous rationality and presumed scientific knowledge.
As we explained in Episode 22 entitled "French Enlightenment, Scientific Racism and America," I recommend that you seek it out in case you haven't read it yet; the taxonomies of the human races arise in parallel to the development of categorical sciences such as Anthropology and Biology. This body of thinking did not arise before the science which predicates it and it is very important to underline its genesis to avoid possible anachronisms. Eighteenth-century classifications of types of humans placed blacks, for example, just above chimpanzees and gorillas, and this dehumanization would end up justifying the abrasive methods of nineteenth-century colonialism.
Eighteenth-century rise in Social Darwinism and the science of phrenology gave birth to a pseudoscience that claimed to be able to determine the moral and intellectual qualities of human subjects from the study of their cranial morphology. For example, when the Swedish scientist Carlos Linnaeus established the varieties of the genus Homo in the Eighteenth-century, assigned moral and pneumatic attributes to certain physical characteristics of individuals. Thus, the Europaeus will not only be described by Linnaeus as "white and with light and abundant hair," but they would also carry, according to him, moral qualities such as inconstancy, inventiveness or a predilection for being governed by laws. In contrast, the Afer variety, referred to as blacks, would have frizzy hair and a wide nose, but, in addition, it would be described as cunning, lazy and governed by arbitrary wills. That is, in Linnaeus's opinion, the white man would be governed by the laws, while the black man would be governed rather by their passions.
Therefore, we need to keep in mind that the anthropological model of racial supremacism was born out of France with the now-idealized Enlightenment Movement and then expanded throughout the Germanic, Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian diffusion area. In the words of the Hungarian philosopher, Georg Lukács, Spain remains on the fringes of this irrational trajectory (in general, this includes the Latin and Catholic countries). It is enough to remember that José de Acosta, a Jesuit and Spanish naturalist of the Sixteenth century, maintained that the development of intelligence had more to do with upbringing than with nature. This thinking is compared with the Scottish Skeptics philosopher, David Hume of the Eighteenth century, who found in biology elements that justified the superiority of some races over others. As established in Episode Number 22, I offered abundant material in this regard. I would also like to recommend the FORJA 52 episode entitled "SPANISH-NESS: Genesis of the Festivity of October 12th." Within this article, I explain in what sense the term "race" was used within Hispanic tradition. We refer, for example, to the idea or, rather, to its ideal, of the cosmic race advocated by the Mexican Vasconcelos in 1924 which has the sense of "culture" and not the North European sense of racial supremacism with an alleged biological foundation.
An essential element to understanding the difference between the model of generating Empire and the model of a predatory Empire is the legal status granted to assimilated populations. As it happened in Rome, the Spanish Empire did not exclude indigenous populations, but rather assimilated them. Thus this assimilation allowed the promoting of crossbreeding of bloods, cultural syncretism, and granting them the status of subjects of the Crown. In contrast, it should be remembered that the English colonists, and later the United States authorities, practiced an exclusive colonialism that did not generate either miscegenation or integration, resulting in the extermination of the indigenous Indians they encountered.
Prior to this trend of assimilation, suffice to say that the New France censuses were always very low because the French only considered their population to be those born to French parents or born in France. It did not consider indigenous populations, which the Spanish did from the first moment. The Burgos Laws, signed in 1512, established among other things, the legal nature of the Indian as a free man with all his property rights. In the face of this, we must not forget that it was not until the year 1924, when the Indian Citizenship Act was passed which granted all Indians which were under the jurisdiction of the United States status as citizens. In this way, the XIV Constitutional Amendment of 1868 became effective, which was considered not applicable to Native Americans. Also note, the Jim Crow laws or de jure mandated racial segregation laws promoted, incidentally, by Democratic governments, remained in effect in the US up until 1964. Another good example to consider is that of Australia, which did not recognize the aborigines as citizens until 1967, denying that they owned the lands of their ancestors.
As stated in the FORJA episode 68th, from the philosophical materialism we understand the doctrine of Manifest Destiny as the Imperial Orthogram of the United States. That is an understanding of the set of plans and programs from the United States in its expansion movement from the Atlantic coast over to the Pacific. This doctrine carried with it the topic of North American Anglo-Saxon racial superiority and contempt and even hatred of Indians, blacks and Mexicans. Although, it must be noted, that these three ethnic groups were not treated in the same way. For example, when the war ended against Mexico in 1848, US citizenship was granted to Mexicans living in the territories annexed by the United States. A decade earlier, however, between 1837 and 1838, President Andrew Jackson expelled Indians living east of the Mississippi by sending them west. The humiliation and annihilation of the Northern American Indians, whom George Washington called "Wild Beasts" and "Unenlightened Race," was not an act of war, but a cleansing operation. Although it could be interpreted, rather, as a hunt, as if the Indians were more on the angular axis and not on the circular axis of anthropological space. This is how racist ideology engineered the construction of the American Nation as a suitable nematology for a political society which participated asymmetrically in the appropriation of new territories. That is, in the common history of the United States, the basal layer (the territory and its riches) was predicated on the institution of slavery, on the one hand, and the exclusion of indigenous populations, on the other. These opposing facets of racism sought a biological foundation to justify certain political and economic ends.
Empires, while destroying one part of society, also build the other and while they prey on certain types of rights, they generate others. We must also bear in mind that a society as complex as the United States cannot be understood as a static or monolithic bloc. Since throughout its history, very strong internal dialectics have been generated, including some movements that rose and continue to face their own antagonistic movements. For example, the Ku Klux Klan is as American as the Civil Rights Movement. That is why we have to avoid crude simplifications of the type: "the problem of the United States is white supremacism against blacks." Because, for example, the first legally recognized black slave in the Thirteen English Colonies was John Casor in 1654, which was owned by a Free Angolan black settler named Anthony Johnson.
Before closing this section, I want to point out that this so-called scientific racism was considered politically correct in a large part of the West until after World War II. At that time, the racist ideologies of the North European countries were fully exposed. From then on, an attempt was made to erase the concept of race to become as if the very existence of human races was denied. Until today, when movements such as the Black Lives Matter denounced an alleged systemic racism in the United States. Next, I will try to criticize this premise: does a systemic, institutional, structural racism persist in the United States? And does the Black Lives Matter Movement really fight for racial equality or merely hide spurious interests? Let us begin.
BLACK LIVES MATTER
Black Lives Matter is a supposedly an anti-racist International organization that emerged in July 2013 following the death of Trayvon Martin in the US and the subsequent viralization of social media with the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. The movement rests on the conviction that the American Police systematically exert an abusive force upon the Black population for racist reasons. This movement indicates that racial discrimination within its fundamental institutions persists within the United States. President Barack Obama supported the BLM movement despite the fact that, as a black man himself, he had held the US presidency since 2009, and that between 2001 and 2009, two of the Secretaries of State, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were also black.
The BLM movement is principally led by three black women activists from the LGBTI movement: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi. These women met through the African American Organization for Leadership and Dignity, an entity financially supported by the Open Society Foundations which was created by financial magnate George Soros in 1984 and has been one of the leading donors to the American Democratic Party. And also from their ally, or rather master, of Pedro Sánchez, as seen from his first day in Moncloa. It would be very naive to believe, that the Black Lives Matter Movement arose spontaneously from outraged crowds, gathered around a successful viral hashtag and financially supported by a generous civil society that sympathized with and sponsored them through Patreon. No, this movement was organized around very powerful Non-Government Organizations which act thanks to donations from entities linked to the so-called "left" political establishment of the United States. Let's point out that, through the Ford Foundation, the Borealis Philanthropic or the Open Society, the Black Lives Matter has received more than $100 Million in aid over the past four years. The Borealis Philanthropic, for example, explains on its website that it "supports organizations that work to advance the vision of young, black, queer, feminist and immigrant leaders" in order to drive the debate "on race, criminalization and state and gender violence in the United States." Beware, then, because these supposed black movements are financed by mostly white elites and linked to very specific ideological agendas. Let's see.
The founders of the movement openly express their support for the Nicolás Maduro regime. In fact, Opal Tometi accepted Maduro's invitation to supervise the vote count in the 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary elections at a time when institutions such as the Organization of American States (OAS) and the European Union decided not to send supervisors because they considered that the electoral process in Venezuela corrupt. That same year, in September 2015, Nicolás Maduro received an award at the Summit of Afro-descendant Leaders held in Harlem, USA, and at the same event Tometi represented Black Lives Matter. A couple of months later, the conspicuous Time magazine nominated Black Lives Matter as Person of the Year without taking into account, by the way, that BLM is not a person but a movement of people. Although it is clear that this type of movement seeks the recognition of the "rights" of the group to the detriment of the rights of the citizen. Those "rights" of the collective or group would no longer be such rights, but privileges depending on gender, race, social status, birthplace, religious beliefs, or political ideologies. This is all very particular and feels a little bit like the Old Regime, although those who support them do not even realize it. But let's continue.
Despite the fact that the Black Lives Matter Movement had been active since 2013, it was not until this pandemic of 2020 that they became world famous in the wake of the protests against the murder of the American citizen, George Floyd which took place on May 25, 2020. The Movement has been "empowered" to such an extent that surveys say that its social acceptance has risen from 27% to 57% in just four years. It is striking that these protests were initially directed against President Donald Trump, as if he himself had put his knee on George Floyd's neck. What does Trump have to do with all this? Didn't George Floyd's murder occur in Minneapolis, a city governed by the Democratic Party, where the city council administration is fervently anti-Trump? Isn't the State of Minnesota also governed by Democrats? Could it be that we are in the middle of the electoral campaign in the US and that it is convenient to take advantage of the fragility generated by the pandemic? Why do the media related to the Democratic Party offer such a biased and tortuous vision of the reality of these movements? Could it be that BLM has had relationships with people like Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton?
On July 26, 2016, Hillary was publicly praised by the mothers of young BLMs: "Hillary Clinton has a great relationship with the black community, she understands us ... Hillary is the mother who can ensure that our movement will be successful." In fact, the Clintons are so popular with the black community that Bill Clinton earned the nickname of "first black president." In turn, the enmity between Trump and BLM arises at the same time that Trump began his escalation toward the White House. It is not anecdotal that 90% of the black population in the US votes for the Democratic Party. Perhaps many vote without knowing that the Republican Party was born with a clear abolitionist agenda at the hands of, among others, the freed black slave Frederick Douglass and, of course, President Abraham Lincoln. They may be unaware that the KKK was born in the 19th century, precisely within the Democratic Party, promoting a clandestine campaign of violence against Republican leaders and voters (black and white) in an effort to restore white supremacy in the Southern United States.
On the other hand, the LGTBI and anarchist expression can be seen in the worldly philosophy practiced by the BLM Movement. Thus, in their speeches they constantly appeal to the construction of collective identities, as well as to "State Violence", which they understand as an all-powerful power bent on crushing minorities. This is how Alicia Garza, one of its founders, defines the group's philosophy: “When we say Black Lives Matter, we are talking about the ways in which blacks are deprived of their basic human rights and dignity. It is an acknowledgment of black poverty and genocide, it is a state of violence.” As we can clearly see, today sacred human rights are appealed to as if they were the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. The first thing we observe is that the perpetual invocation of human rights is part of the argument of separatists, LGBTI Movements, Feminism, Indigenous Rights, minorities and groups of all kinds. That is, human rights are spoken of as if they emanated from heaven, when their construction is historical and ideological.
These human rights were enunciated in 1948 by the group of the victors of WWII. This rise was in clear competition with other groups and it must be remembered that, at the time and for different reasons, neither the USSR nor China nor the Muslim countries signed them. Later, the latter ended up writing the Human Rights, strongly conditioned by the laws of Sharia or Islamic Law. On the other hand, Alicia Garza talks about Black poverty, however, “Whose companies are being destroyed? Black and minority-owned companies,” says Marie Fischer, director of Project 21. How is it justified from social justice that many of the looting and violence committed during these weeks have targeted small black and minority immigrant businesses already hard hit by the pandemic? The anti-racism discourse also overlooks that many of the police officers who work on the front lines in Black communities are often Blacks born and raised there.
Alicia Garza's manifesto continues: “(BLM) is an acknowledgment that 1 million black people are locked in cages in this country - half of the people in prisons or jails are black - and this is an act of state violence." Of utmost importance is the silence that hangs over the epidemic of daily crime within black communities, especially when compared to the National and International clamor that George Floyd's death has sparked. Why isn't it said that in 94% of cases of violent death of black people, the murderer is another black? According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, 279,834 blacks were killed in the United States. According to that 94%, 262,621 blacks were killed by other blacks. It would be useful to provide other data to dismantle the victimizing myth that police violence against the black population in the United States is due solely to the fact that there is institutionalized racial hatred within the Police. Without denying that aberrant abuses such as the one committed against George Floyd may occur, the truth is that it is very problematic to diagnose such acts as racial crimes. Let's take the 2018 statistics as a reference. In 2018, blacks were 13% of the population in the US, but they committed 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies, which obviously exposes them to having a greater number of violent encounters with the police. There were 593,598 violent interracial crimes (not counting homicides) involving black and white individuals. 90% of them (537,204) were committed by black criminals. In fact, 2,925 black individuals were killed; in 89% of cases (2,600) the murderer was also a black individual. The death rate from homicide among blacks is eight times higher than that of whites and Hispanics. The rate of police officers killed by criminals is 45 times higher than that of unarmed black men killed by police officers. Black males represent 6% of the population, but are responsible for 42% of police killings in the past ten years.
Alicia Garza contends, "(BLM) is an acknowledgment that black women continue to endure the possibility of a relentless assault on their children and their families, these assaults are an act of state violence." Perhaps Alicia Garza has not noticed in detail that platforms such as Open Democracy, also financed by her friend George Soros, not only seek to destroy the nation nor implement self-determination in relation to subjective criteria. They openly advocate for dissolution of the family. On April 1st, without going any further, Open Democracy published an article in which it said that the pandemic was a good time to discard the ideology of "family values:” stating that, "The private family, as a way of reproduction social, it still sucks. It makes us stereotypes of gender, nationality and race. It normalizes us for productive work. It makes us believe that we are "individuals." And it added: “We deserve better than the family. And the Coronavirus season is a great time to practice abolishing it.”
At this time, 66% of Black American children grow up in single-parent families. They are raised with a single father or a single mother, with the tremendous consequences that this entails at the emotional level and is related statistically to rates of school failure, the lack of economic stability and the propensity for crime. This relentless assault on women, children and their families is already present. They do not see or do not want it to be seen that, after the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the policies practiced by the Democratic Party, to which the majority of the black population entrusts their vote, are aimed at rewarding single-parent families to the detriment of the traditional nuclear family.
Curious too, that Hillary Clinton declared her admiration for pro-abortionist Margaret Sanger who, in 1921, declared that "eugenics is the most appropriate and comprehensive way to resolve racial, political, and social problems." In 1921, Sanger founded the League American Birth Control, which changed its name to Planned Parenthood in 1942. Planned Parenthood is an organization that currently provides more than a third of the abortion market in the US. In front of a meeting of women from the Ku Klux Klan, Margaret Sanger asked, "to close the doors of immigration ‘to those’ whose condition is known to be detrimental to the resistance of the race, ‘and yearned to emphasize’ the best racial elements in our society… ‘to erase from the population the most flawed’ human herbs that threaten flowering of the best flowers of American civilization.” Well, Hillary Clinton went on to declare that Margaret Sanger had “undertaken one of the greatest transformations" of the entire history of the human race. To which Republican Congressman Chris Smith replied, "Transformation, yes. But not for the good if one is poor, marginalized, weak, colored, vulnerable, or one of the many undesirable calls that Sanger would have excluded and exterminated from the human race." The truth is that, today, almost half of black American women's pregnancies end in abortion (472 out of 1,000), while among white women, only 16% of pregnancies end in abortion (161 out of 1,000). More Black babies are aborted than are born alive (1,180 abortions per 1,000 live births).
But let's continue with Alicia Garza and the Black Lives Matter Manifesto: “Gay blacks and transgender people carry a unique burden in a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of us as garbage and at the same time fetishes us, detracts from us, that is violence of the State.” As far as I know, currently the laws in the US promote the same rights and obligations for all its citizens, regardless of sex, race, language, religious beliefs or political ideologies. However, from positions related to indefinite Leftism promoted by financial elites, the world today seeks to supplant these rights of the citizen with exclusive rights depending on the group to which they belong. In other words, it seeks to substitute individual rights in place of group and class privileges which is very close to the statutory particularisms of the Old Regime.
On the other hand, does hetero-patriarchal society really fetishize the population for how they feel… if they feel like men or women or not binaries or platypus or maybe extraterrestrials? Is this really said by a movement that justifies that a Black person stops being black or is a bad Black if they are a police officer or if they do not agree with the Black Lives Matter ideology? In this regard, it is worth remembering what Joe Biden, the Democratic Party's Presidential candidate, responded to the black presenter, Charlamagne Tha God: "If you have a problem deciding if you are with me or with Trump, then you are not black." In other words, a black must vote Democrat or he is not black. We are also told that we are alienated women if we criticize what is currently being said and done in the name of feminism! This is called the substantiation of race or the substantiation of sex: as if blacks or women were one and the same, or as if sex or race defined one's political thinking or ideology. These kinds of Movements aim to convince us that there is no individuality or difference among the more than 37 million Black citizens in the United States. In clear opposition to this attempt to collectivize the Black community, Candace Owens promoted what is known as “Blexit,” or the Black Exit from the Democratic Party, emulating what was the Brexit of the United Kingdom regarding power central of the European Union.
Alicia Garza continues, "Blacks living with disabilities and different capacities endure being victims of Darwinian experiments sponsored by the State that try to accommodate us in boxes of normality defined by White Supremacy, it is the violence of the State." Well, it is really problematic to say today that racial discrimination is systematized within American institutions. As soon as whites are neglected, racial violence against the white population becomes normalized. There are hundreds of videos of beatings and harassment perpetrated against white citizens, which the so-called "progressive" media will not broadcast on their platforms. Here, perhaps, it would be convenient to introduce the scholastic distinction between finis operis and finis operantis. There are subjects like the police officer Derek Chauvin, but do current segregation and discriminatory behaviors programs authorize and reward current US laws or, for on the contrary, does it persecute and punish them? Has George Floyd's killer been rewarded or punished? If we classify the current USA as being racist, how should we judge the 1940 USA, when the racial segregation laws were still in force?
When Patrisse Cullors, another co-founder of BLM, was asked in a 2015 interview about the organization's ideology, she replied, “We actually have an ideological framework. Me and Alicia [Garza, the other co-founder] in particular, are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are very well versed in ideological theories.” To be "trained" Marxists, it seems that they do not understand the role that slavery has had throughout history. History, as Marx himself said, must be understood beyond good and evil. And as Espinosa said, “to understand you don't have to laugh or cry.” This was well known to Marx, who neither justified nor condemned history, much less the process of the modes of production, since he understood that each mode of production was essential for the next one to emerge.
It does not matter that Patrisse Cullors declares herself a Marxist, the truth is that she has not come to understand that Marxism is, fundamentally, historical materialism. Marx understood, with temperance and coldness, the role of slavery in history and thus said in his book against Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, The Misery of Philosophy of 1847, "Direct slavery is the central axis of our industrialization in the same way that machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there is no cotton, without cotton there is no modern industry. Slavery is what has given value to the colonies; colonies are what have created world trade; world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale industrial machinery." That is, without slavery there would have been no mass quantities of cotton. Without cotton, there would have been no modern industry. Without modern industry, there would have been no colonies. Without colonies, there would have been no world market. Without a world market, there would be no capitalism. Without capitalism, according to Marx, there would be no socialism nor therefore no communism. In other words, according to the scheme of historical materialism, without slavery there is no feudalism, without feudalism there is no capitalism and without capitalism there is no communism. Of course, this scheme is debatable, but it already supposes greater potentiality than the postulates of Philistine victimhood and other third-class miseries of this alleged iconoclastic and nihilistic anti-racism.
Next, and to close today's chapter, I will present some of the political demands that the Black Lives Matter movement picks up, set out from the Movement for Black Lives platform and that are generally unknown to the general public. Among other reasons, because the mainstream media do not offer information on the matter. Pay attention Spaniards who listen to us to see if these types of requests sound familiar to you:
• Guaranteed minimum income for all Black people. This would involve decoupling work from reward, redistributing wealth on the basis of race, externalizing the responsibilities of the individual (including those of the parents) to the State, and promoting captive voting among the black population. Of course, they justify it by claiming that this minimum vital income for black people would be made as "reparations for past and ongoing damages (...) for a litany of diseases that include food apartheid and racialized capitalism." In other words, they try to claim something as reactionary as historical rights, not to mention that what they promote is anti-white racism.
• “Universal health care” financed with the money of the “wealthy residents and the State”, which would imply tax increases.
• “Full and free access to life-long education for all black people, including undocumented and currently incarcerated people.”
• Free abortion for minors, without specifying a minimum age.
• Withdraw funding from the Police, reduce the US military budget by 50%, and close the more than 800 US military bases operating in the world.
• Expand Pell Grant funds to "allow access to gender-affirming surgeries" in correctional facilities.
• Dismantling of the family: “We interrupt the requirement of the nuclear family structure prescribed by the West, supporting each other as extended families and“ peoples ”who take care of themselves collectively, especially our children, to the extent that mothers, fathers and children feel comfortable."
• Start a "global liberation movement" to overthrow capitalism, and so they say: "The interconnected systems of White supremacy, Imperialism, Capitalism and Patriarchy shape the violence we face." Here we see how this totum revolutum operates in which everything is mixed: they confuse it, but they do not distinguish it.
• They also declare that the "United States alliance with Israel" makes the United States "an accomplice in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people" and that the movement is in solidarity "with the resistance of the peoples of the world who are fighting for his liberation.”
• Legalization of prostitution and the “possession and sale of all drugs, regardless of the amount,” as well as reparation “for all those who have been negatively affected by the war on drugs and the application of the laws of prostitution."
• The group insists that the United States make "reparations to countries and communities devastated by the US war, such as Somalia, Iraq, Libya, and Honduras."
• Right to vote for children under 16, incarcerated and illegal immigrants.
And that’s all for this episode of Fortunata and Jacinta. We appreciate your support to all of our patrons and remember: "If you don't know the enemy or yourself, you will lose every battle."