Both ANTIFA and BLM have been in the news a lot lately, but very few people know what they are really about. I thought I would offer up this brief explanation.
Both ANTIFA and BLM are inspired by Leftwing Marxist teachings but they are not identical. ANTIFA is a ‘traditional’ Stalinist/Leninist Marxist revolutionary movement that seeks to create a Utopian Socialist state by creating a conflict between the working class and the capitalists through a class war. BLM is a Neo-Marxist revolutionary movement that seeks to create a Utopian socialist inspired world by creating multiple cleavages between races, ethnic groups, religions, and economic and cultural backgrounds through a race war. Both organizations seem similar in that they believe that for their Utopian visions of the future to take place the current system must be shattered and destroyed so that a new age of equality can begin.
The differences between ANTIFA and BLM are subtle but they are not insignificant.
Don’t be terribly surprised when you talk to your friends in ANTIFA and BLM and they do not share the above described ideological beliefs. Most Marxist movements do not spend a lot of time on ideological issues other than creating a basic belief system among followers that is inspirational and actionable. Most of the ANTIFA and BLM ‘activists’ you meet in the street know very little about their own movements. And that is how the leaders want it to stay.
Perhaps you would like to know more about the historical rise of these movements and more importantly the ideological underpinnings of both ANTIFA and BLM. I have tried to explain these things to people in the past only to see their eye’s glaze over. Most people are not interested in any of this stuff. Pity, I find it fascinating. I shall not attempt that here. If you are really interested feel free to do your own research!
Perhaps you don’t trust me — after all your friends in ANTIFA are talking about creating an anarchic state where people are free to do what they want when they want as they want with no one from the top telling anyone what to do, and your friends in BLM are telling you that its all about Black Lives and restitution and reparation of past wrongs. None of this Marxist stuff! Well again, feel free to go investigate on your own. Its all open and available for anyone who is curious enough to explore.
More pointedly you may suggest that the differences between ANTIFA and BLM that I described above are not really that important. This is something I will address.
Again, ANTIFA is based upon a traditional ideology of Stalinist/Leninist Marxism. BLM is based upon a more recent school of thought sometimes referred to as Neo-Marxism. Why these subtle differences are significant is because they create very different movements with very different goals and potential outcomes.
ANTIFA relies upon the old Marxist tactic of revolution through class warfare. After the revolution the means of production as well as the management of the state will be vested in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat insuring a fair and equitable future based upon science and progress!
BLM is based upon something different. Neo-Marxism grew out of the failures of traditional Marxist revolutions. Neo-Marxists acknowledge the past failures of Marxism but still believe in the underlying principals. Neo-Marxists declare that class warfare was a failure because it was not a strong enough division to base a societal revolution upon. Historically most of the working class ended up opposing the Communist Revolution and either actively supported the counter-revolution or simply refused to take sides. As such the Neo-Marxists have decided that there needs to be a more powerful basis to split society apart; race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, etc. are the cracks that allow them to divide and conquer. BLM in particular is based upon starting and winning a race war.
Thus the two movements believe in a very different tactics regarding the Revolution.
What makes the two movements even more different is their ultimate goals which are not compatible. ANTIFA sees the creation of a traditional Communist State run by the Party on egalitarian grounds without any future racial, ethnic, religious or other differences between peoples. BLM sees a very different world where the past oppressors are punished, preferably to extinction, and the new world will based upon those very racial, ethnic, and religious differences that are supposed to be eliminated in traditional Marxist ideology.
If ANTIFA gets what it wants the world will become a cool version of the Soviet Union with fewer tanks and all the comrades having the same high quality cellphone, Universal Basic Income, a 30 hour work week for those so inclined to work, etc. If BLM gets what it wants we are going to see a massive Cambodian style Killing Fields where anyone identified as being a member of an ‘oppressive’ race, ethnicity, religion, etc. will be liquidated to make room for those righteous few who remain. Remember, Pol Pot was one of the early Neo-Marxists.
Of the two groups ANTIFA is the least dangerous. They are not very well organized, their ideology is based upon a discredited Communist dogma, and their tactics are crude and unlikely to succeed. BLM on the other hand is very well organized, is very well funded, its core ideology is reprehensible but its public facade has the potential to be attractive to the uninformed, and their tactics are much more subtle and effective.
I remember watching this a long time ago but I totally forgot about it. I guess that’s because we won. The Soviet Union was defeated and with it communist subversion. At least that is what we thought.
But the Communists just went underground, burrowed into the US and other Western countries institutions, and now they have reinvigorated communism through internal communist subversion.
They control the education system, the news and entertainment media, and big business and big government. And I don’t think there’s any hope of defeating some monolithic bad guys like the Soviet Union. We are the bad guys.
…Law 111, which requires any person seeking to change their legal gender to have “no reproductive glands or reproductive glands that have permanently lost function.”
Trans people also have to possess “a body which appears to have parts that resemble the genital organs of those of the opposite gender,” according to the 2003 law, which was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court judges.
When the GIs returned to their homes in Athens, Tennessee they found a corrupt city government that denied them their basic rights. What did they do about it? The GIs put forward a slate of candidates for the next election, and the corrupt politicians realizing they were going to lose tried to hijack the election. The GIs fought back and won:
‘Bill White, who had fought in the Pacific while still in his teens and come home an ex-sergeant, had gotten angrier as the day wore on. At two in the afternoon he had harangued the group of veterans in the Essankay, saying: “You call yourselves GIs—you go over there and fight for three and four years—you come back and you let a bunch of draft dodgers who stayed here where it was safe, and you were making it safe for them, push you around. … If you people don’t stop this, and now is the time and place, you people wouldn’t make a pimple on a fighting GI’s ass. Get guns…”’
…
Opinion differs on exactly how the challenge was issued. White says he was the one to call it out: “Would you damn bastards bring those damn ballot boxes out here or we are going to set siege against the jail and blow it down!” Moments later the night exploded in automatic weapons fire punctuated by shotgun blasts. “I fired the first shot,” White claimed, “then everybody started shooting from our side.” A deputy ran for the jail. “I shot him; he wheeled and fell inside of the jail.” Bullets ricocheted up and down White Street. “I shot a second man; his leg flew out from under him, and he crawled under a car.” The veterans bombarded the jail for hours, but Cantrell and his accomplices, secure behind the red-brick walls, refused to surrender. As the uncertain battle dragged past midnight, the GIs began to have some uneasy second thoughts. They knew that they had violated local, state, and federal laws that night, and if Cantrell was not routed before his rescuers arrived, they might spend the rest of their lives in prison. Rumors compounded their fears: “The National Guard is on the way!” “The state troopers are here!” “Birch Biggs and his gang are coming!” (Biggs ran Polk County more ruthlessly than Cantrell ran McMinn.)
…
At 2:48 A.M. the first dynamite was tossed toward the jail; it landed under Boe Dunn’s cruiser, and the explosion flipped the vehicle over on its top, leaving its wheels spinning. Three more bundles of dynamite were thrown almost simultaneously; one landed on the jail porch roof, another under Mansfield’s car, and the third struck the jail wall. The explosions rattled windows throughout the town; leaves fell from the trees, debris scattered for blocks, and the jailhouse porch jumped off its foundation. The deputies barricaded in the courthouse a block away rushed onto the balcony, eager to surrender. The jail’s defenders staggered from their ruined stronghold and handed the ballot boxes over to the veterans.
With the Cantrell forces conquered, ten years of suppressed rage exploded. The townspeople set upon the captured deputies and, but for the GIs, probably would have killed them all. Minus Wilburn, a particularly unpopular deputy, had his throat slashed; Biscuit Farris, Cantrell’s prison superintendent, had his jaw shattered by a bullet; and Windy Wise was kicked and beaten senseless. Joined by a number of their fellows, the GIs cleared the jail of the rioters and locked up their prisoners for the night.
…
In the early days of August 1946 a power vacuum existed in McMinn County that easily could have spawned anarchy. Armed GIs patrolled streets that were still tense with rumors of a Mansfield army poised to reclaim Athens. Hundreds of men were issued permits to carry weapons, and machine guns on rooftops guarded the approaches to town. Several times groups of veterans rushed to barricade roads and occasionally they terrorized innocent travelers in their attempt to thwart an invasion that never came.
On August 4 Pat Mansfield telegraphed his resignation as sheriff of McMinn County to Governor McCord and requested that Knox Henry fill his unexpired term, which would end on September 1. Henry was appointed immediately, and the next day State Rep. George Woods returned to the county under GI protection to convene the election commission and certify the election. A cheer rang out in the courthouse when Woods rose as the canvass ended and announced that Knox Henry (the GI candidate) was elected sheriff by a vote of 2,175 to 1,270.
Ok. Maybe not so modest… nor even logical or realistic. But I can dream.
It is my belief that people in the United States have an unhealthy obsession with who is sitting in the White House. Just look at the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Some people hate him so much that even when he proposes things they once believed would be beneficial they now violently oppose him because the ORANGE MAN IS BAD (I particularly enjoy how Trump Derangement Syndrome causes the Cap Lock key to get stuck in place…). Then there are the fan-boys of Trump, the MAGA TRUMP IS NEVER-WRONG crowd (note the similar Cap Lock effect…). Entertaining but not very useful really.
America has some real problems with the Federal government that are of a structural nature. Voting for the lesser of two evils every four years and then getting yourself hysterical if your side lost until that person is replaced really does not fix anything. It serves more as a distraction.
Has anything really improved over the past thirty years? Are things getting better because your dog won the Best In Show Competition? I would suggest that the answer to both questions is NO, and that is because the origins of the problems facing the USA and its government are only partially to be found in the White House. The real problems are in the structure of the government itself, particularly in the Congress. As such that is where the solutions should be addressed, and our focus should lie.
If things are going to improve in the USA changes (for the better) need to take place mostly on Capital Hill. Here are my suggestions:
The House of Representatives
The House of Representatives was created to represent the interests of the People. At first each Representative represented a modest number of citizens (initially about 50,000). Now that number is closer to 500,000 citizens per Representative. I believe this is a bad thing. Representatives are no longer that neighbor who you meet from time to time at the School Board Meetings, or bump into during school sporting events. At 500,000 citizens per Representative once elected he or she becomes quite removed from the community that elected him or her.
This needs be changed. The original ratio of 50,000 per Representative should be restored. I would suggesting increasing the number of Representatives from 453 to 4500. Yes, Four Thousand Five Hundred.
Where are we going to put all those people in DC? I suspect if we keep the current overall budget for the House of Representatives the same, while reducing the budget and staff of each Representative dramatically they would all fit into the current available office space with some downsizing of each office.
No rich salaries, no stipends that give each Representative palatial offices and an army of sycophantic clerks. The Representative would be paid what a Major in the US military (O-4) receives, and would receive the same benefits (healthcare, retirement, etc.). Each would get a much smaller budget for staff, and a modest furnished office adequate to accommodate a receptionist, an aide, and the Representative. Housing would be provided along the same lines as a Major while in DC; comfortable dormitories would be provided, or a modest stipend if the Representative preferred to obtain private housing.
Higher officers of the House (whips, etc.) will get a Colonel’s pay and benefits. The Speaker will be provided a General’s pay and benefits. Upon retiring they will get the same benefits as a retired military officer of the same grade and years of service. Perhaps with this system the military will be treated better, and the Congress will be filled with people motivated less by perks, staff, salaries, and rich retirement packages? I have mixed feelings about term limits for Representatives; if voters want the same people re-elected perhaps they should be allowed to continue, but as servants of the people not as aristocrats living it high in DC on the taxpayers dime.
The Senate
At first the Senate was an institution of States Rights with each Senator being elected by the legislature of the State. This was changed by the 17th Amendment in 1913. Now Senators are elected by state-wide popular vote.
This change accidentally transformed the Senate into a ‘democratic’ House of Lords, and the Senator from an officer duty bound and dependent upon the state legislature into an independent Lord that once elected is virtually guaranteed aristocratic privileges for life.
I propose not only abolishing the 17th Amendment, but going even further and giving complete autonomy to each state in how each state chooses its Senators. One state might want to stick with popular voting, while another state might want to have the Governor appoint the Senators for whatever period of time the Governor decides is appropriate. How a Senator is chosen would be entirely the choice of the State. And the term of service and how the Senator is removed would also be the choice each State. Some States might stay with the current six year term popularly elected with no term limits, others could randomly award the offices to winners of a statewide lottery. Similarly, removal of Senators would be decided State by State in whatever manner a particular State chose.
Perhaps the only limitation that should be imposed upon the States would be to prohibit Senators from being appointed for life, and after leaving the Senate each Senator would be barred from any further Federal elected or appointed office for a period of 10 or more years.
All the costs of maintaining the Senators will be born by their respective States. Each State can decide upon how regally their Senators live while in Washington according to its own interests and desires. No Federal stipends for Senators, not even office expenses.
The goal of this is to restore the Senate to an organization that serves as a repository of States Rights. In essence, Senators would become voting ambassadors representing their State’s interests.
Finally, since the House of Representatives is increasing to 4500 it would only be reasonable to increase the number of Senators to 250, or five Senators per State. This would reduce the weight given to smaller States in the Electoral College but not eliminate it entirely. Or it can be raised to 500 senators with ten per state which would more or less track the increase in the House of Representatives.
The President
My proposal regarding the election of the President is perhaps more radical. I propose eliminating the national election of the President. Instead, every four years the Electoral College would assemble, for a three month period. The Electoral College would be made up of the sitting members of Congress.
Each Congress person could vote as he or she likes (with the caveat that the Senators would probably be less independent from their respective States than the Representatives). During that three month period prior to the November election date anyone could be nominated to stand for the office of President and Vice President independently of each other if any can get the signatures of 25% of the Electoral College members. At the end of the three month period voting would begin. If there is an absolute winner (50%+ of the vote) then we have a new President and a new Vice President. If not there is a runoff between the top two candidates for each office the next day. Or next week. But not years of campaigning, and billions of dollars spent on advertising and lobbying the mainstream media and other corrupt special interests. By December 1st the election process would be over!
But… we will no longer be able to directly elect the President! He or she will be appointed by fat cats in smoke filled rooms!!!! Historically that is how things were done, and it worked out ok… I think it would be an improvement upon the circus we have now. However, if this system produces an absolute monstrosity, I propose allowing two methods of removing the President:
After a two year period the President can be removed if both the House and the Senate vote to remove him or her by a simple majority in each house. Then the Vice-President serves out the remaining term of office, and
At any time after the election of the President and the Vice President either or both can be removed by a simple majority of the States. If the President is removed the Vice President serves out the term of office, and if both the President and the Vice President are removed the Speaker of the House serves out the remaining term.
Conclusion
Lots of other things could be done to improve the current system from the crazy to the sublime.
The Supreme Court and the entire Federal Judiciary could be improved by term limits, and making it easier to remove bad judges.
Capping the taxing power along with the borrowing authority of the Federal government would be a nice way of limiting its power and improving the financial health of the nation.
Supporting decentralization of regulatory power by allowing States more autonomy to decide upon their own policies regarding such emotional issues as abortion, gun control, healthcare, environmental regulations, etc. This could be done by allowing various States to form voluntary confederations regarding such issues. For example, States that want to enact a single-payer healthcare system could do so by joining together with other like-minded States and then deciding among themselves how best to manage it. Those States wishing to join could do so, and those choosing not to join would be free to establish their own independent system, do nothing at all, or create their own competing healthcare confederacy with other States. The same or similar rules could apply to almost any issue.
I have a profound respect for the Founding Fathers and what they accomplished in the creation of the Constitution. The enemy of Liberty has always been powerful and remote government. Our Founders understood this. They created a system designed to limit the power and influence of the Federal government while preserving the power and authority of the States and the People. However, from the very beginning this system has been under attack. The clever series of Constitutional checks and balances designed to limit the power of the Federal government and to further limit the power of any single of its component branches (the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary) have been systematically eliminated either by intentional amendment, or eroded by a steady stream of jurisprudence that ignored their importance.
There are also problems that existed from the very beginning that the Founders failed to adequately deal with or did not fully understand. Slavery was an example of an important issue that was intentionally ignored, and the unreasonable difficulty in removing a sitting President is an example of a mistake on their part (at least in my opinion).
More importantly and more troubling, due to the changes that have evolved over time, the initial design goal of limiting the power of the Federal government has been wholly eroded.
Perhaps it is now time to try to restore such limitations upon the Federal government by using a more modern approach while at the same time respecting the work that was done in creating the Constitution over 200 years ago.
Conservatives are having a lot of fun calling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stupid, etc. Ok. I am not going to defend her intelligence, knowledge, or experience. I disagree with almost everything she says. But I do respect her for getting off her ass and doing something to promote her political agenda. She won. She is in Congress.
How did she get elected? She promised a bunch of Millennials and other assorted disgruntled Leftists that she supported giving them a bunch of free stuff, getting rid of their debts, and giving them a guaranteed income for life if they voted for her. Oh, and punishing rich people.
She won.
In 2020 there is going to be another election, this time for President as well as for Senators and Representatives. The Democrats know who their voters are: The Greatest Generation who voted for FDR (who promised them a bunch of free stuff that he never delivered on but made them vote for him over and over), who then raised the Worst Generation that burned their draft cards, and voted for Jimmy Carter, and who then raised the Stupidest Generation that we refer to as the Millennials (so far their voting habits are not well known since they seem to be too lazy to bother to vote, but we will see…). The Millennials are the future voters of the USA. And the Democrats think they know what these voters want:
free health care,
free education,
guaranteed minimum income,
minimum wage of $15.00 or higher,
forgiveness of student loans,
forgiveness of “predatory” mortgages,
forgiveness of any loan that is “unfair”, etc.
Anything else you can imagine someone wanting??? The government will give it to them for free!!!!! Oh, and punish the rich!
Obama was just a taste of what we are going to get. We are going to get full on socialism in the future.
Now, you may think Alexandria Whats-Hername is not very smart, and I understand why you think so. But she and other people just like her will be plenty smart enough to get elected. All they need to do is promise to give the Stupidest Generation everything they want without totally irritating the few survivors of the Greatest Generation (who voted for FDR), and the Worst Generation. And then they win. The Stupidest Generation is too stupid to know that the promises are worse than false… that they will actually destroy the country. The Greatest Generation is still worshiping at FDR’s tomb, and the Worst Generation probably agrees with everything that these people are saying (as long as no one touches their retirement benefits and 401K accounts!!!!). I bet these people will even be wearing yellow vests!
Now once she and those like her are elected they are going to have a big problem. How to come up with the money to pay for all the free stuff they are giving away????? The economy is going to collapse. But that is no problem. Look around the world. Look at history. This does not cause a socialist country to reverse course; rather it motivates the leaders to go even more radical. All they need is a group of people to blame (and lots of goons with guns to intimidate everyone). That will be the “rich”! Taxes will go up, property will be confiscated including gold and silver if they know you have some.
If you don’t go along with the program you will be re-educated or worse.
Then you can laugh about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez being stupid. I am sure people in the USSR who were dying in the gulags were comforted by laughing at Stalin. What a fool he was!
Let’s stop pretending that America in 2018 has a “justice system.” It’s not a justice system. It’s a set of elite institutions that swing the law like a sledgehammer to crush threats to the ruling class’s monopoly on power. You know, threats like the people we elect to represent our interests against the elite. And we are under no moral obligation to pretend it is anything else.
This painful to admit it, but we need to grow up. There are two sets of law in America today, meaning there is no rule of law in America today. Oh, there are statutes, and there are courts, and there are agencies full of people with guns willing to enforce the will of aspiring tyrants, but there is not rule of law. There is only power, theirs and ours. Time to get woke to the undeniable fact that the Fredocons deny up and down. Justice is no longer blind. Her blindfold is off and she’s picking favorites
This is something I have been saying for more than 10 years. But I am a nut. No one can provide me with any evidence that I am wrong, and they are unable to refute the evidence I produce… but I am a nut. That is because this is painful to accept. It hurts to realize that the country and all the things you were raised to believe in are now gone. Or worse, were never anything other than lies. I am not really sure which it is myself.
People only hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe. That is how it works. But to see a guy like Kurt Schlichter acknowledge this basic truth is encouraging and worrying at the same time. Clearly he is too late. There is nothing to be done. The Elites have won. The Swamp is in control. It is only encouraging to the point that someone is agreeing with you… bias confirmation. Not that they are offering any realistic solutions; some hope of things improving. His suggestions are hopeless. Trump isn’t going to do anything. At least that is my opinion. This is all just a so much theater; Trump vs the Swamp. Just a story that might get him re-elected in 2020. He is as much a part of the Swamp as any of the other elites. And if he loses, the winner will be just another shill for the Elites.
The Ideologies of ANTIFA and BLM in a Nutshell
Both ANTIFA and BLM have been in the news a lot lately, but very few people know what they are really about. I thought I would offer up this brief explanation.
Both ANTIFA and BLM are inspired by Leftwing Marxist teachings but they are not identical. ANTIFA is a ‘traditional’ Stalinist/Leninist Marxist revolutionary movement that seeks to create a Utopian Socialist state by creating a conflict between the working class and the capitalists through a class war. BLM is a Neo-Marxist revolutionary movement that seeks to create a Utopian socialist inspired world by creating multiple cleavages between races, ethnic groups, religions, and economic and cultural backgrounds through a race war. Both organizations seem similar in that they believe that for their Utopian visions of the future to take place the current system must be shattered and destroyed so that a new age of equality can begin.
The differences between ANTIFA and BLM are subtle but they are not insignificant.
Don’t be terribly surprised when you talk to your friends in ANTIFA and BLM and they do not share the above described ideological beliefs. Most Marxist movements do not spend a lot of time on ideological issues other than creating a basic belief system among followers that is inspirational and actionable. Most of the ANTIFA and BLM ‘activists’ you meet in the street know very little about their own movements. And that is how the leaders want it to stay.
Perhaps you would like to know more about the historical rise of these movements and more importantly the ideological underpinnings of both ANTIFA and BLM. I have tried to explain these things to people in the past only to see their eye’s glaze over. Most people are not interested in any of this stuff. Pity, I find it fascinating. I shall not attempt that here. If you are really interested feel free to do your own research!
Perhaps you don’t trust me — after all your friends in ANTIFA are talking about creating an anarchic state where people are free to do what they want when they want as they want with no one from the top telling anyone what to do, and your friends in BLM are telling you that its all about Black Lives and restitution and reparation of past wrongs. None of this Marxist stuff! Well again, feel free to go investigate on your own. Its all open and available for anyone who is curious enough to explore.
More pointedly you may suggest that the differences between ANTIFA and BLM that I described above are not really that important. This is something I will address.
Again, ANTIFA is based upon a traditional ideology of Stalinist/Leninist Marxism. BLM is based upon a more recent school of thought sometimes referred to as Neo-Marxism. Why these subtle differences are significant is because they create very different movements with very different goals and potential outcomes.
ANTIFA relies upon the old Marxist tactic of revolution through class warfare. After the revolution the means of production as well as the management of the state will be vested in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat insuring a fair and equitable future based upon science and progress!
BLM is based upon something different. Neo-Marxism grew out of the failures of traditional Marxist revolutions. Neo-Marxists acknowledge the past failures of Marxism but still believe in the underlying principals. Neo-Marxists declare that class warfare was a failure because it was not a strong enough division to base a societal revolution upon. Historically most of the working class ended up opposing the Communist Revolution and either actively supported the counter-revolution or simply refused to take sides. As such the Neo-Marxists have decided that there needs to be a more powerful basis to split society apart; race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, etc. are the cracks that allow them to divide and conquer. BLM in particular is based upon starting and winning a race war.
Thus the two movements believe in a very different tactics regarding the Revolution.
What makes the two movements even more different is their ultimate goals which are not compatible. ANTIFA sees the creation of a traditional Communist State run by the Party on egalitarian grounds without any future racial, ethnic, religious or other differences between peoples. BLM sees a very different world where the past oppressors are punished, preferably to extinction, and the new world will based upon those very racial, ethnic, and religious differences that are supposed to be eliminated in traditional Marxist ideology.
If ANTIFA gets what it wants the world will become a cool version of the Soviet Union with fewer tanks and all the comrades having the same high quality cellphone, Universal Basic Income, a 30 hour work week for those so inclined to work, etc. If BLM gets what it wants we are going to see a massive Cambodian style Killing Fields where anyone identified as being a member of an ‘oppressive’ race, ethnicity, religion, etc. will be liquidated to make room for those righteous few who remain. Remember, Pol Pot was one of the early Neo-Marxists.
Of the two groups ANTIFA is the least dangerous. They are not very well organized, their ideology is based upon a discredited Communist dogma, and their tactics are crude and unlikely to succeed. BLM on the other hand is very well organized, is very well funded, its core ideology is reprehensible but its public facade has the potential to be attractive to the uninformed, and their tactics are much more subtle and effective.
So pick your poison!
Share this:
Like this: