A moment in time in a camera is easy to distort. However, suppression of free thought, dissent and due process are hard to miss.
To which bootz replied that it is just a…
I posted information contrary to the notion that white supremacy is just a made up fairytale concocted by the BLM.
You quoting a Frank Zappa album or something? That 75 year old dude getting his head cracked open was pretty hard to misinterpret.
#YOUDONTGETIT CHAMP. The op is carefully about not saying all and even goes on about neuroendocrine disease to allow for some no matter how small. The question then becomes is that very small contingent of supposed white supremacist more or less dangerous than BLM
It wasn’t in reference to white supremacists.
And any simple analysis of a broad topic is certainly inaccurate. does anyone believe that the agenda is about Nazism? Please in you eloquent way explain the censorship and intolerance of BLM.
I understand perfectly well. Your attempts to compare and contrast the two groups, couched in some sort of verbose and rambling attempt at higher thought, as a means to downplay one and expand the reach of another is not exactly earth shattering or novel.
What you falsely decry as a “very small contingent of ‘supposed’ white supremacists” actually accounts for one of the largest domestic terrorist threats the nation faces today.
It is easy to see what you are doing, and the facts counter your hypothesis.
A repudiation of your own OP? I did not see that one coming.
What is “the agenda” and whose agendas are we to believe or discount?
Your question was not. The answer given to it, which I countered, was.
Any answer sufficient to qualify as an on-topic reply either has to be a summary so brief as to fail to satisfy, or so long and detailed as to lose its audience.
It would be like trying to explain the evidence for Rome as an empire. You could simply refer to the expanse of imperial Rome, and say, “Look”, because it is manifestly self-evident, or produce an academic paper, read by few and later very poorly summarized for the entertainment press.
But, the post to which you replied does have the three pillars of white supremacy contained within it: slavery, segregation and mass incarceration; these reinforced each other, and then were compounded by economic isolation, redlining, separation of inheritance (slaves and sharecroppers could not accumulate the proceeds of their own labor, nor establish their heirs in a staked economic position, leaving them always with a legally enforced disadvantage) and police violence.
White supremacy is like imperial Rome. It is manifestly self-evident. But, it isn’t too difficult to discern its obvious structural supports, if you are willing to look directly at them
an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.
Rome was an empire because Rome ruled, with an emperor.
So in the case of white “supremacy”, what is the evidence of this supremacy? Is it in the law, as with Rome? If not, where?
I’m willing! I’m willing!
The op in no way compared or contrasted white supremacy and black lives matters. The op points out that focusing on a few issues obfuscates the larger concern. Hence the cancer analogies.
#YOUDONTGETIT. at ball.
The op dismisses white supremacy out of hand and focusses on the suppression of our cultural norms promoted by the new left which includes BLM
I don’t think the dictionary.com definition captures the reality of imperial Rome before Augustus created the Principate. Rome under Cinna, Marius, Sulla and the Triumvirate was an empire. Athenian control of the Delian league was imperial. The Persian system under Darius and the Ghengisid khanates were all imperial, but none had an emperor or a uniform dynastic succession.
A more universal trait, and this is captured in the original meaning of the Roman word “imperator”, is that of expanding conquest. Rome of the Social Wars was clearly imperial, though it was still bound to the consular system for several more generations, and preserved those offices even for 400 more years.
So too with white supremacy (which initially only included the more standard British colonial conquest system). It rarely, except in times of flux (see, the Klan as a reaction to Reconstruction, which challenged the reality of white supremacy by making it legible), obligated an explicit whiteness: structural enforcement of the myth of liberty and the reality of slave labor and then segregation, were enough.
I thought so. Still waiting on the “obvious structural supports”.
If you are arguing that BLM is a movement towards tyranny, you are arguing that it seeks to replace the existing (white) hierarchy, no?
The obvious structural supports are the carceral state, policing and the economic isolation and disinheritance produced by slavery and Jim Crow, and never thereafter remedied. Each of these results, in a linear cause and effect fashion, in the subjugation of a population group defined by race, and the re-investment of their misappropriated inheritance and into the systems (policing, jails, etc) that maintain the status quo.
So many questions packed in here. I’ll answer a few.
Black on black violence is not considered acceptable. There are plenty of protests in Africa, I’m not sure the entire African diaspora is up to date on events on a far away continent.
I’m not sure “white culture” is the appropriate term to use here, given that most of those characteristics are defined by political thought. Both vanguard communism and the current corporate capitalism both find their origin in Europe.
The carceral state and policing are not race-based.
And never thereafter remedied? Balderdash.
There is no racism supporting white “supremacy”.
You are confusing majority superiority with some race-based feeling. We don’t like democracy any more?