Friday, November 18, 2016

Black Lives Matter vs. "alt-right"

I may be wading off into the weeds a bit, but the subject of this post is closely aligned to the one written most recently in which I spent a considerable amount of time on the utter collapse of the media's credibility and its exposure via Wikileaks as an active proponent of progressive policies and candidates.

But for me something far more insidious and scary is underway. First, because this effort began well before the election was determined, was the press' obvious sympathy for and refusal to condemn some of the more odious elements of a broad movement that for the ease of description I will call "Black Lives Matter". Born out of the false charge that police departments were systemically racist and were actually hunting down men of color, protests swept the streets, looting occurred in some cities and in the most extreme cases police officers, regardless of color, were literally gunned down in cold blood.

It would be naive of me to suggest that there aren't neighborhoods in the United States, particularly those with higher rates of crime, where black men are not subjected to harassment by the police without sufficient cause. It is justifiable for communities to insure that their police forces receive sensitivity training, follow the law to the letter, and prosecute those inside the force who violate those laws with the same vigor they would prosecute those outside.

The movement was an outgrowth of Trayvon Martin's being "post-humously [sic] placed on trial for his own murder...." and after "...Michael Brown was killed at the hands of Ferguson Police Officer Darren Brown." This from We know that in both of these tragic cases, evidence was presented to grand juries, very serious charges were placed against the men who killed those boys, trials were held in appropriate venues and integrated juries found those men not guilty. George Zimmerman has gone on to live a very troubled life and Darren Brown has moved on to live a life of anonymity.

But I am not here to offer up a criticism of the BLM movement or question the motivations of those who participate in it because they genuinely wish to tamp down the racial inequities that exist in the legal system. My issue here is that there is no reasonable questioning by the press of those issues which BLM chooses to embrace. There is just a tacit acceptance, much like that which was expressed by the Baltimore Mayor Rawlings-Blake that the protestors ought to be given the "space to destroy" by the police in the aftermath of Freddie Gray's death, that whatever cause drives BLM into the streets is inherently connected to The Civil Rights Movement in the space time continuum and is therefore current social justice.

Contrast that if you will to the complete invention of the "alt-right", a movement that seems to have no tangible existence, no financial support from some crazed Right Wing billionaire, no leadership: just one prominent bogeyman, Steve Bannon, former Chair of Breitbart and one of the President-elect's chief advisors.

The "alt-right" apparently represents a revitalized white supremacy, anti-semitism, xenophobic bigotry which aspires to relabel water fountains, disenfranchise voters of color, overturn Roe v Wade and reimpose sodomy laws. The "alt-right" is getting plenty of play in the press (although, as far as I know, I am unaware of any "alt-right" marches or looting having taken place) and the mysterious Steve Bannon is being subtly accused of having a Rasputin-like influence over Donald Trump as he introduces his racist, homophobic, anti-semitic philosophies into the new Administration.

I'm trying to think of some political parallel to this - in the United States - and I honestly cannot think of one. I have been reading Breitbart since Andrew Breitbart's death, listening to their daily radio broadcasts which Bannon hosted until he accepted the campaign position with Trump and I read Israeli media on an almost daily basis. There is no credence whatever given to this manufactured "alt-right" conspiracy and in Israel at least Bannon is defended for his Zionist views, for establishing a Breitbart Jerusalem bureau and for his ardent support of Milo Yiannopoulos, a flamboyantly gay, conservative, politically incorrect Senior Editor who has been banned from speaking at liberal college campuses.

The press treats BLM and the "alt-right" as if they were organizations similarly structured, staffed and funded, just on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. BLM is for social justice, inheritors of The Civil Right Movement, home of the "mothers of the movement", i.e., Trayvon's mom, Michael's mom - therefore, good. The "alt-right" implies an acceptance of Donald Trump as our President, a repudiation of Obamaism, a registry for Muslims, deportation of all Mexicans, white men in robes and hoods returning to the streets, 21st Century kristallnacht - therefore, evil.

The invention of the "alt-right", of course, makes it far easier and much less scary to explain why the Democrat party would ever consider let alone approve a Congressman to lead the DNC who sympathizes with Hamas and CAIR, who compared 9/11 to the 1933 Reichstag fire and was a Nation of Islam member who sponsored a speech in law school called, "Zionism: Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both?" He is also co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus - therefore, good. In comparison with the "alt-right", Keith Ellison looks downright moderate.

No comments:

Post a Comment