Here are two charts from a New York Times opinion piece on changing public views regarding Black Lives Matter:
The piece compares polls to polls, so perhaps justifies more faith than the usual poll-based analysis. The authors’ biases are nicely flagged by their occupations and affiliations. Both are professors at extremely Left-tilted institutions with faculties where conservatives have to wear disguises, if they exist there at all. Jennifer Chudy is an assistant professor of social sciences and political science at Wellesley College who studies white racial guilt, sympathy and prejudice. The fact of that area of concentration defines the confirmation bias involved. Hakeem Jefferson is an assistant professor of political science at Stanford University, and he studies studies race and identity. To be direct, both professors depend on finding racism in America to justifying their academic existence. They are part of the race grievance industry. Chudy is Asian-American; Jefferson is black.
The article introduces its subject, the changing level of support for Black Lives Matter—the organization, not its deceitful slogan—this way:
“Though there is, in the data, reason for some optimism, the more general picture contradicts the idea that the country underwent a racial reckoning. Last summer, as Black Americans turned their sorrow into action, attitudes — especially white attitudes — shifted from tacit support to outright opposition, a pattern familiar in American history. Whereas support for Black Lives Matter remains relatively high among racial and ethnic minorities, support among white Americans has proved both fickle and volatile.”
Talk about broadcasting one’s bias up front! By “some optimism,” it is clear (especially after reading the whole article) that the authors mean “public support for the admirable movement/group Black Lives Matter in American society may have staying power if we can just find a way to deal with these racist white people.” I have some optimism after seeing those charts as well. In my case, however, “some optimism” means “maybe the public is finally catching on to this destructive con job by Marxist race-hustlers.”
- If a reader is anything short of steeped in Critical Race Theory and Black Lives Matter propaganda, the authors’ comments contain one unjustifiably presumed conclusion after another. Looking back nostalgically at last summer in the very first paragraph, Chudy and Jefferson write, “[S]urveys suggested that white Americans, many of whom had long opposed efforts to advance the goals of racial equality, were having a change of heart.” That’s an outrageous generality: how many is “many”? What is meant by “the goals of racial equality”? Quotas—what we are seeing now, which is any criticism of a black individual or race-based policies being tarred as “racist”? Why are supposed scholars ascribing opinions on Black Lives Matter to “heart”? That’s a direct appeal to emotion…indeed, it’s an endorsement of emotion over reason.
- Here’s another, also in the first paragraph: “If previous instances of violence against Black people were quickly forgotten, the sense among many Americans was that George Floyd’s death would usher in a durable shift in attitudes regarding race and justice.” If that was the sense, it was the sense of gullible individuals who were reacting to emotion and extreme rhetoric rather than reality. Other than the convenient symbolism of a white cop’s knee on a black man’s throat, why was George Floyd’s death assumed to be about race at all? I feel like I am shouting this into the storm, but I’ll repeat this until I go metaphorically hoarse: there has never been any evidence that the officer involved would have treated Floyd differently if he had been white—not in the trial, not on the facts. None. If it was assumed by the authors that a bad cop abusing a perp because that’s what he tended to do would “usher in a durable shift in attitudes regarding race and justice,” then they were convinced that the majority of the American public could be manipulated and confused permanently.
- Abe Lincoln is often quoted as saying (which he probably did not), “You can fool all the people some time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time.” Whether Abe said it or not, it applies to this matter.
- Incredibly, the article, which purports to examine why public support for Black Lives Matter has declined precipitously, never mentions last summer’s riots, the later BLM led riots every time a black citizen was harmed by police regardless of the actual facts of the event and behavior of the victim, the billions of dollars in property loss or the lives sacrificed in the “mostly peaceful” protests. Nor does the “analysis” mention such Black Lives Matter tactics as invading restaurants and bullying patrons into declaring their support of their cause. To the authors, this was all merely “protesting.”
- The authors write, “Democrats also exhibit higher, and relatively stable, support for B.L.M. Perhaps this helps us understand why every Democratic presidential candidate stressed the importance of racial justice while campaigning. And they did so not only to appeal to their diverse base, but also to white members of their party, many of whom have become engrossed in these issues. Insofar as white support for B.L.M. is distinctly low, it would be even lower were it not for white Democrats.” Chudy and Jefferson need help to understand why “racial justice,” another one of those phrases like “sensible gun reform” that are meaningless other than to signal to uncritical minds that “something” needs to change, was flogged by Democratic candidates whose party now depends entirely on promoting racial conflict and group identification spoils? Are the authors deliberately hiding reality, or are they that naive? If they are that naive, why is the Times publishing their essay?
- The real mystery is why Democrats maintain their support for BLM matter despite direct statements of anti-white hate by the group’s leaders, and such evidence of the group’s corruption as BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors, an avowed Marxist who was revealed as buying up high-priced property in wealthy white neighborhoods. Well, okay, it’s not much of a mystery. The authors write, at one point, “Some have wondered whether support for B.L.M., especially among white people, is genuine or merely virtue-signaling.” Gee, ya think? All those corporations, schools, non-profits and sports organizations plastering “Black Lives Matter” in their ads and workplaces might have been engaging cynical, fear-based, bottom-line motivated virtue-signaling? “Some” wonder about that? Do you wonder about that?
- The op-ed ends: “This conversation, however, misrepresents racism as a social problem rooted in individual values rather than as a system forcefully sustained by our institutions. In our opinion, a more fruitful conversation would consider how to transform support for B.L.M., wherever and how tenuous it exists, into more enduring political change. Whether or not this effort will involve substantial numbers of white Americans remains to be seen.” So this piece, like so much alleged “scholarship,” is really just an excuse to advocate the destructive, violent and anti-American Black Lives Matter movement as a tool, along with Critical Race Theory and The 1619 Project, to install a far left agenda. If only there was some way to crush those troublesome white, Republican racists….
Finally, just for fun, here are some comments on the article collected by Glenn Beck’s “The Blazeregarding the essay’s musings about what might have caused support for BLM to decline:
- “Relatable” podcast host Allie Beth Stuckey: “Riots, murder and anarchy will do that.”
- Washington Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy : “The drop in support for BLM probably has a lot to do with the true idea that black lives matter being juxtaposed with the violence & rioting that accompanied many BLM protests nationwide last year as well as the BLM national org being exposed as run by shameless Marxist grifters.”
- Political commenter Stephen L. Miller: “Hey it turns out people hate billions of dollars in riot damages to their businesses while our media ignores and waives it away.”
- Author Jim Hanson: “Weird Maybe that 2020 long #insurrection by #BLM w/ Dozens of deaths Thousands of injuries & $2B+ in damage Had something to do with it.”
- Political writer A.G. Hamilton: “That’s because the support was for the concept, which then got confused with the Marxist and bigoted organization of the same name and the violence that followed.”
- Townhall senior writer Julio Rosas: “The word ‘riot’ does not appear once in the article but they did manage to include ‘Latinx.’ Another attempt to memory hole the massive riots from last year.”
- Author and mathematician James Lindsay : “This graph, frankly, shows that Democrats are willfully blind to what’s going on in the county, probably mostly because they don’t want to be accused of having ‘conservative’ views, which is a mode straight out of Maoism.”
I am proud to say that my opinion of Black Lives Matter hasn’t changed one iota. I recognized it as dishonest and manipulative anti-white, anti-law enforcement, Marxist scam from the moment it arose out of the false Trayvon Martin narrative. It has been useful, however, as a means of self-indictment by the Machiavellian politicians, hypocrites, the weak-minded, the cowardly, the intellectually lazy and the easily led.