“If this were just a scam that conned myriad wealthy corporations and celebrities, BLM could have been forgiven. But their influence has been damaging to the social fabric of the U.S.”
Conservative blog America Thinker, in a post by Rajan Laad called “BLM is Imploding”
The post was foretold last week on Ethics Alarms, when it featured “Observations On What Appears To Be An Epic Black Lives Matter Scandal.” The unfolding story has still been tamped down by the news media, further fulfilling its toxic role as “enemies of the people.” Laad has some additional details:
Indiana’s attorney general slammed BLM as a “scam” whose “house of cards may be falling” amid the growing legal attention. The states of Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Virginia have all revoked BLM’s charitable registration, while California and Washington are threatening to hold the nonprofit’s officers personally liable for its lack of financial transparency.
The rest of the article is truly damning, and I can’t find anything substantially inaccurate in it. The review is also infuriating. Ethics Alarms correctly saw this movement/scam for what it was from the beginning. That’s no great accomplishment: it should have been obvious. What was lacking weren’t sufficient clues, but sufficient courage and responsibility by the politicians, journalists, pundits, celebrities, elected official and corporations that enabled BLM’s despicable scheme to succeed. It not only raised millions through virtue-signaling extortion, it got itself endorsed by one of the two major parties, nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, and strategically positioned so that any criticism was immediately used to brand the critic as a racist.
For the record, I want to state that those who fell for this con branded themselves as fools. Those who knew what BLM was and still supported it are worse; the label “unethical” doesn’t begin to do them justice.As an ethics blog, Ethics Alarms has tried to keep its readers informed about Black Lives Matter and its cynical, destructive con by casting a harsh light on the movement’s machinations and deceptions as often as possible. It is a measure of my failure that not enough people have been moved to visit here. Ethics Alarms’ efforts to expose BLM for what it is have had, as far as I can discern, no impact whatsoever.
I was using the EA search engine to try to track down the first post here about Black Lives Matter. This was made more difficult than it should have been by the organization/movement/scam’s most brilliant and diabolical strategem, naming itself after a seemingly benign slogan, though it was only benign to weak minds. Thus there are two tags here for Black Lives Matter: the one in quotes, for the slogan, and the tag without quotes, for the organization. I really should go through all of the posts that carried either and add the other one. If Ethics Alarms Mattered, it would be worth the effort.
I did find a post clearly stating the sinister use of the slogan from July of 2015, almost exactly five years before the George Floyd Freakout made BLM the entity rich, powerful, and poisonous. It began,
“Black Lives Matter” is unethical, and those who use it are unethical. And politicians who grovel to those who criticize them for not embracing it are contemptible.
I was right, for all the good it did. I am posting that essay, “Black Lives Matter” Is Unethical, And So Are Politicians Who Pander To It,” again below.
That’s the tipping point for Ethics Alarms. “Black Lives Matter” is unethical, and those who use it are unethical. And politicians who grovel to those who criticize them for not embracing it are contemptible.
The Martin O’Malley embarrassment over the weekend clinched it for me. Demonstrators interrupted the former Maryland governor, who is mounting a pathetic campaign against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, as he was speaking at the Netroots Nation conference. When they shouted, “Black lives matter!” a rallying cry of protests that has superseded “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!” because that one was eventually exposed as a lie, O’Malley—the naive, racist fool!!!!— responded: “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.”
The activists responded by jeering him and refusing to let him speak. Later in the day, O’Malley, “showing the firm commitment to leadership in the face of adversity that we expect in a presidential candidate,” as one wag put it on Jonathan Turley’s blog—apologized, saying…
“I meant no disrespect. That was a mistake on my part and I meant no disrespect. I did not mean to be insensitive in any way or communicate that I did not understand the tremendous passion, commitment and feeling and depth of feeling that all of us should be attaching to this issue.”
I bent over backwards to defend Smith College President Kathleen McCartney when she apologized for using the phrase “all lives matter” in December of 2014. I wrote:
If an activist says to me, “too many children go to bed hungry!” and my retort is, “Too many people go to bed hungry!”, the unspoken argument is “So stop acting like children are a special problem!” If I say, “We need peace in Syria,” and a friend’s response is “We need to end war, period!”, I view that as an effort to minimize my concerns by launching it from the realm of a specific issue into vague, generic territory. “Black Lives Matter!” in the context of recent police episodes where African Americans died under circumstances that many believe show police callousness and excessive force against blacks is a distinct assertion that suggests that the law enforcement and justice systems do not currently function as if black lives matter as much as white lives. It is true that “All Lives Matter” includes the larger subset “black lives matter”; it is also true that it blurs the issue at hand, and dilutes the protesters’ point. It is not inappropriate for President McCartney to apologize in this context…unless, of course, she intended a rebuttal, in which case she is indeed spineless.
I still believe that made sense in December, but “Black Lives Matter” means something very different now, after six police officers were charged with murder to quell a Baltimore mob after Freddie Gray’s death, and after President Obama decided that the merciless shooting of a young white woman in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant wasn’t worthy of the same attention he has given other deaths when it was a black life that had been lost.
Now “Black Lives Matter” means and is intended to mean that black lives should matter more than white lives, since whites are responsible for the ills of Black America. “Black Lives Matter” makes the demand that police officers shouldn’t try to arrest resisting black suspects, or defend themselves when threatened by them. It means that the law will work differently when a black individual is killed by a police officer, and that the rules of probable cause, due process and reasonable doubt will be suspended to ensure “justice”—for African Americans. If that means wrongly destroying the careers and lives of white police officers, well, too bad. They don’t matter.
I defended Smith’s president because it was obvious that she was completely aligned with the students she had offended, who were—wrongly, like her—citing the deaths of Mike Brown and Eric Garner as examples of black men marked for death by brutal police officers. I defended her because she really wasn’t aware that “all lives matter” was then being used by those who wanted to demean the genuine and valid concerns of the African American community that police forces were excessively callous and violent when black suspects were involved. O’Malley, however, wasn’t speaking at an anti-police brutality rally, and is not running for President of Africa-America. He must believe that black and white lives are equal in value, and that the same standards of law and ethics should apply to both in exactly the same manner.
No candidate for the Presidency should apologize for saying “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter,” nor should any speaker, anywhere, ever, apologize to a crowd that employs the “heckler’s veto” to silence him or her. Someone once said of Hubert Humphrey that he was a decent man who, by the manner of his seeking the Presidency proved himself unworthy of it. That description now applies to Martin O’Malley as well.
“Black Lives Matter” is no longer worthy of respect, if it ever was. It is divisive and racially prejudiced on its face: res ipsa loquitur. Those using it continue to attach the phrase to the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, meaning that it is now code for wearing protest hoodies and shouting “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!”
It is a simple-minded bumper-sticker, hashtag phrase that avoids the complexities of a complex issue by reducing it to three words and pretending that this is all that needs to be said to win a debate. “Black Lives Matter” is the “Better Red Than Dead” of 2015; it is another “Bush Lied And People Died”: misleading, simplistic and lazy. “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!” was a lie; “Black Lives Matter” is deceit: in the context in which it is used, it is a statement of fact that is meant to suggest that in the United States, black lives don’t matter to whites, to the government, to policy-makers, the courts and, of course, police.
Any presidential candidate who panders to the so-called African-American base by endorsing this divisive and dishonest slogan and worse, apologizing for saying and believing that all lives matter is unworthy of the office.
11 thoughts on “Ethics Quote Of The Week: American Thinker…(With A Flashback And Regrets)”
There’s a fine line between diminishing someone’s specific concern and engaging in wholesale deception and corruption. BLM crossed that line years ago.
“There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Prophet!”
“Workers of the World, Unite!”
“The World Must Be Made Safe for Democracy!”
“Peace, Bread and Land!”
“Asia for the Asians!”
“Make Love, not War!”
“Give Peace a Chance!”
“Black Lives Matter!”
On their face, all these slogans sound benign and inspirational. Maybe even the intent behind them was good, or at least the true believers thought so. Muhammad was looking to move the Arab world, forward, not back, when he introduced his own brand of monotheism, and I don’t doubt he thought he was creating a framework for a good and honest life when he wrote it all down and proclaimed this the complete record, with nothing more to come. However, there is no doubt he was also using it to cement his own power, and the evil that was later done in his name and that of his early slogan is history.
When Pope Urban shouted “Deus vult!” (God wills it!) on that hill outside Clermont, there is no doubt he thought that he was doing the right thing by rallying the attending nobles and knights to form and army and take back the Holy Land from the Muslims, who had stolen it away from the Byzantines and were not respecting the rights of Christians there. History also tells us what happened after that, and none of it is humanity at its best.
When Karl Marx wrote “Workers of the World, unite!” he probably meant it, but it was clear he hadn’t really thought it through. He himself was no working-class hero, just an expatriated writer and philosopher who avoided bankruptcy more than once because his well-to-do fellow traveler Friedrich Engels bailed him out. In 1848 he published the Communist Manifesto, fuel to the fire of the already smoldering problems that became the Revolutions of 1848, which you can look up. We all know what came later as a result of his crazy and unrealistic ideas.
“The World must be Made Safe for Democracy!” So shouted Woodrow Wilson to Congress as he led this country into a war that he had campaigned months before to keep it out of. I don’t doubt he really meant to do this world some good as a missionary for his rigid, hypocritical morality. I also don’t doubt that America’s contribution to WWI was a net positive for many people in Europe who would have suffered longer or more without it. However, it was also the first of a series of dominos that led this world into a lot bigger problems later on, and arguably made the world less self for democracy in the long run.
Lenin at the very least was saying what he knew would resonate when he promised his followers “peace, bread, and land.” Once the Bolsheviks were in control, the only peace the new Soviet state knew was that of the cowed and fearful weakling or the grave, you only had your daily ration of bread if you were a good little cog in the machine of the state, and most if not all of the land was the property of the state which had replaced God.
“Asia for the Asians” might have sounded good to the Burmese, Vietnamese, Chinese, and others who had seen their backward continent carved up like a roast by the Europeans. They found out all too soon what that meant when Manchuria became Manchukuo and Nanking was being raped. Tyranny is tyranny, and it really doesn’t matter at all whether the tyrant looks like you or not.
“Make Love, not War!” Oh sure, it sounded good to a bunch of teens and college students who had no interest in joining a war effort that was arguably not helping them or this nation but had a LOT of interest in getting into one another’s underwear. What could be better than a world of endless blissed-out days listening to the latest music and endless nights boinking? We’re STILL feeling the effects of that abdication of responsibility.
“Give Peace a Chance,” or so said the same guy who gave us the ode to magical thinking that our host thinks so highly of (Ha!). A chance to do what? A chance to make those who like freedom defenseless against those who do not?
“Black Lives Matter!” Maybe at the beginning it was a benign and even good slogan, but it’s already been pointed out how it’s become a corrosive acid that’s eating away at society and may have done permanent damage.
A friend of mine, who I’ll just call by her first name, Anna, warned me when I started to become somewhat expert at combining pictures with zinger slogans I made up that it was unwise to create tasty, easily digestible morsels of hatred, fear, or anger. I generally don’t have that much influence outside of rallying a little bit of rah-rah for my side. However, all of this is proof of what happens when large numbers of people are led to become fixated on one thought to the exclusion of all others and that thought is a short or elastic one that is subject to being twisted or interpreted to mean just about anything the leaders want it to mean.
The people of this planet need words and ideas that don’t let one forget the responsibility required to sustain them, and I’m out to make sure people get those words and ideas.
Another COTD worthy post.
By my count 4 of your 9 examples are still with us. Sadly Marxism isn’t dead after more than a century in spite of it’s long track record of death and misery.
Hopefully BLM specifically and the race hustle in general doesn’t have comparable staying power.
I think a constructive response to the phrase “Black Lives Matter” (depending on who’s speaking it) might be “You matter.” How does that sound?
It won’t sit well with self loathing progressive whites.
Yeah, that’s why it depends on who says it. It’s more of a thought than a solution, really. I’m an existentialist engineer; I help people actually define problems instead of shouting slogans back and forth.
I am frequently educated by Steve-O-in-NJ’s comments and his collection of slogans in this thread is no exception. However, I do wish to add a bit of context to his reference to the Crusades. There were terrible atrocities on both sides (see Christopher Tyerman, God’s War). But I like to think of the Crusades as “Round Two.” In “Round One,” a few centuries earlier, Islamic aggression almost completely destroyed a thriving Christianity in North Africa. In centers of Christian influence like Hippo (Augustine), Alexandria (Clement of and Origen, etc), Carthage (Cyprian) and other such locales, Christianity almost completely evaporated.
Try Round Three – have you forgotten the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, the attempt to push into France (smacked down HARD by Charles Martel) and the conquest of southern Italy and Sicily? Let’s also not forget the first attempt to take Constantinople, only stopped because Leo III and his fleet had Greek fire on their side.
Steve, I consider those incidents part of “Round One,” but I can see a case for it being “Round Two,” making the Crusades “Round Three.” And congrats on your comment being promoted to Comment of the Day.
Fabulous article Jack.
Once again, those “misinformation” spreaders deserve an apology.
To think Facebook was banning people who spoke out against this sham organization when they were telling the truth still blows my mind.
It’s freaking weird seeing the narratives that we told were”fake news” and conspiracy theories weren’t after all.
And yet just 2 days ago our government issued a new thing saying it’s not allowed to question the narrative of the government because it can hurt people and help terrorists.
It is effective February 8 til June 8th. 4 months.
Wanna bet it doesn’t go away?
Thankfully I am starting to see those who believed and obeyed speak out publicly saying no more.
As some of the truckers demonstration was/is, it’s giving a lot of people who’ve been silent the courage to speak up.
Anyway, thanks for always being open and willing to speak truth as you see it.