The Devolution of the American Civil Rights Movement

[Lord Long Rod]

Once upon a time MLK was the leader of the American civil rights movement for black Americans. Back then, MLK sought colorblind justice and both social and legal equality. He wanted a individual to be judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. This was a noble pursuit and it completely comported to a fundamental tenet of our constitution, to wit: civil rights and liberties belong to individuals, not groups.

Today's social justice movement is vastly different, focusing instead on group identity rather than the individual. Ignorance dictates that this important point will be lost on leftists (including the vast majority of Democrats). Today the left admonishes us that colorblind justice is, itself, racist. They preach that race does, and should, matter when applying their rather anti-democratic ideals of "social justice". In other words, they reject MLK and his ideals.

Why do leftists do this? I have my thoughts on the matter. Marxism is all about class and, therefore, necessarily focuses on group identity. It has little to no regard for the individua as a distinct entity. Many of the leaders of the racial justice causes are avowed Marxists (neo-Marxists, to be exact). Class warfare is the M.O. of the left. They have no use for individual variation. In their eyes, you must be a member of their group to enjoy the fruits of their labor; that is, the labor of the movement.

This has many consequences socially and politically. It turns the U.S. Constitution on its head, for starters. But let's look at a specific application: monuments. Because the left asserts its fiction that America is founded upon white supremacy, racism, slavery, and all of that jazz, they take the position that certain historical monuments must be removed if they are connected to the civil war and any individual that may be said to fit in as a member of the evil whiteness upon which the nation is founded.

At this point, any rational, sane person would say, "This is all total crap". In application, I agree. However, the left is a powerful force in America today, like it or not. This is what we have to deal with. Neo-Marxist ideology is a fact. Its purpose is to undermine our nation and its institutions. What they seek to bring about is a subject that is beyond the scope of this post. Now, back to monuments.

If MLK and his ideals are so outdated and are actually racist in themselves, then shouldn't we also be removing monuments to MLK and all the civil rights leaders out there? Recently, two retired police officers stopped a black woman from burning down MLK's childhood home in Atlanta. Was she doing this based upon leftist ideology? Was she just nutters? Or both? The problem with MLK from the neo-Marxist perspective is that it limits what the latter wants to do. They are not fighting for equality. In fact, legal and social equality of the races and ethnicities have never been greater than it is today. We have even elected a black (ish) president. Unfortunately, said president is himself a neo-Marxist revolutionary who wants to undermine the foundations of our republic and its institutions.

There are obvious problems with tearing down monuments. It is a re-telling of history, which is itself a destructive endeavor. It is also what happens when authoritarians rule. It happens in every authoritarian regime of any time and in every place. Should historical figures who did great and noteworthy things be reduced to simply one aspect of their lives, either directly or collaterally, based upon today's morality? The left says yes. Tear down that Robert E. Lee statue!! Decry the Founders because (1) they owned slaves, (2) had neighbors who owned slaves, (3) did not vehemently oppose slavery, (4) had family who owned slaves ....... and lived during a time when white men had most of the power. Tear it all down!!

This, of course, does nothing whatsoever to bring about justice. In fact, it is not meant to. Instead, it is the revolutionary phase of neo-Marxism. Only the useful idiots and the herd believe in the illogical substance being taught by neo-Marxism.

There are problems today with race, economics, etc... We may be critical of policy and society. That is fine, and it is healthy in a democratic form of government. However, what is not fine is when these very real issues are being utilized to undermine the very nation and its institutions that provide the freedom and liberty to correct wrongs and protect people. Nobody is free to disagree under an authoritarian regime. Shunning and destroying opposition notwithstanding their guaranteed inalienable rights to disagree is pure authoritarianism, whether done for a seemingly righteous purpose or not. The problem for the citizen is to differentiate between good faith movements seeking change within the bounds of our laws and those who purport to seek redress for a more nefarious purpose, or seek redress without regard of consequence.

 

[Oddball]

The real civil libertarians have been shoved out of the left by the SJWs.

 

[MisterBeale]

The real civil libertarians have been shoved out of the left by the SJWs.

That hearing they had on free speech? When the DNC wanted to gag/censure RFKjr. from speaking at hearing about FREE SPEECH?

 

[justoffal]

Once upon a time MLK was the leader of the American civil rights movement for black Americans. Back then, MLK sought colorblind justice and both social and legal equality. He wanted a individual to be judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. This was a noble pursuit and it completely comported to a fundamental tenet of our constitution, to wit: civil rights and liberties belong to individuals, not groups.

Today's social justice movement is vastly different, focusing instead on group identity rather than the individual. Ignorance dictates that this important point will be lost on leftists (including the vast majority of Democrats). Today the left admonishes us that colorblind justice is, itself, racist. They preach that race does, and should, matter when applying their rather anti-democratic ideals of "social justice". In other words, they reject MLK and his ideals.

Why do leftists do this? I have my thoughts on the matter. Marxism is all about class and, therefore, necessarily focuses on group identity. It has little to no regard for the individua as a distinct entity. Many of the leaders of the racial justice causes are avowed Marxists (neo-Marxists, to be exact). Class warfare is the M.O. of the left. They have no use for individual variation. In their eyes, you must be a member of their group to enjoy the fruits of their labor; that is, the labor of the movement.

This has many consequences socially and politically. It turns the U.S. Constitution on its head, for starters. But let's look at a specific application: monuments. Because the left asserts its fiction that America is founded upon white supremacy, racism, slavery, and all of that jazz, they take the position that certain historical monuments must be removed if they are connected to the civil war and any individual that may be said to fit in as a member of the evil whiteness upon which the nation is founded.

At this point, any rational, sane person would say, "This is all total crap". In application, I agree. However, the left is a powerful force in America today, like it or not. This is what we have to deal with. Neo-Marxist ideology is a fact. Its purpose is to undermine our nation and its institutions. What they seek to bring about is a subject that is beyond the scope of this post. Now, back to monuments.

If MLK and his ideals are so outdated and are actually racist in themselves, then shouldn't we also be removing monuments to MLK and all the civil rights leaders out there? Recently, two retired police officers stopped a black woman from burning down MLK's childhood home in Atlanta. Was she doing this based upon leftist ideology? Was she just nutters? Or both? The problem with MLK from the neo-Marxist perspective is that it limits what the latter wants to do. They are not fighting for equality. In fact, legal and social equality of the races and ethnicities have never been greater than it is today. We have even elected a black (ish) president. Unfortunately, said president is himself a neo-Marxist revolutionary who wants to undermine the foundations of our republic and its institutions.

There are obvious problems with tearing down monuments. It is a re-telling of history, which is itself a destructive endeavor. It is also what happens when authoritarians rule. It happens in every authoritarian regime of any time and in every place. Should historical figures who did great and noteworthy things be reduced to simply one aspect of their lives, either directly or collaterally, based upon today's morality? The left says yes. Tear down that Robert E. Lee statue!! Decry the Founders because (1) they owned slaves, (2) had neighbors who owned slaves, (3) did not vehemently oppose slavery, (4) had family who owned slaves ....... and lived during a time when white men had most of the power. Tear it all down!!

This, of course, does nothing whatsoever to bring about justice. In fact, it is not meant to. Instead, it is the revolutionary phase of neo-Marxism. Only the useful idiots and the herd believe in the illogical substance being taught by neo-Marxism.

There are problems today with race, economics, etc... We may be critical of policy and society. That is fine, and it is healthy in a democratic form of government. However, what is not fine is when these very real issues are being utilized to undermine the very nation and its institutions that provide the freedom and liberty to correct wrongs and protect people. Nobody is free to disagree under an authoritarian regime. Shunning and destroying opposition notwithstanding their guaranteed inalienable rights to disagree is pure authoritarianism, whether done for a seemingly righteous purpose or not. The problem for the citizen is to differentiate between good faith movements seeking change within the bounds of our laws and those who purport to seek redress for a more nefarious purpose, or seek redress without regard of consequence.

Fabulously well written and reasoned.

 

[Libby von H]

Once upon a time MLK was the leader of the American civil rights movement for black Americans. Back then, MLK sought colorblind justice and both social and legal equality. He wanted a individual to be judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. This was a noble pursuit and it completely comported to a fundamental tenet of our constitution, to wit: civil rights and liberties belong to individuals, not groups.

Today's social justice movement is vastly different, focusing instead on group identity rather than the individual. Ignorance dictates that this important point will be lost on leftists (including the vast majority of Democrats). Today the left admonishes us that colorblind justice is, itself, racist. They preach that race does, and should, matter when applying their rather anti-democratic ideals of "social justice". In other words, they reject MLK and his ideals.

Why do leftists do this? I have my thoughts on the matter. Marxism is all about class and, therefore, necessarily focuses on group identity. It has little to no regard for the individua as a distinct entity. Many of the leaders of the racial justice causes are avowed Marxists (neo-Marxists, to be exact). Class warfare is the M.O. of the left. They have no use for individual variation. In their eyes, you must be a member of their group to enjoy the fruits of their labor; that is, the labor of the movement.

This has many consequences socially and politically. It turns the U.S. Constitution on its head, for starters. But let's look at a specific application: monuments. Because the left asserts its fiction that America is founded upon white supremacy, racism, slavery, and all of that jazz, they take the position that certain historical monuments must be removed if they are connected to the civil war and any individual that may be said to fit in as a member of the evil whiteness upon which the nation is founded.

At this point, any rational, sane person would say, "This is all total crap". In application, I agree. However, the left is a powerful force in America today, like it or not. This is what we have to deal with. Neo-Marxist ideology is a fact. Its purpose is to undermine our nation and its institutions. What they seek to bring about is a subject that is beyond the scope of this post. Now, back to monuments.

If MLK and his ideals are so outdated and are actually racist in themselves, then shouldn't we also be removing monuments to MLK and all the civil rights leaders out there? Recently, two retired police officers stopped a black woman from burning down MLK's childhood home in Atlanta. Was she doing this based upon leftist ideology? Was she just nutters? Or both? The problem with MLK from the neo-Marxist perspective is that it limits what the latter wants to do. They are not fighting for equality. In fact, legal and social equality of the races and ethnicities have never been greater than it is today. We have even elected a black (ish) president. Unfortunately, said president is himself a neo-Marxist revolutionary who wants to undermine the foundations of our republic and its institutions.

There are obvious problems with tearing down monuments. It is a re-telling of history, which is itself a destructive endeavor. It is also what happens when authoritarians rule. It happens in every authoritarian regime of any time and in every place. Should historical figures who did great and noteworthy things be reduced to simply one aspect of their lives, either directly or collaterally, based upon today's morality? The left says yes. Tear down that Robert E. Lee statue!! Decry the Founders because (1) they owned slaves, (2) had neighbors who owned slaves, (3) did not vehemently oppose slavery, (4) had family who owned slaves ....... and lived during a time when white men had most of the power. Tear it all down!!

This, of course, does nothing whatsoever to bring about justice. In fact, it is not meant to. Instead, it is the revolutionary phase of neo-Marxism. Only the useful idiots and the herd believe in the illogical substance being taught by neo-Marxism.

There are problems today with race, economics, etc... We may be critical of policy and society. That is fine, and it is healthy in a democratic form of government. However, what is not fine is when these very real issues are being utilized to undermine the very nation and its institutions that provide the freedom and liberty to correct wrongs and protect people. Nobody is free to disagree under an authoritarian regime. Shunning and destroying opposition notwithstanding their guaranteed inalienable rights to disagree is pure authoritarianism, whether done for a seemingly righteous purpose or not. The problem for the citizen is to differentiate between good faith movements seeking change within the bounds of our laws and those who purport to seek redress for a more nefarious purpose, or seek redress without regard of consequence.

There are several fake Blacks on here (using a Black avatar so you will assume they are Black) . They are anti-conservative and pretending to be standing up for "Blacks" --- but what tipped me off is that both of them hate Clarence Thomas and any Black who won't agree with them.Safe to completely ignore those frauds.

 

[Sparker]

The liberal movement for civil rights, equality, etc. lasted long enough to become a class of professional activists in government, political action committees, charities, etc. It made some big achievements, but now it's at the end of the road of what it can achieve with what its middle class office workers are willing to do. They're not cleaning out their desks and starting new careers, so they must find reasons to get paid. If there's no racism to fight, then they will make some. The most obvious achievements that won't be reached for a while are in environmental action, because that is personal sacrifice and hardship more than anything government or big organizations can do.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

The liberal movement for civil rights, equality, etc. lasted long enough to become a class of professional activists in government, political action committees, charities, etc. It made some big achievements, but now it's at the end of the road of what it can achieve with what its middle class office workers are willing to do. They're not cleaning out their desks and starting new careers, so they must find reasons to get paid. If there's no racism to fight, then they will make some. The most obvious achievements that won't be reached for a while are in environmental action, because that is personal sacrifice and hardship more than anything government or big organizations can do.

IMO, the civil rights movement had outlived its usefulness by 1980.