Anonymous Berkeley Professor Shreds BLM Injustice Narrative

Source: ZeroHedge

My sense is that the pro-agency narrative for blacks in America is growing. About time.

“The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating. No other group in America is systematically demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites…

“I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda and the Party’s uncontested capture of our department. I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd’s death and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end.

“I also want to protect the practice of history. Cleo is no grovelling handmaiden to politicians and corporations. Like us, she is free.”

6 thoughts on “Anonymous Berkeley Professor Shreds BLM Injustice Narrative

  1. A question that comes to mind is why we still have de facto segregation after 400 years of apartheid made illegal in 1965.

    We still had red lining up until the first years of this century. Why?

    Blacks get longer sentences for the same crimes as whites. Why?

    Why did NC pass voting laws that affected black voters with “surgical precision”?

    “Hey, we gave you what you wanted in 1965. You haven’t caught up to us yet?”

    It took the Irish multiple generations to gain respectability. The same with the Chinese who were distinctly not welcome as soon as they finished building the railroads.

    African-American descendants of slaves only immigrated since 1965. Before then, they were not true Americans. Legally and by terror, this was as much of an isolation as any newcomer Or worse.


    Liked by 2 people

    1. I doubt we had LEGAL redlining in recent times. But you make a lot of accusations without support.

      Do blacks really get longer sentences for the same crime when prior convictions and the inherent violence of the crime are considered?

      I can pretty much guarantee that ANY demographic which votes 95% for one party will be subject to Gerrymandering.

      But more importantly, you miss the message the anonymous professor is sending you.

      So long as every unfortunate circumstance that befalls blacks is attributed to what white people do instead of what they do themselves, they will never advance.

      As Thomas Sowell put it ‘We have reached the ultimate absurdity in which some people are held responsible for what was done before they were born while we refuse to hold others responsible for what they do themselves in the present.’

      If the KKK had set out to utterly destroy the black race, and had the collective brains between them to accomplish it, they could not have done better than the programs that arise from the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.

      Liked by 1 person


        There are lots of links for both mortgage disparities for equally qualified borrowers. Same with studies on sentencing inequities.

        The NC laws had nothing to do with Gerrymandering. They had to do with access to polls
        and other restrictions based on race. That’s why the judge tossed them out.

        If you think what I pointed out is justified for any reasons other than race, then make the point.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. The first line of the CBS article points out that redlining has been illegal for decades.

          It is true that Gerrymandering is only one tool used to reduce voting against the party in power, but again, whatever method is used, if a demographic group votes 95% for one party, you can expect that efforts will be made to reduce its effect. That doesn’t make it right, it just makes it predictable.


          1. “The first line of the CBS article points out that redlining has been illegal for decades.“

            Ok, so mortgage lending inequities based on race has gotten sneakier. Same problem, different tactics. In is addressed later in the article.

            The NC case had nothing to do with redistricting or Gerrymandering. It had to do with voting laws that affected minority communities with “surgical precision”. Voter suppression.


            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to lenrothman Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s