As one writer notes:

According to an investigative report by the Capital Research Center, the Black Lives Matter organization, officially known as “BLM Global Network Foundation,” is a fiscally-sponsored project of left-wing organization Thousand Currents. Fiscal sponsorship simply means that a non-profit organization, in this case Thousand Currents, offers its legal and tax-exempt status to one of its “projects,” in this case Black Lives Matter, which engages in activities related to the non-profit organization’s mission.

Fundamentally, BLM gets its tax-deductible status through Thousand Currents.

As my colleague Robert Stilson explains here, BLM Global Network Foundation has been a fiscally sponsored project of Thousand Currents, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, since 2016. That means the BLM group, which runs the BlackLivesMatter.com website, does not have its own IRS tax-exempt status but is operating as a “project” of an organization that does. In the case of 501(c)(3) fiscally sponsored projects, this allows tax-deductible donations to be made to the project.

The Board of Directors of Thousand Currents, which has now been scrubbed from its website but is archived here, includes Susan Rosenberg, who was a member of the Weather Underground and the May 19^th Communist Organization (M19) and was imprisoned for 16 years for terrorist bombings until pardoned by President Clinton.

Rosenberg and another M19 member, Tim Blunk, were arrested in November 1984 in Cherry Hill, NJ, in front of a storage unit containing 740 pounds of unstable dynamite stolen from a Texas construction firm four years earlier. Rosenberg was also wanted in connection with the 1981 Brink’s robbery. She was never charged in those crimes.

Show Less

As one founder of BLM noted:

“We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk…”

The basic goal of this organization is the complete destruction of society in order to rebuild it from scratch. It includes the destruction of capitalism, of private property, of religious faith, and of the nuclear family. No civic institution, tradition, or force outside of the state can be allowed. It should be noted that the destruction of the nuclear family is a basic Marxist principle, based on 19th century ideas of “family” as a bourgeois business unit.

As noted in Socialist World in its discussion of BLM:

Black Panther leader Fred Hampton summed it up: “You don’t fight racism with racism. We’re gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don’t fight capitalism with no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism.”

Today the world is different. There has been a black President of the US, the most powerful capitalist country on the planet, and many major corporations have, for example, declared their solidarity with the BLM movement. The fundamentals remain the same, however. Racism is intrinsic to capitalism.

Capitalism is a blind, unplanned system driven by maximizing the profits of a few and based on the exploitation of the majority. Today, according to Oxfam, the richest 85 people on earth have more wealth than the poorest half of the world’s population. They include one black African, although white men predominate.

Their role in society, however, does not stem primarily from their colour. They are part of a tiny super-wealthy ruling elite whose interests are completely tied to an inherently racist capitalist system.

As noted in Newsweek:

“Black Lives Matter and other organizations build a strong critique and understanding of racism and white supremacy and sexism and homophobia, transphobia, but we have to have as much hatred or vitriol against capitalism,” said Ratcliff. “Until we start to see capitalism [is] just as nefarious as white supremacy, we will always be struggling.”

The fundamental approach of the BLM/Antifa movement is exactly that advocated by Robespierre, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. The socialist/anarchist ideal is that everything in the existing system is so permeated by evil that the only way to solve the problem is to destroy everything and start over. Of greater import, it is necessary to destroy all knowledge of the previous system to keep it from contaminating the present. Because history defines the future, in order to have a new future, you must destroy the past.

As George Orwell (who is now on the cancel-culture chopping block himself – since he, above all must be silenced) noted in his book 1984:

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

In the French Revolution, this was accomplished by restarting the calendar at year 0, decimalization and renaming all of the days of the week, redefinition of the months, removing Christian holidays, exile of priests, nationalization of church property and defining a state sponsored atheistic religion called the Cult of Reason (shortly replaced by the new mandatory “Cult of the Supreme Being” at the insistence of Robespierre).

In the Cultural Revolution under Mao, the purpose was to wash away the “Four Olds,” – old customs, old ideas, old habits, and old culture. This meant renaming all the streets and buildings, destroying statues, changing the definitions and meanings of words, tearing down classical architecture, attacking intellectuals, destruction of books and art, banning genealogy, banning “Western” art such as opera and ballet, etc. in order to “sweep away the old demons” that held back the communist utopia.

The same thing occurred in Pol Pot’s Communist Cambodia, known as the Killing Fields. People know that Pol Pot’s regime engaged in a systematic genocide of all professional people – academics, doctors, engineers, etc. But most don’t understand why. These people embodied the old way of doing things, and the only way to truly start over is to wipe the slate clean. Hence their death. Pol Pot, a student of Mao and supported by him, noted “If you want to kill the grass, you also have to kill the roots,” which justified mass destruction of culture, and execution of families.

The same process characterized Stalin’s Soviet Union, and even the Socialist revolution in Mexico. This hatred of the past is not limited solely to socialists and communists, of course. It is the foundation of most cultural revolutions (and what distinguishes cultural from political revolutions). Hence the actions of the Taliban and ISIS/ISIL.

This idea of the destruction of the current system is not evolutionary or reformative. It means to engage in complete destruction. This is why it is not enough to tear down statues of Confederate soldiers, or rename bases named after Confederate Generals. The statues of abolitionists must be destroyed or else people might remember that there were good things about the ancien regime. Thus, it is necessary to destroy Lincoln and even Frederick Douglass. In the cultural revolution, there can be no authority outside of the state, hence the need to destroy churches, intimidate churchgoers, and when given authority, bulldoze churches and mosques, forcibly destroy religious culture, and if necessary, kill entire populations in order to remove the contamination of their culture. Hence the desecration and burning of churches, and destruction of religious statues and beheading and defacement of representations of the Virgin Mary. Because that’s what black folk do? I don’t think so. It’s what socialists do.

And Black Lives Matter, derived in part from the work of a white Russian-American Marxist, is an example of this.

Show Less

BLM/Antifa use the term “white” in exactly the same way. It is certainly a race, and when an intersectionalists state that “Some white people may have to die” they mean it in exactly the same way that the Nazis meant it when speaking about Jews. But more important, “white” is defined as the “white” value system – that of individualism, civil liberties, objective truth, the “white” concept of fair play, honor, religion, all of it. The concept of “white supremacy” in that context has little to do with the color of one’s skin, but everything to do with the content of one’s values. A person who believes in “God and country” who is a conventional Christian, who believes in the American ideas of individual liberty and freedom is a “white supremacist” regardless of any beliefs about skin color. Coleman Hughes notes that this redefinition of racism used by modern intersectionalists is distinct from that of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, and is something that those civil rights leaders explicity warned against.

This hatred of “whiteness” is absolutely and ontologically necessary, since BLM/Antifa largely define themselves in opposition to whiteness. This is key, because it means that without demonization of the other, there is no basis for their existence. This is also a repeated pattern in history. For instance, Pinochet’s Argentina was notorious for its torture and “disappearing” of its citizens. None of it was necessary in any absolute sense; when Pinochet took power he was generally supported. However, in order justify more authoritarian rule, it was necessary to create an enemy. So, the regime arrested and tortured people who were insufficiently supportive.

This served two goals. The first goal was to define the relationship of the regime with the individual. The regime had absolute control over the individuals body and, by the end of the ordeal, psyche. The second goal was to create a resistance movement that would, in turn, justify further oppression. Without the existence of this resistance movement, the actions of the regime had no justification. Thus, if it did not exist, it must be created.

The same thing is true with BLM/Antifa. These organizations exist in opposition to systemic whiteness that represents oppression. It is fundamentally impossible to acknowledge that this system has made progress, or that its ideals are anything other than oppression. If such an acknowledgment were to be made, then there would be no justification for the actions that are being taken. There would be no justification for the violent overthrow of the system and ensuing carnage. This is why it is necessary that garage door pulls be nooses, that tree swings be nooses, that every picture and symbol be interpreted in a way that makes it oppressive. It’s why people paint swastikas on their own doors and send themselves threatening letters. Without this oppression, they have no self-definition. There can be no give and take. There can be no compromise. There can be no reconciliation.

As Anthony Bradley notes in his critique of James Cone and Black Theology in “Liberating Black Theology: The Bible and Black Experience,”

Perhaps the most significant tragedy of the victimologist’s approach… is that it creates separatism. Separatism is a suspension of moral judgment in the name of racial solidarity that is an integral part of being culturally black in America today. The black experience is the starting point and the final authority of interpreting moral prescriptions, both personally and structurally. Separatist morality is not a deliberate strategy for accruing power; rather it is a cultural thought – a tacit conviction that has imbued the culturally black psyche. Separatism is a direct result of victimology because whites are viewed in eternal opposition to the black experience; black America construes itself (albeit in many ways unintentionally) as a sovereign cultural authority.

Separatism generates a restriction of cultural authority, a narrowing of intellectual inquiry, and the dilution of moral judgment. Mainstream American culture, when refracted through self-righteous indignation in the service of exposing the inadequacies of the “other” (e.g. white person) rather than finding a way forward. The perpetual belief in a racial identity born out of self-loathing and and anxiety often leads to more time spent inventing reasons to cry racism than working towards changing social mores and often inhibits movement towards reconciliation and positive mobility.

… [V]ictimology often perpetuates racial tension. Blacks are encouraged by one another to “know your history.” The communicative function of said mantra is not aimed toward knowledge per se but towards remembering oppression and iniquity so it does not happen again. The irony of victimology is its tendency towards revisionist histories and creating and ethos that, a hundred years ago, would have precluded racial equality. Victimology, in other words, is perpetuating problems for black America, not solving them. (page 17)

Thus, racism is not “racism” in this context as most modernist people think. “Whiteness” and “white supremacy” is structure and values (though again, as I will show later, there’s plenty of frank old-timey hatred to go around in this movement).

The vast majority of these people running around calling everybody white supremacists are themselves white. Only approximately 17% of the people tearing down statues and burning buildings are black. This is primarily a white Marxist movement that has hijacked racial issues as a pretext. Of course, there are others who are involved – those who mistakenly see this as a rather conventional protest movement, true anti-white bigots such as this BLM founder, and those who are attempting to exploit the movement for their benefit.

This is the face of Antifa/BLM – a privileged upper middle class white girl lecturing a black cop, and the cop responding with scripture.

And these:

Or this — a white Antifa/BLM protester lecturing a black physician on how he is more black than she is.

Consider what happened recently in Seattle (a city, by the way, named after a Suquamish leader and slave owner) , where white city employees were segregated and taught to hate “white” values. Here is a partial list of “white supremacy:”

“Individualism” is racist. Intellectualism is “racist.” “Objectivity” is racist.

We are all “complicit” to some degree.

All white people are white supremacists – if they aren’t acting like it today, they will tomorrow. Any white person who does not admit to being a white supremacist is in denial:

BLM/Antifa-type intersectionalists have a hierarchy of race that would make a Nazi genealogist green with envy. Are you Jewish? Arab? They’ve got you classified:

Then there’s that evil “white” concept of “cause and effect,” the white supremacist notions of rational thought and metrics, and the truly evil idea of “competition”:

Similarly, here’s another federal document put out by the Smithsonian:

Show Less

According to this group, the only way to destroy “white supremacy” is to destroy western civilization. Or, as Mark Bray wrote in “Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook” in 2017,

“The only long-term solution to the fascist menace is to undermine its pillars of strength in society grounded not only in white supremacy but also in ableism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, nationalism, transphobia, class rule, and many others.”

This merging of identarianism and Marxism has profound meaning when it comes to the idea of individual liberty in view of the fungibility of truth. Again, to quote Bradley:

…Marxism does not believe in the validity of certain ideal values, of personality or the ethic of value, or the categorical imperative, or of moral autonomy as established by the Kantians. The individual, then, does not only function as a means to an end but must also view himself as such. The process of traditional ethics, which calls for each individual to make his own ethical choices, becomes obsolete. Marxism radically erases the individuality of the person, even to such an extent that acting in history with the potential to be productive or unproductive, the person must bow his will completely to the community and its objectives. (Bradley, Liberating Black Theology, p 79)

These are the values of BLM/Antifa. This is what NAME banned me for mentioning.

Or, you can listen to this BLM/Antifa leader here.

This is how a fake African American can be a leader in this movement. They have abandoned Martin Luther King for Shaun King. Which brings me to the Kristallnacht statement. Happily, King (the latter, not the former) spoke up to make my point. When asked about attacks on churches and religious symbols, he responded:

Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down.

They are a form of white supremacy.

Always have been.

In the Bible, when the family of Jesus wanted to hide, and blend in, guess where they went?

EGYPT!

Not Denmark.

Tear them down.

— Shaun King (@shaunking) June 22, 2020

If only there were a word for destroying windows and icons on the basis of religious hatred. It should surprise no-one that BLM/Antifa has taken pleasure in destroying statues of Jesus, saints, and Virgin Mary, and that church burning and vandalism have skyrocketed. Because Christianity is “white supremacy,” as is Judaism. It’s why they attack black people going to church. It’s why they beat Catholics praying the rosary. It’s why they attack children. It’s why they burn bibles. It’s why they call a missionary who served lepers — and died of leprosy because of it — an example of “white supremacist culture.” It’s why one of their key goals, listed on their website, is the destruction of the nuclear family:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comf

Yes, that damned nuclear family is “white supremacy.”

As Benjamin Kierstein notes:

Over 2,000 years ago, Plato described it in part when he said, “Bad men, when their parents or country have any defects, look on them with malignant joy, and find fault with them and expose and denounce them to others, under the idea that the rest of mankind will be less likely to take themselves to task and accuse them of neglect; and they blame their defects far more than they deserve, in order that the odium which is necessarily incurred by them may be increased.”

The anti-christian and antisemitic roots of BLM/Antifa are open for display. Let’s read what some of their leaders have to say:

“Whiteness is not humxness,”

“in fact, white skin is sub-humxn”

“White ppl are recessive genetic defects. this is factual,” 

“white ppl need white supremacy as a mechanism to protect their survival as a people because all they can do is produce themselves.”

“black ppl simply through their dominant genes can literally wipe out the white race if we had the power to.”

Or this, by Ignatiev (previously linked):

“Eventually white women can breed out, but my feeling is that if you are a white male, you should kill yourself now. If you are a thoughtful person, with a social consciousness who considers himself white, you will consider suicide.”

Or this:

“Melanin comes with soul, that we call it soul, we soul brothers and sisters, that’s the melanin that connects us so the people that don’t have it, are, and I’m going to say this carefully, are a little less and where the term actually comes from, and I’m going to bring it back around to Minister Farrakhan, where they may not have the compassion,..

“When they were sent to the Mountains of Caucasus, they didn’t have the power of the sun. The sun started to deteriorate them. So, they’re acting out of fear, they’re acting out of low self-esteem, they’re acting out of deficiency, so therefore the only way they can act is evil,”

“They have to rob, steal, rape, kill and fight in order to survive. So these people who didn’t have what we have, and when I say ‘we,’ I speak of the melinated people, they had to be savages, they had to be barbaric because they’re in these Nordic mountains, they’re in these rough torrential environments, so they’re acting as animals, so they’re the ones closer to animals, they’re the ones that are actually the true savages,”

“So I say all that to say the context when we speak of ‘Jewish people,’ white people, Europeans, the Illuminati — they were doing that as survival tactics to stay on this planet…”

Or this.

Or this.

Or this.

Or this.

Or this.

Or this.

Or this.

Here is a letter written by Nicole Hannah-Jones, the founder of the “1619 Project” of the New York Times.

And now, BLM/Antifa is murdering black men for not supporting their Marxist agenda.

Now, I will be the first to admit that I have not immersed my self in black culture. Most of my interactions with African-Americans comes from work, which is a very artificial environment, and church, which attracts a specifically more orthodox and conservative cohort of African-Americans. But at least for the latter, none of them are in the mood to call for the dissolution of the nuclear family and rejection of Christianity. Nor do they, for the most part, want to abandon attempts at reconciliation with a return to segregation, separation, and racial hatred. Nor do they disavow objective truth, science, or personal responsibility. Nor are they incapable of hard work or punctuality. And, of course, many black folk are speaking out against it – though they are called race traitors and tokens for doing it. My impression is that BLM/Antifa does not speak for most folk of any race. But by wrapping their agenda in the flag of race, they are above criticism. NAME believes that they are the voice of African-Americans – and thus we must avoid discussing what they stand for for fear of the moral panic of possible “racism” (however defined).

As Voltaire noted,

“Once your faith, sir, persuades you to believe what your intellect declares to be absurd, beware lest you likewise sacrifice your reason in the conduct of your life. In days gone by, there were people who said to us: “You believe in incomprehensible, contradictory and impossible things because we have commanded you to; now then, commit unjust acts because we likewise order you to do so.” Nothing could be more convincing. Certainly any one who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to commit injustices.” (Questions on Miracles, 11^th letter, 1765)

The faith in socialism lead to murdering women because they say all lives matter, murdering police and taunting their families as they mourn, and murdering children, all in the name of suppressing “white supremacy.”

This is no different than the tactics of the Nazis in response to “Jewish science” and “Jewish literature.” As Philip Ball notes in “Serving the Third Reich,”

Anti-Semitism did not just deprive German physics of some of its most valuable researchers. It also threatened to prescribe what kind of physics one could and could not do. For Nazi ideology was not merely a question of who should be allowed to live and work freely in the German state—like a virus, it worked its way into the very fabric of intellectual life. Shortly after the boycott of Jewish businesses at the start of April 1933, the Nazified German Students Association declared that literature should be cleansed of the “un-German spirit”, resulting on 10 May in the ritualistic burning of tens of thousands of books marred by Jewish intellectualism. These included works by Sigmund Freud, Bertolt Brecht, Karl Marx, Stefan Zweig and Walter Benjamin: books full of corrupt, unthinkable ideas. Into some of these pyres, baying students threw the books of Albert Einstein.

Substitute “white” for “Jewish” and this should sound just a tad familiar to you. Burning books? What about “decolonializing” them? “White” music? Can’t have that. “White science?” That’s structural racism. Demonizing white scientists? You bet. Denying even that there is such a thing as western civilization (other than to condemn it)? Of course. Suppressing white artists? Bring it on.

The methods of this kind of thinking are always the same. Only the targets change. I’m “insensitive” if I mention this, and must be banned. Because attacks on objective truth, scientific method, and rational thought have no impact on Medical Examiner work at all.

Show Less

But we dare not talk about it. It’s “political” and insensitive and inappropriate to talk about and has nothing to do with being an ME. Except that it threatens our very existence ME offices are under direct attack by the people who push this concept, both in terms of our independence and our ability to make diagnoses at all. What I find even more odd is seeing the EC patting itself on the back for starting to have a conversation about race – though it was me who did it, and I got canceled for it.

The Karenwaffe in NAME were “appalled” by my post. Fine. Let’s pretend everything is great – until the Maoists come for the rest of the big city offices like they are coming for some already and then you can try to find out what the hell they are talking about – though everyone will be afraid to speak out loud by then. The interesting thing is that these Maoists hate liberals even more than they hate me. I am an enemy, but you are a traitor. Never forget this little bit of Antifa/BLM literature:

I’m sure they mean it in the best possible way, though. But remember, the Bolsheviks first went after the Mensheviks. The Montgnards went after the Girandins. The Nazis cleaned up the SA when they were no longer of use. And BLM/Antifa will take care of their white middle class liberals when they are no longer of use.

The BLM/Antifa attack on the Medical Examiner community is more than just threatening to kill Medical Examiners who don’t make the right diagnoses or burn down offices that make diagnoses that don’t support their narrative. It’s much more dangerous and invasive than that.

As many will remember, just under a decade ago, there burst on the scene a number of “cognitive scientists,” who, with the aid of members of the legal community such as the Innocence Project, decided that the forensic science community should address the “crisis” of “cognitive bias” in forensic pathology. The issue arose full fledged with coordinated attacks on our profession, to the point of having a plenary session at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences with the theme of attacking forensic pathology practice – and without even inviting a forensic pathologist to speak, until the section complained and demanded a voice (a role admirably filled Dr. Andy Baker).

Over the ensuing 10 years, it became clear that the “crisis” of “cognitive bias” actually had nothing to do with error rates, or mistakes made on the basis of bias, or any of the traditional metrics of defining this as a significant problem. Every time we pushed for some sort of demonstration that this was a problem that resulted in significant error, nothing was provided. Instead, the crisis of cognitive bias was asserted on a purely theoretical basis. When pushed, those who shouted the loudest played the dissembling game of “if you don’t agree that it’s a crisis, then you are claiming it doesn’t exist.” Then, finally, proponents explicitly stated that this had nothing to do with error and nothing to do with traditional “science” of cognitive science. Instead, it had to do with the fact that this consortium of interests did not believe it was the role of forensic pathologists to practice traditional diagnosis. Instead, that role should be taken by others, and forensic pathologists should only provide data for diagnoses to be made by lawyers, laymen and other stakeholders.

All of this dissembling about “cognitive science” was a scam that allowed people with a social engineering agendas to push those agendas using the terms and implied authority of “science,” but had no true “scientific” basis at all.

The same kind of process, though much more malignant, is the BLM/Antifa scam. They are using accusations of structural white supremacy in an attempt to destroy the civil basis our work as medical examiners, and insert Soviet and Maoist-style political determinations. By wrapping a Jacobite/Maoist agenda in the false flag of race, they become above criticism. But their proposition is much worse, and much more dangerous, because they are attacking the very idea of objective truth. BLM/Antifa explicitly want to replace modernist ideas of objective truth with the idea that “truth” exists only in service to an agenda. It is the old Soviet science of Lysenko. The BLM/Antifa hatred for “white” science is no different than the old Nazi distaste for “Jewish” science.

It’s no accident that “implicit” bias is a part of the mandate of the new Diversity Committee that NAME is establishing. It’s the same attack wrapped in a different flag. Only this time we are going to embrace it, and cancel anybody who questions it. Already, Medical Examiners are making public statements that we should edit our reports to serve social agendas. And NAME is fine with that. And when the next pretext for violence occurs, we will again be paralyzed by moral panic and give them whatever they want.

Nothing to see here, folks. Don’t be insensitive. Shut up and accept it. Objective truth is a dead issue. The only true morality is inoffensiveness, and we must always bow to those who are offended.

As Dostoevsky wrote in the Brothers Karamazov:

“Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love, and in order to occupy and distract himself without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures, and sinks to bestiality in his vices, all from continual lying to other men and to himself. The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than any one. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn’t it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill–he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness.”

When a Medical Examiner is finally killed, or an office burned to the ground, at least NAME will be able to comfort itself with the fact that it squashed possibly offensive speech, and was able to get out a position paper on second autopsies. Because the real problem here is Mike Baden.

Show Less

Dr. <name redacted>,

You misapprehend my statement. I understand how this is possible, so let me respond directly.

First, I did not call 80-90% of the listserv white supremacists. What I did was criticize critical race theory, which states it.

I’ll tell you what, I’ll treat you as an individual, deserving individual respect, and I’ll assume you do the same to me. It turns out that not all black folk are all the same, and not all white folk are all the same. It is my preference that people talk as individuals, not as representatives of some identity group.

So, let’s look at what I said. I wrote in the context of the BLM/Antifa movement. This is a specific subset of folk, and, in fact, represent a small minority of the African-American community and the white community. In particular, they represent a specific militant anti-theist Maoist/Leninist political movement that wraps it’s primarily political agenda in the flag of racial justice. This group has strong support among the Progressive left and Academe (though I repeat myself) representing a convergence of intersectional racial theory, critical race theory, and primarily Maoist communist theory. This is particularly notable if you look at Antifa, which consists primarily of upper-middle-class whites who, in my opinion, are using and perverting BLM for their purpose.

This leads to two points I want to emphasize.

The first is that these are a very small minority of both African-Americans and European-Americans. Because I am a theologically conservative Christian, my personal interactions with African-Americans are primarily related to faith-based activities. The particular subset of African-Americans that I spend time with is not particularly sympathetic to the anti-christian agenda of the Maoist/Leninist activists, who hold faith in contempt. My personal experience, and it may well not be generalizable, is that the “disease” of racial and other identarian conflicts are often best “treated” by finding things that we hold in common. My black friends and I differ on many things, but we hold our faith in common, and from that, we can gain better understanding of each other. Similarly, I have other friends of color who share bonds of loyalty to the country. It is certainly true that the United States has not fulfilled its promise to African-Americans, but those African-Americans who recognize that the *ideals* of the country, while not achieved, do work in that direction again find a common ground with me.

This is in contrast to the approach taken by Antifa/BLM, where identarian tribalism and blood libel are the currency of interaction. It is *that* group that explicitly holds the opinion that all white folk are necessarily racist by the mere fact of being white, and that all white people are white supremacists because of their lack of rejection of the American ideals. That *is* critical race theory — that white people are racist no matter what they do. This is a classic example of blood libel. Hence references to “white” science, and the rejection of objective truth.

Shelby Steele, in his book “White Guilt” points out the difference. He notes that Western Civilization in general, and Americanism in particular has often failed in achieving the goals and ideals it has set for itself. It has worked towards those ideals — in fits and starts, and with movement forwards and backwards — but those ideals have remained. This has lead to two primary approaches to dealing with those failures. One approach is to work to make the American system align more closely with the ideals that it claims to espouse. The second is to believe that because it has not yet reached perfection, it is fundamentally flawed. If you take the latter approach, then everything needs to be burned to the ground. Traditional morality, faith, traditional beliefs in truth, all of it must be burned to the ground, and a utopia will arise from the ashes.

This latter approach is that of BLM/Antifa. I oppose it with every breath I take. I oppose it because it believes in a secular morality that does not exist, and because it espouses the classic socialist/communist belief in the perfectibility of man. Neither of these beliefs are true — which is why every time it is tried it ends in mass death.

Second, I do not minimize or reject the concept of white supremacy. Quite the opposite. I have known Klansmen, I have known members of the Aryan Brotherhood. For awhile, in my youth, I was a pagan, and got to know some members of an Odinist group (though I was a Crowleyist at the time, and thus antithetical). I am probably the only person you know who has invoked magick for the damnation of an Odinist in order to obstruct his spiritual battle against a black family (this was before I became a committed Christian, of course). That’s probably nonsensical to you, but was meaningful to me at the time — though I have abjured such practices now.

In fact, my perspective is the opposite of yours. Having known real white supremacists, some of which have openly advocated the death of African-Americans, I am not only very aware, but profoundly frightened of them. I know of at least one who has denounced me as a race traitor. And that’s really the problem I have with this bullshit put out by BLM/Antifa. By calling everybody racist and everybody a white supremacist, they cheapen the term. It’s a little like feminists who call dirty jokes the equivalent of rape. Rape is a real and horrible thing. And those feminists who try to wrap their pet peeves in it don’t really achieve much more than minimizing the meaning of rape. The same thing is true with the BLM/Antifa types who go around calling every body a white supremacist and a fascist. White supremacism and fascism are real and horrible things — I believe they are Satanic — and when they try to use that for their identarian political purposes, it is *they* who diminish it.

Third, it is absolutely untrue that having a Christian approach to race relations means that I don’t see the difference between people. In fact, if you look at the way that Paul and Peter dealt with the problem it was just the opposite. Let me remind you of the controversy in the early Church. Christianity began as a cult within Judaism, and Jewish Christians firmly believed that they should follow the Laws of Moses. In contrast, Paul as the missionary to the Gentiles, taught that this was not necessary. When Paul and Peter met and discussed this, they decided that, in fact, Christianity could handle both approaches. They basically agreed to disagree, with the Israelite Christians following the law, and the Gentile Christians following a different set of rules (following what is called the Noahide Covenant). While they criticized each other, sometimes viciously, their ultimate faith in the Christ meant that they could both maintain their differences and *still* commune as Christians. Similarly, the Apostle Paul notes that different people have different attitudes about different things, but are still brought together in Christ. For instance, in Romans 14, Paul writes:

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

That is my philosophy. It does not deny differences, and it does not minimize them. What is says is that, at least if we want to, we hold things in common that both transcend and allow those differences, and permit us fellowship by recognizing that commonality. Of course I recognize and, in fact, celebrate the differences between people — the world would be very bland without them.

Fourth, I never said “get over it,” with respect to the severe failings of racism in the United States. What I believe is that, if we focus on what brings us together rather than what separates us, we can get *through* it, and we can make it better. But the BLM/Antifa policy of tribalism, balkanism, and identarian cathartic rage is not the solution. And the blood libel of calling all whites racists and white supremacists makes the problem worse, not better.

God bless you, <redacted>. It’s unfortunate that you misrepresented my position on the listserv, but I know that listserv posts are poor means of communication. We would likely find that we had much more in common than we have in opposition. And it is unfortunate that I am not given the opportunity to defend or explain myself publicly. Interestingly, while I can write this to you, the leadership will not allow me to post this. It is clear that the current leadership has been looking for an excuse to do this, so it’s not surprising (and it’s certainly not your fault).

But that being said, I refuse to “take responsibility” for things that I am not responsible for. I refuse to apologize for things I have not done. And, most of all, I kneel only before my Lord Jesus Christ.

billo

Show Less