Sunday 19 July 2020

BLM protests were anything but peaceful but were useful to the establishment

Stop pretending the BLM protests were peaceful'. Micheal Tracy points out in UnHerd that the BLM protests were very far from peaceful. The word riots is appropriate but the media do not use it because they side with what they call the protests. 

The same thing happened in London. The BBC tweeted
27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London

The police made no attend to stop or to arrest the rioters who toppled a statue and threw it into Bristol harbour. People who went up to London to protect the Cenotaph and statues of imperial heroes were treated like scum by the conservative Daily Mail. 

A retired policeman who was knocked to the ground and, the Mail said, could have been killed by BLM rioters was described by the paper as a thug, though no evidence of this was offered. 

He would be ill advised to sue as the jury, if  a jury were allowed to decide the case, or the judge would probably side with the establishment, media view. 

Another man who wanted to protect statues but had too much to drink and urinated on the wall of the Houses of Parliament was sentenced to two weeks in clink, with an impertinent sermon from a woman with the title of Chief Magistrate, a New Labour invention. This despite the Mayor having closed all the WCs in the area. Did she never need to empty her bladder?

This is a rebellion which does not really threaten the forces that rule in the USA or the British Isles, clearly, or the authorities and big business would not back it. It does help to keep in their place the people the establishment most fears, who are not terrorists or illegal immigrants or left-wing extremists, but the white working class. 

This is especially true in the USA, where the establishment desperately fears the re-election of the President, and especially true of the British Labour Party and the Democrats in the US, even though they are supposed to exist to represent the interests of the working class.

Micheal Tracy says 

black Americans whom I’ve spoken to on the street across America in randomly-selected encounters were almost unanimous in their approval of the National Guard deployments to their neighborhood during the riots. If anything, their main criticism was that these deployments came too late to prevent the destruction.

This certainly makes the emotional meltdown of coddled 20 and 30-something journalists, who seriously claimed that they were “endangered” by a U.S. Senator’s NYT column advocating for a military presence to maintain order in cities, look especially disconnected and bizarre. So one could understand why the media would be reluctant to feature the “voices” of minorities who take an alternate view.

There’s also the barely-hidden fear that properly depicting the after-effects of these riots would somehow “help Trump” during an election year

However badly you think of Mr Trump the way the press distorts the truth and lies to hurt him is an outrage.

The same press makes no attempt to investigate whether it is really true that the numbers of deaths with or from the virus in New York City is really over ten times more than in Wuhan, despite the population of Wuhan being almost one and a half times as big. Or to investigate whether lockdowns did any good at all. Or to discuss the fact that half the murders in the USA are committed by black people who make up 14% of the population. Or to discuss the reasons this might be the case.

Michael Tracy concludes:

In Chicago, at the peak of the riots during the last weekend in May, there were a record-breaking 18 homicides in a single 24-hour period — the most since such data started being collected in 1961. I mention this not to make a knee-jerk “what about black-on-black crime” point, but simply to ask in general terms: why wasn’t this historic occurrence featured more prominently in the coverage of these protests?

Something extreme just happened in America. I could give dozens of additional examples of reportorial tidbits which don’t align with the prevailing media narrative that has flourished in the wake of this “movement”. And if you hadn’t seen it directly, would you ever know?


  1. Everyone in America knows about black on black crime. It is discussed in the black community, in academic circles, in the media generally (contrary to any allegation of a coverup), and with lip-smacking glee on Fox News. It may be news to an Englishman in Romania, but black on black crime gets a fair amount of coverage. We’ve been living with it for decades so it’s no longer news.

    BLM has snowballed into a lot of different things, many of which I do not agree with and make me uneasy. But black people are right to demand just treatment from law enforcement and prompt investigation when law enforcement kills or wantonly mistreats them.

    1. I read the American press and I don't see much about black on black crime. I see no discussion of whether it was a product of the 1960s social changes or whether it was a problem from the early 19th century, and in either case what the reasons for it are. I am very opposed indeed to policemen killing people except in self defence, and American police do kill often, but I do not buy the idea that black Americans are disproportionately their victims or that these killings are often racist, bearing in mind the number of black criminals there are. We do not know why Floyd died - it is sub judice and Americans shouldn't comment on it.

      I can though. I wonder if he died of a drug overdose. The report of the coroner's report that I saw suggested he did not die because of violence.

  2. I think you are right, the sad behaviour of the news media is best explained by its warriors wanting to turn the events against Trump.

    The Mail abandoned conservatism a long time ago.

    1. I regret the passing of Paul Dacre, but even he was 'permitted opposition' and was pretty PC.

    2. The BBC is of course not as overtly committed to Biden as the NYT, but not such a long way off.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. The BBC is of course not as overtly committed to Biden as the NYT, but not such a long way off.

  4. White priests of antiracism like Robin DiAngelo seem universally to be more awkward and clueless around minorities than your average Trump-supporting construction worker. Matt Taibbi