Black Lives Matter

What's the problem with dismantling capitalism?

Who would pay our pension ?

@gloswhite wrote:Who would pay our pension ?

Money would grow on trees. (On a collective farm of course).

Boggers wrote:
Apparently saying white lives matter is racist. Go ahead and explain that one

Here's a reasonable explanation from Tony Livesey of all people.

Decent analogies too.

Incidentally, the Burnley EFL dickhead who paid for the plane banner has been sacked from his job as has his girlfriend who was bragging about it on social media.

Sort of related to what I posted a few minutes earlier but this time with an American take.

I do though think the lady delivered a great put down at the end!

I've not heard this chap before, and to be honest, I thought he was very good. I also feel it would be good to hear what he thinks of the situation now the BLM movement has been hijacked and is now a political party.

@boltonbonce wrote:What's the problem with dismantling capitalism?

It will inevitably dismantle itself as it is entirely dependent on continuous and never-ending growth which is unachievable as the planet has limited resources and out of control population growth. 

Perhaps the space programme will eventually be able to save the billionaires, but the rest of the species is heading for disaster whilst capitalism continues to dominate.

It's a shark that has to keep swimming to breathe but the pond is drying up - and one day it will. 

The only thing that will save us is the dismantling of nations to clear the way for a new system that ensures the human race acts collectively to avert disaster - and that will have to include measures such as universal birth control/population management which won't go down well in some cultures.

In my opinion.

Very true. Overpopulation might be the noose that hangs us all.

@Sluffy wrote:Sort of related to what I posted a few minutes earlier but this time with an American take.

I do though think the lady delivered a great put down at the end!

She said yesterday that Trump was 'the most informed person on the planet'.

@boltonbonce wrote:
She said yesterday that Trump was 'the most informed person on the planet'.

He might be though!

She doesn't actually say he understands one iota of what he's been informed of though does it - so she isn't exactly saying a mistruth!

I've only seen this lady on these two clips but she seems to be very good at her job and once again she delivers a great put down at the end!

Never mind the politics, she's cute.

It's a right wing tactic to try and class BLM as an organisation, so they can tie a minorities actions to the entire group. It's not it's a movement, it's a movement demanding equality - that is all.

Winds me up when dickheads impose their agenda on worthy causes.

The message is simple and shouldn't be diluted.

She said Trump had never lied to the American people.

@boltonbonce wrote:She said Trump had never lied to the American people.

I've not seen that one but if you believe you are telling the truth and you are wrong factually is that telling a lie?

(but he probably was!!!)

@Sluffy wrote:

He might be though!

She doesn't actually say he understands one iota of what he's been informed of though does it - so she isn't exactly saying a mistruth!

I've only seen this lady on these two clips but she seems to be very good at her job and once again she delivers a great put down at the end!

TROY is right.Here is a statement from the real BLM campaign about what Trump's press officer said

@T.R.O.Y. wrote:It's a right wing tactic to try and class BLM as an organisation, so they can tie a minorities actions to the entire group. It's not it's a movement, it's a movement demanding equality - that is all.

Tbh I think it runs a lot deeper than that.

Fwiw I've just looked at their twitter account and they've been 'verified' or whatever that blue tick means and been tweeting since July 2016.

They have 73,700 followers too!

https://twitter.com/ukblm

On their write up about themselves they put a link to 'go fund me' and this is how they describe themselves -

"Black Lives Matter UK (BLMUK) is a coalition of black activists and organisers across the UK. We’ve been organising since 2016 for justice in our communities.

We’re guided by a commitment to dismantle imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately harm black people in Britain and around the world. We build deep relationships across the diaspora and strategise to challenge the rise of the authoritarian right-wing across the world, from Brazil to Britain.

We’re developing new and exciting ways of organising that centre transparency, accountability, safety and healing for our organisers and our communities. BLMUK organises in the black radical tradition, using political education, direct action and political leadership toward black liberation.

Our commitment to all black lives means that we lift up the experiences of the most marginalised in our communities, including but not limited to working class queer, trans, undocumented, disabled, Muslim, sex workers, women/non-binary, HIV+ people.

more here -

https://www.gofundme.com/f/ukblm-fund

[Just for my own enlightenment is the word 'queer' as the use above an acceptable term to use these days or is it now considered homophobic?].

They started their appeal on the 2nd June and have raised to date just short of £1.1m.

So they've been established as a group for at least four years, have a following on twitter of over 75,000 people and raised over a million pounds in just over a month to, in their own words to fund 'activists' to take 'direct action' to 'dismantle' our country's economic system which is of course based on 'capitalism'.

Hardly the actions of a minority group as you seem to be trying to paint them.

I wonder how many of those who contributed to the crowd funding for the right intentions realise who they've contributed their money too and what they say it will be used for?

@wanderlust wrote:
TROY is right.Here is a statement from the real BLM campaign about what Trump's press officer said

Interesting thank you.

I post below what the link says -

Today, Donald Trump attributed a quote to a “Black Lives Matter leader” on his social media. We have traced these comments to Hawk Newsome. Hawk Newsome has no relation to the Black Lives Matter Global Network (“BLM”) founded by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi — and is not the “president” of BLM or any of its chapters. Only BLM chapters who adhere to BLM’s principles and code of ethics are permitted to use the BLM name. The reason for this is simple: unaffiliated uses of BLM’s name are confusing to people who may wrongly associate the unsanctioned group and its views and actions with BLM. As BLM has told Mr. Newsome in the past, and as is still true today, Mr. Newsome’s group is not a chapter of BLM and has not entered into any agreement with BLM agreeing to adhere to BLM’s core principles. The only official chapter of BLM in New York is Black Lives Matter NYC.

BLM Global Network strongly encourages anyone interested in learning about or becoming a part of our movement to seek information from trusted, official sources — such as our BLM Global Network social feeds (@blklivesmatter), our emails, and our official Black Lives Matters website (blacklivesmatter.com) — rather than unknown or untrusted sources using BLM’s name.


Taken that is an official statement I'd like to highlight this line in particular -

"...to the Black Lives Matter Global Network (“BLM”) founded by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi".

And refer you to what the BLMuk states on their twitter bio -

https://twitter.com/ukblm

Official page for #BlackLivesMatterUK A coalition of people from across the UK who believe deeply that #blacklivesmatter. Endorsed by
@osopepatrisse
IG: @ BLMUK

The site is specifying that it is official in that it has been endorsed by Patrisse Cullors herself -

https://twitter.com/osopepatrisse

So if BLMuk is deemed official, then it therefore follows that what it tweets must also be official BLM views too.

Although the site claiming it is endorsed and actually being endorsed are two different things aren't they?

Also possible it was endorsed and was then taken over by nutters or that it's gone bad and Patrisse is too busy to monitor every chapter in the world.

Loads of possible interpretations as to what might be the case so it would be pretty stupid to claim that BLMUK's output is representative of BLM Global without getting to the bottom of it. You don't - you merely imply it but there are nutters who do.

@wanderlust wrote:Although the site claiming it is endorsed and actually being endorsed are two different things aren't they?

Also possible it was endorsed and was then taken over by nutters or that it's gone bad and Patrisse is too busy to monitor every chapter in the world.

Loads of possible interpretations as to what might be the case so it would be pretty stupid to claim that BLMUK's output is representative of BLM Global without getting to the bottom of it. You don't - you merely imply it but there are nutters who do.

Well their Twitter account is who they say they are because Twitter has verified it and put their 'blue badge' against it.

https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/about-twitter-verified-accounts#:~:text=The%20blue%20verified%20badge%20on,of%20public%20interest%20is%20authentic.&text=Verified%20badges%20must%20be%20applied,subject%20to%20permanent%20account%20suspension.

So Twitter believe they are the real deal.

Similarly they are linked to a 'go fund me' site that has raised £1.1m in just over a month.

Go Fund Me have verified their fundraising appeal by researching them

https://www.gofundme.com/c/safety/fraudulent-campaigns

So Go Fund Me fully believe they are genuine (and established that as recently as the last last few weeks!).

I would also imagine that groups comprising of self declared 'activists' who have been established in the public domain for the last four or five years such as BLMuk have been monitored by the security service for some time - especially if they can raise over a million in a matter of weeks, so I've no doubts they are whom they say they are - and have no reason to lie about anything.

Therefore if they are good enough for Twitter to confirm their authenticity, for Go Fund Me to allow them to raise a million pounds without being 100% certain they are who they claim, then I'm pretty confident in saying they ARE part of the 'official' BLM movement and as such their tweets represent their official views.

And if non of that is good enough for you then surely the clincher would be that if they are NOT the official site then don't you think the actual 'real' official site would have been disassociating themselves with their publicised views and the raising over £1m by false representation! They'd want that money themselves and not allow some chancers to make a million off their name and do nothing about it!

I've no idea what you were trying to say in your last couple of sentences in your post above but if it was intended as some sort of abuse towards me, then you've learned absolutely nothing and your time on here will inevitably be short lived.

@Sluffy wrote:

I've no idea what you were trying to say in your last couple of sentences in your post above but if it was intended as some sort of abuse towards me, then you've learned absolutely nothing and your time on here will inevitably be short lived.

No abuse intended Sluffy. The last sentence was a clumsy attempt to clarify that I wasn't having a dig at you in the preceding sentence - clearly didn't go well. Apologies if I offended you in any way.

@Sluffy wrote:

Interesting thank you.

I post below what the link says -

Today, Donald Trump attributed a quote to a “Black Lives Matter leader” on his social media. We have traced these comments to Hawk Newsome. Hawk Newsome has no relation to the Black Lives Matter Global Network (“BLM”) founded by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi — and is not the “president” of BLM or any of its chapters. Only BLM chapters who adhere to BLM’s principles and code of ethics are permitted to use the BLM name. The reason for this is simple: unaffiliated uses of BLM’s name are confusing to people who may wrongly associate the unsanctioned group and its views and actions with BLM. As BLM has told Mr. Newsome in the past, and as is still true today, Mr. Newsome’s group is not a chapter of BLM and has not entered into any agreement with BLM agreeing to adhere to BLM’s core principles. The only official chapter of BLM in New York is Black Lives Matter NYC.

BLM Global Network strongly encourages anyone interested in learning about or becoming a part of our movement to seek information from trusted, official sources — such as our BLM Global Network social feeds (@blklivesmatter), our emails, and our official Black Lives Matters website (blacklivesmatter.com) — rather than unknown or untrusted sources using BLM’s name.


Taken that is an official statement I'd like to highlight this line in particular -

"...to the Black Lives Matter Global Network (“BLM”) founded by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi".

And refer you to what the BLMuk states on their twitter bio -

https://twitter.com/ukblm

Official page for #BlackLivesMatterUK A coalition of people from across the UK who believe deeply that #blacklivesmatter. Endorsed by
@osopepatrisse
IG: @ BLMUK

The site is specifying that it is official in that it has been endorsed by Patrisse Cullors herself -

https://twitter.com/osopepatrisse

So if BLMuk is deemed official, then it therefore follows that what it tweets must also be official BLM views too.

BLMuk was tweeting anti-Semitic remarks last week. Does that mean they speak for the movement? No. As you correctly point out they have a measly 73k followers on twitter this movement is supported by millions. To put it into your terms - does the Official Supporters Trust speak for you? 

It’s a right wing tactic to discredit the entire movement, by parroting it you legitimise it.

@wanderlust wrote:

@Sluffy wrote:

I've no idea what you were trying to say in your last couple of sentences in your post above but if it was intended as some sort of abuse towards me, then you've learned absolutely nothing and your time on here will inevitably be short lived.

No abuse intended Sluffy. The last sentence was a clumsy attempt to clarify that I wasn't having a dig at you in the preceding sentence - clearly didn't go well. Apologies if I offended you in any way.

Ok, that's fine,

No offence taken.

@T.R.O.Y. wrote:BLMuk was tweeting anti-Semitic remarks last week. Does that mean they speak for the movement? No. As you correctly point out they have a measly 73k followers on twitter this movement is supported by millions. To put it into your terms - does the Official Supporters Trust speak for you? 

It’s a right wing tactic to discredit the entire movement, by parroting it you legitimise it.

There you go again.

They might only have 73,000 followers on Twitter but they've also now got £1.1m in the bank!

As for your analogy with the ST - that's flawed too, if I may say so because although they don't speak for me there are clearly even now, many people who believe they speak for them.  Indeed it may look puny in comparison but they raised £20k in donations for their 'fighting fund' despite by that time many people realising that by then they were neither use nor ornament!

Fair play to them for getting £20k - although iirc they only spent something like £6k on the fighting fund and put the other £13k or so into the ST bank account to stave off showing a trading loss for the year! - very dodgy in my humble opinion.

Right wing tactic or not, it IS pretty obvious that they ARE the official BLM 'Chapter' for the UK and they HAVE made anti-Semitic tweets and have not apologised, taken them down or deleted them!

I'm well aware of the difference between the overwhelming public desire (mine too fwiw) and the political/activist/extremist/revolutionary/call it what you will, organisation officially sanctioned by the BLM founder/s that represent the movement but they are not compatible with each other.  

I sincerely doubt many protesting for black equality would truly wish for prejudice to be shown to any other group ever again, and in this case towards those of the Jewish faith.

I would have thought you more than anybody being a supporter of leftist Labour Party thinking, would have known that core antisemitism within the leadership under Corbyn was not representative of the Labour Party rank and file membership and ultimately became highly toxic to your political party and tainting everything else you were trying to achieve.

It isn't a right wing tactic to discredit the whole movement it is simply (as you like to say) the media and others 'scrutinising' the statements and actions of what the official BLM Chapter for this country is actually propagating and 'holding them to account' for it.

Radical activism/threats of direct action/anti-Semitism  from whatever extreme of group, party or chapter is not acceptable, particularly when it directly taints such a worthwhile cause.

Like it or not BLMuk as the OFFICIAL body in this country DO speak for BLM and are perceived as such.

You may also want to read this quite lengthy article on BLMuk posted in The Mail a couple of weeks back, before the anti-Semitic tweets.

Interestingly it makes the same point I did in that many people contributing in good faith to the Go Fund Me page will have no idea what there money is going to, nor even who the people actually are who will be receiving the money and spending it!

The BLM executive in the USA need to rescind their backing of the chapter immediately I would suggest and take back control of their UK arm of BLM because the clowns who they have backed up to now are doing their cause no good at all.

(So a bit like the ST after all!!!).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8441405/The-avowed-aims-British-arm-Black-Lives-Matter.html

I’m no supporter of the ‘official’ group, not many are.

What I’m saying is that focussing on what this self appointed ‘official’ group want distracts from the purpose of the movement to achieve equality - and we shouldn’t pander to it.

For example, you have spent more time arguing against the movement than actually addressing or considering it’s core concerns - and that is the same for the right wing. Which is a shame because it’s a real and important issue which needs focus to progress.

Rather than talking about equality the conversation has been allowed to be tainted. It’s a wasted opportunity.

@T.R.O.Y. wrote:I’m no supporter of the ‘official’ group, not many are.

What I’m saying is that focussing on what this self appointed ‘official’ group want distracts from the purpose of the movement to achieve equality - and we shouldn’t pander to it.

For example, you have spent more time arguing against the movement than actually addressing or considering it’s core concerns - and that is the same for the right wing. Which is a shame because it’s a real and important issue which needs focus to progress.

Rather than talking about equality the conversation has been allowed to be tainted. It’s a wasted opportunity.

I don't disagree but at the end of the day if you've organised and recognised as such and validated by the people who started this whole movement in the first place, then that's the place where people focus on.

And to compound that issue they now of £1m of funding to put to causes 'they' believe in - ie stop funding the police, closing prisons, the end of capitalism and anti Jewish causes.

Your initial jab at me with the ST analogy is actually looking more relevant by the day in that when there is an issue at the BWFC who do the the media and authorities turn to to hear the opinions and desire of the fan base but non other than them!  

They have meetings with the EFL, every statement they make is repeated in the local press, Bridge, Allanson, Tetlow, etc, have regularly been interviewed by the TV and radio, they hold public meetings, they have their own social media platforms, etc, etc, etc - but as we all know - they don't represent the huge proportion of our fans - and I maintain they are in it for their own agenda (namely to take ownership of the club itself - in the guise of doing it for the fans).

Imagine what voice they would have if they raised £1m for their cause rather than just £20k?

As long as BLMuk remains the OFFICIAL chapter of the movement it's words and actions will be seen to be those views held by the movement - in just the same way as when the ST is interviewed by the media when something has gone wrong at the club again.

The solution to all this is simple.

It's not ignore the right wings attempt 'taint' (is that the right word?) the BLM movement but just for the executive of the BLM in America to simply officially state they are not representative of them in just the same way as they did with the New York chapter that led to Trump criticising them.

The longer they delay, the longer people will believe that it is indeed the (hidden) agenda of the movement.

The executive must be fully aware by now that one of its chapters has raised £1m and have made antizionist remarks etc, in the UK, their continued silence and inaction can only be seen to be accepting this position to be one they are happy with.

Lets put it bluntly if a group purporting to represent a right wing movement were to be saying something like kick the blacks out of ... (insert whatever country you like) and be high profile in the media for saying this, then BLM would be all over this would they not?

Why then when the boot is on the other foot that we are hearing nothing from them condemning such a view from its own chapter / or that the chapter is not affiliated to them?

They did in the NY case.

Sluffy, there's a difference between being critical of Israeli policies, and being 'anti Jewish', which I think you need to acknowledge.

Fair comment at the end Sluffy, it has gone very quiet from the BLM, even though there are still a few genuine souls attempting to keep the topic in the public eye.

@boltonbonce wrote:Sluffy, there's a difference between being critical of Israeli policies, and being 'anti Jewish', which I think you need to acknowledge.

Exactly....