BLM Will Not Rule, Only Grift

Watching the news reports whether on television or via a nightmare screen, one could assume that the future is a horribly run black administered system of government. The protests and riots combined with purges at different institutions churns stomachs as it makes little sense and seems to come down to melanin levels. If one were to pay attention to the same announcements and other news items, one would see another narrative woven into the daily insanity. These activists and the bloc of the population they represent do not wish to rule but to grift.

New York Times opeds written by blacks explicitly say they will discuss race issues, if you pay them first. Many black run social media accounts add the final tag to paypal and venmo them for more or to pay blacks that readers know personally. When one takes time to read the silly demands for this or that, a clear trend of self-segregation combined with diverted government spending or corporate charity is present. This is why the call for reparations is now and not when Obama was president. This is a post-growth, zero sum mentality. There is no assumption the pie will grow larger, no vision for the future and no idea that things could ever get better. What is present is a backwards looking mentality that merely sees a current inequity and uses old memes and old rationale to collect money.

This odd mentality is based even in the chant black lives matter itself. We matter! It should not come as a surprise that the origins of this are in the 2012-2014 Obama era presidency. Here in the middle of what was a presidency that had black cable news commentators in tears on his election night was the bloc, represented by this partially black figurehead, he represented crying for attention. Why? In 2012 the Trayvon Martin saga was used to spur voter turnout in urban areas, but the idea of LGBT rights and the ascendant Hispanic vote were getting more attention. This voter bloc felt mass insecurity that the financial power of LGBT donors was dislodging blacks as the primary junior partner in the Democrat coalition at the same time that Hispanic numbers in swing states (old and new) were supplanting the voting booth primacy of blacks as the necessary margin. This insecurity can be seen as far back as the 2000 census when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both made noise about head counts when Hispanics finally surpassed blacks in total numbers.

This grift is baked into the cake with how black politicians act. Rep. John Lewis recently died. He was hailed for his Civil Rights work. No one could name a single thing he had done in thirty years in Congress. Lewis himself had always been a puppet. He was a moderate that at age 23 was part of the “Big Six” that Malcolm X correctly identified as bought and paid for by big donor interests in New York. The courage to be beaten, arrested and then freed always came with a backstop of lawyers and donors from up North who would make sure all was right. When he ran for Congress in 1986, Lewis only won because in the primary the more radical black candidate could not crack 50%, forcing a run-off where the white Democrat voters of the district gave moderate, malleable Lewis his slim margin of victory. Lewis was not a courageous leader of his tribe but a designated, dutiful vassal of the system.

There was mockery of Sen. Rubio using a picture of Elijah Cummings to thank Lewis for work they did in Congress together, but in a side by side comparison, this would be a common mistake for many Americans of all stripes. Not just resemblance, but that there is nothing that an American would recognize either man as having done in Congress to merit recognition and differentiation from any nondescript black politician. Cummings, Lewis and Rep. John Conyers all passed away within 9 months of each other, and in their combined 100 years in Congress, can anyone name anything the three men accomplished?

The answer is no. In this answer, the truth of their vassal mentality lies bare. Pork gets sent to their districts but their districts crumble to nothing, resembling the third world, so the question is where does it go? It goes to salaries for the patronage network and nothing tangible to improve the areas they supposedly rule. Money gets the votes, and votes get the money. These networks can extract but have no vision to build or strengthen.

It would not take much for a black politician to build a resume different from every other black politician and catapult him/herself to national prominence. This will never happen though because of that voting blocs spot in the high-low alliance and selection for vassal mentality leadership. Chicago is a perfect example. A tangible, direct improvement for the urban community that could be done for the cost of mandated diversity and inclusion programs would be the replacement of old lead water pipes. Lead leaching has short and long term effects on all humans, especially on developing young brains. This lead leaching is magnified when combined with fluoridated water, increasing damage to brains. This might sound shocking but Chicago required lead service lines until 1986. Slumlords will not replace lead pipes themselves unless forced, and those who own homes will find the $10,000 price tag unaffordable. Does Chicago, Illinois or Congressional leadership push for grants and programs to replace them? Never. For a reference point, two New Jersey counties are engaged in lead pipe replacement for pipes at a cost of $15 million for 50,000 feet of pipe. One could add up the diversity and inclusion initiatives in Chicago, and the total would likely reach $15 million. Any mayor or governor who would attempt this would be trying to solve a real problem but be vilified in the media and political patronage network for disrupting the grift.

This is the point though. This is not rule. This is not about sovereignty. There are no goals, just grifting. Black politicians are all about extracting financial resources and not building up true power or truly aiding their communities. This makes them the perfect vassals within a federal framework. The attitudes here are no different than in Africa post-decolonization. As described by others, black politicians merely thought they could stand under the apple tree and catch the apples when they fell. They did not understand the maintenance and planning that went into harvesting apples. South Africa’s leaders cry about infrastructure maintenance issues while openly stating no maintenance has been done since 1994. Apartheid ended in 1994, so the admission is all those jobs kept cutting paychecks and earning contracts while doing nothing. The danger in South Africa is that they actually have to be in charge. In Chicago and the congressional districts represented by the CBC in America, they just have to be middlemen. Someone else will always take care of things if they get bad enough.

Big business loves the atrocious savings rate and adoption of conspicuous consumption by black Americans. Democrats still need for now those votes in critical swing states. The UN and now increasingly China gladly step in for a slice of the precious minerals and natural resources of the Rainbow Nation. This points to their global usefulness for large, powerful forces. They are malleable and only looking to be bought off, hence they are extremely useful for the highest bidder. Nothing short of massive deportations or national break-up will stop the rise of the Hispanic voter bloc, so do not look at the news as signs of future governance and rule but as nationwide shakedowns for their designated leadership grifter class.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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