Accountability Matters
The media has been busy driving a really big wedge into the issue of cops killing and assaulting citizens illegally. It's the whole BlackLivesMatter vs AllLivesMatter debate. This is a media driven diversion away from the real issue: Accountability Matters. Holding cops accountable for their actions is the real issue here.
It's no coincidence this diversion is powered by BlackLivesMatter, the preferred tool of Hillary Clinton to silence open debate of real issues facing America. Anyone remember when BLM shut down Sanders conventions, but not Hillary's?
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjt56Tdhhqk]
Don't think for one instant that this wasn't at Hillary's bidding. BLM disrupted Bernie Sanders but not Hillary Clinton.
This latest non-frontation is much like the recent pleasant offstage chat Clinton had with Black Lives Matter activists, in that it’s a far cry from the multiple shutdowns that Clinton’s main opponent Bernie Sanders has faced from the groups. In two highly publicized direct actions by Black Lives Matter, Sanders was forced to flee the stage in Seattle and at the Netroots Nation conference.
In contrast to the screaming suppressing of Bernie Sanders, at Cleveland’s supposed disruption, one of the protestors told website Fusion that she made eye contact with Clinton once.
So it's easy to see, once one realizes that BLM is working for the powers that be and not black people nor their issues, that the whole purpose of this BLM vs ALM is to simplly shut down any conversation about the real issue: Police being held accountable for their actions.
Why is it so important for the powers that be to divert the outrage away from cops behaving badly and onto race? Twofold: They will always choose to divide us so as to mute our voices and because the cops are their number one tool of totalitarianism.
THIS is the real problem facing America:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuuvmJ6L_Y]
I got that video simply by typing in cops assault 15 yr old on Google. I had a YUGE choice of videos to pick from.
And THIS is the real problem facing America:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg3GrfR2wiQ]
I got that simply by typing in Cops shoot black man and choosing one of the literally HUNDREDS of videos that popped up.
And THIS is the real problem facing America:
And THIS:
"They are attacking reporters, they are attacking civilians, they are firing upon the media."
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO1SKC6dK7o]
And THIS:
Cop who thinks he's God
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL6L55N5Sxk]
This soldier finally stood up and said it all: "this is the United States of America. Why are you hurting people?"
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btrVX96LIUs]
And as GJohnsit pointed out recently: the numbers don't lie. 62% of blacks killed by whites were killed by cops. But what he didn't point out is that 20% of whites killed by whites were killed by cops. And cops only represent .335% of the population.
.335% of the population were responsible for 29% of the killings in America last year. China's cops, with a population of 1.4 billion people, killed only 12 people in 2014.
But of course, the debate raging across America isn't Accountability Matters, it's the divisive argument of whether BlacLlivesMatter or AllLivesMatter. And while the nation is diverted and divided, the cops continue to not be held accountable. They continue to do this:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8-a5iIQALU]
Because THAT is how the 1% say "We will not be threatened physically or verbally."
The cops are how the 1% control the 99%. The cops are this milleniums jack booted Nazi thugs. The 1% cannot have them being held accountable. So the narrative must be changed. And BLM, the tool of the 1%, is doing just that.

Comments
I'm willing to accept this possibility
Why do I accept this possibility? For the same reason that the Congressional Black Caucus stayed with Hillary as if chained to Her wrist. Despite the clear evicence that Bernie's platform would be good for everyone regardless of race, the CBC clearly has gained some status (maybe even with the Big Bucks Backing HER) and are not about to surrender that for any reason.
Now that I'm identified, I want to address something else this indicates. Thomas Frank points out that the Democratic Party under the Clinton's DLC reached out to the college-educated professionals. Frank doesn't break down this appeal group demographically, but is HAS to include the highly educated Blacks who for a long while staffed many government agencies.
There has long been a stigma about appearing "ghetto" even before the DLC began attracting educated professionals. There is a cultural divide between those who fit this category, and every other person of color. It's like "We did it. Why didn't you?"
Based on how cops are allowed to execute all people of color with rare exceptions, it doesn't take a lot of education to see that the only chance you MIGHT have is to side with those who hold your leash, so to speak. Anyone else outside that arrangement would be treated like mongrels.
So if those benefiting from the Clinton wing of the Clinton wing of the Demopublican Party receive a hint to disrupt Her only real competition, there will be action taken.
The real issue would be to prove this assertion of mine, and I don't see that happening. I'm certainly not as well connected as Seth Rich, and look what happened to him. I will thus leave this within the realm of plausibility and stop there.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Uncle Tom is the term I believe you're describing
It's been a well known phenomenon for quite some time.
Not Necessarily
It was once possible to sell one's self into slavery. The "enslavement" of the educated elites to Her is strictly voluntary.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Not disagreeing, but sources would be better.
I think the .035 percent of US population is Police is correct, but I'm doubting Police killed 29% of Americans. IIRC, the media are reporting about 1000 police deadly shootings, annually now. In 2015, the number of gun deaths is about 33K (Source: Gun Violence Archive). About 20K+ of that are suicides. (And obviously, that's a HUGE issue!!!!) Of the 12 or 13K gun deaths ruled not-suicide, that makes the Police involved shootings around something well over 8%, and that's appalling enough.
Using the numbers provided by gjohnsit
in his Elephant in the Room essay. Those, in turn, were provided by the FBI. And I wasn't talking about shootings, I was talking about killings, not suicides, not wounded by a gun I stuck in my pants, KILLINGS. As per the FBI's database.
The .035% is wrong.
The decimal is misplaced. It should be 0.35%.
Corrected
It was actually supposed to say .335% Thanks for catching that.
Scott,
Thank you for opening my eyes! We are living in a war zone, just not as bad as the Middle East and the Sudan. We are at war, and those without guns are helpless. I refuse to pick up a gun or any weapon, for that matter. I will die for the right to walk down the street, raise my voice, sing my song, write my sign, and hold my neighbor's hand. They will have to just shoot me! I'm a Dr. King nonviolent girl!
I don't know that BLM
is a tool of the establishment, but I do agree that we must boil this down to accountability. Accountability has been on vacation for 36 years, or so, in America. All people must account for their actions, including our illustrious 1%
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
No. BLM is a diverse group. A few BLM members may have been
sent by Hillary to disrupt Bernie, but in general, BLM does not exist to take attention away from the lack of accountability for cops. It arose out of outrage at Trayvon Martin's killing, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/07/11/black-lives-matter-... and continued with Michael Brown's killing. It is still decentralized today. It includes parents of people who have been shot. I don't think they want attention taken away from the issues!!
There isn't a "whole BlackLivesMatter vs AllLivesMatter debate". It's just what racists say. http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/7/07/its-time-you-realize-allliv... And the racists' mouthpiece, Faux, Unfair and Imbalanced.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
"It's just what racists say."
That's a problem right there. Dismissing it as something that only racists say. It isn't. It's something that people genuinely do feel is being said.
I feel that BLM has been a failure. Rather than addressing the actual issue, there is argument and divisiveness, with people accusing BLM as being racist by not protesting and holding marches when anybody who isn't black is shot by police (don't personally know how true that is, I've not heard much of anything for BLM over the past year).
So people genuinely feel their racism. That doesn't make it
any less racist. People who are genuinely concerned about black lives are also concerned about the loss of white lives at the hands of thug cops. See Shaun King, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-white-teen-shot-cops-famil... and Charles Pierce, http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a46514/police-shootin...
I still maintain that anyone with half a brain or half a heart understands the implied "too," and claiming otherwise is being willfully obtuse.
BLM actually protested the shooting of the Dallas cops, who were shot at a peaceful BLM protest. http://fortune.com/2016/07/08/black-lives-matter-speaks-out-against-dall...
If you haven't heard much about BLM for a year, you haven't been paying attention. https://www.google.com/#q=blm+protests+2016
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
You'd be wrong
"I still maintain that anyone with half a brain or half a heart understands the implied "too,"
How many times is it pointed out that there are low information voters, and that they are unfortunately more numerous than informed voters? If there are that many people of low information when it comes to politics, why wouldn't there be equivalent numbers of low information individuals when it comes to other subjects?
My problem with that "implied 'too" remark is that if it was meant to be implied, it should have been in the name from day one, not brought up as a reaction to people complaining about the name of the group. In fact, if there had been any foresight, the name would have changed the moment somebody complained that the name seemed divisive.
As it is, the name has been divisive. People who don't hold any racist views at all actually view BLM as a racist movement, and it's thanks almost entirely because of the name. As I said, it's not just racists who say "All lives matter." Is Jennifer Lopez a racist now? Or was she just "misinformed?" The reality is that there is a conflict/debate about "blacklivesmatter vs alllivesmatter," and it's thanks to BLM having a name that comes across as divisive, especially to anybody who doesn't get any news from the internet at all.
I wish BLM had the foresight to recognize that their name would be divisive, allowing the movement to accomplish very little, while sparking more violent rhetoric among police, racists, and even their own supporters. I wish that they had preemptively taken the name "all lives matter," to prevent it from becoming a distracting counter-call. Or even better, they could have named the group "our lives matter," inviting a question of what they mean by "our lives," which could be responded to with facts and statistics about how bad policing in the US is towards people in poverty, with mental illnesses, and differing ethnicity. But it's too late for all of that now. BLM can't change the past, and it will never succeed at moving past the "racist black people" stereotype that the MSM organizations successfully narrated.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one,
but I'll try one last time. I don't think it requires being a high-information, aware person to understand what is implied. From http://fusion.net/story/170591/the-next-time-someone-says-all-lives-matt...
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
If you want to dismiss
everybody who says "all lives matter" as just racists, fine. I tried to inform you otherwise, and it looks like you're choosing to ignore it. Just don't forget that a large portion of the US population gets their news solely from MSM sources, who haven't been painting BLM in that positive a light.
I know for a fact that people who say "all lives matter" aren't dismissing black people being shot by police. A lot of them feel that BLM is focused solely on black lives, as a result of their name, and want to fix the whole problem that they feel BLM is ignoring.
I know for a fact SOME who say "All lives matter" ARE racists
I'm related to them. They are horribly offended by Black Lives Matter. As if it's trying to make the point that ONLY Black Lives Matter, instead of trying to shine a light on a specific problem.
Whether police have killed more white people doesn't matter. The percentage of unarmed black people killed by police is higher based on their much smaller number in the overall population. 50% of people killed by police were white. 50% were POC. But in America 62% of the population is White. Only 12% are black, but 25% of those killed by police were black.
Do I think a general push against Police Brutality in general should accompany BLM? Sure. But BLM is making a specific point that their lives do not receive the same kind of attention that white lives do, and that they are killed in larger numbers PER POPULATION than whites are.
Pay attention the next time a white girl goes missing/is murdered. MSM will be covering it for weeks at a time, sometimes months. When's the last time you saw a multiple month news story about a missing/murdered black girl?
I try to explain it to people as analogous to "Animal Rights" - people who fight for animal rights aren't saying humans shouldn't also have rights. They are saying animals specifically have less rights and there's a specific issue there that needs to be addressed. I don't get why people find BLM so threatening.
I don't get why people find
That's probably why (a) you don't have a problem with it, and (b) you don't have a problem condemning those who do.
Revealing your ignorance in this matter is the honest thing to do, but it doesn't form the basis for an argument.
I'm not ignoring you, I do take your comments under
consideration even when I disagree with you. I just don't see how anyone can miss the implied "too," or the fact that blacks have rarely had a seat at the table and their "meals" have been meager (is there anyone unaware of the history of slavery and the civil rights movement?), or the fact that if they had wanted to be divisive they would have called it "Only Black Lives Matter". My parents get all their news from the MSM, they still see it. They think it's terrible and tragic how the police are treating people - especially (but not exclusively) black people.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
People miss the "too"
Because it isn't there. Implied or not, the title reads "Black lives matter," not "black lives matter too." People are more often literal (and frankly stupid. Hillary and Trump for president?) than they are not.
It certainly doesn't help that, when I watched interviews with BLM members on MSM sources when they initially arose, it came across to me that they were focused solely on black lives, not all lives, taken by police. I don't recall seeing talk of other ethnicity or this being a class issue until after criticism and the "all lives matter" response came about. If the movement had been about all lives from the beginning, they failed to deliver that message then and there.
And since then, MSM definitely wouldn't have been on their side. How many times has national coverage been given to BLM protesting the death of anybody who wasn't black killed by cops? How many protests against black people killed by cops gets national coverage (and how often is it positive)?
Yes, all lives matter IS meaningless and dismissive, elena
I agree. It covers up the issue while pretending to address the issue.
Although I find it more than obvious that BLM implies "too" and I personally think those that refuse to see that are reacting to race, consciously or unconsciously - I do kind of wish they were BLMT (Black Lives Matter, Too) just to shut up all the ridiculous criticism.
If they changed to Black Lives Matter, Too then some people would have to come out and say what they REALLY mean when criticizing the movement.
Edited: I want to be clear that I am not trying to imply that T-E (sorry, can't remember spelling of full user name) is racist or would come out and say what they really mean of it was BLMT. I don't think that. I'm talking about people like my aunt and parents who pretend they are offended because BLM ONLY cares about black people, when the truth is, they are just racists - and will even outright admit it after a few drinks.
Don't know if you changed anything
but everything before the last paragraph doesn't come across to me as implying racism on my part.
I do want to make it clear, if I have failed to do so, that I support the goal of BLM(T), I just feel that they have failed get meaningful change, and will likely continue to fail, and it stems from their name having a divisive (even if unintentional) meaning when read as is, prompting people to argue about the motives instead of paying attention to any goals, and their failure to address that fact effectively.
Edit: Also not arguing against the fact that some (possibly the majority) of "ALM" defenders/reactors are racist.
Edit
Meant to be a reply.