Growing up, my mom played many classic radio shows from the Golden Age of Hollywood, and but the one with the main character I loved the most was “I Was a Communist for the FBI,” starring Dana Andrews and based on the real-life experiences of Matt Cvetic. Cvetic was a Slovenian-American who managed to infiltrate the Communist spy rings in America in the 1950s on behalf of the United States FBI. Partly I enjoyed the show simply because I like (late) actor Dana Andrews and partly I enjoyed the show because I admire Cvetic. Here was a man who knew that, no matter the difficulties in America caused by imperfect human beings, life in America was better than anywhere else in the world. And when Russian Communist spies began working to undermine and ultimately destroy America, Cvetic didn’t indulge in vague, groundless hopes about their ineffectiveness or comfortable prognostications about the inevitable rosiness of the future—he risked his life, and his family and friends’ understanding and respect, to fight the evil at its heart, because he knew that same evil was threatening America’s very existence.
I mention this radio show because there is another organization possessing immense power and garnering substantial checks right now which is just as thoroughly Communist as those 1950s spy rings, and far less subtle. Yet, their lack of subtlety does not seem to prevent people from being blinded as to their aims. Conservatives and Liberals alike, desperate to escape the charge of racism, have loudly proclaimed their support for it and endorsed the organization’s premise even if they don’t endorse all of its actions. The organization I mean, of course, is Black Lives Matter (BLM). In this article, I propose to examine BLM’s mission and its founders, thereby uncovering the fact that it is Marxist at its very heart. In my next article, I will examine evidence which I have been accumulating for the last several months about funding BLM received from major Marxists, including the Chinese Communist government itself.
A look at the Black Lives Matter website reveals some concerning passages. In its mission statement designed to recruit more “comrades” (very Soviet, huh?) one finds that BLM believes it is representing people with any “gender identity, gender expression. . .(or) immigration status.” They want to “dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women. . .We build a space that. . .is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments where men are centered.” Even worse, they add, “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as. . .‘villages’. . .We foster a queer-affirming network. . .freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking.” This desire to upend traditional morality and invert any and all religious and societal standards is very Marxian—that’s exactly what Marx strongly advised his followers to do in the Communist Manifesto. (Editor’s note: BLM has since changed their ‘mission statement’, omitting their desire to dismantle the nuclear family.)
Interviews of the founders reveal even more disturbing goals. “We are trained Marxists,” said Patrisse Cullors frankly of herself and fellow BLM co-founder Alicia Garza in a 2015 video interview. Alicia Garza is quoted making similarly questionable statements, such as, “Policing in and of itself is problematic,” and “This country was created from stolen land and stolen labor.” This same Alicia Garza admits that she grew up in a “wealthy suburb of San Francisco” and that she attended a mostly white school—she doesn’t seem to have suffered markedly from America’s supposedly systematic racism in her childhood. Yet, having grown up enjoying the fruits of capitalism, Garza called for aggressive opposition to capitalism at a 2016 conference for George Soros’ Institute for New Economic Thinking. She classed being “capitalist” with being “racist” and “fascist” and accused President Trump of standing for these values, urging opposition to Trump and these “wrongs” that he stands for.
Now, this does not sound to me as if Black Lives Matter has any solid, practical solutions to the problems they say they are facing. Even if you accept the preposterous premise that black Americans are perpetually suffering systemic racial oppression today, especially from the police, not a single one of these sentences or “inspirational” calls has any solution. They ramble about fighting for justice, but they don’t say what justice means. They state that they want respect for “all people” but they have been endlessly organizing riots which are destroying the businesses and homes and taking the lives of uninvolved and innocent people (not to mention their vicious and even murderous anti-white statements). They throw a bunch of made-up words into sentences which sound vaguely kind without meaning anything. They equate actual goods with actual wrongs, such as linking capitalism with racism, thus creating a false dichotomy. They are revolting from what they think the current system is—without proposing a rational, practical system for the future.
They want to revolt, pure and simple, with no definite object for that action. If the founders are trained Marxists, after all, it would make sense that their aim is simply to destroy society as we know it—and they would likely agree with that other famous Communist, Joseph Stalin, who said that “You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.” You can’t achieve a Marxist Utopia without a lot of burning, killing, and looting. The old society literally has to go up in flames before Marxism can really begin building a new society. These BLM Marxists, as GK Chesterton once said, “have tried to turn ‘revolutionise’ from a transitive to an intransitive verb. . .(they have) no loyalty; therefore (they) can never be really revolutionist(s).” They have imposed a fantasy on the past and proposed no implementable reality for the future. The only actual actions they seem to be advocating are the defunding of the police (something not supported by the majority of black Americans), the overhaul or even eradication of the US justice system (same comment), the destruction of the nuclear family (which frankly happened a long time ago in the black community, which caused countless problems—see PragerU’s video “Black Fathers Matter” by Larry Elder), and the prevention of heterosexual men from attaining any significant role in their movement.
Thomas Paine, even during the American Revolution, recognized that “We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England.” Paine then said that only one person and one thing could rightly be called the “king” of America: God is the Person Who is king, while law is the thing that is king. Unless a revolution has a goal of really restoring just lawfulness, it is going to lead to mere anarchy—and then, inevitably, to enslavement. Mere chaos is the definition of a “revolt” (as opposed to a revolution). BLM’s revolt just now is anarchic and will therefore inevitably, at some point (if it is not stayed), lead to slavery. But what sort of slavery? If Marxism is the structuring ideology, if Western civilization and Western values are destroyed, who will rule, and what ideological system will eventually be implemented?
BLM uses rhetoric which is so explicitly and blatantly Marxian, as I pointed out above, that it is astonishing how few people are taking them at their word—or realizing the implications of such rhetoric. This has all the fingerprints of Marxism, and of Marxists who are deliberately trying to tear America apart. In 1969, G. Edward Griffin said in an interview that “As early as 1928, the Communists declare(d) that the racial differences among our people constituted the weakest and most vulnerable point in our social fabric. By constantly probing and straining at this one spot, they calculated that eventually the cloth could be torn apart and that Americans could be divided, weakened, and perhaps even set against each other in open combat.” This plan is on an international scale and has been going on for a century. Hence, BLM, only one recent part of it, must have leaders behind the “leaders,” people pulling the ideological strings and funding the movement to keep it in being long enough to do its destructive work. They need money and powerful backing to tear apart America once and for all. So I, like Matt Cvetic, propose in part II of this article series to do the wildly unpopular and politically/socially dangerous action by going in and finding out who funds BLM—and what that tells us about the organization itself and the world it wants to create.
