Black Lives Matter is a Complete Fraud

This letter is of such importance I decided to cut and paste it into my blog in quotes. I did not write it, but I find it so compelling that it needs the widest distribution possible. Feel free to share it all over our country with as many people as you possible can, it is that important.

“An anonymous history professor at U.C. Berkeley has penned an open letter against the current narratives of racial injustice underpinning the BLM movement and ongoing protests over the death of George Floyd. Its authenticity was confirmed by Kentucky State University Assistant Professor of Political Science, Wilfred Reilley, who says he was sent a copy of the letter along with Stanford University economist Thomas Sowell.
I can confirm that the letter in the thread below was sent to me and Tom Sowell. It’s really worth reading, in a time of widespread panic. https://t.co/bknCdO39c3

— Wilfred Reilly (@wil_da_beast630) June 12, 2020
Reprinted in its entirety below (emphasis ours) via @tracybeanz:
* * *
UC Berkeley History Professor’s Open Letter Against BLM, Police Brutality and Cultural Orthodoxy

Dear profs X, Y, Z

I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely, and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job, and likely all future jobs in my field.
In your recent departmental emails, you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.

In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system. The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions.

Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or ‘Uncle Toms’. They are intelligent scholars who reject a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders. Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques.

The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians. Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence. This hypothesis is transforming our institution and our culture, without any space for dissent outside of a tightly policed, narrow discourse.

A counternarrative exists. If you have time, please consider examining some of the documents I attach at the end of this email. Overwhelmingly, the reasoning provided by BLM and allies is either primarily anecdotal (as in the case with the bulk of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ undeniably moving article) or it is transparently motivated. As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black.

Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict. This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries.
And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation that appeals to the department’s apparent desire to shoulder the ‘white man’s burden’ and to promote a narrative of white guilt.

If we claim that the criminal justice system is white supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even Jewish Americans are incarcerated less than gentile whites. I think it’s fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews. None of this is addressed in your literature. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and ad hominems. “Those are racist dog whistles”. “The model minority myth is white supremacist”. “Only fascists talk about black-on-black crime”, ad nauseam.

These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications, intended to silence and oppress discourse. Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing orthodoxy tactics they are, common to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and religions throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently exile the culture of robust criticism from our department.

Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM’s problematic view of history, and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those of us in a precarious position, which is no small number.

I personally don’t dare speak out against the BLM narrative, and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the administration, tenured professoriate, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.

The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people. There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.
No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence. This is especially bitter in the Bay Area, where Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions, to the point that the SF police chief has advised Asians to stop hanging good-luck charms on their doors, as this attracts the attention of (overwhelmingly black) home invaders. Home invaders like George Floyd. For this actual, lived, physically experienced reality of violence in the USA, there are no marches, no tearful emails from departmental heads, no support from McDonald’s and Wal-Mart. For the History department, our silence is not a mere abrogation of our duty to shed light on the truth: it is a rejection of it.

The claim that black interracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn’t led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices – as do Nigerian Americans, who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department. The explanation is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession.

Most troublingly, our department appears to have been entirely captured by the interests of the Democratic National Convention, and the Democratic Party more broadly. To explain what I mean, consider what happens if you choose to donate to Black Lives Matter, an organization UCB History has explicitly promoted in its recent mailers. All donations to the official BLM website are immediately redirected to ActBlue Charities, an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates. Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades; the ‘systemic racism’ there was built by successive Democrat administrations.

The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community, exemplified by nearly every Biden statement on the black race, all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, poverty, and the attendant grievance politics which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives. And yet, donating to BLM is bankrolling the election campaigns of men like Mayor Frey, who saw their cities devolve into violence. This is a grotesque capture of a good-faith movement for necessary police reform, and of our department, by a political party. Even worse, there are virtually no avenues for dissent in academic circles. I refuse to serve the Party, and so should you.

The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes, carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves, many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity. Fiat lux, indeed.

There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called ‘race hustlers’: hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal political entrepreneurship.

Given the direction our history department appears to be taking far from any commitment to truth, we can regard ourselves as a formative training institution for this brand of snake-oil salespeople. Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any hope at harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically segregationist.

MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today. We are training leaders who intend, explicitly, to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus Solis increasingly presents itself as the global political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing?

As a final point, our university and department has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was a multiple felon who once held a pregnant black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at her pregnant stomach. He terrorized the women in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children, playing no part in their support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a human being. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer, a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors.

And yet, the regents of UC and the historians of the UCB History department are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his name to virtual sainthood. A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. With the full collaboration of the UCB history department, corporate America, most mainstream media outlets, and some of the wealthiest and most privileged opinion-shaping elites of the USA, he has become a culture hero, buried in a golden casket, his (recognized) family showered with gifts and praise. Americans are being socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist. A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species.

I’m ashamed of my department. I would say that I’m ashamed of both of you, but perhaps you agree with me, and are simply afraid, as I am, of the backlash of speaking the truth. It’s hard to know what kneeling means, when you have to kneel to keep your job.

It shouldn’t affect the strength of my argument above, but for the record, I write as a person of color. My family have been personally victimized by men like Floyd. We are aware of the condescending depredations of the Democrat party against our race. The humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM, (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) that we need special help and lower requirements to get ahead in life, is richly familiar to us. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn’t be easier to deal with open fascists, who at least would be straightforward in calling me a subhuman, and who are unlikely to share my race.
The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating. No other group in America is systematically demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites.

No message will more surely devastate their futures, especially if whites run out of guilt, or indeed if America runs out of whites. If this had been done to Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Chinese Americans, then Chinatown and Japan town would surely be no different to the roughest parts of Baltimore and East St. Louis today. The History department of UCB is now an integral institutional promulgator of a destructive and denigrating fallacy about the black race.

I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda and the Party’s uncontested capture of our department. I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd’s death and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end.

I also want to protect the practice of history. Cleo is no groveling handmaiden to politicians and corporations. Like us, she is free. /end”

5 Comments

  1. Richard Moothart

    Excellent.
    Thank you so very much for the UC Berkley essay.
    Although I think Floyd’s death was reckless, it sure as hell was not racist nor was it an intentional murder. Chauvin was arrested before they even knew the cause of death. It is a pathologist, paid for by the family attorney who stands to get 1/3 of any settlement,who claims it was murder.
    Floyd died of a synergy of heart disease and drug overdose. He was treated with great respect until he started fighting the officer’s claiming he was claustrophobic and fought getting into the patrol car. The neck hold looks bad to the untrained eye but was not the cause of death.
    Regardless of the cause, there was no racial comments or reason to believe this was racially motivated. Again, BLM used this death to sensationalize their agenda.

  2. Anonomous

    Hi Henry,

    Looks like you’ve been spreading that letter purportedly written by a UC Berkeley professor. I hoped you noticed some of the issues; eg. several claims about George Floyd’s history are fabricated (any proof that he assaulted a black pregnant woman?), the claim that ActBlue funnels money to the Biden campaign has been thoroughly debunked (it’s a donation platform; Republicans have their own called WinRed – it allows fundraisers to direct where their donations go), and others.

    Admittedly, the points about the Democrats not being the answer are completely cogent, but when most of your arguments stem from Fox News “opinion” shows (or any TV Media Company) it’s hard to take the entirety of it seriously.

    A few personal reminders, however:

    – You’ve reliably voted and supported some of the most racist politicians and policies in recent history.
    – You’ve posted images on social media that caricatured black politicians as monkeys.
    – You’ve shared an alarmingly high amount of articles that were for lack of a better term; “fake news”.
    – You’re over 70.
    – You’re white.

    Considering all of the above, your opinions on this topic have ceased to matter. You and your generation had over half a century to implement what you thought would work, and it has failed. Either own up to your own shortcomings, or be quiet while the next generation takes a shot.

  3. patriot1971

    This reply is a perfect example of a liberal distorting a well written letter by a professor from Berkeley and the letter was confirmed by two other professors from different universities. This is a failed attempt to silence debate. The person is a coward since they will not sign their own name to the email so, I conclude they do not believe in what they state, but make a statement for the sole purpose of of trying to demonstrate some special knowledge or understanding of the events that impact our country. Pseudo intellect is never recognized in a healthy debate of facts. This person is also operating like a fascist or communist, undercover scared to leave his or her name. This is the hallmark of the “activist” knowing they are unable to win an argument in the open, they hide.

  4. Anonymous

    Mobs do not respond to reasoned discourse. Mobs are comprised mostly of hypocrites. Their destructive agenda is not deterred by facts. Anyone who disagrees with them becomes a target for irrational retaliation to include property damage and personal injury.

    Historically, mobs understand their principal tool – violence – very well. They are willing to use it to achieve their ends and know that most reasoned citizens are not so inclined. Absent an equal or overpowering violent response, anarchists become emboldened to expanded there agendas.

    Dr. Jerry Harvey, an organizational management professor at George Washington University once described how to disperse a mob during a lecture about his doctoral thesis titled The Abilene Paradox. He used a TV sitcom character, James Arness as Marshall Matt Dillon, to illustrate the interpersonal dynamics of confronting a mob.

    A lynch mobs forms and they charge the jail where the object of the mob’s hatred is jailed. Matt Dillon meets them on the porch of the jail with a shotgun in hand. The leader demands that Dillon step aside and turn over the jailed object of their lynching plans. Dillon refuses and tells the leader that they can take the jailed suspect right after they kill him. However, he reminds them that he will be taking one or two of them with him to the afterlife. The mob retreats. Why? They understand violence and retreat once confronted with a taste of their own medicine.

    History teaches that oppressive governments only change when the oppressed majority is willing to bleed for their beliefs. The mobsters within the BLM are not willing to bleed. They are not morally or idealistically motivated crusaders. The leaders of BLM – whoever they are – should condemn/confront the mobsters/violent protesters within their midst with the same vociferous condemnation they have thus far reserved for the police.

    Nothing gets better with avoidance. Until our elected officials are willing to confront and disperse mobs, mob violence on the streets of our cities will only continue.

  5. patriot1971

    Your description of the “mob” is correct and understood. Therein, is the weak link in the efforts by political leaders, law enforcement and citizens to stop this movement. Yesterday, a couple in Missouri stopped those same so-called demonstrators from entering their property and the mob stopped. Why? Because the couple were armed and prepared to engage with violence to stop them after being threaten by the mob that they would kill them, their pets and burn their house down. Applying force is not bad when used correctly. This response is to the second Anonymous post (Two different people).

Comments are closed.

Back to Top