The Sacralization of Black Lives Matter

4 ¼ min

Perhaps I’m going crazy, but I thought I just heard NBC News and other respected information sources report that the recent burning of two Black Lives Matter (BLM) signs is being investigated as “potential hate crimes” by the Washington, D.C. police.

Apparently these alleged hate crimes occurred as BLM and its sister organization (or rather, non-organization) Antifa had begun to beat up people at a pro-Trump rally in the nation’s capital. The media downplayed the facts about the leftists who started this violence, focusing instead on how silly the Trump-supporters were to question the election results, or note the presence of Proud Boy ruffians.

We’ll put those minor points aside, however. What I can’t quite get my head around is the elevation of BLM to a sacred band of brothers struggling for civil rights for all of us. Last I checked, BLM appeared to be the PC-authorized equivalent of the Nazi Brown Shirts, brutal thugs who prey on the weak and push racist mumbo-jumbo. Why is removing their signs the equivalent of pulling down religious statues—but perhaps not quite the equivalent, since our elites value BLM much more than they do traditional religious objects?

Apparently, racism is fine and even admirable, provided black radicals are advancing it with woke capitalist money. No one is supposed to feel anything but admiration for Raphael Warnock, who is running for a Georgia U.S. Senate seat against Kelly Loeffler. Warnock is closely identified with BLM and, like former President Barack Obama, is a pal of Louis Farrakhan, who thinks Hitler was a swell guy who gave European Jews what they deserved. But hey, who am I to criticize the friends of Louis Farrakhan or another civil rights icon, the Reverend Al Sharpton, who incited mobs against Jewish shopkeepers in New York? Anyhow Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), under the leadership of former George Soros employee, Jonathan Greenblatt, really don’t care what Farrakhan or Warnock say against white people. They’re too busy fighting Trump and other fascists from the Right.

This indulgent behavior toward black racists is not only sickening, it also encourages the slavish acceptance of a double standard by white Republicans, particularly those in the South who always feel they are under special obligation to show they are not white racists. Just about every Southern Republican Senator voted for the National Defense Authorization Act last week, which requires the renaming of all military bases bearing the names of Confederate commanders. Since white Southern descendants of Confederate soldiers seem to enjoy being kicked in the face, Senators David Perdue and Loeffler in Georgia, who couldn’t wait to vote for this bill, probably won’t suffer any consequences for their abject action.

Yet Loeffler is still frantically denying any white racist associations, based most recently on the fact that a photograph of her with someone who had white nationalist connections recently surfaced. Southern Republicans may be too gutless to say so, but it is their Democratic counterparts who reek big-time of racism, as the entire Democratic Party seems to have formed an alliance with black Nazis and their underlings. Moreover, I have no idea why Republicans in the South or anywhere else should feel guilty about white racism. Cowardice, rather, seems to be the GOP’s major sin.

This leads to some serious questions for any thinking person on either the Right or the Left. Why are only Democrats and BLM allowed to play the race card, while treating their obnoxious signs as sacred symbols? Why is there no pushback from the other side? And if Republicans are serious when they say they’re against racism, then why are they not up in arms against the most powerful and obnoxious racists in our society?

Of course, we know the answer. Republicans are mostly the party of wusses, not simply the stupid party that manages to be evil at times, as Sam Francis described Republicans in a moment of excessive generosity.

Right now the still immensely popular governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, plans to breech the First Amendment with his law against hate symbols.

“[L]imiting the display and sale of the confederate flag, Nazi swastika and other symbols of hatred from being displayed or sold on state property, including the state fairgrounds, this will help safeguard New Yorkers from the fear-installing effects of these abhorrent symbols,” Cuomo declared.

Why is the Confederate Battle Flag more of a “hate symbol” than a BLM sign? The last time I checked, it was the people carrying the latter who were devastating our cities and shooting policemen. I don’t expect many Republicans in New York or elsewhere will rise to the occasion by asking that obvious question.


Dear Readers,

Big Tech is suppressing our reach, refusing to let us advertise and squelching our ability to serve up a steady diet of truth and ideas. Help us fight back by becoming a member for just $5 a month and then join the discussion on Parler @CharlemagneInstitute!

Image Credit: 

Andy Witchger, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Paul Gottfried

Paul Gottfried

Paul Gottfried is editor in chief of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. He is also the Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years, a Guggenheim recipient, and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents.

Add a Comment


Join the conversation...

You are currently using the BETA version of our article comments feature. You may notice some bugs in submission and user experience. Significant improvements are coming soon!


Account Photo
The heart of the matter (as always) is plain old-fashioned hypocrisy (sometimes referred to as 'hysterical revisionism'). Also called 'fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you'-syndrome, on occasion. Selective interpretation of extant reality is nothing new, certainly, but anyone who witnesses all the over-the-top promoting of the blacks (sic) uber alles' message in both broadcast media and social media without feeling the need to gag and say 'enough is enough!', probably needs (as the Firesign Theatre' memorably put it, back in the 70s) to be sent back to Oldie-But-Goldie-City for regrooving! There are, in my opinion, far too many liberal progressive white liberals amongst us with damp shorts these days. LoL!


If the GOP didn’t have cowards in their ranks, they would be devoid of members. They held majorities in both house and senate for two years and accomplished nothing. It’s time for a sea change. A third party has a better chance than ever... at the very least it may disrupt the other two..


Calling us Republicans the party of wusses seems kind of harsh, but I must admit it has an element of truth. Unfortunately, the blame for this falls just as much on those of us who vote Republican as it does on those we elect. If those who are elected know their party do not have the fighting spirit, what are they supposed to do?


Account Photo
Not at all harsh to call the Republican party wussies! It's actually being quite nice! The leadership (are words I won't use here) ,Not all, are establishment rhinos and quite frankly disgust a whole lot of us! The GOP will die from self "inflicted wounds"! A new party of Patriots and fighters, not "wussies" are on the horizon!
Andre the Christian
A major problem is the modern idea that showing solidarity with any expressed greivance is owed and necessary to special groups based on past collective historical experiences in some sort of indefinite subjective existential continuum and that it is only allowable to be expressed by getting behind whatever the group says without question. So everyone has turned off their brain and judgment in these cases and it is now being argued that it is racist to turn your brain on towards this subject. The only allowed and proper response is one of credulous acceptance.


Rowana F
All this "critical race theory" and related, similar things only serve to widen and deepen the already gaping chasm of division in the nation. People who claim that it's an effort to bring unity, understanding, etc., have at best been woefully duped or at worst are being actively deceitful. Whenever anyone (individual or group) is demanded to apologize for living or admit to "thinking or feeling wrongly" (whether or not there is any evidence that they do, because the First Amendment acknowledges that everyone is entitled to their own thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc.) -- absolutely nothing helpful or productive, not to mention peaceful or "unifying," will come from such accusation and aggression.