Black Lives Matter removes page encouraging the 'disruption' of the 'Western nuclear family' during a massive cleanup of their national website

I forgot to include this when replying:

**** "This was news to me within the last two weeks or so that BLM changed their “About” page . I had gone in there about a month ago and read their “About” statement with my own eyes. It DID include a statement about destroying the “nuclear family”.****

Thanks again!

Good...I saw the comparison to Fox news with no sources and was trying to make heads or tails out of it..:)

I know there are a lot of Freepers who kicked themselves, myself included, for not getting a screen capture.

We should know by now that is how they roll...

I have been thinking about this subject of Black Lives Matter and their views on the family and the context of the large number of people out there in this country with BLM signs, and have had this fictional dialogue turning over in my mind:

BLM SUPPORTER: Black Lives Matters! Say it! Say their names!

ME: Wait-do you know that their founders are Marxists and quite proud of it?

BLM SUPPORTER: Who cares? What the police are doing to black people is wrong and needs to stop!

ME: The whole BLM rationale for they want you to believe is based on a lie, but that isn't what I want to bring to your attention.

Did you know they are Marxists, and also don't believe in a traditional nuclear family unit of a mother, father, and children and think it should be disrupted and destroyed?

BLM SUPPORTER: What does that mean?

ME: Black Lives Matter wants to destroy the "nuclear family" as a method of raising children and replace it with a child rearing process where the government (the state) assumes the role of parents.

They don't believe in a family unit with a male and female in the top. They believe in two homosexual males, two homosexual or heterosexual females, but they don't want heterosexual men in that formula.

BLM SUPPORTER: Hogwash! I don't believe that.

ME: Here is what they said on their website before they took it off because it was alienating people who were paying attention too closely and picked up on it. These are their words, not mine:

"...We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mother, parents, and children are comfortable..."

BLM SUPPORTER: That doesn't mean anything! They would only go as far as we, the parents, approve and are comfortable with!

ME: Well, yeah. They probably couldn't suck in people if they told the truth, and that truth is that they don't want parents teaching children what is right or wrong...they want the State to do that.

They have contempt for people like you and your husband, and they believe that people (including you and your husband) are too stupid, untrained, and prone to mistakes to raise children correctly themselves. They believe that "smart" people, people with rules and structures about how to raise children, how to inculcate them with the correct way to think, are the people who should do that, not you and your husband. They would have a cadre of people whose specialty is "raising children correctly".

BLM SUPPORTER: They are talking about a small group of people, a "village" not the State!

ME: I assure you that they don't mean a small group of people, they really DO mean The State, because that is what it will boil down to.

That small group of people will be trained by The State, and responsible to it for raising YOUR children as the state sees fit. It wouldn't be a "village" or a "small group". It will be a cadre. People trained by the State, probably licensed by the State, and fully beholden to the State to indoctrinate your child as The State demands it should be done. You will have no say.

BLM SUPPORTER: Well, I take them at their word that they would only go as far as we parents would be comfortable with.

ME: Really?

Look...how long would it take for you, the minority of parents in their world who don't want to surrender total control of raising the kids to the State to feel like outsiders and feel the disapproval and disapprobation of the majority of those people who DO want their kids raised by the state...those who are fully on board for this twisted concept?

How long before people would say to you

"I'm sorry Jane, but I would rather not have my kids being around "home raised" kids. It gives them too many ideas and they get in trouble. It makes them too focused on what is best for themselves, and not what is best for the group or the community. I can't allow my kids to play with yours anymore. Sorry."

BLM SUPPORTER: My husband and I are good parents-they wouldn't find fault with us!

ME: Did you notice in their statement they say "...to the degree that mother, parents, and children are comfortable..."?

Didn't that strike you as odd that they didn't say "mother, father, and children" are comfortable?

You do love your husband, right? And you do want him to have input in raising your young boy...right?

Because you better get it straight-these BLM people think masculinity is toxic...again, their words not mine. They want your children raised in a "queer-affirming" environment.

Do you want THAT for your young boy?

BLM SUPPORTER: Wha...what? I don't believe it!

ME: You better believe it. They have no room for individualistic, strong men. They view them as dangerous.

Look at your boy over there. They think that he is going to be toxic and dangerous when he comes of age, unless you neuter him mentally and socially. They would do it physically, if they could. You better begin believing what I have told you.

You think that you are crusading for some right cause, for people to get justice. I am sorry to tell you this, but the Black Lives Matter movement has NOTHING to do with justice, they are simply preying on people who are too compassionate, too busy, or too weak minded to look closely at what they really want.

They are using YOU to obtain political ends that you would never agree with if you looked closely at what they actually stand for.

To them, you and others like you who have the "Black Lives Matter" signs on your lawns, are tools, what they would characterize as "Useful Idiots" if you gave them a truth serum.

I posted this because I recalled reading a book named "Walden Two" by B.F. Skinner some years ago in a college Sociology class.

Well, I was a conservative then but young, and had not delved deeply into political thought, but when I was reading that book, I was completely focused on the concept of creating a planned human environment, and thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.

It was the truest case of missing the forest for the trees. I was so enamored of being able to plan a community that I completely missed the concept of...well...planned.

It was only after I had read more political thought that I realized (looking back in embarrassment) "Walden Two" and the concepts it espoused were anathema to the values and principles America was founded on. I wanted so badly to see order in things that I missed the most important part of the book, not intended by the author: That the individual choices on how things could or might be done was not only eradicated, but discouraged. The group was everything.

It is nauseating to look back on that, and realize how easily I had been gulled because I was focused on the shiny toy called control.

So, when I saw this goal of Black Lives Matter to disrupt the nuclear family unit, my mind went right back to "Walden Two".

Do you think they will eventually put that agenda statement back on their website?

Until they do, it is not possible to hold them accountable for it.

Meanwhile, all we can hold them accountable for is their despicable behavior.

Unfortunately, they can simply boldface lie and say it isn't true, it was never there, they never approved it, their site was hacked, or the dog ate their homework, and a subservient, compliant, and complicit media will bury it.

Sad but true.

It so makes me think of this dialogue in Orwell's "1984":

O'BRIEN: Another example. Some years ago you had a very serious delusion indeed. You believed that three men, three onetime Party members named Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford—men who were executed for treachery and sabotage after making the fullest possible confession—were not guilty of the crimes they were charged with. You believed that you had seen unmistakable documentary evidence proving that their confessions were false. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this:

An oblong slip of newspaper had appeared between O’Brien’s fingers. For perhaps five seconds it was within the angle of Winston’s vision. It was a photograph, and there was no question of its identity. It was the photograph. It was another copy of the photograph of Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford at the party function in New York, which he had chanced upon eleven years ago and promptly destroyed. For only an instant it was before his eyes, then it was out of sight again. But he had seen it, unquestionably he had seen it! He made a desperate, agonizing effort to wrench the top half of his body free. It was impossible to move so much as a centimetre in any direction. For the moment he had even forgotten the dial. All he wanted was to hold the photograph in his fingers again, or at least to see it.

WINSTON: It exists!

O'BRIEN: No.

He stepped across the room. There was a memory hole in the opposite wall. O’Brien lifted the grating. Unseen, the frail slip of paper was whirling away on the current of warm air; it was vanishing in a flash of flame. O’Brien turned away from the wall.

O'BRIEN: Ashes, not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed.

WINSTON: But it did exist! It does exist! It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it.

O'BRIEN: I do not remember it.

Winston’s heart sank. That was doublethink. He had a feeling of deadly helplessness. If he could have been certain that O’Brien was lying, it would not have seemed to matter. But it was perfectly possible that O’Brien had really forgotten the photograph. And if so, then already he would have forgotten his denial of remembering it, and forgotten the act of forgetting. How could one be sure that it was simple trickery? Perhaps that lunatic dislocation in the mind could really happen: that was the thought that defeated him.

O’Brien was looking down at him speculatively. More than ever he had the air of a teacher taking pains with a wayward but promising child.

O'BRIEN: There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past, repeat it, if you please.

WINSTON: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past”

O'BRIEN: Who controls the present controls the past. Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has real existence?

Again the feeling of helplessness descended upon Winston. His eyes flitted towards the dial. He not only did not know whether ‘yes’ or ‘no’ was the answer that would save him from pain; he did not even know which answer he believed to be the true one. O’Brien smiled faintly.

O'BRIEN: You are no metaphysician, Winston,’ he said. ‘Until this moment you had never considered what is meant by existence. I will put it more precisely. Does the past exist concretely, in space? Is there somewhere or other a place, a world of solid objects, where the past is still happening?

WINSTON: No.

O'BRIEN: Then where does the past exist, if at all?

WINSTON: In records. It is written down.

O'BRIEN: In records. And——?

WINSTON: In the mind. In human memories.

O'BRIEN: In memory. Very well, then. We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?

WINSTON: But how can you stop people remembering things? It is involuntary. It is outside oneself. How can you control memory? You have not controlled mine!

Good argument, but most liberal drones would not have let it get past your first sentence. They are trained in college to “Jam” any opposing viewpoints.

I know. That is why the conversation is fictional...:(

Nice. A bit large, but still a good example.

Indeed.

Dang. I am not sure why...I do use a tag to increase the font size to 5 for things like that, and usually it looks just right, but you are right...I thought it had something to do with my default size on my browser being too small.

Or something.

Black Lives Matter support black criminals over America. BLM believes that criminals have a right to resist arrest thus violating the rights of the cops and endangering the well being and very lives of the cops.

It has come to pass that the lives of black criminal resisters are forfeit when they resist and endanger the cops. It has come to pass that those who support the BLM lawlessness have forfeited their rights to freedom from being harmed .

The truth has come to pass.......black Lives matter not. America matters more than lawless black citizens