Well you’re just going to have to puzzle it out on your own then, I’d suggest you start by doing what Hilary Clinton suggested, “White people need to start listening to black people”. I’ve been doing that for fifty years and they aren’t shy about expressing their complete hatred for white people. Maybe you could explore BLM’s website or maybe just listen to black politicians like Ilhan Omar or black journalists like Don Lemon. Were you asleep during the eight years Obama was president when he said white people have racism in their DNA? Maybe you missed the story about the statue of Frances Scott Key being toppled and beheaded in Boston with the words “Death to all colonizers”. Do you need someone to explain to you that “colonizers” is a not so subtle euphemism for white people? Come on man, wake up.

@Andyman It seems cultural Marxists are dividing western society by playing both sides... Unless the crossing of the aisle by the ideological contagion was an unforeseen (though for them, welcome) development.

In the big picture, this is not a race war - it is an ideological war. Perhaps the current battle is racially charged but, ideally, I would like to see that battle end with peace as the true enemy (Marxism) is destroyed.

The trouble with Marxism is that it is incredibly difficult (probably impossible) to permanently eradicate so long as human nature is what it is. This is because it appeals to base human instincts in ways that personal virtue does not. Once we overcome this iteration, it will almost certainly return eventually, because their are certain lessons we, as a species, just seem incapable of learning.

Oh, goody! ... Daisy Cousens just posted. Sorry - gotta go!

Well done, thanks.

"Dismantle"

That would require a systematic method of oppression. Obviously, even in their slogans, they are working to monopolize power and profit.

This is not new.

Look here:

To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802

"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.

"But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.

"As to any injury they can do at home to those whom they abuse, or service they can render to those who employ them, it is to be set down to the account of noisy nothingness. It is on themselves the disgrace recoils, for the reflection easily presents itself to every thinking mind, that those who abuse liberty when they possess it would abuse power could they obtain it; and, therefore, they may as well take as a general motto, for all such papers, we and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power."

The same routine is happening now. Very powerful people blame everyone for their crimes, and that means that the actual criminals are free to continue their crime spree. The criminals who take over governments (monopolize power and profit) don't like competition, either you join them, or you will be either enslaved or tortured to death to exemplify what happens to the disobedient.

The label used by the dominant criminal gang may change from Marxist/Communist to Fascist/Capitalist but the changing of the guard (or just the name) does not change the methods that are used by all of them, each time.

Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, August 1745
"For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa; yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty’s negative: Thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay, the single interposition of an interested individual against a law was scarcely ever known to fail of success, though in the opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed, would call for some legal restrictions. . . "

The same methods are used each time.

"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.
"Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools." Phillips argued that this experience proved "that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery."
Garrison's Constitution
The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made
By Paul Finkelman, 2000

The same methods are used each time.

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

Why was the above message censored, removed from the Declaration of Independence of 1776?

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

So those who are quick to blame Jefferson, who was a CONSUMER of slaves, for institutionalizing slavery, you can either use your own brain or continue to allow other people to abuse it: mind control.

Human Trafficking is real, it is a multi-million dollar Global Industry, and many people in government offices CONSUME slaves, on the official record, TODAY.

Which of those government officials actually arrest one of their own (consumers of slaves) and puts one of their own on the stand in a Court of Law?

They are not the government, they are employees working for someone, or they are presiding over offices of government and using that power to monopolize power and profit, and to MAKE the people their hereditary property, and they lie, as a rule, as a routine.

"A jury of twelve local farmers, all men and all white according to Levinson, ruled in favor of Freeman in 1781, giving her freedom and awarding her 30 shillings in damages."
[history.com]

Either the people return to rule of law or the people continue to allow the criminals to infest, infect, consume, enslave, and destroy us as if we were their property.

Absolutely spot on, man. Good reply. This racial division is just a smokescreen to obfuscate the real agenda.

BlackoutNJ, I appreciate your comment.

@Andyman Thank you

@Thaw, I wish I could give you a hundred “likes” for your comment. It’s an extremely brave thing to actually call out the true menace when the ADL has cowed white gentiles into submission to never dare even notice them.