I have found that almost no neo-progressive is aware of Black militias, their marching publicly in various places with assault rifles, or their occassional violent threats. They are typically 100% certain that no such groups could exist. Your linked article mentions New Black Panther Party and the New Black Liberation Militia. Earlier…
I have found that almost no neo-progressive is aware of Black militias, their marching publicly in various places with assault rifles, or their occassional violent threats. They are typically 100% certain that no such groups could exist. Your linked article mentions New Black Panther Party and the New Black Liberation Militia. Earlier I stumbled across the NFAC (Not F.... Around Coalition), which is similar - you can google them. There are likely others. They show up here and there around the country.
In 2020 they marched on the huge bas relief sculpture at Stone Mountain Park near Atlanta, Georgia, defying "racists" to stop them. What happened? Were they all shot or jailed? Nope. The park and the police were cooperative and supported the NFAC's first and second amendment rights, acknowledging that they were peaceful if loud.
(cue sound of smug neo-progressive heads exploding).
"I have found that almost no neo-progressive is aware of Black militias,"
Yep, because they don't exist if you only ever watch "progressive" news. The way the news filters reality is one of the biggest problems of our time in my opinion. Media organisations across the political spectrum don't report anymore, they're story tellers.
" they don't exist if you only ever watch "progressive" news."
More than that, if one is steeped in the neo-progressive narrative, Black militias would be impossible in the US - they would immediately be crushed by whites (acting as The State or as right-wing militias themselves).
I recently subscribed to The Economist, and have been enjoying their news and analysis. I'm not saying anybody is perfect, but this reporting is not slathered with obvious left wing or right wing ideological filters.
As to the story tellers - I have come to believe that the Prime Directive of neo-progressives is "Reinforce the Narrative" - primarily the moral story of oppressor and oppressed. Only evidence which supports that narrative is to be published; anything which might reduce its potency is to be buried or denies.
It's easy to see the incentives here. The Narrative is the source of their power, and it the primary tool by which they hope to reform the world into a more just and equitable place.
I see some of the roots in things like the US Civil Rights movement, including Martin Luther King. MLK made a powerful moral argument which galvanized the nation to pass legislation and change society; a moral narrative was the source of his power. However, I see MLK as invoking the larger "us", asking us all to come under the same umbrella, and to live up to our own ideals and values.
The neo-progressives, in my view, have weaponized a social tool based in part on that moral appeal. Except rather than inviting people in and challenging them to live up to their values, this time it's more based on trying to make people wrong, guilty, responsible not only for their own action but for those of anybody who "looks like them". The neo-progressive approach is more based on dividing us into competing camps, and then trying to use the assumed moral high ground to deminish one camp and build up the other. It's more about emphasing the narrower and less inclusive "us" (oppressed people and "allies") in perpetual conflict with "them" (anybody who doesn't follow the party line).
Power corrupts. Well meaning beginning sometimes become dysfunctional strategies towards mutated goals. Assumed moral superiority allows one to feel justified by non-reciprocal relations, by different moral rules for different tribes. Past injury to the tribe (in one domain) is used to justify present injury to the other tribe (in a different domain), as if that leads to a sustainable and just society. Instead, it's pushing both sides towards less tolerance and respect.
My issue with neo-progressivism is not so much with it's professed and nominal goals (many of which I support), as with the strategies employed, like emphasizing race essentialism and win/lose conflict as core principles.
So - reinforce the narrative as a source of power in a perpetual tribal conflict. Assume that X is radically less dangerous for a white person, or that doing Y would never bee allowed to a Black person, and avoid any counter-examples, because to weaken the narrative is to lose power.
I have found that almost no neo-progressive is aware of Black militias, their marching publicly in various places with assault rifles, or their occassional violent threats. They are typically 100% certain that no such groups could exist. Your linked article mentions New Black Panther Party and the New Black Liberation Militia. Earlier I stumbled across the NFAC (Not F.... Around Coalition), which is similar - you can google them. There are likely others. They show up here and there around the country.
In 2020 they marched on the huge bas relief sculpture at Stone Mountain Park near Atlanta, Georgia, defying "racists" to stop them. What happened? Were they all shot or jailed? Nope. The park and the police were cooperative and supported the NFAC's first and second amendment rights, acknowledging that they were peaceful if loud.
(cue sound of smug neo-progressive heads exploding).
EG: https://www.newsweek.com/armed-black-demonstrators-challenge-white-supremacist-militia-georgias-stone-mountain-park-1515494
NFAC alone claims to be able to mobilize 1000 armed militia.
"I have found that almost no neo-progressive is aware of Black militias,"
Yep, because they don't exist if you only ever watch "progressive" news. The way the news filters reality is one of the biggest problems of our time in my opinion. Media organisations across the political spectrum don't report anymore, they're story tellers.
" they don't exist if you only ever watch "progressive" news."
More than that, if one is steeped in the neo-progressive narrative, Black militias would be impossible in the US - they would immediately be crushed by whites (acting as The State or as right-wing militias themselves).
I recently subscribed to The Economist, and have been enjoying their news and analysis. I'm not saying anybody is perfect, but this reporting is not slathered with obvious left wing or right wing ideological filters.
As to the story tellers - I have come to believe that the Prime Directive of neo-progressives is "Reinforce the Narrative" - primarily the moral story of oppressor and oppressed. Only evidence which supports that narrative is to be published; anything which might reduce its potency is to be buried or denies.
It's easy to see the incentives here. The Narrative is the source of their power, and it the primary tool by which they hope to reform the world into a more just and equitable place.
I see some of the roots in things like the US Civil Rights movement, including Martin Luther King. MLK made a powerful moral argument which galvanized the nation to pass legislation and change society; a moral narrative was the source of his power. However, I see MLK as invoking the larger "us", asking us all to come under the same umbrella, and to live up to our own ideals and values.
The neo-progressives, in my view, have weaponized a social tool based in part on that moral appeal. Except rather than inviting people in and challenging them to live up to their values, this time it's more based on trying to make people wrong, guilty, responsible not only for their own action but for those of anybody who "looks like them". The neo-progressive approach is more based on dividing us into competing camps, and then trying to use the assumed moral high ground to deminish one camp and build up the other. It's more about emphasing the narrower and less inclusive "us" (oppressed people and "allies") in perpetual conflict with "them" (anybody who doesn't follow the party line).
Power corrupts. Well meaning beginning sometimes become dysfunctional strategies towards mutated goals. Assumed moral superiority allows one to feel justified by non-reciprocal relations, by different moral rules for different tribes. Past injury to the tribe (in one domain) is used to justify present injury to the other tribe (in a different domain), as if that leads to a sustainable and just society. Instead, it's pushing both sides towards less tolerance and respect.
My issue with neo-progressivism is not so much with it's professed and nominal goals (many of which I support), as with the strategies employed, like emphasizing race essentialism and win/lose conflict as core principles.
So - reinforce the narrative as a source of power in a perpetual tribal conflict. Assume that X is radically less dangerous for a white person, or that doing Y would never bee allowed to a Black person, and avoid any counter-examples, because to weaken the narrative is to lose power.