By Diego Lomeli

The United States of America is more divided now, in 2020, than ever before. We turn to the news and what do we see? Rival factions layered in either makeshift or military grade body armor fighting in the streets of our nation. 

As amusing as it is to consider American police officers as enforcers of some grand Orwellian scheme designed to keep a firm choke-hold on the population, it is their primary contenders that should be hoarding everyone’s concern.

I am referring to the Black Lives Matter organization.

Before anything, it is important to acknowledge those who simultaneously participate in the informal variant of the movement and prioritize a peaceful approach to protest. The organization has been largely condemned by many Americans, and although its underlying motives are troublesome, I think we can all collectively stand behind the inherent meaning of the phrase “Black lives matter.”

BLM, as an organization, is disingenuous about the wellbeing of Black lives. Its fundamental ambitions center on revolution, specifically a call to replace the “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure” for “’villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.” These claims were once proudly displayed on the Black Lives Matter website’s “What We Believe” page. 

As of Sept. 21, that page has been removed and no longer exists. What remains is a much shorter list of goals that goes on about inclusivity — tackling oppression, liberation, narrowing nationalism and a few more things. 

Aside from that, the BLM organization, co-founded by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi, has roots in Marxism.

“We are trained Marxists,” Cullors has said. “We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.” 

Marxism, by definition, is a worker led revolution that aims to overthrow capitalism in favor of communism. 

Just from that, we should have quickly realized that BLM is adamant about inciting civil unrest in order to achieve a specific agenda. Not only that, it also has no clear intention of creating “a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise” as their website claims. 

If you’re paying attention, you cannot look past the obvious evidence that a shockingly large number of BLM members and affiliates have adopted and continue to employ violent behavior. Following the death of George Floyd on May 26 were an ongoing series of protests that began in Minneapolis, Minnesota. With that came the destruction of property, vandalism and arson. By June, the property damage was an estimated $55 million and at least 220 buildings were set on fire, according to the Associated Press. 

The destruction of property was not exclusive to Minnesota however, as small businesses in cities like Austin, St. Paul, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York have also been directly affected. Not to mention the various American flags that BLM have burned and the many people they have physically harmed. 

This kind of behavior is severely counterproductive to what they claim to achieve someday. 

BLM has effectively neglected the civil approach to reaching a rational consensus, instead using violence and disrespect. 

This is all an aggravation incited by the radical left and it fuels the raging fire that is pent up frustration and resentment from the BLM organization. 

Has any progress that genuinely benefits our society actually been made? No, none at all. 

Even then, why would BLM actively try to work towards a better society? They rely on things like controversy and white guilt to expand their superficial narrative to young minds. Many young people hesitate to express their criticism regarding BLM because we as a society have deemed it wrong to do so. 

It is safer to join them than it is to criticize them. The organization that preaches inclusivity and social justice is the same that quickly labels on people racist, bigoted, privileged, bootlicker, transphobic and much worse. 

Instead of real progress, we devoted our time to developing a comprehensive checklist that, if checked off entirely, confirms that you are undeniably on the right side of history. If you disagree with it in the slightest way, then obviously you are apathetic to racial justice. 

When an argument erupts between two opposing groups, the ideal outcome would be both groups eventually leaving the discussion more knowledgeable and open-minded than before. Logically, this can only work if both groups are reasonably open-minded to begin with. 

Arguing has several tacit rules that make sure the contention does not derail itself and turn into something more extreme. BLM embodies pretty much everything that is detrimental to a productive argument, things like egotism, condescension and sheer lack of respect for any point of view that doesn’t match up with theirs. 

It is clear as day that this is an attack on freedom of speech. Without the constant exchange of conflicting ideas, ignorance and backwardness begin to prosper and, consequently, genuine knowledge is suppressed. 

To exemplify this attack on free speech practically, we can turn to the incident at Loyola University Chicago. On Aug. 29 and the days that followed, Loyola University Chicago’s student newspaper, The Loyola Phoenix, covered a series of protests supporting BLM at the university. 

Seven people, six of which were Loyola students, were arrested for refusing to disperse after the police had instructed them to do so. The protests took place on and around campus and called for the university to provide better support for Black students and cut ties with the Chicago Police Department. 

Things turned for the worse when The Loyola Phoenix published videos of the protestors being taken into custody on their Twitter page. The student publication was subsequently contacted and berated by numerous people, calling for the videos to be taken down and going as far as saying that the publication brought participants unnecessary trauma. 

Somehow we are becoming accustomed to letting emotion defeat logic, and to letting political figures encourage irrationally vile methods of keeping many Americans from speaking their minds. 

We need to call it out for what it is: a form of contemporary fascism, and it is spreading at a terrifying rate. 

Hopefully soon, we can learn from the world’s history and devise a counter-measure based on logic and freedom.