Posted on Jun 16, 2020
Anonymous Letter From Purported UC Berkeley Professor Harshly Challenges ‘Black Lives Matter...
1.69K
38
10
2
2
0
This is an anonymous email written by a Black (person) history professor (Ie a Black man, not a professor of Black History) who works at UC Berkley, to his colleagues, who CONFIRMED it, for those of you who like to stand on fact checking, dismantling the BLM movement, and the lionization of George Floyd. His admission that he is afraid to say these things publicly shines a stark light on the state of our country today. It's a long read (c'mon, he's a History prof), but well worth the time if you are interested in this issue, from any viewpoint.
I am uninterested in your 'thank you for posting' response. I want you to READ it, and then comment on your thoughts, opinions, positions. If you can't do that, please don't respond. I'm looking for dialogue here, not RP points.
I am uninterested in your 'thank you for posting' response. I want you to READ it, and then comment on your thoughts, opinions, positions. If you can't do that, please don't respond. I'm looking for dialogue here, not RP points.
Anonymous Letter From Purported UC Berkeley Professor Harshly Challenges ‘Black Lives Matter...
Posted from dailywire.com
Racism
Media
Social Media
Justice
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
I have to concur with our skeptical colleagues.
This letter/ article has all the hallmarks of a false flag. ALL OF THEM.
I think you've been had, SN Greg Wright
This letter/ article has all the hallmarks of a false flag. ALL OF THEM.
I think you've been had, SN Greg Wright
(2)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
Appreciate the feedback, Top.
But the fact that nearly everyone is unwilling to even consider the possibility that this is real...
...is chilling.
But the fact that nearly everyone is unwilling to even consider the possibility that this is real...
...is chilling.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SN Greg Wright - I'll go deeper.
It is posted on a site with a clear bias. That doesn't mean it is not true, it means that one should explore the narratives furthered by that site in order to give context outside the article... and the silent anonymous voice of dissent is definitely one of them. In this case, it is actually a denial/counter-narrative to the running tales that "anonymous sources in the deep state" are trying to undermine the President and implement a dark agenda. This is a clumsy attempt at the same tactic, although I would suggest this has the narrower effect of trying to refocus externally focused energy internally - on a traitor that doesn't exist.
Secondly, this article fits entirely too neatly with existing lines of IO to be a coincidence. It is very much trying to knock the legs out of a clear movement by suggesting that a highly educated black person in a prestigious university would have to anonymously support almost every single counter-narrative to BLM for fear of his/her job is far-fetched to the point of ludicrousness. He/she seldom qualifies any of their points, either. This is directly analogous to some of the "smoking gun" BS that has been supposedly leaked by "alarmed" members of the Trump administration. Strange that they directly fit hand-in-glove with existing themes purveyed by some Congressmembers for years...
Third, the structure of the writing reads like a counter-manifesto. And the prose is meant to look academic, but lacks key elements. An academic would use similar verbosity, and the wording would dazzle the casual reader who WANTS to believe this is legit and true. But that lack of citation on support for his or her points is glaringly suspect. This was not written casually; it has very deliberate language. So one would expect a writing method typical of the usual production of a prestigious professor.
If I were to do my job on this one, I would say the source is domestic, not foreign. I would further hypothesize that the sourcing is corporate, not private or political. I would also guess that this producer has interests in California - probably the Bay Area. That suggests a couple of places to look for the "anonymous" source here, but that is where I'd have to stop without a hunting license from my bosses.
I would flag this as a near certain false flag operation, and would be very interested in ferreting out the sourcing and narrative tendrils on it. This is too well put together to be a one-off.
There is a lot of deliberate and casual disinformation out there, Greg. I am more suspicious than most based on the nature of my Army job, but all I would say is to think very critically about articles that you see posted, especially in certain sites. There is ALWAYS an agenda, whether they're using truthful, misleading, distraction, or false information to further it.
It is posted on a site with a clear bias. That doesn't mean it is not true, it means that one should explore the narratives furthered by that site in order to give context outside the article... and the silent anonymous voice of dissent is definitely one of them. In this case, it is actually a denial/counter-narrative to the running tales that "anonymous sources in the deep state" are trying to undermine the President and implement a dark agenda. This is a clumsy attempt at the same tactic, although I would suggest this has the narrower effect of trying to refocus externally focused energy internally - on a traitor that doesn't exist.
Secondly, this article fits entirely too neatly with existing lines of IO to be a coincidence. It is very much trying to knock the legs out of a clear movement by suggesting that a highly educated black person in a prestigious university would have to anonymously support almost every single counter-narrative to BLM for fear of his/her job is far-fetched to the point of ludicrousness. He/she seldom qualifies any of their points, either. This is directly analogous to some of the "smoking gun" BS that has been supposedly leaked by "alarmed" members of the Trump administration. Strange that they directly fit hand-in-glove with existing themes purveyed by some Congressmembers for years...
Third, the structure of the writing reads like a counter-manifesto. And the prose is meant to look academic, but lacks key elements. An academic would use similar verbosity, and the wording would dazzle the casual reader who WANTS to believe this is legit and true. But that lack of citation on support for his or her points is glaringly suspect. This was not written casually; it has very deliberate language. So one would expect a writing method typical of the usual production of a prestigious professor.
If I were to do my job on this one, I would say the source is domestic, not foreign. I would further hypothesize that the sourcing is corporate, not private or political. I would also guess that this producer has interests in California - probably the Bay Area. That suggests a couple of places to look for the "anonymous" source here, but that is where I'd have to stop without a hunting license from my bosses.
I would flag this as a near certain false flag operation, and would be very interested in ferreting out the sourcing and narrative tendrils on it. This is too well put together to be a one-off.
There is a lot of deliberate and casual disinformation out there, Greg. I am more suspicious than most based on the nature of my Army job, but all I would say is to think very critically about articles that you see posted, especially in certain sites. There is ALWAYS an agenda, whether they're using truthful, misleading, distraction, or false information to further it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
You fail again. May as well have posted an article from brietbart or faux news
(1)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
So you don't have the mental fortitude to separate the messenger from the message.
Can't say I'm surprised, really.
Can't say I'm surprised, really.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google