US Protests: Inequality Wins?

Racism exists. It is everywhere. White racism is undeniable. But there is also racism in the arab world against blacks. Or even racism among blacks in Africa against albinos.

Having settled this, let me ask you this: a white person of the same socio-economical background of one black person, has more changes? In other words, once you remove the socio-economical differences, is racism still significant?

It is undeniable that black people live worse than white people, that they have less opportunities both professional and social, but I think the reason is economical discrimination. Black people are not poorer because they are discriminated; they are discriminated because they are poorer. And they are poorer because they started the "social race" from far behind, and, despite the opposite, there is no significant social mobility in the US (and the self-made man is a myth, but this is another story). Poorness brings criminality and criminality brings prejudice.

Let's talk about "Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback"[NBER]. Now are these job applicants getting less calls because they have African-American names or because these names are associated with lower socio-economical backgrounds? I was thinking that it would be interesting to make a similar study in Spain: trying with traditional names and names that are more commonly used to lower socio-economical backgrounds (English names such as Kevin or Jennifer, for instance). I am sure there would be a significant difference.

Why this is important? Because while the media focus on how blacks are discriminated and setting social plasters/band-aids to solve this discrimination, they divert the attention from the root of the problem: economical inequality.

I don't think anybody believes that media corporations are independent. We all know they are owned by the financial elites. And what do financial elites above anything else? To mantain the status quo. So with inequality growing, and black people suffering specially from the Covid19 tragic effects, putting the blame on an inherent racism in american society instead of on the inherent (and growing) economic inequality seems a smart move.


PS: Upward income mobility in the US [Forbes]:

 

 Upward educational mobility in the US [Forbes]:

US Protests: Blueprint For A (Colour) Revolution?

I've been following the events in the United States, with special interest in the evolution of the protest: what began as a protest against police brutality has turned into the a national (intended worldwide) protest for the rights of black people.

But one question arises as distant observer: is the evolution of the protest "natural"? Or is there "somebody" behind it?

The first question is why this time? Unfortunately other black men have died in the hands of the police or white men. From my point of view, the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, a black jogger, was much more infurating. Why this time is different? It is true we have seen other protests throughout the history of the US, but never of this dimension. Could it be the trail of the Covid-19? Could it just be "I can breath" the last straw? It could perfectly be, society is unpredictable.

What has made me come to the serious conviction that there is "somebody" is the behavior of the corporate media. I don't speak about minimizing the dark side of the protests (the riots or the looting), but about the active promotion of the protests. CBS ("White silence on social media: Why not saying anything is actually saying a lot", "White silence on social media not going unnoticed") or Washington Post ("This movement is not anarchy. It could push America to be a better nation", ""Defund the police" is a call to imagine a safer America. We should answer it") are just a microscopic sample of the opinion articles where the corporate media has promoted (not informed about or analyzed) the protests. These are not about fighting racism (something we all agree on), but about criminalizing white people, or even supporting the defund the police movement, which is the culmen of cynicism coming from the elites. Media's soft approach on the "defund the police" slogan gives me the creeps, because I don't believe even for one second that they think it's a good idea... So what's their game?

But also, and this is the most important, these protests resemble suspiciously the "colour revolutions" we have seen in some not-aligned countries.

As an analyst defined it (or defined the Russian visions about it), colour revolutions are the "new US and European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties" [source].

It is interesting to notice that some of the main organizations behind the protests have been supported by the same foundations that supported some of these colour revolutions. The most notorious case is George Soros' foundation, which has funded the Black Lives Matter movement [Politico][The Washington Times]. Soros was one of the figures behind the Ukraine's "orange revolution", as he himself admitted: "I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now" [CNN], and also intervined in Georgia's "rose revolution" [Wikipedia]. Ah, and Soros' foundation was advocating for "police reduction" already in 2016 [OSF].

Another key player would be the US' deep state (what Eisenhower called the 'military-industrial complex'). Here is a very interesting piece on Obama's Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland communications with Soros' team to discuss, among other issues, "EU visa liberalization for Ukraine and Georgia" [The Hill], which seems to me an absolute interference in EU issues. And here is an article about the involvement of the CIA in Ukraine's coup., and here Nuland's leaked call  discussing who should be in Ukraine's new government [BBC].

I don't think that the goal of the movement is to remove Trump. I think the main goal is to warn: to warn Trump's supporters and voters: "do not re-elect Trump, or this is what will happen". And it may also be a blueprint for an actual revolution in case of Trump's victory.