Search Results: Need an explanation

I've been saying for a while, especially on this site, that the concept of "BLM leadership" is something that exists pretty much entirely in right wing media. And even floated the idea that "BLM leadership" was actually plants, propped up by right wing billionaires to be the 'animated strawman' they need for their narrative. Turns out that weird theory is likely.

I suppose it makes sense. If a casual observer such as myself can think of it then surely professional think tanks could come up with it. And as they are backed by billionaires, if it is a strategy that can be funded, the question is not if it could be done but why wouldn't they do it? And the only answers that makes any sense are variations of "because it wouldn't work." But looking around it's hard not to notice the lurch to the right in our media, both social and mainstream, despite that same media telling us it actually moved to the left (another strategy that worked). So, something the right wing billionaires wanted has been delivered and any retrospective explanation anyone can come up with likely occurred as long as it would actually work, with preference possibly given to the more cost effective ideas, however that might be measured. Propping up a few "blm leaders" almost no one on the left cared to know about is certainly within the power of the far right.

So, yes, the christian nationalists have been at this for a while and are very close to solidifying their power permanently.

Or No, at some point christian nationalism will require work to no longer take place behind the scenes and when people see it the christian-nationalists-owned media saying that isn't what they are seeing won't be enough (even though they already accomplished that once by telling people 1/6 was a peaceful protest and not an attempt at civil war).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/reclaiming-narratives-black-lives-matter-founder-mark-fisher-s-controversial-shift-from-blm-leadership-to-trump-endorsement/ss-AA1iVHq4