There is this deluge of shock and awe coming from the keyboards of white ~experts~ surrounding the notion that Boog Boys would show up to Minneapolis to fight against the state. Their restricted, individualist lens for analyzing racism has always left them unprepared for...

moments of interest convergence between whites who are (or perceive themselves to be) in antagonism with structural power and people who actually are.

I keep going back to that Bellingcat article and a few others like it, back to the shocked Facebook posts and Twitter takes...

... back to this persistent and nagging dread that fills me every time scholars, journalists, and activists show how quickly they substitute white redemption narratives for a nuanced understanding of who and what racists are, and where they fit as agents of a structure.

You have ~serious experts~ now declaring people "not monolithically racist" who, without exception, believe the border should be militarized to prevent the victims of colonialism from rattling the gates of Empire.

They lost the forest of liberation for the trees of spectacle.

This is what's so frustrating about the hegemonic politics of white anti-fascist writing and activism. It's a tendency to individualize racism that leads them to extremely destructive conclusions. The flip side of not fully understanding the multifaceted self-interest of...

white nationalists is mistaking interest convergence for anti-racism or allyship. Their failure to interrogate their own relationship to whiteness mystifies the structure even as they acknowledge its existence. They see racists as unrealistically ideologically consistent, so...

any expectation violation (ex, white nationalists supporting Palestine or Black liberation) becomes evidence of progress or a decrease in their racist tendencies.

Annoying af how these ppl want to believe in individual white redemption as a political praxis.