In 2006, Peter Schweizer published the non-fiction book, “Do As I Say, Not As I Do,” an expose of leftists such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, and others whose actions put into glaring light their hypocrisy and the falsity of their claim to fight for “the little guy” against special interests, political favoritism, and corporate power.
And, as expected, it looks like Mr. Schweizer might need to update his book, because Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors (fka Patrisse Cullors) not only just bought a $1.4 million compound in Topanga Canyon, near Beverly Hills, CA., she did it through… a corporation.
According to The Dirt:
A secluded mini-compound tucked into L.A.’s rustic and semi-remote Topanga Canyon was recently sold for a tad more than $1.4 million to a corporate entity that public records show is controlled by Patrisse Khan-Cullors, 37-year-old social justice visionary and co-founder of the galvanizing and, for some, controversial Black Lives Matter movement.
Yep. Khan-Cullors helped found a movement that often has been involved in so many riots, acts of looting, arson, and other kinds of criminal attacks against private property and peaceful people, that, last fall, the Insurance Information Institute estimated the total to surpass $1 billion.
She helped found a movement based, as she openly admitted, on Marxist ideology.
Indeed, in 2015 Kahn-Cullors openly stated her own Marxist stance and that of her BLM cofounder Alicia Garza. As MRCTV’s Nick Kangadis wrote:
In a recently resurfaced interview from 2015, Black Lives Matter (BLM) co-founder Patrisse Cullors explicitly said that she and fellow BLM co-founder Alicia Garza, in particular, are ‘trained Marxists.’
And Nick quoted Cullors:
’Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists,’ Cullors said in 2015. ‘We are super versed on, sort of, ideological theories.’
Of course, anyone who IS “super-versed” on Marxist theories will know that this kind of hypocrisy – this superficial, race-baiting, “social justice” caterwauling – was preceded by Marx’s own towering hypocrisy.
Indeed, though Karl Marx openly called for the state to seize all inheritances, he thirsted so greatly for money left by his deceased father that he alienated the rest of his family. As I note in Part One of our new free MRC learning series, College Unbound, historian Chris Talgo has told us:
“A bitter family feud erupted, with Karl demanding increasingly more money, even as his sisters and mother pleaded with him to provide for himself. After all, Karl was 23 years old! At this point, Marx’s five sisters began to view him quite negatively. His closest and favorite sister, Sophie, even told him “that it was undignified and irresponsible of him to count on living the life of a perpetual parasite.” Unfortunately, Sophie’s sage advice fell upon deaf ears.”
So, why wouldn’t Kahn-Cullors exhibit the same kind of hypocrisy that socialists such as Bernie Sanders (he who says he is for “the little guy” yet owns three houses, who claims to be anti-war yet lobbied for a military contractor to open a branch in Vermont), and the aforementioned subjects of Schweizer’s book so routinely exhibit? They follow in the well-trod path of their ideological sire: Karl Marx.
Heck, even Marx’s predecessor, Jean Jacques Rousseau, lived the same kind of hypocritical life. As I mention in Part Seven of College Unbound, the 19thCentury exponent of socialism had five children, gave them all up to the state-run “Foundlings Home”, and then complained that it was the fault of society that he was never able to enjoy the delight of “the father’s embrace” of his abandoned offspring.
And “social justice” Khan-Cullors used her corporation to settle in the ritzy California locale that is not only famously the abode of the super-wealthy – hence the play on culture shocks in the famous comedy TV seriesThe Beverly Hillbillies-- it is a culture that Ms. Khan-Cullors repeatedly has depicted as alien, elitist, and part of the “systemically racist” portion of America that has kept black Americans out of “positions of power.” This is the locale that, according to the U.S. Census (which, according to the “rules” of the Constitution, shouldn’t be measuring racially disparate groups, but is only supposed to count people for the purposes of so-called “representation”) has a white population of 81.9 percent and a black population of 1.9 percent in Beverly Hills, and, according to Data USA is 82.3 percent white, 1.64 percent black in that small enclave of Topanga Canyon.
Is it any wonder that more and more people recognize political opportunists like Khan-Cullors? Is it a surprise to see that, even as the pop media coddle these kinds of two-faced hypocrites, people who actually believe in respecting the Golden Rule and their neighbors’ property are becoming more and more fed up with leftist double-speak?
Perhaps most leftists won’t bother calling out this woman. Perhaps they think there is a “greater good” to remaining mum about her clear breach of her own avowed standards and her hyperbole.
One can only hope that, within those leftist circles, a growing number will have the self-respect to reject this abject self-abasement and they will stand up for principle.
Doing so would mean not only seeing the rot at the historical core of their ideology, but also recognizing that people like Khan-Collurs fit right in with that history.