Black Lives Matter
Black Lives Matter... Of course they do! Who could possibly object to that statement? Do a large number of American people believe that black lives don't matter? Are we complicit in systemic white supremacy? Of course not!
A Pew poll from June found that over two-thirds of Americans (including a strong majority of white Americans) support the Black Lives Matter movement (but not necessarily the organization). Were the other third (over 100 million Americans!) genocidal white supremacists and neo-Nazis? Of Course Not!
But that is what the radical Left wants us to believe. It helps them to cloak their neo-Marxist political aims under the euphemistic veil of "anti-racism" and "anti-fascism" (because almost all Americans are anti-racist and anti-fascist!).
That is also why the institutions they and their "useful idiot"
progressive shills dominate portray their fiercest political opponents (even culturally conservative American patriots who are political liberals or libertarians) as authoritarian fascists who should be resisted "by any means necessary."
Remember, however, when our country was far more racist than it is now, we fought and killed fascists because they were racist and genocidal! Later, our free, prosperous, multi-racial republic fought to contain the spread of socialism - the other predominant authoritarian system.
Despite these herculean efforts, ruthless communist regimes slaughtered over 100 million political enemies in the 20th century. They wanted to conquer and dominate the entire world. How many more people would have been murdered if not for us?!?
During the 1950s - late 1960s Americans of all races supported an overwhelmingly successful civil rights movement, which ended compelled racial segregation, led to the effective dismantling of "systemic white supremacy," and thoroughly marginalized actual racists in American society.
Because equal liberty for all does not guarantee group-based equality of outcome, however, the violent, revolutionary New Left (a neo-Marxist coalition of communists, socialists, radical feminists, black nationalist militants, etc.) moved the goalposts to a radical version of "social justice" or intersectional socialism.
Since the emergence of the neo-Marxist New Left in the late 1960s, mainstream American society and culture have been dramatically transformed in pursuit of this pernicious philosophy's utopian ideals.
This was the result of a New Left revolutionary vanguard's begrudging "long march through the institutions." As our central institutions have shifted from white supremacy to liberal democracy to intersectional socialism, the mainstream American Left has gradually embraced the New Left's mantra of "discriminating (in)tolerance" of movements on the Right.
America Today
Our country today is one of the most free and prosperous places to live in all of human history, but people on the Left act as if it is overwhelmingly oppressive and awful. There is, in fact, great inequality. But inequality is not the same thing as oppression - particularly if the "oppressed" are better off than 90% of people in the world today and 99.9% of people in world history.
Thus, Black Lives Matter's narrative that the America of 2020 is a racist, fascist police state is patent nonsense. It is demonstrably false. Same with the idea that racist white police are systematically hunting and killing innocent black people in the streets... Same with the idea that interracial violence is overwhelmingly committed by whites against non-whites.
Total. Unadulterated. Bullshit.
These claims are not only wrong, but they are the opposite conclusions that reasonable people should draw from the best evidence. Black lives matter... but so do facts. Truth and justice are thoroughly intertwined.
To cure a disease, it must first be properly diagnosed. Then a proper treatment must be prescribed. If BLM's leaders were held to basic standards of competence in regard to their diagnoses and prescribed treatments of America's social problems, they would be guilty of malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt.
Consider that, in all of 2019, fourteen (give or take a few cases, depending on one's judgment of whether police had reason to believe the suspects were armed and dangerous at the time)
unarmed African Americans were shot and killed by the police.
Notably, however, some of those individuals were in the process of attacking officers or attempting to use the officers’ firearms against them when they were killed, so the number of clearly
unjust shooting deaths of unarmed black people at the hands of police that year was likely lower.
Every innocent victim's life matters. But that doesn't mean that irresponsible, violence-inspiring, hyperbolic rhetoric suggesting racist American police are carrying out a systemic campaign of targeted murder of innocent black people is even remotely justified. There are around 40 million African Americans in the United States. The number of innocent black people shot and killed by police in any given year is a tiny fraction of a percent of that number.
By comparison, twenty-five unarmed white Americans (out of a population of around 200 million) were shot and killed by the police in 2019. Thus, more white people were shot and killed by police that year, but black people were shot and killed at a disproportionately higher rate in comparison to their total population.
Good Social Science vs. Social Justice Orthodoxy
To make statistically sound generalizations about large-scale social phenomena, thoughtful people should take a careful look at the best available data. To reasonably interpret the meaning of the disparity noted above, good social science would control for directly relevant variables to the phenomenon under study.
At the very least, they would critically examine the behavior of individuals in each case at the time of the victim's death.
Additionally, they would consider whether the police, whose job it is to enforce the laws adopted by duly elected representatives of people in a constitutional democracy, made justifiable, often split second, decisions based on the availability of extremely limited information in any particular case.
To make accurate generalizations about systems and structures pertaining to crime, race, and policing, they would almost certainly need to consider various populations' crime rates, their frequency of interactions with police, the different rates at which they defy lawful police orders and resist arrest, and so on.
And that's just in regard to determining the reasonableness of one's beliefs. Shouldn't taking violent and destructive action upon one's beliefs require an even higher standard?
Prior to endorsing and acting upon the sweeping BLM generalization that "racist American police are systematically hunting and killing innocent black people in the streets," they should make damn sure they have met an extremely high standard of rational justification.
But they have not done so. Many probably haven't even considered their ethical or epistemic obligations to do so. Neither have they done their due diligence to consider whether BLM is, in fact, more concerned about black people than it is about communist revolution.
BLM leaders' connections with and funding received from international communist regimes and organizations should at least raise the alarm bells of those who were so thoroughly
exorcized over the unsubstantiated claims of Russian collusion with President Trump to interfere in our country's political affairs.
Good social science tells us time and again that correlation is not necessarily causation (e.g., a spike in ice cream sales alongside a spike in drownings does not mean that ice cream causes drowning.... There is an obvious confounding variable - It's summer time! People buy more ice cream and swim more when it is hot outside!).
So how would anyone know that correlation is, in fact, causation every time there is a group-based disparity of outcome? They don't. Most of them probably haven't even thought about it. They just know. Because they feel. This problem is at the very heart of the specific BLM narrative about innocent black people being routinely gunned down by racist police in America.
In my judgment this widespread belief is a mass delusion causing mass hysteria. The fact that so many people uncritically endorse this absurd nonsense is truly astounding.
It is a fact that variable (A) "blackness" is more strongly correlated than variable (B) "whiteness" with variable (C) getting shot and killed by police. We could add any number of contextual factors to this analysis, but the only directly relevant variable that seems to matter to the Left in such analyses is variable (D) prejudice.
People who support BLM act as if they know that (D) causes the higher correlation between (A) and (C) than between (B) and (C). But how do they know this? They don't. Some just believe it. Thoughtful (but nevertheless morally compromised) people who know better, simply assert that it is true because it supports their revolutionary political aims.
We might also bring in variable (E) the fact that black people have disproportionately more negative interactions with police than do other groups. Perhaps this is also caused by (D). Plenty of people believe that to be true, as well. But how do they know it? Hint: They don't!
It is doubtful that they have given much consideration to the possibility of an additional, directly relevant, confounding variable. They seem unwilling to consider the possibility that there may be a perfectly reasonable and evidence-based alternative to their (prejudiced; unwarranted) beliefs about race, crime, and policing in America.
Unfortunately for truth and justice, however, it is arbitrarily ruled out of bounds by social justice orthodoxy and other hegemonic political dogma.
This better-warranted, but politically incorrect, explanation involves the highly replicated social science finding of average behavioral differences among groups. Namely, what we might call variable (F) the fact that, in the United States, black people commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that white people do.
The far-Left dominates our society's collective thinking about race relations in America. Ask yourself how on Earth, during the past 7 years of BLMania about routine mass murder of innocent black victims by inherently violent, irredeemably evil white oppressors and thoroughly white supremacist institutions, you have managed to remain ignorant of directly relevant facts?
But back to correlation and causation... Might (F) be a stronger causal factor than (D) in any good faith, rational effort to understand the higher correlation between (A) and (C) than between (B) and (C)?
This is the primary consideration that opponents of the Black Lives Matter movement consider especially relevant to any analysis of structural racism and white supremacy in the police force that many BLM activists want to defund.
Disparities Are Not Necessarily Evidence of Oppression
As a point of comparison, consider that men are reported, arrested, and convicted of violent crimes much more often than women are. Yet, no one seriously believes that the American police force is systemically sexist toward men on the basis of disparate outcomes between men and women in this regard.
Needless to say, there are no riots to end structural misandry and abolish the police on that basis. People obviously need protection from that subset of men who are violent. But just as men, on average, behave differently in this regard than women do, black men, indeed, commit violent crime more often than other groups.
Is one's belief in that perfectly reasonable, plausible causal explanation, indeed, evidence of a legitimate moral failing? Note, this is not just a moral failing that we're taking about, but what the modern Left considers the worst possible moral failing in our society...
RACISM!
That is, the moral code of the modern Left suggests that believing groups of people have different socially relevant behavior patterns is the worst possible sin and psychological pathology one could have. But the belief that different groups, on average, have different, readily observable, patterns of behavior (e.g., violent crime rates) is extremely well-warranted and most probably true. Can facts be racist?
What Would Just Policing Look Like?
Rather than arbitrary racist beliefs, it is violent crime statistics that provide the "systemic" rationale for modern American police deployments. If protecting likely victims of violent crime is the ultimate purpose of good policing (that's my view), then the provision of justice requires more rather than less police in black neighborhoods.
American police have more interactions with black people primarily because mostly black victims make complaints about violent crimes involving mostly black suspects (in spite of a widespread "don't snitch" ethos). African Americans are significantly overrepresented among violent offenders (more so than any other group). A just police force would, on that basis, predictably have more contact with black people—as both victims and suspects—than they do with other groups.
Likewise, if unarmed black people refuse to comply with lawful orders, resist arrest, or assault officers more often than do unarmed members of other groups, this too would imply a greater likelihood of their being met with force, including being shot and killed, at the hands of police officers. Whether this is the case is a reasonable question that is directly relevant to the Black Lives Matter narrative.
It is plausible, however, that racial profiling and excessive use of force against black people is also a serious problem in the United States in 2020. Likewise, if police indeed dishonestly cover for one another when accused of using excessive force, then it makes sense for the Department of Justice or its state-level equivalent to investigate all police-involved shootings and serious injuries to suspects from violent interactions with law enforcement officers.
Extremism Behind the Feel-Good "Anti-Racist" Narrative
Black Lives Matter is a militant neo-Marxist organization whose real agenda is to wage a revolution to replace constitutional democracy & our market-based, mixed economy with
intersectional socialism by any means necessary.
Most people who support the BLM movement are probably not revolutionary Marxists. However, they have failed miserably to live up to the basic moral responsibility of knowing what in the hell one is talking about before making political demands and policy proposals that will affect people's lives.
The so-called "Ferguson Effect" of increasing crime rates in urban communities since the beginning of the Black Lives Matter movement suggests that defunding police departments in black neighborhoods will lead to more violent crimes against black victims at the hands of black perpetrators. Pretending not to know or remaining willfully ignorant of this likelihood so that one can appear "anti-racist" is not a moral act.
Neo-Marxist revolutionaries act as if their radical calls to abolish or defund the police have grass roots support. Like much of what the BLM organization proclaims, this, too, is a bald-faced lie. The overwhelming majority of black people do not want any such thing to happen in their neighborhoods.
An AP poll from September found Americans' support for BLM "protests" has plummeted from a majority of the adult population to only 39% after several months of destructive and deadly rioting.
False Choices
Black Lives Matter leaders and their allies present a false binary so gullible Americans feel like we have to pick between two equally terrible choices:
(1) Fully endorse a demonstrably false narrative and give
violent, anti-American, BLM/Antifa militants your
unconditional support, or
(2) You are a hateful racist/fascist/white supremacist/Nazi.
Most Americans, clueless about the movement's radical origins and political aims, have unfortunately opted for choice (1).
But there are much better options! Believe it or not, one can simultaneously value black lives and fervently resist the BLM movement's radical agenda!
The Truth About the BLM Organization
Bypassing the fawning BLM propaganda machine, the following narrative is supported by direct quotations and video evidence. It provides a look at what the radical movement really wants and how these extremist commitments and false beliefs inspire violence and lawlessness.
The Black Lives Matter organization has pushed a mostly unwarranted narrative consisting of sweeping generalizations supported primarily by rhetorical appeals to emotion to the mainstream American consciousness. Cherry-picked, non representative cases of police brutality against unarmed black men (many of whom were fighting with the police or going for the officer's gun when they were shot; and who were, in nearly every case, refusing and/or resisting lawful police orders at the time) have inspired widespread violence and destruction of property in cities across the U.S.
Purveyors of the BLM meta-narrative routinely ignore statistics inconvenient to their radical political aims. How can so many well-educated, intelligent, ethical people maintain this grand narrative when it is so clearly at odds with reality? It's flabbergasting.
Disingenuous, hyperbolic "Trojan horse" rhetoric (e.g., "antiracism," "dismantle white supremacy," "antifascism," "Black Lives Matter," "White silence is violence," "Stop Killing Us!", etc.) have successfully functioned to bring extremely radical ideas, which only a very small percentage of Americans would otherwise support, to the cultural and political mainstream in the United States.
Americans should really do their homework before supporting this movement. A good place to begin is with the work of Soeren Kern of the Gatestone Institute, who basis his analysis on Black Lives Matter founders and activists' own words.
Here are some highlights:
"BLM's worldview is based on a mix of far-left theoretical frameworks, including critical race theory and intersectional theory. Critical race theory posits that racism is systemic, based on a system of white supremacy and therefore a permanent feature of American life. Intersectional theory asserts that people are often disadvantaged by multiple sources of oppression: their race, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, and other identity markers."
"Black Lives Matter and other purveyors of critical race theory and intersectional theory reject individual accountability for behavior, criminal or otherwise, because, according to them, blacks are systemic and permanent victims of racism. Such racism, according to BLM, can only be defeated by completely dismantling the American economic, political and social system and rebuilding it from scratch — according to Marxist principles."
"Black Lives Matter seeks to replace the foundational cornerstones of American society: 1) abolish the Judeo-Christian concept of the traditional nuclear family, the basic social unit in America; 2) abolish the police and dismantle the prison system; 3) mainstream transgenderism and delegitimize so-called heteronormativity (the belief that heterosexuality is the norm); and 4) abolish capitalism (a free economy) and replace it with communism (a government-controlled economy)."
Take a deeper dive into the movement's radical philosophy & incendiary rhetoric:
Black Lives Matter: "We Are Trained Marxists" - Part I
Black Lives Matter: "We Will Burn Down This System" - Part II
Purveyors of the BLM meta-narrative routinely ignore statistics inconvenient to their radical political aims. How can so many well-educated, intelligent, ethical people maintain this grand narrative when it is so clearly at odds with reality? It's flabbergasting.
Disingenuous, hyperbolic "Trojan horse" rhetoric (e.g., "antiracism," "dismantle white supremacy," "antifascism," "Black Lives Matter," "White silence is violence," "Stop Killing Us!", etc.) have successfully functioned to bring extremely radical ideas, which only a very small percentage of Americans would otherwise support, to the cultural and political mainstream in the United States.
Americans should really do their homework before supporting this movement. A good place to begin is with the work of Soeren Kern of the Gatestone Institute, who basis his analysis on Black Lives Matter founders and activists' own words.
Here are some highlights:
"BLM's worldview is based on a mix of far-left theoretical frameworks, including critical race theory and intersectional theory. Critical race theory posits that racism is systemic, based on a system of white supremacy and therefore a permanent feature of American life. Intersectional theory asserts that people are often disadvantaged by multiple sources of oppression: their race, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, and other identity markers."
"Black Lives Matter and other purveyors of critical race theory and intersectional theory reject individual accountability for behavior, criminal or otherwise, because, according to them, blacks are systemic and permanent victims of racism. Such racism, according to BLM, can only be defeated by completely dismantling the American economic, political and social system and rebuilding it from scratch — according to Marxist principles."
"Black Lives Matter seeks to replace the foundational cornerstones of American society: 1) abolish the Judeo-Christian concept of the traditional nuclear family, the basic social unit in America; 2) abolish the police and dismantle the prison system; 3) mainstream transgenderism and delegitimize so-called heteronormativity (the belief that heterosexuality is the norm); and 4) abolish capitalism (a free economy) and replace it with communism (a government-controlled economy)."
Take a deeper dive into the movement's radical philosophy & incendiary rhetoric:
Black Lives Matter: "We Are Trained Marxists" - Part I
- "Most importantly, the main premise of BLM is based on a lie — namely that the United States is "at war" with African Americans. Blacks are not being systematically targeted by whites. Fifty years after the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, more than three in four Americans, including most whites and blacks, agreed that real progress has been made in getting rid of racial discrimination. Scholars have noted that BLM's inability to produce solid empirical evidence of systemic racism explains why its leaders continue to "broaden and deepen" the indictment to include the entire American social and political order."
- "BLM states that it wants to abolish: the nuclear family; police and prisons; heteronormativity; and capitalism. BLM and groups associated with it are demanding a moratorium on rent, mortgages and utilities, and reparations for a long list of grievances. BLM leaders have threatened to "burn down the system" if their demands are not met. They are also training militias based on the militant Black Panther movement of the 1960s."
- "If this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It's a matter of interpretation.... I just want black liberation and black sovereignty, by any means necessary." — BLM activist Hank Newsome, June 25, 2020.
- "BLM in its Own Words 'We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia [Garza] in particular, we're trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories.' — BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors, July 22, 2015."
- "On the surface, BLM presents itself as a grassroots movement dedicated to the noble tasks of fighting racism and police brutality. A deeper dive shows that BLM is a Marxist revolutionary movement aimed at transforming the United States — and the entire world — into a communist dystopia."
- "BLM's founders openly admit to being Marxist ideologues. Their self-confessed mentors include former members of the Weather Underground, a radical "leftwing" terrorist group that sought to bring a communist revolution to the United States in the 1960s and 1970s. BLM is friendly with Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, whose socialist policies have brought economic collapse and untold misery to millions of people there."
- "BLM leaders have confirmed that their immediate goal is to remove U.S. President Donald J. Trump from office."
- "'Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down. They are a form of white supremacy... Tear them down.' — BLM leader Shaun King, June 22, 2020."
- "'We are living in political moment where for the first time in a long time we are talking about alternatives to capitalism.' — Alicia Garza, BLM co-founder, March 2015."
- "'Anti-racism is anti-capitalist, and vice versa. There are no two ways around it. To be an anti-racist must demand a complete rejection of business as usual. An end to racism demands transformation of the global political-economic setup.' — Joshua Virasami, BLM UK, June 8, 2020."
- "Stay in the streets! The system is throwing every diversionary and de-mobilizing tactic at us. We are fighting to end policing and prisons as a system which necessitates fighting white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchal imperialism. Vet your comrades and stay focused." — BLM Chicago, Twitter, June 16, 2020.
- "'We say #DefundThePolice and #DefundDepOfCorrections because they work in tandem. The rise of mass incarceration occurred alongside the rise of militarized and mass policing. They must be abolished as a system.' — BLM Chicago, June 13, 2020."
"We are anti-capitalist. We believe and understand that Black people will never achieve liberation under the current global racialized capitalist system." — Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), of which BLM is a part, June 5, 2020.
- "'All Lives Matter,' is little more than a racist dog whistle that attempts to both delegitimize centuries of claims of global anti-Black oppression and position those who exhibit tremendous pride in their Blackness as enemies of the state. Well, we are enemies of any racist, sexist, classist, xenophobic state that sanctions brutality and murder against marginalized people who deserve to live as free people." — Feminista Jones, BLM activist.
- "'We are an ABOLITIONIST movement. We do not believe in reforming the police, the state or the prison industrial complex.' — BLM UK, June 21, 2020."
Black Lives Matter: "We Will Burn Down This System" - Part II
- "'In reality, this has nothing to do with black lives and everything to do with liberal Marxist anarchists having hijacked, as they always do, an important social issue with which they will undermine the very communities and people they claim to represent.' — Tammy Bruce, US commentator, The Washington Times, June 14, 2020."
- "BLM has lifted much of its agenda from radical leftist groups active in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. BLM is an ideological descendant of the Black Power Movement, the Black Panthers, the Black Liberation Army and the Weather Underground, all of which sought to overthrow the U.S. political system."
- "BLM's innovation is two-fold: 1) it has successfully employed intersectionality and identity politics to stir up a broad range of grievances that extend far beyond race — including class, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, immigration status and other identity markers — thus assuring that BLM offers something for just about anyone claiming victim status; and 2) it has successfully leveraged social media to agitate mob hysteria and funnel societal rage into a political movement with a large online reach."
- "BLM's ideological influences and sources of funding. BLM is at the core of a vast network of Marxist groups whose demands often coincide with those of Antifa anarchists, many of whom have been piggybacking on BLM protests to stir chaos and destruction. Left-of-center foundations including the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Ford Foundation, as well as intermediaries including Thousand Currents, Borealis Philanthropy and the Alliance for Global Justice and have provided tens of millions of dollars to BLM and the Movement for Black Lives, an umbrella group that coordinates BLM activism."
- "BLM is a revolutionary anti-capitalist movement masquerading as a civil rights movement. Its focus on racial issues is a smokescreen for a much larger effort to completely dismantle the American economic, political and social systems and rebuild them from scratch — according to Marxist principles."
Jason Richwine, "Against 'Black Lives Matter, '”American Greatness
Although they operate under the banner of social justice, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and its allies are a pernicious force. The false narratives, the toleration of lawlessness, and the punishment of dissenters have left our society in disarray. Americans of all races and political stripes should reject these tactics.
The problems with BLM start with its false claim that white police and civilians are systematically killing black people. Allied media have promoted cases that seem to fit this narrative, such as the deaths of George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery, but the outrage is selective. In a country as large as the United States, reporters can find individual incidents to support just about any narrative they want.
The statistics on race and crime tell a very different story than the one advanced by the anecdotes favored by the media. First, black Americans are far more likely than non-blacks to commit violent crime. Blacks accounted for 37 percent of all arrests for violent crime in 2018, including 53 percent of murder arrests, despite constituting only 13 percent of the population. It is this fundamental disparity in base rates of crime that generates so many encounters between blacks and police in the first place. Once we adjust for base rates, police are less likely to fatally shoot black suspects compared to white suspects—a fact that is entirely at odds with the BLM narrative... Black men are 6 percent of the population but have perpetrated 42 percent of cop killings over the past decade.
As for white civilians victimizing blacks, here the BLM narrative is not merely wrong, but backward. When violent incidents occurred between blacks and whites in 2018, 90 percent of the time the attacker was black and the victim was white. Historically, black crime was the primary driver of “white flight” from northern cities, and it is still a major reason why whites are reluctant to live in majority-black neighborhoods or to send their children to majority-black schools. The media’s emphasis on white-on-black crime therefore must be especially perplexing to white audiences—some of whom likely are thinking, “There’s a protest over interracial violence, and we are supposed to be the villains?”
...The protests in service of that narrative have brought forth a disturbing toleration of lawlessness. Whether the protests have been “mostly peaceful,” as the media are apt to describe them, is irrelevant. It is undeniable that lawbreaking has occurred; it has sometimes been inherent to the protests, as with the toppling of statues or attacks on government buildings; and the response from the authorities has often been indifference. The burning down of a police station in Minneapolis and the creation of a so-called “autonomous zone” in Seattle are just the most visible instances of lawlessness that include widespread looting and vandalism unchallenged by the police. Some cops have even taken a knee in submission to the protesters.
No nation can prosper without the rule of law... Certainly the confidence that citizens have in the authorities has already weakened. Some have even asked why they should continue to pay taxes when the government refuses to perform its most basic duty of arresting lawbreakers. There is no good answer.
To restore order, we must condemn all unlawful acts without reservation. Express no sympathy for lawbreakers. If one or both political parties do not proactively condemn criminal acts, demand they take a position. Call on public officials to allow police to do their jobs.
Speaking out is risky, however, because opposing BLM can be a fireable offense. Newspaper editors, educators, and even religious figures have lost their jobs for raising objections to the protests. Now the BLM mantra emanates from organizations once thought to be apolitical, such as tech companies and sports leagues. When this groupthink combines with our growing “cancel culture”—which posits that people with unfashionable views should not merely be criticized, but shunned—ordinary citizens may be scared into silence.
The mob’s power grows with each cancellation, so defeating it requires a concerted effort to resist its demands. Broad declarations in favor of free speech are welcome, but more effective would be robust defenses of specific people who are targets of cancellation. Publish them. Hire them. Proclaim that their views, even if not popular, still have a place in the public square.
In addition to supporting individuals, we should reject demands to purge words or objects in the name of social justice. No person of sound mind is harmed by Thomas Jefferson’s statue, or by Uncle Ben’s rice, or by the term plantations in the state of Rhode Island’s full name. Calls to remove them are part of a never-ending attempt to condition ordinary people into believing that they owe activists something, and such compliance breeds only more demands.
Factual evidence, peaceful streets, and open discourse are the hallmarks of democratic governance. Because BLM flouts all of these values, it deserves our condemnation.
See for yourself:
Although they operate under the banner of social justice, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and its allies are a pernicious force. The false narratives, the toleration of lawlessness, and the punishment of dissenters have left our society in disarray. Americans of all races and political stripes should reject these tactics.
The problems with BLM start with its false claim that white police and civilians are systematically killing black people. Allied media have promoted cases that seem to fit this narrative, such as the deaths of George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery, but the outrage is selective. In a country as large as the United States, reporters can find individual incidents to support just about any narrative they want.
The statistics on race and crime tell a very different story than the one advanced by the anecdotes favored by the media. First, black Americans are far more likely than non-blacks to commit violent crime. Blacks accounted for 37 percent of all arrests for violent crime in 2018, including 53 percent of murder arrests, despite constituting only 13 percent of the population. It is this fundamental disparity in base rates of crime that generates so many encounters between blacks and police in the first place. Once we adjust for base rates, police are less likely to fatally shoot black suspects compared to white suspects—a fact that is entirely at odds with the BLM narrative... Black men are 6 percent of the population but have perpetrated 42 percent of cop killings over the past decade.
As for white civilians victimizing blacks, here the BLM narrative is not merely wrong, but backward. When violent incidents occurred between blacks and whites in 2018, 90 percent of the time the attacker was black and the victim was white. Historically, black crime was the primary driver of “white flight” from northern cities, and it is still a major reason why whites are reluctant to live in majority-black neighborhoods or to send their children to majority-black schools. The media’s emphasis on white-on-black crime therefore must be especially perplexing to white audiences—some of whom likely are thinking, “There’s a protest over interracial violence, and we are supposed to be the villains?”
...The protests in service of that narrative have brought forth a disturbing toleration of lawlessness. Whether the protests have been “mostly peaceful,” as the media are apt to describe them, is irrelevant. It is undeniable that lawbreaking has occurred; it has sometimes been inherent to the protests, as with the toppling of statues or attacks on government buildings; and the response from the authorities has often been indifference. The burning down of a police station in Minneapolis and the creation of a so-called “autonomous zone” in Seattle are just the most visible instances of lawlessness that include widespread looting and vandalism unchallenged by the police. Some cops have even taken a knee in submission to the protesters.
No nation can prosper without the rule of law... Certainly the confidence that citizens have in the authorities has already weakened. Some have even asked why they should continue to pay taxes when the government refuses to perform its most basic duty of arresting lawbreakers. There is no good answer.
To restore order, we must condemn all unlawful acts without reservation. Express no sympathy for lawbreakers. If one or both political parties do not proactively condemn criminal acts, demand they take a position. Call on public officials to allow police to do their jobs.
Speaking out is risky, however, because opposing BLM can be a fireable offense. Newspaper editors, educators, and even religious figures have lost their jobs for raising objections to the protests. Now the BLM mantra emanates from organizations once thought to be apolitical, such as tech companies and sports leagues. When this groupthink combines with our growing “cancel culture”—which posits that people with unfashionable views should not merely be criticized, but shunned—ordinary citizens may be scared into silence.
The mob’s power grows with each cancellation, so defeating it requires a concerted effort to resist its demands. Broad declarations in favor of free speech are welcome, but more effective would be robust defenses of specific people who are targets of cancellation. Publish them. Hire them. Proclaim that their views, even if not popular, still have a place in the public square.
In addition to supporting individuals, we should reject demands to purge words or objects in the name of social justice. No person of sound mind is harmed by Thomas Jefferson’s statue, or by Uncle Ben’s rice, or by the term plantations in the state of Rhode Island’s full name. Calls to remove them are part of a never-ending attempt to condition ordinary people into believing that they owe activists something, and such compliance breeds only more demands.
Factual evidence, peaceful streets, and open discourse are the hallmarks of democratic governance. Because BLM flouts all of these values, it deserves our condemnation.
See for yourself:
"What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!"
"Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!"
Black Lives Matter Militant Shoots & Kills 5 Officers; Wounds 9 Others
Black Militants in Cop-Free "Autonomous Zone" Kill 8-Yr-Old Secoriea Turner
"Kill all these cops. Kill they kids too. Kill all these mothers#$%ers!"
"F#%k you, you filthy white f#%ks!"
"This is a revolution!" "We do not believe in equality!"
"While we have this country by the balls, we're gonna cram
legislation right down its throat!" "Fuck peace!"
"We are pushing real revolution. We know that the
revolution won't come at the ballot box."
Some Questions for BLM Supporters
Is your belief that police unjustly target innocent black people with violence supported by the same kind of evidence you would demand from opponents of this position? That is, if your beliefs are based on "lived experience," individual cases, or other forms of anecdotal evidence that confirm your beliefs, would you consider counter-claims equally valid if they were supported by contradictory forms of the same type of evidence?
If not, does that mean you reject the mutual responsibilities of reason-giving and -taking or adherence to consistent standards for assessing competing truth claims (i.e., basic norms of cooperation and citizenship in a republic)?
Are you willing to listen to us? Do you care what we think? If not, why should we listen to you or care what you think?
Mobs of "peaceful protesters" who make moralistic "or else" demands to other citizens in a constitutional democracy do not have the moral high ground, no matter how emotional they are or how morally superior they think they are.
If you support the BLM organization, ask yourself if you are willing to initiate violence against people who want legitimate law enforcement authority in a constitutional democracy to enforce the law. Because that is precisely what BLM's "or else" demands amount to.
Furthermore, if you do this, how do you suppose your opponents will respond? Remember, the best evidence directly refutes the narrative that you believe justifies rioting, looting, and revolutionary violence.
Your opponents' feel every bit as passionately about their conception of justice as you do about yours. Let that sink in for a minute.
In determining whether a group's different treatment from the police is just or unjust, does the possibility of different patterns of behavior among groups matter? Have you even thought about this possibility? If not, why not?
The burden of proof is on you. Especially if you believe yourself justified in waging a violent revolution to overthrow a liberal democratic system of government.
Why would the Democrats (who you keep voting for) appoint so many black police chiefs and hire so many black officers in cities with large black populations (where most of the officer-involved killings of black people take place) if their ultimate goal was not to protect victims but to wage a systematically racist campaign of state violence against innocent black people?
If white people outnumber black people 5 to 1 in America and they have all of the power and privilege, plus they are complicit in a white supremacist campaign to systematically slaughter innocent black people, why are the heavily armed, genocidal, racist police so bad at killing unarmed, innocent black people?
Because this narrative is absolute bullshit. American police aren't trying to kill innocent black people. They are trying to keep violent black criminals from killing innocent black people. This should be obvious to intelligent people. Somehow it isn't.
If the American police were, in fact, the genocidal racists you perceive them to be, and they have the widespread support of a complicit and overtly racist white majority, wouldn't they shoot and kill a lot more than fifteen "innocent victims" (i.e., many, if not most, of whom were, in fact, career criminals engaging in violent resistance to legitimate law enforcement authority at the time of their deaths)?
What are your reasons and evidence for accepting the BLM narrative? What, if any, evidence could your opponents possibly provide that would persuade you that your beliefs were inaccurate?
If the answer to either of these questions is, "none," why should anyone who disagrees with you take you seriously or tolerate unlawful behavior motivated by such dogmatically-held, unwarranted beliefs?
In fact, why would we allow you to wage a violent revolution to fundamentally alter our country's institutions on the basis of your dogmatic faith in intersectional socialist mythology?
Some Questions for BLM Supporters
Is your belief that police unjustly target innocent black people with violence supported by the same kind of evidence you would demand from opponents of this position? That is, if your beliefs are based on "lived experience," individual cases, or other forms of anecdotal evidence that confirm your beliefs, would you consider counter-claims equally valid if they were supported by contradictory forms of the same type of evidence?
If not, does that mean you reject the mutual responsibilities of reason-giving and -taking or adherence to consistent standards for assessing competing truth claims (i.e., basic norms of cooperation and citizenship in a republic)?
Are you willing to listen to us? Do you care what we think? If not, why should we listen to you or care what you think?
Mobs of "peaceful protesters" who make moralistic "or else" demands to other citizens in a constitutional democracy do not have the moral high ground, no matter how emotional they are or how morally superior they think they are.
If you support the BLM organization, ask yourself if you are willing to initiate violence against people who want legitimate law enforcement authority in a constitutional democracy to enforce the law. Because that is precisely what BLM's "or else" demands amount to.
Furthermore, if you do this, how do you suppose your opponents will respond? Remember, the best evidence directly refutes the narrative that you believe justifies rioting, looting, and revolutionary violence.
Your opponents' feel every bit as passionately about their conception of justice as you do about yours. Let that sink in for a minute.
In determining whether a group's different treatment from the police is just or unjust, does the possibility of different patterns of behavior among groups matter? Have you even thought about this possibility? If not, why not?
The burden of proof is on you. Especially if you believe yourself justified in waging a violent revolution to overthrow a liberal democratic system of government.
Why would the Democrats (who you keep voting for) appoint so many black police chiefs and hire so many black officers in cities with large black populations (where most of the officer-involved killings of black people take place) if their ultimate goal was not to protect victims but to wage a systematically racist campaign of state violence against innocent black people?
If white people outnumber black people 5 to 1 in America and they have all of the power and privilege, plus they are complicit in a white supremacist campaign to systematically slaughter innocent black people, why are the heavily armed, genocidal, racist police so bad at killing unarmed, innocent black people?
Because this narrative is absolute bullshit. American police aren't trying to kill innocent black people. They are trying to keep violent black criminals from killing innocent black people. This should be obvious to intelligent people. Somehow it isn't.
If the American police were, in fact, the genocidal racists you perceive them to be, and they have the widespread support of a complicit and overtly racist white majority, wouldn't they shoot and kill a lot more than fifteen "innocent victims" (i.e., many, if not most, of whom were, in fact, career criminals engaging in violent resistance to legitimate law enforcement authority at the time of their deaths)?
What are your reasons and evidence for accepting the BLM narrative? What, if any, evidence could your opponents possibly provide that would persuade you that your beliefs were inaccurate?
If the answer to either of these questions is, "none," why should anyone who disagrees with you take you seriously or tolerate unlawful behavior motivated by such dogmatically-held, unwarranted beliefs?
In fact, why would we allow you to wage a violent revolution to fundamentally alter our country's institutions on the basis of your dogmatic faith in intersectional socialist mythology?