This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, July 13, 2016:
Founded by Marxists and serving as one of many front groups for the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), the Black Lives Matter movement’s primary purpose is to overthrow the government of the United States and to replace it with a totalitarian dictatorship. One of the stumbling blocks to BLM and FRSO, happily, is the fact that local police are outside of federal control.
If local police can be replaced with federal or national police forces, the rest is easy: incarceration of individuals resisting the tyranny, removal of all weapons from them, the obliteration of any remaining vestiges of the Constitution, and implementation of the United Nations’ New World Order.
The BLM mantra that has galvanized local protests is this: local police are racist killers. If that lie can be sold to enough ignorant citizens, federal controls promising transparency, honesty, neutrality, and fairness can be gently imposed on them.
If, however, that mantra can be exposed as a lie, then the march to totalitarianism can be slowed. Surprisingly, a study completed by a liberal black scholar from Harvard has exposed it as a lie, and, for the moment at least, the BLM movement has been damaged in its quest.
The scholar, Roland Fryer, the youngest African-American to receive tenure at Harvard and the first one to receive a prize given to the most promising American economist under 40, said his report’s conclusions were “the most surprising result of my career.” They simply contradicted what he expected to find.
Fryer was motivated to undertake the study out of anger over the shooting of Michael Brown, but admitted that “protesting is not my thing. But data is my thing. So I decided that I was going to collect a bunch of data and try to understand what really is going on when it comes to racial differences in police use of force.”
What he found was this:
In stark contrast to non-lethal uses of force, we find no racial differences in officer-involved shootings … we find [instead] that blacks [in Houston] are 23.8 percent less likely to be shot at by police officers relative to whites….
Partitioning the data in myriad ways, we find no evidence of racial discrimination in officer-involved shootings….
The data does more to provide a more compelling case that there is no discrimination in officer-involved shootings….
On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we are unable to detect any racial differences in either the raw data or when accounting for controls….
In the end … we have no definitive proof of discrimination.
And not just in Houston. Fryer’s massive study involved data collected from 10 police departments from around the country from 2000 to 2013. It took his team more than 3,000 hours to digest the five million instances where police confronted citizens and come to the conclusion that surprised him.
That conclusion also dismayed the New York Times, which preferred to focus on the study’s results concerning lower levels of confrontation (stop-and-frisk, misdemeanors, etc.). Its own conclusions were that Fryer’s results “may not be true in every city. The cities Mr. Fryer used to examine officer-involved shootings make up only about four percent of the nation’s population, and serve more blacks citizens than average.” It added that Fryer’s conclusions “do not mean that the general public’s perception of racism in policing is misguided … [because] nonlethal uses of force [are] far more common.”
This is a classic case of distraction away from the main point that Fryer made: there is no racial bias in lethal-force confrontations between police and the citizenry. That puts the whole ideology behind the BLM movement into question. After reviewing the study, Jonathan Tobin, writing in Commentary, said:
The notion that blacks are at risk from police fits in nicely with liberal myths about law enforcement … [a] lie that has kept a group like Black Lives Matter going with its destructive agenda that has led to anti-police violence….
[That agenda] is actually costing African-Americans their lives.
There are many reasons to fear a national or federal police force. Glenn Harlan Reynolds outlined three of them in USAToday:
- Federal law enforcement, especially in recent years, hasn’t exactly been a haven of cool professionalism.
- No law enforcement agency is very good at policing itself … a national police force is likely to be less so.
- It’s prone to political abuse.
He concluded that, “putting most law enforcement in the hands of diverse state and local authorities helps limit the potential for abuse. Putting everything under federal control, on the other hand, magnifies it.”
Born in 1960, Reynolds can be forgiven for not mentioning Nazi Germany’s use of federal or national police to exterminate huge swaths of its population. It took R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science, author of 24 non-fiction books, and frequent nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, to uncover the ghastly true history of unlimited government atrocities. In 1991 he formulated a new word to describe the horrors of unlimited government: Democide. He estimated early on that more than 120 million citizens were deliberately and systematically murdered by their governments in the 20th century.
This is where BLM is headed, along with numerous other front groups associated with the FRSO. It is hoped that Fryer’s study will slow down the rush to a national police force long enough for the citizenry to become more aware of what’s really at risk.
DiscoverTheNetworks.org: BLM is front for Freedom Road Socialist Organization
DiscoverTheNetworks.org: Background on the Freedom Road Socialist Organization
Commentary: Harvard Study Debunks Shooting Myth
NBER: The study
The New York Times: Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force but Not in Shootings
Washington Times: No racial bias in police shootings, study by Harvard professor shows