Religion is a Mental Illness

In that incident, Sellers allegedly shot and killed 43-year-old William Rankin chasing him into a home following a vehicle pursuit. Rankin reportedly crashed into a home on East National Cemetary Road before he was confronted by Sellers. The homeowner was also hurt by a K-9 unit, that was off-leash, inside and required medical treatment.

SLED said Sellers did not announce his or the K-9′s presence when he entered the home and while the K-9 was “actively mauling” the homeowner, Sellers shot his department-issued handgun five times, unlawfully killing Rankin who was unarmed at the time.

Sellers is also accused of using improper commands for his K-9 allowing the animal to maul the homeowner for 87 seconds, according to SLED, and cause “permanent disfigurement and impairment.”

I Hated July 4th. This Is What Changed My Mind.

I allowed my brain to interpret every sign of America as something just left of a lynch mob dancing on my lawn.

thefaction.substack.com

The eruption of fireworks made me want to crawl out of my skin. I fully believed that the night of July 4, 2017 was a celebration of white supremacy, and I couldn't understand why anyone would participate in a festival of hatred. The power was also conveniently out in my apartment for the entirety of the evening, which made the jarring pyrotechnics all the more inescapable and amplified—as garish as a performance of sirens and headlights in my living room, unrepentant in their hours-long parade. Red, white and blue—over and over again. 

The people on the outside celebrated a country that was not only founded on slavery, but used the 13th amendment to preserve it. A country that also maintained the lynching of black men like Michael Brown and Philando Castile through the shield of law enforcement. And even though it elected its first black president, it slipped on the familiar when it elected Trump as its leader—a President who had no qualms with using xenophobic dog-whistles to rally his base. 

And these were just the visible warts on the face of the nation. What about the abscesses that oozed beneath its stripy, starred garb? The invisible system of racial discrimination and microaggressive harm? The walls built into every industry to keep the marginalized away from the American Dream? The emotional labor required by black women like myself to educate anyone on all the above? 

From my 2017 perspective, those who celebrated the 4th of July reveled in the murder of the innocent, and clapped in the defense of the assailant. Anyone who waved a flag, might as well brandish a whip. Anyone who took the day off to corral friends and family around a grill and under an umbrella of explosives or worse—under the presidency of Trump—might have as well donned a swastika pin and raised an arm into the sparkly skyline. 

This was my lens for a good number of years, and one that I look back on with grief. Why did I let a holiday wreck me so well? In hindsight, I have a few theories as to why, and it boils down to a worldview I unintentionally adopted—one that only lent to the fragility of the observer.

For the race-essentialist, the 4th of July is a semiotic nightmare. Oftentimes, interpersonal gestures and words take the spotlight when discussing microaggressions, but in the emoji-age, we ought to consider the role symbolism plays in drilling in groupthink, deteriorating meaning and expanding the modern idea of harm. What made the celebration of American independence an abyss of grief for me was the meaning I placed on every sign that marked the day.   

Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure defined a sign as any motion, gesture, event, or pattern that conveys meaning. The green light at a traffic stop means 'go', and blue on a faucet indicates 'cold' water. Meaning has been given to these shapes to form signs, and through repetitive use and education of the meaning behind the signs, we can add it to our symbolic lexicon. 

After two-dozen revisions, our current Star-Spangled Banner is meant to represent the nation of the United States of America. But how did it go from a mere symbol of a nation, to a symbol conveying conspired hate—at least in the minds of a radicalized few, my former self included?

I'd suggest it has something to do with concept creep—a term Jacob L. Mackey referred to during a previous conversation I had with him on microaggressions. Concept creep, coined by Nick Haslam, and popularized by The Coddling of the American Mind, refers to the ever-expanding meaning of harm-related language, such as trauma, or even the word 'harm' itself. In my case, harm came to include the symbol of the American flag. And in a reciprocal sense, the flag didn't just represent a nation, the concept behind it crept to represent a bad nation. Sure, one can look at a flag and think critically about the flaws of its country's government or systems. In my case, however, I felt like I was under attack at the sight of it. So what energized that progression of meaning—what taught me to reinterpret the meaning behind a symbol to the point of physical distress?

I'd like to nominate the mainstream media narrative for that progression of definition. Everything from social media to sports told me exactly what kind of meaning I should ascribe to the American flag, and its companions. One of fear, not fondness.

With the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, followed by the catastrophe-confirming appointment of Trump, the media streets in the mid twenty-tens were saturated with posts on police brutality, the national anthem and white America. This came with a flood of symbols to aid the viewers' dissection of events. Images of symbols such as the MAGA hat, The Thin Blue Line flag, the Trump posters, and The BLM fist—to name a few—often accompanied stories detailing the brewing cultural tension. 

Law Enforcement and the Thin Blue Line flag existed in opposition to the BLM movement. So if one was only familiar with the pro-BLM argument, and was as disheartened with grief as I was to hear any opposing cases, the meaning assigned to the Thin Blue Line flag no longer communicated the courage and bravery of law enforcement, but rather that the bearer of that symbol sided with police officers who murder innocent, unarmed black men. 

If you supported athletes' choice to stand during the singing of the national anthem, rather than kneeling in protest, in over-simplified reasoning, you supported the killing of black men. The further this meaning-to-symbol relationship was exacerbated through fear-mongering media—especially social media, where news travels best when laced with negativity—the further the meaning ascribed to certain symbols waxed sour.

Therefore, the progression of meaning in my mind, energized by the media, devolved this way: 

1. Wearing or waving the American flag is associated with patriotism. 
2. If you're patriotic, you're most likely a conservative. 
3. Only conservatives oppose BLM. 
4. Opposing BLM means that you support the killing of black people. 
5. Therefore, waving the American flag means you support the killing of black people.  

We also see this same re-education of benign signs into something indicative of harm in the recent lawsuit filed against Penn State at Abington, where the boss of plaintiff Zack K. DePiero, Liliana Naydan, allegedly told writing faculty that “white supremacy exists in language itself, and therefore, that the English language itself is ‘racist’ and, furthermore, that white supremacy exists in the teaching of writing of English, and therefore writing teachers are themselves racist white supremacists…”

Now imagine that it's not just the American flag that warrants this ungracious interpretation of meaning, but other icons of American culture: an eagle, American football, a pair of cowboy boots. For those steeped in critical social justice ideology, interfacing with these objects (and I'll speak for my former self) is aggravating on an average day. But seeing these concept-crept-visual-ideas all in one weekend, over and over again, paired with loud explosives and laughter, distorts the character of loved ones opting to celebrate the 4th of July, and as a black individual, lends to a sense of distrust because once more, bearing the American flag with pride means you support the killing of black people—with pride.

All of this—the concept creep, the concentration of offensive symbolism, the narrative—contributed to a sense of catastrophization on the 4th. Catastrophization is a cognitive distortion that leads you to assume the worst case scenario out of a relatively generic circumstance. In my case, I was brought to tears under a burden of anxiety because I allowed my brain to interpret every sign of America, including a date dedicated to the celebration of its independence, as something just left of a lynch mob dancing on my lawn.

If you aren't familiar with how I broke the grip of cultish indoctrination as a whole, forgiveness played a key role in setting me free. But my attitude shift towards the 4th of July began amid the insanity of 2020. 

I was hit with the sting of cognitive dissonance after COVID-minded public health officials failed to call George Floyd protesters back indoors. The protesters were instead given the green light to do what we had been warned against repeatedly out of love for others. I couldn't quite tell—did these people who declared support for BLM, actually care about black lives?   

They allowed good people to go outside and do the thing we had been warned would kill us all. That transcends inconsiderate. The people that were supposed to be the 'good guys' were no better than Derek Chauvin. And that forced me to think more critically about who the 'good guys' were, and what exactly caring for the marginalized really looks like.

I started to question what was in it for them to maintain such dangerously contradictory positions. Somehow, somewhere, someone was lying. But why lie? Why distort the compassion of well-meaning individuals? This line of questioning led me to the obvious-–money and power.

Around this time, I turned to a refreshing pair of news anchors, Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, who at the time had a segment on The Hill's YouTube channel called Rising, and I was impressed by their similarly aligned remarks concerning the contradiction of stay-at-home orders—especially since Krystal and Saagar's observations were from both the right and left—and felt some peace and validation in questioning the powers that be. 

I questioned the fear that fueled media, and the censorship machine that went to work to squash varied opinions on COVID and quarantine measures. I questioned the power that tech corporations had to minimize voices at will. I questioned every one from Don Lemon to Patrisse Cullors, to the celebrity cohort that marched in lockstep with the 'right' idea. I had always questioned Donald Trump, but I allowed myself to question Joe Biden—why was a white old guy all of a sudden the arbiter of blackness? 

I questioned so much that I began to question questions—specifically why people were paying dearly for merely voicing them? That led me to revisit a little American idea called Free Speech—once a textual sign for intolerant rednecks, and now, my last hope towards freedom from a form of slavery that I had no idea was slowly choking out my mental health.  

I realized that it was this freedom to think, to express new paths of reasoning, to outwardly question those in authority, to protest injustice, or to express oneself uniquely, that many Americans remembered and honored when they beheld the symbol of the flag.  

Over many months, I meditated on the reality that the United States is ultimately structured to protect the smallest minority—the individual. There is something to be said about how even the collective identity of blackness turns on its own once certain questions threaten sacred cows like the Black Lives Matter movement or the status of oppression. Anywhere that groupthink can be formed, totalitarianism has a chance to consume the participants of said group. 

Being told what to think by conforming to group ideals made me a slave to fear, and allowing myself to reorganize how I thought set me—the individual—free. Learning how to think has afforded me the freedom to reinterpret symbols with more grace. It's also placed the control to assign meaning to symbols, signs, gestures and words back into my own hands. I don't need to depend on cash-hungry newscasters to tell me who to love or hate. And I won't leave it to billion-dollar corporations to manipulate me into surrendering my ability to reason—they won't get me to roll-over on command. This freedom to question popular ideas, re-evaluate their truth and efficacy, and communicate my findings without jail time—as I am doing now—is partly why those annoying fireworks pop-off as fiercely as they do. 

For those who have grown up here in the United States in struggle, I'm not diminishing your experience by declaring my old beliefs completely moot. The economic disparity grieves me. The American Dream slowly fading away from my generation and the one to come, frightens me. Wrongful sentencing in this country's brutal penal system breaks my heart. The glaring disparities that rip through various demographic lines infuriate me. No, rather, my new position is founded on the reality that without American ideals—voting rights, freedom of speech, checks and balances—those issues will be so much harder to address, let alone fix. (Trust me, I'm ethnically Ugandan) 

While the United States has a lot to work on, given its checkered past, maintaining the freedom to progress towards a better future, or preserve what has worked for us in the past, is worth celebrating. This year I celebrate freedom from the lens that was my own imprisonment.

BLM headed for INSOLVENCY after plunging $8.5M into the red

BLM's Global Network Foundation, which officially emerged in November 2020, is in dire financial straits, according to its most recent finan

Mail Online

• Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a non-profit that grew out of the protest movement, is haemorrhaging cash, financial records show 
• The group ran an $8.5 million deficit and saw the value of its investment accounts drop by nearly $10 million, with fundraising down 88% year-on-year
• Despite the financial woes, the organization still paid relatives of the founder and of a board member hundreds of thousands of dollars for services 

Black Lives Matter's national organization is at risk of going bankrupt after its finances plunged $8.5 million into the red last year - while simultaneously handing multiple staff seven-figure salaries.  

Financial disclosures obtained by The Washington Free Beacon show the perilous state of BLM's Global Network Foundation, which officially emerged in November 2020, as a more formal way of structuring the civil rights movement.

Yet despite the financial controversy and scrutiny, BLM GNF continued to hire relatives of the founder, Patrisse Cullors, and several board members. 

Cullors' brother, Paul Cullors, set up two companies which were paid $1.6 million providing 'professional security services' for Black Lives Matter in 2022.

Paul Cullors was also one of BLM's only two paid employees during the year, collecting a $126,000 salary as 'head of security' on top of his consulting fees. He is best known as a graffiti artist, with no background in security.

Patrisse Cullors defended hiring him, saying registered security firms which hired former police officers could not be trusted, given the movement's opposition to police brutality. 

For the previous year, 2021, tax filings revealed that BLM paid a company owned by Damon Turner, the father of Cullors' child, nearly $970,000 to help 'produce live events' and provide other 'creative services.' 

Cullors resigned in May 2021. 

'While Patrisse Cullors was forced to resign due to charges of using BLM's funds for her personal use, it looks like she's still keeping it all in the family,' said Paul Kamenar, an attorney for the National Legal and Policy Center watchdog group. 

Shalomyah Bowers, who took over from Cullors when she resigned, also benefitted handsomely from the group: in 2022, his consultancy firm was paid $1.7 million for management and consulting services, the Free Beacon reported.

And the sister of former Black Lives Matter board member Raymond Howard was also employed in a lucrative role as a consultant.

Danielle Edwards's firm, New Impact Partners, was paid $1.1 million for consulting services in 2022, the Free Beacon said.

BLM GNF also agreed to pay an additional $600,000 to an unidentified former board member's consulting firm 'in connection with a contract dispute'.

The non-profit group ran an $8.5 million deficit, and its investment accounts fell in value by nearly $10 million in the most recent tax year, financial disclosures show.

The group logged a $961,000 loss on a securities sale of $172,000, suggesting the group sustained an 85 percent loss on the transaction. Further details of that security have not been shared. 

And the cash flowing into BLM's coffers has dropped dramatically.

Donations plunged by 88 percent between 2021 and 2022, from $77 million to just $9.3 million for the most recent financial year.  

Patrisse Cullors, who had been at the helm of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation for nearly six years, stepped down in May 2021, amid anger at the group's financial decisions and perceived lack of transparency.

A year later, in May 2022, it was revealed Black Lives Matter spent more than $12 million on luxury properties in Los Angeles and in Toronto - including a $6.3 million 10,000-square-foot property in Canada that was purchased as part of a $8M 'out of country grant.'

The Toronto property was bought with grant money that was meant for 'activities to educate and support black communities, and to purchase and renovate property for charitable use.' 

The group had said it was planning to use the property as main headquarters in Canada, and it has now been named the Wilseed Center for Arts and Activism. 

It emerged that Cullors transferred millions from the organization to a charity run by her wife, Janaya Khan, to purchase the property. 

Cullors admitted to AP that her group was ill-equipped to handle the finances of a charity which received $90 million the year after George Floyd was killed - but denied any wrongdoing.

Cullors issued a statement denying she used the $6 million LA property for personal purposes, but then had to backtrack and admit she had used the compound for purposes that were not strictly business. 

The activist also amassed a $3 million property portfolio of her own, including homes in LA and Georgia, although there is no suggestion of any financial impropriety.

It is not known if the group paid out lucrative contracting fees to Cullors' friends and family past June 2022, when a new board of directors was brought in.

The board is now led by nonprofit adviser Cicley Gay, who has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy three times since 2005.

Gay was ordered by a court to attend financial management lessons, and at the time of her appointment in April 2022 had more than $120,000 in unpaid debt. 

She was one of three people appointed to the board, the organization said in a tweet. She subsequently was described as being chair of the board.

She told The New York Times she had been appointed to straighten out the organization's finances, after BLMGFN faced intense scrutiny over its spending of donor cash.

'No one expected the foundation to grow at this pace and to this scale,' said Gay.

'Now, we are taking time to build efficient infrastructure to run the largest Black, abolitionist, philanthropic organization to ever exist in the United States.'

It later emerged that Gay has been declared bankrupt three times, according to federal reports obtained by The New York Post. 

Gay, a mother of three, filed for bankruptcy in 2005, 2013 and 2016. 

BLMGFN has faced intense questions about its handling of donations, which surged in particular during the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020.

The organization in February 2021 said it had taken in more than $90 million in 2020 and still had $60 million on hand.

Last year, it was down to $42 million, while the Free Beacon reports BLM has now spent two thirds of the $90 million cash it had to hand. 

Cullors, the co-founder of the organization, resigned in May 2021 as director of BLMGNF, amid scrutiny of her own property empire. She has written best-selling books, and has a contract with Warner Brothers to produce content.

Then in April 2022 it emerged that BLMGFN had bought a mansion in Los Angeles for $5.8 million, which they said was to be used as a 'safe space' for activists and for events.

The organization responded to the reports in a lengthy Twitter feed, with the group noting that more 'transparency' was required going forward.

'There have been a lot of questions surrounding recent reports about the purchase of Creator's House in California. Despite past efforts, BLMGNF recognizes that there is more work to do to increase transparency and ensure transitions in leadership are clear,' it stated.

BLM then proceeded to blame the media for the furore and the 'inflammatory and speculative' reports that saw journalists probing the group's financials saying that it 'caused harm' 

The reports 'do not reflect the totality of the movement,' the organization claimed.

'We know narratives like this cause harm to organizers doing brilliant work across the country and these reports do not reflect the totality of the movement,' one of the tweets reads. 'We apologize for the distress this has caused to our supporters and those who work in service of Black liberation daily.' 

'We are redoubling our efforts to provide clarity about BLMGNF's work,' noting an 'internal audit' was underway together with 'tightening compliance operations and creating a new board to help steer to the organization to its next evolution.'  

BLM attempted to justify the purchase of the mansion by saying it was made to encourage 'Black creativity' with the property 'a space for Black folks to share their gifts with the world and hone their crafts as we see it.' 

The organization also went on to defend how the funds the group raised were spent including the $3 million used for 'COVID relief' and a further $25 million dollars to black-led organizations.

'We are embracing this moment as an opportunity for accountability, healing, truth-telling, and transparency. We understand the necessity of working intentionally to rebuild trust so we can continue forging a new path that sustains Black people for generations,' the group wrote. 

The barrage of tweets, which notably had their comments turned off, ended with the group announcing they were 'embracing this moment as an opportunity for accountability, healing, truth-telling, and transparency' and 'working intentionally to rebuild trust.' 

Concerns over the groups finances have swirled for years with BLM coming under intense scrutiny in the past. 

In February 2022 the group stopped online fundraising following a demand by the California attorney general tho show where millions of dollars in donations received in 2020 went. 

The group said the 'shutdown' was simply short term while any 'issues related to state fundraising compliance' were addressed.

criticisms against her are 'sexist and racist'

to rebuild trust

Black Lives Matter and the Dogma of the Affluent

Recently I was driving through an affluent neighborhood outside of Boston and I saw more "Black Lives Matter" flags on one street than I've

adambcoleman.com

Recently I was driving through an affluent neighborhood outside of Boston and I saw more "Black Lives Matter" flags on one street than I've ever seen in totality in any black majority working-class neighborhood.

If I were to presume that most of the people who live in this area are white, why do they feel the need to brandish this flag more so than black people? It only makes sense if "Black Lives Matter" were using the image of black people as a front for an upper-class religion.

Most people agree with black lives matter as a sentiment, including me, but for many it's a way to signal to other ideological believers where they stand and differentiate themselves from the non-believers.

It's no different than if I wore a cross on my chest to let others know about my faith in Christ: they want to signal to the world their social justice & economic status. Within their class bubble, this is how they measure their righteousness against others within their enclave.

That flag has nothing to do with me as a black person but instead has everything to do with making upper-class suburbanites feel less guilty about their social status and elevate their moral standing amongst their social circle.

They find affirmation about us needing them as our faux saviors through other upper-class blacks, especially the academics who are well-versed in their ideological scripture and reject people like me as being false prophets attempting to lead them astray.

Sometimes when people are void of significant problems, they manufacture their own or adopt other people's problems. I believe a significant reason why this ideology holds so strongly amongst the wealthy is because it gives them purpose and an issue to strive to resolve.

However, regular people who are just trying to make ends meet don't need to create problems that aren't there: they have enough of them already. They don't generally have an ego that accepts the possibility of how they can become the saviors of the world, one flag at a time.

Coincidentally, on that same street, those same houses all had LGBT flags and "hate has no home here" lawn signs: It was like driving through an internet meme mocking the ideological left.

Because they rarely leave their bubble, they can't see the absurdity in their actions. They are distant from the demographics they claim to champion, making their advocacy theoretical and improbable for them to bring a resolution to the problems they claim are abundant.

Personally, I am skeptical about anyone who attempts to state their character unprovoked. When I see a neighborhood like that which is trying to convey that they are good people, I think to myself "If you're moral people, you don't need to tell me this: It will shine through."

I worry that there is a segment of wealthy Americans who are insecure about their morality, which is why they quickly bought into a narrative about them being inherently racist or immoral based on what they look like. Maybe this is their way to repent for their sins?

The reason we are being inundated with racial fallacies, outrageous claims, and ideological bent in our media coverage, entertainment, and legislation is that the people who dominate in these fields have all graduated from the same seminary-esque liberal universities.

What's very clear to me is that the flourishing of radical left-wing ideology is fueled by those who reign at the top of the economic ladder. They are disconnected from the rest of us & can't see the ridiculousness of what they're doing because their bubble only reflects their image.

Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class, while often inflicting costs on the lower classes. -- Rob Henderson

The Deep Roots of the Left’s Deafening Silence on Hamas

There are serious ideological reasons why parts of the left have gone so badly astray. The implications go far beyond the conflict in the Mi

persuasion.community

On October 7th, the world witnessed the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. Hundreds of attendees at a music festival were murdered in cold blood. Families hiding in their homes were burned alive. Jewish mothers and fathers were, in an eerie echo of the 1940s, imploring their children to stay quiet lest their would-be murderers should detect their whereabouts. Nearly two hundred people remain in the clutches of a terrorist organization that announced its genocidal intentions in its founding charter.

Many people, of all faiths and convictions, have recognized the enormity of these crimes. Numerous world leaders denounced the terrorist attacks in clear language. Private citizens shared their grief on social media. Millions mourned. But despite the outpouring of support, there has also been a large contingent of people and organizations who stayed uncharacteristically silent—or went so far as to celebrate the carnage.

Even as British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak found clear words about Hamas, for example, the BBC have steadfastly refused to call the Hamas fighters who killed over 1200 people by the name rightfully reserved for those who deliberately target innocent civilians for political ends: terrorists. Meanwhile, many schools and universities, nonprofit organizations and corporations that have over the past years gotten into the business of condemning and commemorating all kinds of tragedies, both small and large, fell uncharacteristically silent.

Some of the most famous universities in the world—including Princeton, Yale and Stanford—only released statements after they came under intense pressure on social media. At Harvard University, it took pressure from alumni and an outraged thread on X by Larry Summers, a former president of the institution, to prompt his successor into belated action.

Worse still were the people and organizations who actively celebrated the pogroms. Multiple chapters of the Democratic Socialists of America, which continues to count Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez among its ranks, encouraged their followers to attend rallies that glorified Hamas’ terror as a righteous form of resistance. As its San Francisco chapter wrote on X, the “weekend’s events” should be seen as part and parcel of Palestinians’ “right to resist.” The Chicago chapter of the Black Lives Matter movement even glorified the terrorists who murdered scores of people at a rave in southern Israel, pairing a now-deleted image of a paraglider with the caption: “I stand with Palestine.”

Meanwhile, academics from leading universities were busy defending these terrorist attacks as a form of anti-colonial struggle. “Postcolonial, anticolonial, and decolonial are not just words you heard in your EDI workshop,” a professor in the school of social work at McMaster University, in Canada, wrote on X. “Settlers are not civilians,” a Yale professor who has written for mainstream outlets including The Washington Post and The New York Times, maintained.

All of this raises a simple question: How could such a notable portion of the left side with terrorists who openly announce their genocidal intentions? Why have key institutions proven so reluctant to denounce one of the worst terrorist attacks in living memory? What, to them, renders the victims of these attacks so much less worthy of solidarity than those of the many other atrocities they have full-throatedly condemned?

The ideological roots of the great obfuscation

In the past days, people have offered many possible explanations for this selective silence. Some focus on outright antisemitism. Others emphasize that an understandable concern over the immoral actions that Israeli governments have taken in the past have blinded many activists to the suffering of innocent Israeli civilians. Others still point out that institutional leaders want to avoid eliciting angry reactions from activists, preferring to stay silent on a sensitive issue out of simple fear for their jobs.

Each of these explanations contains a grain of truth. Some people in the world really are consumed by one of the world’s most ancient hatreds. Others are indeed hyper-focused on everything that Israel has done wrong, a stance that is easier to understand in the case of Palestinians whose ancestors have been displaced than it is in the case of leftist activists who have for many decades found the missteps of the one state that happens to be Jewish worthy of much greater condemnation than similar, or greater, missteps perpetrated by any other. Finally, it is indeed true that many university presidents, nonprofit leaders and corporate CEOs have, among the institutional meltdowns of the past years, come to believe that they must avoid controversy at all costs if they are to keep drawing their generous paychecks.

But the double-standard that has in the past days become so obvious on parts of the left also has a more profound source, one that is ideological rather than practical or atavistic. Over the past decades, a new set of ideas about the role that identity does— and should—play in the world have transformed the very nature of what it means to be on the left, displacing an older set of universalist aspirations in the process.

This novel ideology, which I call the “identity synthesis,” insists that we must see the whole world through the prism of identity categories like race. It maintains that the key to understanding any political conflict is to conceive of it in terms of the power relations between different identity groups. It analyzes the nature of those power relations through a simplistic schema that, based on the North American experience, pits so-called whites against so-called “people of color.” Finally, it imposes that schema—in a fashion that might, in the academic jargon of the day, ironically be called “neo-colonial”—on complex conflicts in faraway lands.

The trouble with structural racism

Many advocates of the identity synthesis rightly point out that an account of racism which focuses purely on individual beliefs or motivations runs the danger of concealing important forms of injustice. Even if everyone has the best of intentions, the after effects of historical injustices can ensure that many immigrant students attend underfunded public schools or that many members of ethnic minorities suffer disadvantages in the housing market. It therefore makes sense, they argue, to add a new concept to our vocabulary: structural racism.

As the Cambridge Dictionary explains, structural racism consists of “laws, rules, or official policies in a society that result in and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race.” By pointing out that some forms of racism are “structural” in this way, we are better able to capture—and hopefully remedy—circumstances in which members of some racial groups suffer significant disadvantages for reasons other than individual bias.

This is plausible insofar as it goes. To understand contemporary America, it is indeed helpful to add the notion of structural racism to our conceptual toolbox. But in recent years, many advocates of the identity synthesis have gone one step further: they have begun to claim that this more recent concept of structural racism should altogether supplant the older concept of individual racism.

Rather than acknowledging that there are two different conceptions of racism, each of which helps to elucidate real injustices in its own way, parts of the left have come to conceptualize racism in an exclusively structural form. “Racism,” one online guide puts the growing consensus, “is different from racial prejudice, hatred, or discrimination” because it must involve “one group having the power to carry out systematic discrimination through the institutional policies and practices of the society and by shaping the cultural beliefs and values that support those racist policies and practices.”

In its most radical form, this claim entails that it is impossible for a member of a historically marginalized group to be racist toward a member of a historically dominant group. Because racism does not have anything to do with individual beliefs or attributes, and members of groups that are comparatively powerless are incapable of carrying out “systematic discrimination” against members of groups that are comparatively powerful, even the vilest forms of hatred need not count as racist. As an article in Vice put it, “It’s literally impossible to be racist to a white person.”

The result has, again and again, been a form of selective blindness when members of minority groups have expressed bigoted attitudes toward supposedly more privileged groups, including those that are themselves minorities. This inability to recognize the importance of the more traditional conception of racism makes it impossible to name what is happening when members of one minority group are the victims of hate crimes committed by members of another minority group that is now considered to suffer from greater disadvantages. In December 2019, for example, two terrorists killed a police detective and then murdered three people at a kosher grocery store in Jersey City, close to New York. They had a long trail of posting antisemitic content on social media; one assailant was a follower of the Black Hebrew Israelites, a movement which holds overtly antisemitic beliefs. But because the assailants were black, and the victims perceived as white, many news outlets failed to categorize the shooting as racist, or to treat it as a hate crime, for an astoundingly long period of time.

The trouble with white privilege

The idea that all racism is structural is deeply damaging because it makes it hard for institutions to open their eyes to forms of discrimination towards members of groups that are supposedly dominant. In practice, it is made even worse by the fact that many people on the left have now embraced a very simplistic notion of who is dominant and who is marginalized—one that imposes American conceptions of race onto situations in which they distort rather than illuminate underlying realities.

In North America, the most salient—though by no means the only—racial divide has for centuries been that between whites and blacks. In assessing which group is supposedly privileged in a foreign conflict, many Americans therefore think it is enough to figure out who is “white” and who is a “person of color.” This makes it impossible for them to understand conflicts in which the relevant political cleavage does not neatly pit whites against blacks (or, more broadly, “whites” against “people of color”).

Whoopi Goldberg, for example, has repeatedly insisted that the Holocaust was “not about race.” Since, from an American point of view, both Jewish and non-Jewish Germans are white, she found it impossible to get her head around an ideology that centers around racial distinctions between them. “You could not tell a Jew on a street,” she wrongly claimed. “You could find me. You couldn’t find them.”

In the case of Israel, this has led most observers to assume that there is a clear division in racial roles between Israelis and Palestinians: In their mind, Israelis are white, Palestinians “people of color.” And since white people have historically held power over non-white people, this reinforces the impression that it is impossible for Israelis to be victims of racial hatred.

But this perspective once again turns out to be so simplistic as to verge on the delusional. Ms. Goldberg was wrong to believe that Nazis were unable to spot Jews; though some Jews did manage to survive by passing themselves off as “Aryan,” many Nazis—and their collaborators in Central Europe—were highly effective at spotting people whom they suspected of being Jewish.

More importantly, the assumption that most of the victims of last Saturday’s terrorist attacks were “white” Jews with roots in Europe is simply wrong. It’s not just that there are black Israeli Jews whose ancestors immigrated from Ethiopia, or that Hamas’ victims included many migrants from Thailand and Nepal; it’s also that Israel as a whole is now home to more Mizrahi Jews, who hail from the Middle East, than Ashkenazi Jews, whose ancestors long lived in Europe.

I will leave it up to others to speculate on whether the visual differences between Jewish and non-Jewish Germans are more or less stark than those between Arabs and Mizrahi Jews. But the prominence of Mizrahi Jews also betrays yet another way in which attempts to fit the Israel-Palestine conflict into a simplistic conceptual scheme go badly wrong.

The trouble with Decolonialism

The actual demographic composition of the country makes claims that Israeli civilians should be seen as settlers who are fair game for terrorist attacks doubly cynical. They are cynical because no political cause, however righteous, justifies the deliberate targeting of babies and grandmothers—neither on the Israeli nor on the Palestinian side. And they are also cynical because the great majority of Mizrahi Jews have, since the end of the Second World War, been violently displaced from the Middle Eastern countries in which their ancestors had lived for hundreds of years, with no country other than the world’s only Jewish state willing to offer them a safe harbor.

Postcolonial apologists for terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah love to invoke Frantz Fanon’s glorification of violence. The problem is not just that their tendentious reading of his work overlooks the ways in which violence can be morally corrosive and politically destructive; it’s also that the implied analogy between the so-called pied noirs (white settlers in Algeria who could safely return to the French metropolis if they chose to do so) and Mizrahi Jews (who would be neither welcome nor safe if they were to return to Iran or Iraq, to Morocco or Algeria) is so misleading as to be perverse.

And yet, this misleading analogy governs how many on the left ascribe the role of victim and perpetrator, explaining why dozens of student groups at Harvard could claim that Israel is somehow “entirely responsible” for Hamas’ decision to murder more than 1,000 civilians. At a deeper level, they even help to explain how left-wing activists and academics can contrive to perceive a deeply authoritarian and overtly theocratic regime that is explicitly hostile to sexual minorities as a progressive movement.

According to many progressives, what determines whether a movement should count as left-wing or right-wing is based on whether it claims to be fighting on behalf of those they believe to be marginalized. Since Hamas is an organization of underprivileged “people of color” fighting against “privileged” “white” Jews, it must be seen as part of a global struggle against oppression. Even though its program—which incidentally includes the violent suppression of sexual minorities within the Gaza strip—is reminiscent of some of the world’s most brutal far-right regimes, those marching in support of Hamas consider them to be part of the global struggle for progressive values. As Judith Butler, a central figure in this intellectual tradition, said in 2006, it is “very important” to classify both Hamas and Hezbollah as “social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left.”

It’s time for a reckoning with bad ideas on the left

Over the past few days, some observers have started to recognize how badly parts of the left have gone astray. Many leftist academics were genuinely horrified to see their friends and colleagues celebrate the murder of babies. There has been widespread outrage at the decision of influential movements like Black Lives Matter to idolize terrorists. Shri Thanedar, a U.S. Congressman, has publicly renounced his membership in the DSA.

This is a good start. In a free country, anyone must be free to express their support of extremist organizations, however vile; the move by many European governments to suppress pro-Hamas protests or to jail those who glorify the terrorist attacks is a betrayal of the liberal principles on which our opposition to that execrable organization should be based. But mainstream institutions can and absolutely should stop uncritically embracing organizations, like BLM, that openly glorify terrorists. And citizens should demand that moderate political parties, like the Democrats, cease to tolerate in their midst members of organizations, like the DSA, that equivocate about the moral permissibility of mass murder.

Black lives matter, greatly. Colonialism remains one of the greatest historical injustices. Even before this week, though, it should have become clear that the recognition of these important facts is fully compatible with serious concerns about the organizations that now speak on behalf of the Black Lives Matter movement, and about a postcolonial discourse that all too often glorifies violent resistance to anybody who, however simplistically, is judged to be an “oppressor.”

Many advocates of the identity synthesis are genuinely motivated by good intentions. But key parts of this ideology now provide cover for forms of racism and dehumanization of vulnerable groups that should be anathema to anybody who genuinely cares about the historical values of the left. It is time for the many reasonable people who have bit their tongue as these ideas took on enormous power in mainstream institutions to raise their voice against them.

The suffering to come

Any humane outlook on the world must recognize that civilians never deserve to suffer due to the group into which they were born or because of actions committed by those who claim to speak on their behalf. I feel as much empathy for the Palestinian children who are dying in bombardments of Gaza as I do for the Jewish children who were killed in Hamas’ attack on Israel. Insinuations of collective responsibility are vile, even when voiced in response to a disgusting terrorist attack. Each civilian death is a tragedy on the same moral order.

While every civilian victim is in equal measure undeserving of their tragic fate, moral philosophers have for centuries recognized a key distinction governing the conduct of war. Military action that is directed against military targets may be legitimate; while some civilian deaths are foreseeable as a consequence of such attacks, soldiers must undertake to minimize them as far as possible. By contrast, military action is always illegitimate when the killing of innocents is the goal, not an unintended side effect.

This set of standards helps to explain how spectacularly Hamas, the organization that started the current war with a long-planned surprise attack that killed over a 1,000 men and women, toddlers and grandmothers, Ashkenazim and Mizrahim, Jews and non-Jews, Israelis and Thais and Americans and Canadians and Germans and Chinese, failed to obey the most basic moral rules. Now, it should also guide our assessment of Israel’s unfolding actions in Gaza.

This is a war Israel did not choose, and it has every right to defend itself. No democracy would tolerate on its borders the presence of a terrorist organization that has just demonstrated its willingness to engage in the indiscriminate slaughter of its civilian population; it would be the height of hypocrisy for people living in the safety of Berlin or Paris, of London or New York, to expect Israelis to do so.

But the military offensive against Hamas is extremely difficult because the terrorist organization has deliberately based so much of its military infrastructure in the midst of civilian settlements; because it is now doing what it can to stop its own people from moving away from military targets; and because Egypt, worried about the potential for Hamas fighters to destabilize the government or even perpetrate terrorist attacks within its own borders, has refused safe passage for most Gazans. All of this explains why it is so hard for Israel to accomplish its legitimate goals without causing numerous civilian casualties. But it does not constitute permission for Israel to adopt the logic of collective punishment by cutting off access to food and drinking water ahead of a full-scale invasion, or absolve the country’s armed forces from doing what they can to minimize the number of civilian casualties. As and when Israel fails to do so, full-throated criticism of its government is fully justified.

The left has the potential to speak powerfully to this moment. To do so, it needs to jettison the ideological jargon that has made so many supposed idealists fall for the ever-present temptation to contrive reasons why the suffering of one side is outrageous while the suffering of the other side is glorious. To retain our moral composure in the ugly days and weeks now on the horizon, we must recover a moral universalism that, even in the darkest hour, reminds us of our shared humanity—and unhesitatingly laments the death of innocents, irrespective of the group to which they belong.

Yascha Mounk is the founder and editor-in-chief of Persuasion. His latest book is The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas And Power In Our Time.

According to the Washington Post’s comprehensive database of police killings, police shot and killed 54 unarmed people in 2019, 26 were listed as white, 12 black, 11 Hispanic, and 5 “other.”

It’s also important to note that the majority of the twelve shot were actively trying to hurt or kill the officer. For example, in at least two of the twelve cases involving black men, the perpetrators were killed while trying to run over an officer with a car. In another, an individual took and used the officer’s taser on him. In another, a female officer was being physically beaten by a suspect when she fired. All those cases were classified as “unarmed.”

“Unarmed” never means “not deadly.” There is always a gun involved—the officer’s. In many encounters, the suspect is fighting to get ahold of it. In the Ferguson case, it was claimed that Michael Brown had his hands up when Officer Darren Wilson shot him, in cold blood, in the middle of the street. Upon investigation, the forensic evidence as well as a half-dozen black witnesses confirmed Officer Wilson’s account. Michael Brown tried to take Officer Wilson’s gun and was charging at him when shot. The “Hands up, don’t shoot!’ slogan was a lie.

In reality, when you remove those cases from the data, you're left with one or two. One or two cases every year, out of a country of 350 million some odd people. One or two cases. That's what Black Lives Matter is focusing on. They have things to say about just about everything except the 7000 to 8000 homicides per year of young black Americans.

Law protects opposition to critical race theory, judge rules

Holding a view that does not subscribe to critical race theory is a protected characteristic under equality laws, a judge has ruled in what

thetimes.co.uk

Holding a view that does not subscribe to critical race theory is a protected characteristic under equality laws, a judge has ruled in what is believed to be a legal first in the UK.

Sean Corby, an employee of the government’s workplace conciliation service Acas, took the organisation to an employment tribunal after bosses ordered him to remove comments that he posted on social media that were critical of Black Lives Matter (BLM).

Corby had written that critical race theory, an ideology that believes racism is entrenched in society and which is at the heart of the BLM movement, is divisive because it portrays white people as racist.

He argued that a better approach to addressing racism in society was to follow the approach of Martin Luther King, who said we should aspire to a day when people would be judged by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin.

Corby made the comments on Yammer, a workplace social media platform.

Some of Corby’s colleagues complained to Acas’ management that the comments were offensive and brought a grievance case against him. They claimed that he was “using the Yammer platform to promote racist ideas” and suggested he could be member of a far-right group. They also said they would not feel safe to be “in contact with him” and questioned his right to be employed by Acas.

Acas dismissed their complaints, but instructed Corby to remove the posts on the grounds that employees had found them offensive.

Corby has taken Acas to an employment tribunal, claiming he had been unlawfully discriminated against and his views were protected under the Equalities Act in the same way as his colleagues’ views on critical race theory. Religion or belief are among nine protected characteristics under the Equalities Act.

The Free Speech Union, which has supported Corby in his case against Acas, said his colleagues had wrongly tried to silence him.

Acas defended its decision to instruct him to remove his social media posts, arguing that what he was posting were only opinions, rather than beliefs and were subsequently not protected under the Equalities Act.

Employment Judge Kirsty Ayre, presiding over the case in Leeds in a three-day hearing earlier this month, ruled in Corby’s favour on the basis that he had given his beliefs careful consideration and much thought.

As a result, she said his comments opposing Black Lives Matter and critical race theory fall under the “religion or belief” section of the Equalities Act. The ruling paves the way for the tribunal to consider in April whether Corby was unlawfully discriminated against by Acas.

It is believed to be the first time a judge has ruled that holding a contrary view to critical race theory is a protected characteristic under equality laws.

“Colleagues who’d never met me and knew nothing about me or my life targeted me and called me a racist. This caused me a great deal of distress,” Corby said.

“My beliefs on race are rooted in the ideas of Howard Thurman and others who railed against segregation and separatism, as well as in my personal experience. I grew up with black people, was immersed in their culture and dedicated my life to music and education. I have also experienced bigotry from white and black people in various forms and on many occasions. It is reprehensible of anyone to seek to divide us along lines of colour or to try and bully anti-racists like me into silence.

“I’m delighted we have made a stand and taken a step to embedding a in the workplace a more conciliatory and harmonious approach to dealing with issues around race.”

Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, said the case was “a significant victory for the cause of freedom of speech” in the UK.

He added: “Sean’s belief that we should judge people on the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin is eminently sensible and shared by most people, save for a handful of far-right and far-left activists. His employer should not have taken seriously the vexatious complaints of Sean’s colleagues, who claimed that his quoting Martin Luther King made them feel ‘unsafe’.”

An Acas spokesman said: “We take pride in having a diverse workforce and have noted the tribunal’s decision on one aspect of this case that is set to conclude next year. We value Acas staff having a voice and our regular staff surveys continue to show that Acas is an inclusive organisation.”

Understanding left-wing authoritarianism: Relations to the dark personality traits, altruism, and social justice commitment - Current Psycho

In two pre-registered studies, we investigated the relationship of left-wing authoritarianism with the ego-focused trait of narcissism. Base

SpringerLink

Abstract In two pre-registered studies, we investigated the relationship of left-wing authoritarianism with the ego-focused trait of narcissism. Based on existing research, we expected individuals with higher levels of left-wing authoritarianism to also report higher levels of narcissism. Further, as individuals with leftist political attitudes can be assumed to be striving for social equality, we expected left-wing authoritarianism to also be positively related to prosocial traits, but narcissism to remain a significant predictor of left-wing authoritarianism above and beyond those prosocial dispositions. We investigated our hypotheses in two studies using cross-sectional correlational designs. Two nearly representative US samples (Study 1: N = 391; Study 2: N = 377) completed online measures of left-wing authoritarianism, the Dark Triad personality traits, and two variables with a prosocial focus (i.e., altruism and social justice commitment). In addition, we assessed relevant covariates (i.e., age, gender, socially desirable responding, and virtue signaling). The results of multiple regression analyses showed that a strong ideological view, according to which a violent revolution against existing societal structures is legitimate (i.e., anti-hierarchical aggression), was associated with antagonistic narcissism (Study 1) and psychopathy (Study 2). However, neither dispositional altruism nor social justice commitment was related to left-wing anti-hierarchical aggression. Considering these results, we assume that some leftist political activists do not actually strive for social justice and equality but rather use political activism to endorse or exercise violence against others to satisfy their own ego-focused needs. We discuss these results in relation to the dark-ego-vehicle principle.

[..]

General discussion

In two pre-registered studies, we investigated the relationship of LWA with the ego-focused trait of narcissism. Based on existing research (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2021), we expected individuals with higher levels of LWA [left-wing authoritarianism] to report higher levels of narcissism. The results of both studies are in line with this prediction: In particular, the results of Study 1 showed that the LWA subfacet of anti-hierarchical aggression was significantly predicted by antagonistic narcissism above and beyond individuals’ prosocial dispositions (i.e., altruism). While antihierarchical aggression represents the drive to use force to overthrow those in power and who endorse conservative values, antagonistic narcissism is characterized by exploitation of others, lack of empathy, a sense of entitlement, arrogance and manipulative behavior. Accordingly, the results of Study 1 show that a strong ideological view, according to which a violent revolution against existing societal structures is legitimate is rather endorsed by individuals with ego-focused motives. This interpretation is further supported by the results of Study 2 which showed that LWA antihierarchical aggression was predicted by psychopathy again above and beyond individuals’ prosocial dispositions (i.e., social justice commitment). Unexpectedly, neither dispositional altruism (Study 1) nor social justice commitment (Study 2) was found to be related to antihierarchical aggression. Considering these results, we assume that some political activists on the left side of the political spectrum do not actually strive for social justice and the support of underprivileged groups or persons, but rather endorse or express violence for the satisfaction of their own ego-focused, sometimes even antisocial, needs.

As a new contribution to the literature on dark personality traits, we interpret the results of both studies as expressions of a phenomenon we term the dark-ego-vehicle principle. According to this principle, individuals with dark personalities – such as high narcissistic and psychopathic traits – are attracted to certain ideologies and forms of political activism. We assume that such individuals use ideologies and political activism as a vehicle to satisfy their own ego-focused needs instead of actually aiming at social justice and equality. For example, a highly narcissistic/psychopathic person may participate in a pro-BLM protest pretending to fight against racism while actually using such protesting activities to meet their own aggressive motives and thrills (e.g., via violent escalations during pro-BLM protests). Further, such individuals might be attracted to pro-BLM activism, because this form of activism can provide them with opportunities for positive self-presentation (e.g., virtue signaling).

Three ancillary points are worth mentioning. Firstly, the dark-ego-vehicle principle does not mean that activism per se was narcissistic/psychopathic. It rather says that some forms of political activism can be attractive for narcissist/psychopaths; however, people also get involved in political activism due to their altruistic motives (Fowler & Kam, 2007). Secondly, the dark-ego-vehicle principle means that involvement in (violent) political activism is not solely attributable to political orientation but rather to personality traits manifesting in individuals on the (radical) left and right of the political spectrum. In particular, we argue that the dark personality correlates of authoritarianism per se might be the driving forces behind the aggression and violence expressed during protests like the attack on the United States Capitol in Washington DC and the pro-BLM protests mentioned in the introduction of this paper. This argument is in line with previous research (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2021) which showed that antagonistic narcissism is not only a strong predictor of LWA but simultaneously predicts SDO – a trait that is clearly related to RWA (Altemeyer, 1998). These results also show that some individuals with high levels of antagonistic narcissism may be motivated to endorse either right- or left-wing ideological attitudes depending on which of these attitudes seems to be more opportune to them given a specific situation. Thus, it is necessary to argue very carefully in each case for what reason a specific dark personality should be attracted to particular ideologies/political activism.

Finally, the present research is not based on an elaborated explanatory theory (cf., Sandberg & Alvesson, 2021) as there is a lack of such a theory. Thus, we refer to a principle and not to a theory. However, we consider the present research as a first step within the complex process of Theory Construction Methodology sensu Borsboom et al. (2021) as our research aimed at the identification of an empirical phenomenon to develop a prototheory.

‘Defunding the police’ is a threat to black life

US policing can be fixed – as long as we ignore the advice of BLM activists.

spiked-online.com

The senseless murder of Tyre Nichols, by five black Memphis police officers, was an undisputed tragedy. But it’s important to judge it in context.

For many on the American political left, the explanation for what happened was simple: white supremacy. Despite the officers involved being black, this was still held up as evidence of the continued victimisation of black men by police officers who too often resort to violence whenever they interact with ‘people of colour’. Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, George Floyd and other BLM martyrs, of varying degrees of actual innocence, have been cited in support of these claims, and have been used to fuel the ‘Defund the Police’ narrative.

This take is wrong. We shouldn’t demonise policing and policemen simply because the annual number of problematic killings is above zero. According to the Washington Post’s excellent database, about 25 unarmed black Americans were killed by police gunfire annually from 2015 to 2018. The figure is only at 25 because of an atypical 37 killings in 2015. Over the past four years, in fact, the number of unarmed black Americans killed annually by police gunfire stands at 12. In contrast, far more police officers are shot and killed in the line of duty each year – 314 police officers were shot and 58 were killed in 2021 alone.

While the left highlights the fact that black Americans are killed by police at two-to-three times the rate that would be expected from their share of the population, it neglects to mention the most glaringly obvious reason for this. Black Americans are a far younger, more urban and more working-class population than are white Americans. Largely as a result of this, they are disproportionately perpetrators of violent crimes. They therefore come into contact with the law more often than other sections of US society. According to recent figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), black Americans are at least five times as likely as whites to commit murders and nearly three times as likely to commit violent crimes overall.

Moreover, the homicide problem in specifically black communities has grown significantly since the killing of George Floyd in 2020 – with the annual number of murders surging to over 20,000 and black-perpetrator homicides passing the 10,000 mark in both 2020 and 2021. There are now significantly more black (60 per cent) than ‘white and other’ (40 per cent) homicide victims annually, despite the fact that black Americans make up only 12 to 13 per cent of the US population. This entirely new level of blood-letting is the true crisis faced by black American citizens living in struggling neighbourhoods – not the phoney risk of ‘genocide’ at police hands, as BLM claims.

None of this excuses terrible police work, such as that which cost Tyre Nichols his life. However, as Bob Maranto and I have noted, perhaps the most serious problem with the BLM-inspired ‘defund the police’ narratives is that they utterly ignore potential changes to policing that might actually work. Over the past two decades, well-documented police-community coordination in major cities has been effective at reducing the number of black men killed by police, and even the share of black men engaged in violent behaviours.

Over the past decade, many police forces have begun to dramatically revamp their use of force and rethink citizen-interaction policies. Sometimes this has been prodded by federal intervention – particularly after the 2015 Department of Justice investigation into policing techniques in the troubled city of Ferguson, Missouri. As leading criminologists like David Kennedy and Thomas Abt have pointed out, police forces working with community groups have had success targeting a small number of the most ‘at risk’ men in high-crime neighbourhoods. The technique is simplicity itself: offer these potential offenders (and potential victims) strong positive incentives if they begin to turn their lives around, but harsh penalties if they do not.

Memorably, in the summer of 2020, the defunding movement proposed replacing police officers with social workers and community ‘violence disruptor’ groups. It was not entirely wrong about the role social workers can play as part of an anti-crime strategy. However, the activists failed to recognise that these groups cannot act independently of the police. Social workers, in particular, cannot effectively respond to serious situations of domestic or family violence alone – since most are young untrained women and these troubling cases often involve serious criminals armed with guns or knives. Independent ‘peace-makers’ are just tax-paying citizens – they have no access to the databases that police officers use to proactively interact with high-risk men, or any real ‘sticks’ to use to force compliance with the law. Social work and community activism can work only as an addition to better-funded and more proactive police departments, not as an alternative to them.

Other practical strategies for improving policing can work, too. As Maranto and I note, New York City – perhaps surprisingly one of the US’s very top police departments – simply fires all officers who pick up more than two or three verified citizen complaints, or demotes them to hated jobs, such as in the departmental motor pool. Maintaining a strong, well-funded Internal Affairs division, and even requiring officers to fill out an awkward 40-plus page report every time they unholster a firearm, have proven to be effective violence-reduction strategies as well. The prospect of bureaucratic tedium really can keep officers in check.

It is also clear what does not work to improve policing – the BLM-promoted strategy of reduced stop rates by lower-funded police departments. As Jason Johnson of the Law Enforcement Legal Defence Fund notes, when arrests recently plunged by 38 per cent in New York City, homicides rose 58 per cent – by more than 100. In Chicago, the equivalent figures were 53 per cent and 65 per cent. In Louisville, Kentucky, stops dropped by 35 per cent, arrests dropped by 42 per cent and murders rose 87 per cent. As Travis Campbell of the University of Massachusetts observes, the response of cities to major Black Lives Matter marches does appear to correlate with a slight decline in police shootings, but also with a remarkable surge of 1,000 to 6,000 more annual homicides nationally.

Given all this, what the horrific Tyre Nichols case reveals is not ‘black white supremacy’ but the flaws in the currently popular woke model of how to fix policing. Race doesn’t seem to have played a huge role in Nichols’ killing one way or another. More significant is the fact that the ‘hired from the hometown’ officers who allegedly beat Nichols to death were recruited under ‘dangerously lowered’ standards – two of those involved in Nichols’ death were sworn in back in August 2020, after Memphis Police Department had decided to attract more minorities by lowering education requirements. These lawmen were assigned to an almost irrationally aggressive anti-crime unit (called ‘SCORPION’), which was established precisely because crime had surged so much in Memphis – and everywhere else – following George Floyd’s killing and the Great Police Pullback. A decent man lost his life as a result.

We know what might save 10 or so ‘black lives’ every year from police shootings. And we know that these approaches might also protect a great many citizens from being knocked over the head with a brick by muggers. Yet too many on the left are happy to mouth inane ‘defund’ slogans and push dangerous policies. In doing so, they are harming the very people on whose behalf they claim to speak.

Wokeness, Public Safety, BLM & Antifa

A new series by Matt Thornton

boghossian.substack.com

A poll conducted in 2020 by the Skeptic Research Center asked a nationally representative sample of Americans the following question:

 “If you had to guess, how many unarmed Black men were killed by police in 2019?”

The survey offered answer choices ranging from “about 10” to “more than 10,000.” Roughly 31 percent of survey respondents who identified as “very liberal” estimated that police had killed about 1,000 or more unarmed black men the previous year, with another 22 percent overall believing the number to be at least 10,000.

In summary, 53% of Americans who identified as “very liberal” believe police murder somewhere between 1000-10,000 unarmed black men a year.

What is the actual number? Twelve.

According to the Washington Post’s comprehensive database of police killings, police shot and killed 54 unarmed people in 2019, 26 were listed as white, 12 black, 11 Hispanic, and 5 “other.”

It’s also important to note that the majority of the twelve shot were actively trying to hurt or kill the officer. For example, in at least two of the twelve cases involving black men, the perpetrators were killed while trying to run over an officer with a car. In another, an individual took and used the officer’s taser on him. In another, a female officer was being physically beaten by a suspect when she fired. All those cases were classified as “unarmed.”

“Unarmed” never means “not deadly.” There is always a gun involved—the officer’s. In many encounters, the suspect is fighting to get ahold of it. In the Ferguson case, it was claimed that Michael Brown had his hands up when Officer Darren Wilson shot him, in cold blood, in the middle of the street. Upon investigation, the forensic evidence as well as a half-dozen black witnesses confirmed Officer Wilson’s account. Michael Brown tried to take Officer Wilson’s gun and was charging at him when shot. The “Hands up, don’t shoot!’ slogan was a lie.

When you set aside cases where the suspect was actively threatening an officer’s life with physical force, you are left with one or two cases a year. In 2019, officers involved in two shootings were found at fault and sentenced accordingly. 

What is the net result of so many people being so misinformed?

After the George Floyd incident in June 2020, in cities across the country, regressive anti-policing policies were rushed in. In Chicago, this meant the department was down 1000 officers. New restrictions on the police were put in place that inhibited proactive/community policing, and several thousand violent offenders were put back on the street thanks to far left District Attorneys and activist judges. The net result was a 25 year high in murder for the city and hundreds more dead bodies, many of them young kids.

In 2021, more than 12 American cities saw record breaking levels of murder. Without evidence, ideologically-driven reporters parrot back to each other that this increase must be related to lockdowns. A closer look shows clearly that the constant attacks on law enforcement, budget cuts, and a climate of hatred fueled by that same irresponsible media have effectively halted proactive policing. Whenever that happens, violence skyrockets and thousands more needlessly die. The blood that covers media personalities, policy makers, and activists who’ve pushed the “defund the police” narrative will never wash off.

Because homicides within the black community occur at more than four times the national average, the people who will suffer most from these changes won’t be the upper-middle-class urban elites who foolishly push them through or the politicians and media personalities who have their own armed security. It will be poor, black Americans who live in the kinds of areas where 3-year-old Mekhi James was murdered, along with 197 other Chicago youth since 2020. It’s no wonder that black Americans consistently poll higher than whites in wanting increased police presence. The citizens in those high crime neighborhoods know better than anyone that cutting police funding doesn’t solve our violence problem—it increases it.

The narrative that police officers are looking to kill black Americans is a pernicious lie. Understanding this is the first step in making our cities safer for everyone.