January 25, 2017

Black Lives Matter and the Lies that Caused the Police Shootings in Dallas and Elsewhere

Lies cost lives. That is the lesson of the last 24 hours. In the last day, police shootings have occurred all over America. The largest one, which occurred in Dallas, TX, saw 11 police officers get shot and, so far, 5 die, during a Black Lives Matter protest. The shooter was candid about his motives: he wanted to shoot White people and especially White cops.

Similarly, a man in a hotel in Bristol, TN, shot four White people, including one police officer, today. He has said that he was motivated by the recent supposed instances of police brutality which have fueled BLM protests across the country.

In Valdosta, GA, a man called police about a break in and, when they arrived, ambushed them and shot a police officer. The motive behind this crime is not yet clear. Another officer was shot during a traffic stop in St. Louis. Finally, today a man in Roswell, GA, slowed down his car to shoot at a police car.

To put these numbers in perspective, typically, in America, about 1 cop is killed per week. In the last 24 hours alone at least 5 police officers have been killed and at least 15 have been shot across 5 different incidents.

Several of these shootings are known for sure to have been motivated by the Black Lives Matter narrative of police brutality against African Americans. The killers explicitly said they targeted Whites and, thus, this was clearly also motivated by anti-White racism.

Many public faces of the BLM movement have claimed that they don’t condone this kind of violence. However, these people are hard to take seriously given that BLM marches in several places across the country have literally featured chants calling for police to be killed.

There is no War Against Blacks

To the degree that these killings were motivated by the idea that the police are systematically killing African Americans they were motivated by a lie. African Americans are killed by police at lower rates than you would expect given their crime rates (2).

Police Killings Bias.png

Moreover, African Americans actually make up a greater proportion of cop killers than they do people who are killed by police (3).

Police killing and killers.PNG

Whites in general aren’t waging any kind of war against African Americans either. African Americans kill Whites much more often than Whites kill African Americans.

Homicide 1976-2005 plain colors.jpg

These Lies Costs Lives

The Black Lives Matter movement is thus a sham. It is based on nothing but lies. There is no problem of mass discrimination against African Americans by police. They are killed by police as often as they are because they commit crime more often than Whites do.

These lies motivated the various shootings that have taken place across America today. BLM has blood on its hands and has inspired multiple instances of political terrorism not to mention fostering a general sense of anti-White racism.

Unfortunately, the story of police killing African Americans is not the only lie about race and crime which can fuel anti White narratives and which could, and historically have, led to violence.

Lie #1 The System is Biased

Some people pretend that African Americans are arrested as frequently as they are because of anti-Black bias among Police. This argument can easily be refuted using data from The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS is a survey carried out yearly by the Department of Justice in which a large random sample of Americans are asked  whether or not they have been the victim of a crime within the last year and, if so, to describe both the crime and its perpetrator.

Using this data, the proportion of violent criminals who are Black, according to the victims of violent crimes, can easily be calculated. We can then compare these figures to the crime rates suggested by the FBI’s arrest data.


The National Crime Victimization Survey Validates the Uniform Crime Report’s Data on Black Crime

As can be seen, the crime rates suggested by the two data sets are virtually identical.

The National Incident-Based Reporting System is the other major crime victim survey in the US. As can be seen, if we compare the percent of offenders who are Black, based on the victim survey, to the percent of arrestees who are Black we once again find no evidence of anti-Black bias.


Rubenstein (2016)

Even if they concede these facts about violent crime, some people will argue that drug arrests are biased because self report surveys show that African Americans and White use drugs at the same rate while arrest data shows that African Americans are more likely than Whites to be arrested for drug related crimes.

The first problem with this argument is that African Americans are more likely than Whites to lie about using drugs. How do we know this? Well, criminologists sometimes conduct studies in which they run biological tests on people’s hair, blood, urine, etc., to test what drugs they have recently taken and then compare the results of these biological tests to what drugs they claim they have recently taken. Such studies consistently find that Blacks are more likely than whites to lie and claim that they have not used a drug when they actually have (Page et al. 2009Falk et al. 1992Feucht, Stephens, and Walker, 1994, and Fedrich and Johnson 2005).

In fact, as reviewed in Ellis, Beaver, and Wrights Handbook of Crime Correlates, most self report studies find that Blacks not only say they have committed less drug crime than Whites but, in fact, less crime in general, and we’ve already seen that that’s false.

This argument also ignores important differences between African American and White drug users. What kind of differences? Well, to quote one study comparing African American and White drug users:

“African Americans are nearly twice as likely to buy outdoors (0.31 versus 0.14), three times more likely to buy from a stranger (0.30 versus 0.09), and significantly more likely to buy away from their homes (0.61 versus 0.48).” Ramchand , Pacula, and Iguchi MY 2006.

Similarly, a  report issued by the Justice Department found that African American drug users use drugs more often than White drug users, use more dangerous drugs than White drug users, and are more likely to use drugs in areas with high crime rates (Lagan 1995). All 6 of these differences will make African American drug users more likely get to arrested than White drug users.

Given all this, there is no good reason to suppose that African American drug arrest rates reflect racism. It is far more likely that they reflect African American drug user’s dishonestly as well as the reckless manner in which they use drugs.

Finally, some people will claim that even if the arresting process is not bias against African Americans, the sentencing and conviction process is. If this is true, African Americans should make up a greater proportion of people in jail for various crimes than they do people arrested for these crimes. An analysis of these numbers shows that, once again, there is no evidence of bias against African American.


Rubenstein (2016)

Moreover, research shows that if you control for racial differences in self reported aggression and and a few other variables you find that African Americans and Whites get the same sentences for the same crimes (Beaver et al., 2013).

There is no important sense in which “the system” is biased against African Americans. This is just a lie propagated by people who should know better.

Lie #2 Poverty

Another popular lie about race and crime is that African Americans commit more crime than Whites simply because they are poor which, as we all know, is White people’s fault.

Given how extremely popular this myth is, it is surprisingly easy to show that it is false. Rich African Americans have higher crime rates than poor Whites. In light of this fact, it is completely ridiculous to claim that poverty explains why African Americans commit more crime than Whites.

Incarceration by net worth decile

Chart from Ehrenfreund (2016) data from Zaw and Darity (2016)

Speaking of lies that are easy to refute, let’s get a few more out of the way all at once. The percentage of an area’s population that is Black positively correlates with its crime rate even after controlling for regional differences in family structure (single mothers), poverty, education, income inequality, geography, and population density  (Kposowa, Breault, and Harrison, 1995;  Land, McCall, and Cohen, 1990). None of these things explain African American crime rates either.

Lie #3 Racism

The third and final major lie that I want to look at is that African American crime rates are caused by racism inflicted upon African Americans by Whites.

Racism is not a simple thing to measure, so the evidence bearing on this question is a little more indirect. But, first of all, it is important to realize that official crime statistics have replicated the African/White crime disparity in many nations all over the earth including, but not limited to, Canada, Britain, Australia, France, Israel, Brazil and Japan. (Ellis, Beaver, and Wright, 2009Macimo, 2004; Ministry of Justice, 2012; Murray et al., 2013; Ray, 1985).

Moreover, African nations have far higher crime rates than White and Asian nations do

Crime and GDP by race

Rushton and Whitney (2002)

Given this, if we want to say that racism causes African crime rates then we are going to have to also say that anti-African racism is ubiquitous in Canada, Brazil, Japan, and Africa. This is obviously nonsense.

In America, people are divided on how common they think racism is. However, basically everyone agrees that there is less racism now than there was one hundred years ago. Thus, if racism causes Afrian American crime rates then African American crime rates should be lower today than they were back then.

Black Crime over Time.PNG

This is not even close to being true. African Americans have much higher crime rates today than they did in the first half of the 20th century (1).

Finally, if racism in America was causing African American crime rates it would have to do so through some mode of action other than by impacting poverty, family structure, and other variables which we have already seen cannot explain African American crime rates.

This would probably mean a psychological variable would be at play such as racism lowing African American’s self esteem or causing them to experience higher levels of stress. Indeed, I have heard both of these things asserted multiple times.

However, both of these theories are ridiculous and extremely easy to refute. Like others looked at in this article, these narratives took off without even the most basic fact check occurring first. Compared to Whites, African Americans have higher self esteem and self report feeling less stress.

Racism, poverty, and an unfair justice system are not to blame for African American crime. White people are not to blame for African American crime. We may be getting killed for it, but we are not to blame.


Returning to today’s events, some will say that we should not view these incidents through a racial lens. This was, they will say, anti-police violence, not anti-White violence. That this is false is easy to see. By their own admission, these shooters are not just targeting cops but also White people, and in some cases that has included White civilians.

For instance, here is the Dallas Police chief speaking on what the man who shot 11 police officers, 5 of which died, had to say about his motives:

“The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.” – David Brown, Dallas Police Cheif

Imagine if this had happened to African Americans. Suppose that people were running around attempting to mass murder African Americans and, when asked why, explained that they wanted to kill Black people because they blamed Blacks for various social problems. Imagine if this it was happening to Jews. What do you think the response would be? What was the response to Dylan Roof like?

It didn’t look anything like the reaction we are seeing today.

People supposedly on the right, like Newt Gingrich, are running around today scolding White Americans about how they don’t know what it is like to be Black. Whites are mass murdered, for being White, and Newt’s response is to talk about how hard it is to be Black.

Meanwhile, liberals all over the country are trying to find ways to exonerate BLM, which had protests explicitly calling for police to be killed, of any responsibility, and to blame either White racism or gun laws for these incidents.

This is insanity. A race of people are being purposefully targeted for mass murder and the responses range from finding roundabout ways to blame White people to explicitly sympathizing with the groups attacking them!

This could never happen to any-other ethnic group because no other ethnic group has allowed itself to be so thoroughly stripped of its group identity. Most White people, at a conscious level at least, either don’t care that they are White or, even worse, feel guilt about their ethnic group.

But guess what? These shooters don’t care what you think about race, nor do the people pushing anti-White history, anti-White politics, and anti-White social attitudes. White people might not care about being White but when people look for who to blame societal problems on, or when one of these shooters looks for their next murder victim, everyone knows who the White people are.

Whether we like it or not, White people are a group with a shared interest, even if only because non-Whites, and, increasingly, many Whites themselves, have something against us for being White. We’ve ignored this fact for too long, we’ve let anti-White lies flourish and anti-White attitudes strengthen while establishing not even the most basic sense of group identity which would allow us to respond to days like today with strength.

If we had not sat by and watched this happen these killings might not have taken place. If we continue to do nothing as animosity against our race grows, more will be killed in the future.




  1. Incarceration data was patched together by combining many of years of the DOJ’s “Prisoners” reports in conjunction with data from Langan (1986)
  2. Crime rates were based on FBI UCR reports from 1995 to 2014. Demographics on the proportion of people killed by police who are black was averaged across three sources described here. General population data was taken from the census.
  3. Data on the people who kill police was taken from this FBI table. Data on the proportion of people killed by police who are White was taken from the CDC’s Compressed Mortality Database.
Facebook Comments
  • Pingback: Dindu Terror in Dallas: A Case of Applied Third Worldism | ATLANTIC CENTURION()

  • Jeff

    One anti-white claim regarding black on white crime (which as far as I can tell, was started by Tim Wise) is that the interracial black on white crime rate can be completely accounted for by the different population ratios. This turns out to be complete nonsense.

  • Greetings Sean, I had an argument with someone who objected to your positions when I linked him your video, this is what he said:

    1) Most of those statistics are based on an FBI database which is known
    to be lacking as most US departments do not file reports for fatal
    shootings. The database has been described as “a minimum count of homicides by police”: https://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white

    2) The reasoning that blacks gets shot more because they commit more
    crimes ignores the argument I’ve made several times in the previous
    thread about black crime rates being a self-fulfilling prophecy. Police
    thinks blacks commits more crime, Police monitors and arrests more
    blacks, crime rate for black goes up, police is confirmed in its bias,
    and the circle starts again. This also ignores the large percentage of
    wrongful arrests/convictions for blacks in comparison to all other

    3) The take on poverty is still completely wrong. If rich black kids are
    more likely to go to prison it does not invalidate poverty as a factor
    since blacks, rich or poor, are more often targeted by police.

    4) Unarmed black Americans are more likely to be shot by police. And this is what BLM is fundamentally protested. According to this: http://anon.now.im/?http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854 unarmed blacks are 3.5 more likely to get shot.

    What would be your comeback to these points, I’m not an expert…

    • Dan

      Your commentor obviously didn’t read the article.

      1.) The police shootings are based off three databases. One is the FBI, one is the CDC, the other is KilledByPolice.net. The different results are as follows: of people who are killed by police, 32% black (FBI), 30% black (Killedbypolice.net), and 27% black (CDC). Although it doesn’t encompass ALL killings, it is nonetheless a very large portion of them, and is thus unlikely to be statistically biased against blacks. And the fact that the three independent sources arrive at basically the same result (i.e., ~30%), that is strong indication that the results are reliable. The Guardian also has it’s own database (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database), and as you can see, in 2015, 27% of people killed by police were black. Washington Post likewise has its own database (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/), in 2015 they list the amount of blacks killed by police at 26%. So, you have five different databases, with the varying percentages being 32%, 30%, 27%, 27%, and 26%. So, 30% is a safe estimate.

      2.) This was already basically addressed. Look at the NCVS data, and the NIBRS data. Arrest rates are consistent with what victims and witnesses report to police. If the arrest rate were biased by police scrutinizing blacks more, then the arrest rate should not be so consistent with offender profiles as reported in victim surveys. I’m not aware of variance in wrongful arrest/convictions, I would need to see that data.

      3) lol okay, this individual is simply trying to weave the narrative in such a way as to where it is unfalsifiable. A good question to ask them would be, “What, if any, evidence would be required in order to demonstrate that blacks are not victims of bias?” If they think of any reasonable standard of evidence, then they don’t hold a falsifiable position, and they will never be convinced.

      4.) In San Francisco, blacks are nearly 10 times more likely than whites to resist arrest (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/African-Americans-cited-for-resisting-arrest-at-6229946.php). In Chicago, blacks are nearly 7 times more likely to resist arrest (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/IB-HM-0116.pdf). There is no national data for this, but this would indicate that blacks more likely to confront police during an arrest and therefore more likely to be killed. The best data to use on this is to see the rates at which different races commit violent crimes with different weapons. For example, if blacks are overepresented in unarmed violent attacks versus whites, this would explain partly why blacks are more likely to be killed by police even though they are unarmed. I don’t know if such data is available, but given everything else we know, it is not an unreasonable assumption.

      The study provided by the link is needlessly complicated. I don’t have enough statistical know-how to adequately address it. But I doubt the people citing it fully understand it. Reading through it, the study doesn’t possess any control for individual black behavior. And it doesn’t explain why a larger sample of killings is consistent with aggregate crime rates.

    • Dan

      I looked a bit deeper into that study you cited. And while I feel someone more knowledgable than I should review it, there are some problems I found (other than what I already mentioned, which is that there were no controls for black vs. white behavior).

      Basically, what the study is saying is that there is huge variance between different counties in the gap between police shootings of unarmed black and unarmed whites.

      Now, the problem with this, as you may surmise, is that police shootings in general, and of unarmed people in particular, are actually fairly rare at the county level. He cites this same paper in this article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/socf.12233/full

      In that article (which is talking about the study you cited), he cites as an example of this extreme variance between counties, of how in some counties unarmed blacks are more than seven times as likely to be shot as unarmed whites, whereas in other counties unarmed blacks are more than 10 times as likely to be shot as whites. He cites Allegheny County, Pennsylvania as one of the counties where unarmed blacks are more than 10 times as likely as whites to be shot by police. So, I decided to look through some of his sources, so I could see just how many shootings we are actually talking about here. One of his sources is this website: http://www.fatalencounters.org/people-search/

      According to the website, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, between 2011 and 2014 (the dates that the study looks analyzes), there were two unarmed white men who were killed by police, and zero unarmed blacks killed by police. So I looked into his data, and it turns out, he’s not just counting people who were killed by police, but rather people who were shot by police in general. And in his data, he has three examples in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania where unarmed black men were shot, and zero examples of unarmed whites being shot! Even though in his own source there were two mentioned! Taking the population and racial demographics on the county into account, I found out that the rate of unarmed blacks being shot is actually less than 10x the rate of unarmed whites, but it was close enough to round up to 10 (though, from my data, all of the unarmed blacks survived, whereas all of the unarmed whites were killed). So, three things:

      1. In the data, all of the blacks who were shot survived. Whereas all of the whites that were shot were killed. And yet we are supposed to believe that “blacks 10x more likely to be shot than whites in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania!” when the sentiment completely ignores the factor of lethality.

      2. The whites who were killed were not present in his data even though they were present in one of his sources. If this is representative (I obviously didn’t look through all of the data, it’s too much), then it’s obvious bias against whites. And since two killings of unarmed whites were not listed in his own data, I suspect there may have been additional non-fatal shootings of unarmed whites he also did not mention.

      3. Although the gap between unarmed white and black shootings can be rounded up to be 10x; he specifically said “more than 10 times,” so he is deliberately exaggerating.

      4. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania has a population of 1.2 million. And he his basing his conclusion (for that county) off of a sample size of three (non-fatal) shootings that occurred over a period of three years. This is important, because I suspect this is a problem throughout his paper and is a fatal error IMO of his methodology. When each county has such a small number of shootings, this means that the data is easily skewed by random variables. I.e., the fact that blacks are nearly always more likely to be shot than whites is consistent with the broader picture that blacks are more violent; the fact that there is so much variance in the gap between different counties is because in each individual county, one or two additional shootings can completely warp the gap out of proportion.

      Not satisfied with that example. I decided to look at one of the big gap counties he mentioned, Los Angeles county. Here indeed the gap is actually quite large, about 50% greater than 10 times. However, Los Angeles County has a population of nearly 10 million people, and this figure is based off of a sample of 6 shootings (5 black, 1 non-Hispanic white) that occurred between 2011 and 2014. As said, when the sample size is so small, there should be no wonder there is so much variance. This guy is making a mountain of a mole hill, and is not a refutation of the more reliable national data.

      Finally, seriously read the article he wrote which I linked above. Here are some excerpts:

      “Drawing on the Fatal Encounters database (Burghart 2014), Hirschfield (2015) presents a brief review of plausible drivers for the exceptionally high rate at which police officers in the United States kill American civilians. Hirschfield (2015) outlines how police violence in America is likely to be driven by the interaction of a variety of structural factors (e.g., institutionalized racism, neoliberal cuts in the social safety net, and a booming weapons industry—for both civilians and police), canalized cultural norms (e.g., hypermasculine and racist norms among police officers, and the American ideology of rugged individualism and minimal government), and proximate causes (e.g., police fear of possibly armed civilians and high-crime rates).”

      “Contrary to the claim that racism by police “cannot explain the fact that police lethality is greatest in states where African Americans are least prevalent” (Hirschfield 2015:1109), county-level analysis of police shootings shows that racial bias in police shootings is actually strongest in large metropolitan counties with low median incomes and an elevated portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county (Ross 2015). However, even if this wasn’t the case empirically, racist norms and the violence they provoke could theoretically be strongest in counties with predominately white populations.”

      This guy’s bias is so nakedly apparent.

    • Because multiple people brought it up, I have written a response to the paper the 4rth point is based on. http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/07/11/on-that-paper-showing-bias-in-police-killings/

      The third point makes no sense. If Blacks are more likely to go to jail regardless of how poor they are then it is indeed not a factor.

      The second point ignores the fact that arrest rates are validated by victimization surveys.

      The first point doesn’t establish any bias in the police shooting data. Sure, it is a sample, but there is no evidence that it is biased. Moreover, the FBI data coheres well with basically every other databse on police killings, which i evidence that it is not biased.

  • Goybeans


    Most thorough and honest takedown I’ve seen yet.

  • nubwaxer