As he discussed on a recent episode of “Honestly with Bari Weiss,” Harvard Economics Professor Roland Fryer published a 104 page document in 2016 revealing the results of an extensive study on the possibility of racial bias amongst America’s cops in their dealings with people of Color. The study’s conclusion, based on the consideration of more than a million interactions between the police and the general public, was that there was no evidence that Blacks were being murdered by the police simply because of the color of their skin. Yes, given the inordinate percentage of violent crimes committed in the U.S. by young Black Males, the police were 21% more inclined to draw their guns on people of Color. But when it came to pulling the trigger, the numbers suggest they were 23.5 % less likely to do so for fear of being labelled racists.
What I failed to mention is that Fryer is a Black Man, a well-respected Intellectual granted a MacArthur Genius Fellowship when he was just 34. Skeptical of the study’s findings, he appointed 8 researchers of his own to investigate their legitimacy. Having been assured they were valid, he published his paper. Imagine his dismay when he was inundated almost immediately with threats of violence to both himself and his family, threats which resulted in around-the-clock police protection for an entire month!
Is there any way Professor Fryer was motivated by hatred to publish his article? Obviously not! Is it possible there were flaws in the statistics he cited? Of course. But the significance of his plight is that it is but another example of one of the Left’s “victimized” minorities responding with absurd violence to an individual who simply failed to conform to its Narrative of Victimization. I have stacks of “woke” newspaper articles condemning the hatred that pervades the “far right.” Does such bigotry exist? Of course it does. Two absurd features of these articles, however, is that they rarely discuss the substance of the views they so loathe, while always implying their “hatefulness” to be an inevitable result of mainstream “conservatism.” They are, that is to say, almost universally devoid of rational integrity while the mainstream “conservatism” they so loathe is self-consciously Rational and generally devoid of hatred of any sort. Should I suggest that Iran’s present regime is oppressive, misogynistic and homophobic, as indeed are a number of other Islamic enclaves, some numbskull will inevitably suggest I am promoting hatred of Muslims. But my observation is demonstrably True, an inarguable Objective Fact. Distinctions of this sort, however, rarely grace the many rabid denunciations of “far-right” extremism which simplistically dismiss all “conservative” views as expressions of hatred. The outrageous irony of these denunciations, of course, is that they themselves are rooted in hatred. How else would you characterize the death threats directed at Prof. Fryer and his family, threats levelled predominantly by Blacks utterly addicted to the self-exonerating narrative of victimization promoted by the Left? Simple fact: Neo-Marxist Ideology implicitly promotes resentment against all those who have risen to the top of the socio-economic ladder. Hatred, that is to say, is the inevitable result of the “progressive” social critique. Prof. Fryer is hardly alone as an innocent victim of the dementia that has come to poison contemporary political discourse. How dare he suggest that most White cops are not perhaps racists! How dare he cast doubt on the notion that Western societies are “systemically” vile!
Rarely a day goes by without some new example of the rabid intolerance of those demographics celebrated by the “social justice” warriors of the Left. Just a few days ago David Oulton, a gay talk show host on an LGBTQ network in Calgary, Alberta, had his show cancelled because he had dared support Premiere Danielle Smith’s legislative attempt to both defend parental rights and deter “trans activists” from assailing underaged children with gender issues they are simply too immature to understand. While Oulton’s stance can be defended as perfectly rational, he was nevertheless denounced as a transphobic bigot. Such is the dementia cultivated by the “woke” Left. Such are the hateful reactions incited by a cadre of pseudo-intellectuals who actually see themselves as the champions of love and empathy!
While the multitude of “conservatives” I admire would never think of justifying genuine hate speech, the Left does so on a daily basis. That it sees itself as a champion of tolerance and justice, is truly absurd! That it sees itself as a defender of Democracy while using the scam of “hate speech” to cancel anyone of an opposing point of view, is truly disgusting. Neither Roland Fryer or David Oulton was motivated by hate. Danielle Smith’s attempt to bring some sanity to the treatment of children within her province was eminently defensible. Yet day after tedious day both our airwaves and newspapers are rife with diatribes based on the simplistic and indeed nonsensical assumption that any criticism of a supposedly victimized minority must be rooted in hatred, no matter the often childish, self-centered if not criminal nature of their actions and complaints.