Sunday, December 21, 2014

DOMESTIC BLOWBACK: Two NYPD Coppers Down

By Robert Wenzel

We are all familiar with blowback as the Empire attempts to assert its dominance around the world, that's what most terrorism aimed at the US is about.

Now, a new form of  blowback may be emerging: Domestic Blowback.

I have long chronicled the government rules and regulations that have made success difficult for many, particularly young black men.

Minimum wage laws prevent them from getting that first job. Drug laws have created an "opportunity" in the underground world for them, but if they get caught by the government operating in this world, they face long periods of incarceration.

Government education is a joke. And on top of that they have few role models to show them how to live and succeed in the modern world, as LBJ's Great Society programs removed adult males from black family settings.

Instead, front and center are hustlers like Al Sharpton, who use the caged-like environment faced by many young black men to instigate racial strife. An instigation that has now been advanced further by the President and his wife (SEE: Michelle Obama's Experience at Target Wasn't Racist Back in 2012).

The anger is real, though generally misdirected. The problem is not racial but government oppression. Curiously, this anger is now being directed, though a bit in a confused manner, at the first line enforcers of government regulations, the police. It is, for all practical purposes, blowback against the government rules and regulations that have created a toxic brew of failure and anger among many black youth.

They experience the first line enforcers on a regular basis. They don't understand the deep nature of the rules and regulations that are causing their plight, but they do know the police are on the opposite side of the plight, pushing them, stopping them, frisking them and arresting them. And thus the anger at the police.

The anger among black youth probably can be charted in the form of some kind of bell curve, with few actually wanting to kill coppers and willing to execute the killings, But there probably are a few--the exact number unknown.

The executions yesterday of two NYPD officers by Ismaaiyl Brinsley shows us that the tail end of the curve is not empty. It turns out that cop killer Brinsley is something of a wordsmith so he left it clear why he launched the executions:



"I'm Putting Wings on Pigs Today" and "They Take 1 Of Ours...Let's Take 2 of Theirs" will certainly juice up those on the tail of the curve even more.

Politicians, Al Sharpton and many more will have all kinds of comments in the days ahead for sure.

NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has already made the absurd comment:
It is an attack on all of us, on everything we hold dear … Therefore every New Yorker should feel they too were attacked, our entire city was attacked, by this heinous individual.

It's not an attack on an "entire city." It is an attack by one black man against the first line of government enforcement, the police. There will be all kinds of talk about the community coming together and how race relations need to be improved, But this is all touchy feely nonsense.

What needs to be done is that black men, and others in the same predicament, must be freed from the shackles of minimum wage laws, drug laws etc. Compulsory useless government public school "education" must be stopped. And the government needs to stop shoveling support to women who have children without fathers in the home. Until such measures are taken to diffuse the situation and provide new avenues and direction, especially for angry young black men, the anger will continue and others on the tail of the bell curve are likely to take up the cry of  Ismaaiyl Brinsley, "They Take 1 Of Ours...Let's Take 2 of Theirs."

Let's hope the rest of us don't get caught up as collateral damage in the crossfire in this new domestic blowback.

 Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics

25 comments:

  1. Typical Libertarian hypocrisy. What happened to good and evil and holding an individual responsible for his actions? Your argument opens the door to more cold blooded murder of innocents. Good and evil will always exist even in so-called Libertarian paradise. You are ethically blinded by your Libertarian dogma and hatred for any form of government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where did you see Wenzel absolve blame from Brinsley? Heres a hint; He didn't. What Wenzel is explaining is looking deeper than just the pissed of black kid kills cops narrative. The MSM neither liberal or conservative will look beyond that because that effects their credibility. For the left it shows that minimum wage laws and regulations do more harm to workers than good and for the right it shows their bluster for an actual free market is nothing but bluster despite the several chances they've had over the last 30yrs to actually change things for the better, in addition their flat out denials of police brutality or believing that certain groups deserve such brutality.

      So you're either a liberal who doesn't like hearing the truth about the policies you support or a conservative who cant handle the fact that libertarians dig deeper than whats on the surface.

      Delete
    2. Wrong. This doesn't condone, nor open up opportunity for killing cops. He's simply explaining the consequences of police states and oppressive government regulation. Get off your high horse and use that brain of yours for a bit before commenting.

      Delete
    3. Really. Just because Wenzel doesn't mention the fact that this man's murdering is not justified under the NAP, doesn't mean he believes said murderer acted with moral authority. Wenzel is just performing a textbook praxeological analysis; e.g. This man acted on imperfect information towards the goal of reducing oppression of himself and his community. In Mr. Brinsley's situational analysis, he believed dropping cops was the best way to go about that.

      Is that indeed the best way to accomplish that goal? I doubt it; the fellow doesn't strike me as a person looking to further refine the information used to guide his actions. I suspect he was guided by passion more than anything, frankly -- which helps explain why he chose suicide in the end.

      Were murdering police truly his goal, staying alive and becoming imprisoned would have provided more opportunities to slay state enforcers (whilst imprisoned, for example). No one can truly know what his motives were in those last few moments (whether he had a change of heart, etc), but I suspect murder/suicide was the plan from the beginning. He had to understand at some level that 'making a statement' was probably the best he could do with his actions; actually hurting the NYPD by directly murdering them is definitely not going to be the outcome of this.

      No, the police will use this as they always do. Another excuse for a power grab. And by the way, Wenzel's argument is not the thing that " opens the door to more cold blooded murder of innocents". It's the cops acting like an occupying army that will do that. Read any study of insurgency and why it happens, and you'll start to see the same pattern. People don't murder cops over words, they kill because people they care about have been kidnapped, tortured or murdered by the state.

      It betrays a lack of knowledge about the libertarian perspective to claim that people holding such a view are unaware of the existence of good and evil under any form of social organization. It is precisely the nature of the Austrian Economic framework that has so few axioms as to allow for analysis of goal-seeking behaviours in actors be it for good or evil. People act on imperfect information to achieve specific ends, be they good or evil.

      It also betrays a sort of 'ethical blindness' that you don't appear upset about the far larger number of murders of innocents by the police, as you did not mention it in your comment. See, I can make up things about you based upon things you do not say too! Whee, this straw-man thing is easy!

      Delete
  2. Please list some role models that show how to succeed in the modern world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert, very well put. The answers are so simple; they are avoided by both the politicians and the hustlers on purpose, with full knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  4. LEO's killing or shooting innocent black men is not the only reason for contempt of cop. Inside police departments are violent gang members and released prisoners with violent records. Yes, there are those kids from the neighborhood who grew up and "made good" in departments as well. But who knows whose background when you're attending to your daily assigned tasks out in the field? Remember the undercover cop who did nothing to protect the NY SUV driver beaten to a pulp in Oct. 2013? Cops and gangs intermix. This is essentially a gangland killing. It is internecine gangland warfare. But if that were true, why wasn't the hit more specific to the guys involved in the Garner killing? The target of revenge is generally more calculated than two random police officers. This just seems too random. The victims in this case were an Asian man and a Latino. The officer who took down Garner was neither. So much for claims of a race war.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Detectives will tell you that most homicides involve people very close the victim. Eric Garner, Ferguson, et al would actually be the perfect cover for something very personal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It seems to me this is just another case of a man who had just committed a horrific crime (murdering his girlfriend) electing for suicide by cop. Yet everyone is eager to read so much more into it because it fits The Narrative. Wenzel's points are right on, but they were true in 2013 and 2012 and they will still be true in 20XX.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Blowback is a good term to use. The reasons as indicated are much the same as those in the middle east. The US government is run for those who have made a science out of breaking people and limiting their opportunities in life. Violence is the known result. They then use that violence to justify more state power and the cycle feeds upon itself.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Protest in a constitutional right.But the police do not like or respect the constitution they swore an oath to uphold, they want a police state where they dictate the conditions under which the rest of us will live.
    Protests are peaceful events right up until the planted police agents provocateur start something. The tactic has been in use for a long time for the purpose of de legitimizing the goal of the protest. It is the cops themselves who perpetrate the violence and then have the temerity to put blame on the innocent (typical).
    John F Kennedy stated "When peaceful protest becomes impossible then violent protest is inevitable" . If the police would simply respect the constitutional right of the people to protest for redress then none of this would be an issue, but they have foisted upon their own petard and now when they see the result of their own actions are trying to pass of responsibility onto anyone else so they can continue to behave in criminal fashion with impunity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I should "have" to get a "permit" to protest ...... the 1st Amend.IS my PERMIT.

      Delete
  9. Selective outrage ...... WACO,Randy Weaver ...as the Cops saw what they could get away with ..... they got more brutal.......Whites are killed by cops 3 to 1 over Blacks..... then there are dog shootings, Warrantless raids on the WRONG houses and Citizens murdered......

    ReplyDelete
  10. When outrages like the spate of police killings of citizens continue, without any corrective action from the legal system, the rage of the people will not adhere to due process, will be chaotic and will likely first come from despicable characters like Ismaaiyl Brinsley.
    This is not new in history, and is how populations pushback and respond when it perceived that the orthodoxy in power will not correct its own violence upon the people, those at the fringes of society are the first to respond.
    It is tragic, but predictable, and is what happens when law enforcement quality control gets sloppy, and then that gets double-downed by the very same system with questionable returns of “No Bill” from grand juries.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Makes sense to me, but my coworkers asks, why don't these policies have the same affect on whites?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because most whites have marginal revenue product greater than black youth. The high unemployment rate of black youth tells you that. And more black youth are impacted by the poor public education that is predominant in urban centers.

      Delete
  12. Thank you Robert Wenzel, it takes guts to call a spade a spade in todays world. This is no different than the blowback Ron Paul talked about during the election (and got booed for speaking the truth). Sorry, I don't have a login to use.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "It is an attack on all of us, on everything we hold dear … Therefore every New Yorker should feel they too were attacked, our entire city was attacked, by this heinous individual."

    Did I miss something. He makes it sound as if Pearl Harbor was just bombed.

    I don't recall this level of rhetoric when a thug killed Eric Darner in cold blood in the middle of the street...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It ultimately is the same cry of all statists, collectivist to its core to justify all that is inhuman via a false appeal to humanity.

      "us" "we" etc. et al

      Delete
  14. The ;local Chicago union rep piously intoned" "It's tough to stand by and watch people blast the people who protect each and everyone of you in this room and each and everyone of them out there"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone who tell the Union rep to read Castle Rock vs Gonzales in regards to police protecting the people

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

      Delete
  15. Black activists aren't mad at the excess of government regulations. They're mad that they have to follow the simple rules like don't steal, don't hit etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Black activists aren't mad at the excess of government regulations. They're mad that they have to follow the simple rules like don't steal, don't hit etc."

      There is a significant number of blacks sitting in jail over victimless crimes, most of which are drug related.

      So I'm going to disagree with your statement.

      I'm not arguing that there aren't blacks that are violating the NAP,(stealing, assault, etc.), but I'm arguing that "excess of government regulations", specifically in the area of drugs, contribute to an "angry" black population...and that they've been disproportionately affected by such excess of government regulations. (specifically in both prosecution and punishment)

      Delete