Close this search box.

The Dallas shooting of police officers: What it really means by Russell L. Blaylock, MD

The common man could sense that a change was passing over the nation, that something in the soul of the people was dying, that a pristine state of simplicity, likened to that of our first parents, was being destroyed by the forces of an active evil.”[1]

On July 7th a sniper gunned down five police officers and wounded seven others in a rampage that is still being pieced together. Our race baiting president, his hate-spewing Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the compliant leftist media all have blood on their hands. As expected, we now must endure listening to each of these individuals and organizations as they wax eloquent about how this is a terrible tragedy and how we must all rid ourselves of hatred and anger. Of course this is then incorporated into a tired message about a need for gun control.

Memorial at Dallas Police Headquarters after a lone gunman ambushed and killed five police officers at a protest decrying police shootings of black men in Dallas on July 7, 2016. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

And as expected, we have the handwringers—those either on the Left or the entirely clueless, who mutter incoherent babblings expressing confusion about how this could have happened and what could have led up to this—as if it is a big mystery. During Barack Obama’s entire presidency he has done everything in his power to racially divide the nation, instill hatred and distrust among the black community and encourage, through his rhetoric, rioting and civil disobedience. The Black-Lives-Matter organization, heavily funded by the likes of George Soros and other super rich leftists and leftist organizations, arose quickly and leaped into national prominence, mainly by the efforts of the compliant leftist media, who has continued to beat the racist drum incessantly ever since.

What is being missed by the media and the talking heads is that such events do not generally arise de novo, rather there is careful planning and involvement of highly organized groups on the extreme Left, from within the shadows, that nurture such events. In this essay, I just want to touch on some of the methodology of the extreme Left.

The shooter: Micah Johnson

According to information released thus far, this young man served in the Army in Afghanistan and was in the ready reserves when the massacre began. According to the police investigation, the shooter had an intense interest in a number of extreme radical black and left-wing organizations, including the New Black Panther Party, Black Riders Liberation Army, African-American Defense League, Nation of Islam, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. He can also be seen on his Facebook account giving the black power salute and displaying a symbol of the Pan Africanism movement. Those who knew him stated that he constantly watched the 1991 Rodney King beating by police in Los Angeles. In essence, he was being fed an unending diet of race hatred propaganda and imagery on a daily basis for most of his adult life—propaganda carefully engineered by the Left.

Incidentally, the leader of one of the groups, the African-American Defense League, Mauricelm-Lei Millere, openly called for the murder of white police officers across the United States. The self-proclaimed peaceful Black-Lives-Matter movement, at each of their demonstrations, including the one in Dallas, chant “pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon” and “What do we want…dead cops—when do we want it—Now!“ One can go on YouTube and find a number of videos showing this group chanting these hate-filled words and even more violent ones—yet, when interviewed, they claim they are a peaceful group and this is how the compliant media introduce them. One of the better videos on the hypocrisy of the Black-Lives-Matter group is “The Truth About Black-Lives-Matter” and another instructive video is “The Worst of Black Lives Matter Part 2.”

In both videos we see a completely different side of Black-Lives-Matter than is projected by the media, the extreme left writers and the president. In the first of the videos we soon learn that the real data demonstrates that the entire issue as a fabrication, data which would certainly be available to true journalists. Yet, these are not journalists; they are espousers of propaganda and emotional images that in no way resemble reality.

Gustave Le Bon, circa 1900

The origin of black rage

Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931) emphasized that crowds (mobs) are not formed by careful reasoning and searching for truth, but rather follow the image and the emotional words that create those images—in essence, theater. He says: “Throughout the successive ages…nothing has a greater effect on the imagination of crowds of every category than theatrical representations.”[2] This imagery is even more powerful in this age of technology when images can be molded to tell any story you wish. One of its more powerful expressions is within cinema. Even for those of us prepared for such influences, a well-produced and directed movie or docudrama can even engender emotions in favor of ideas that are quite illogical if examined in an intellectual forum. Aldous Huxley, in his The Devils of Loudun (1952), described this power of influence in this way:

“Assemble a mob of men and women previously conditioned by a daily reading of newspapers; treat then to amplified band music, bright lights…and in next to no time you can reduce them to a state of almost mindless sub-humanity. Never before have so few been in a position to make fools, maniacs, or criminals of so many.”[3]

If you watch, for instance, the Rodney King beating by Los Angeles police without commentary, one will experience a different emotional outcome and message than one would if either they were at first told how to interpret the incident before being viewed or a commentary accompanied the event. Such commentary can sway an audience either way.

When a group is inundated by years of carefully constructed propaganda, and keep in mind that for propaganda to be effective it must contain some modicum of truth, the ultimate effect will be that all related events will engender the same sought after emotional response—either consciously or subconsciously. Over time, that is, the emotional response will be repeatedly triggered. It was Nicolo Machiavelli who, in The Prince, observed, “For the great part of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.”

The idea that it is unsafe for a black person to exist in America and that cops are “hunting black men” is absurd on the face of it and proven by the existing FBI data on police related killings. That anyone of intellectual ability would accept such nonsense is shocking; yet we are being told these things by politicians, media personalities, and political pundits on a daily basis. There is no question that there are instances in which the police act with excessive aggressiveness and violence and on occasion deaths do result from this behavior. Yet, most police act completely within the bounds of civil behavior and several of the cases used by the radicals, when objectively examined, were within the bounds of justified response by the police. In virtually every instance the victim was a felon or had a long history of criminal activity and there was evidence of physical resistance to the police.

In order for the radical elements in society to utilize such a concocted issue, they must create the “theater”—the image suggesting the lie is a reality. Knowing that mobs do not use logic, truth or reality, the radical merely has to create the image desired and build a rhetorical story around the issue that re-enforces and enhances the image. Le Bon emphasizes this in his book, The Crowd:

“Whatever be the ideas suggested to crowds, they can only exercise effectiveness on condition that they assume a very absolute, uncompromising and simple shape. They present themselves in the guise of images and are only accessible to the masses under this form. These image-like ideas are not connected to any logical bond of analogy or succession, and may take each other’s place like slides of a magic lantern… A long time is necessary for ideas to establish themselves in the minds of crowds, but just as long a time is needed for them to be eradicated.”[4]

Saul Alinsky in 1963

In his book Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky enforces this idea. He says of the agitator:

“…fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.”[5]

Le Bon also notes, “In crowds the foolish, ignorant, and envious persons are freed from the sense of their insignificance and powerlessness, and are possessed instead by the notion of brutal and temporary but immense strength.”[6] Further, Le Bon says: “How numerous are the crowds that have heroically faced death for beliefs, ideas, and phrases that they scarcely understood.”[7] Alinski also emphasizes, with great self-congratulations, the ploy of making the person you wish to influence think they are important and that you truly value their opinion.[8] He recognizes that within the ghetto most people feel alienated and isolated from the world around them—that is, they feel invisible. To suddenly be of importance—to be told that you can help lead a revolution for a “better world”—is enticing.

Not only is this impulse irresistible to the normal person, but also it is even more so in those with deranged minds, such as seems to be the case with the Dallas shooter. Unable to think with clarity and seeing through the created imagery of the revolutionary, they become obsessed with their mission, as it has been fed to them by the community organizer, the university professor, the media and the cinema. It is the psychopath in our society who is most attracted to ideas of being a member of the revolutionary vanguard and hero of the revolution by self-sacrifice or immolation.

The next step is to add prestige to the issue. If this movement came solely from the ghetto, it would have little real impact on most of society. I remember a group of concerned parents conducting a march in their neighborhood over the death of a child killed as a bystander during a gang dispute. In this case, it was a justifiable, compassioned plea for the community to come together to stop the senseless murdering of children by black gang hoodlums. The march got absolutely no attention from the national media; President Obama didn’t fly in from the golf course and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were nowhere to be found. No special legislation was demanded to protect the innocent from the “gentle giants” in the neighborhood and the killing continued. The same is true in hundreds of black neighborhoods gripped by gang violence in which the death toll of blacks is far higher than any dreamed of death by white policemen.

To build the impact of the revolutionary message, the leftists have utilized individuals and groups in positions of power and prestige, which is critical. Le Bon says:

“The special characteristic of prestige is to prevent us seeing things as they are and to entirely paralyze our judgment. Crowds always, and individuals as a rule, stand in need of ready-made opinions on all subjects. The popularity of these opinions is independent of the measure of truth or error they contain, and is solely regulated by their prestige.”[9]

Listening to the rhetoric from the leftist radicals demonstrates that, as Le Bon says, “they are not gifted with keen foresight, nor could they be, as this quality generally conduces to doubt and inactivity.” And further, “their convictions are so strong that all reasoning is lost upon them. Contempt and persecution do not affect them, as only serve to excite them the more. They sacrifice their personal interest, their family—everything.”[10]

Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and President Obama, for example, act as the prestigious catalyst that draws the crowds that all too often erupt into raging riotous crowds of barbaric monsters who pillage, burn and destroy all in their sight. Only after the destruction has occurred does anyone step forward and notice that the victims of this outrage had absolutely nothing to do with the reason for the riot. In fact, more often than not, it is the black community and black individuals who are the chief victims of this barbaric outrage. Of course the leftist instigator sits on the sideline and reaps the benefits from the explosive rage, which include the generation of more such acts and further enhancement of their prestige. For the extreme leftist, such as George Soros, who most often hide in the shadows, the payoff is advancement of the intended revolutionary agenda—that is, creation of the illusory utopia.

Is there a goal—a grievance to be satisfied?

One of the most common mistakes the uninitiated make is to assume that there is a specific grievance that the radical leftist elements, the initiators in the shadows, actually believe is real. This is not to say that within the community of angry individuals there is hope that the “problem” will be addressed and corrected, but then they truly believe that the organizers of the radical groups for the demonstration or riot are indeed sincere in seeking a solution, rather than the fact that they are using a perceived problem to further their ultimate goal—that is, bringing down the existing society.

Those of us who have studied the methodology of the Left and understand the thinking of the originators of this historical movement—that is, Morelly, Mably, Diderot, d’Alembert, Voltaire, Helvetius, Turgot, Condorcet, Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte, as well as the more modern disciples of these men—Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, etc.—appreciate that their ultimate goal is what has been termed the total critique of society. What this means is the complete dismantling of the existing order—all of its traditions, laws, institutions, economic systems, religious beliefs, moral foundations and even the family structure. Once this has been accomplished, they intend to begin building their new society from the ground up—the utopia. Of course the utopia never is realized, it is merely an image to drive the revolution forward.

Having lived through the period of the Jim Crow laws (segregation), the Civil Rights movement, the long hot summers of rioting nationwide and the legislating of non-discrimination laws, I can see clearly the dramatic improvement in the lives of the black community and individual blacks—mainly those who have taken advantage of their newly found constitutional rights. That is, the most dramatic beneficial act was to open the black person to the same constitutional rights as the other races. Racial set asides, racial preferences, urban renewal, the welfare state, and other governmental acts that gave special privileges to the blacks not available to others, in almost every case, harmed the black person and continues to do so. In fact, these positive actions essentially turned black people into serfs of the State—dependency destroys individual freedom. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and other prominent black writers have testified to this in their op-ed columns.

By every measure the lives of a growing number of blacks have improved economically as well as in freedom. These are the blacks that took advantage of their freedom and avoided dependence on the State. Yet, despite these tremendous improvements in their lives, many others who have not availed themselves of those advantages, are even angrier than when segregation was the norm—both in the South and the North. It has been noted historically that revolution never comes when things are at their worst, but rather when conditions begin to improve. It was not under the bloody rule of Louis XIV that the French Revolution occurred; it was under the benign and relaxed rule of Louis XVI.

When I was growing up you never saw a black news commentator, nationally or locally. On most college teams blacks were excluded. Most professional sports were devoid of blacks; universities and colleges were all white, and the professional schools were also devoid of black faces. Black doctors were just not seen, even though there were a few. The only wealthy blacks were the entertainers—musicians, singers, and comedians.

Today all that has been drastically changed. In every case one sees not just a proportional rise in black participation in all areas of society, they are there in great numbers. In fact, most organizations, universities, and businesses seek out qualified blacks with special recruitment programs. For example, in the 1990s the University of California spent $160 million each year to recruit minority students, as have most of the colleges and universities in the United States. The best universities have the most aggressive minority recruitment programs.

Despite this incredible advancement in black positions and economic growth, black dissatisfaction and anger is greater today than ever before, and we are now entering another wave of riots and angry demonstrations, just like in the days when the rights of blacks were curtailed by law. The white community, which has virtually bent over backwards to improve the status and life of blacks at all levels, scratch their collective heads in amazement and remain confused as to why. And when you look at the complaints of the new generation of blacks, it is even more puzzling—mainly because the complaints are so trivial and frequently unsubstantiated.

To understand this radicalization of the black community one must read the works of people like Saul Alinski. Remember, from the quote above, he said to move the people to act in a revolutionary way one must “fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy…”[11] Further Alinsky says of the agitator: “He begins his ‘trouble making’ by stirring up these angers, frustrations, and resentments, and highlighting specific issues or grievances that heighten controversy. He dramatizes injustices…”[12] In other words, where no legitimate grievance exists, the revolutionary must make one. If there are no longer any laws or even the will of the whites to mistreat the blacks, then one must create the illusion that such discrimination and oppression exists. To fulfill this illusion, the Left has created the concept of “institutional racism”—that is, racism that cannot be seen, heard, or objectively demonstrated in any rational way but is felt in the mystical psyche of the leftist instigator.

Flowing from this comes even more bizarre ideas such as “microaggressions,” intrinsic, genetic racism (only whites can be racists), and a need for a “safe space.” The logical, rational mind cannot grasp such idiocy, but to the thoroughly brainwashed and controlled person it all seems perfectly rational. One only has to listen to the ravings of such people to appreciate just how deranged their thinking has become. Gustave Le Bon describes this as:

“…the figurative imagination of the crowds is very powerful, very active and very susceptible of being keenly impressed. The image evoked in their mind by a personage, an event or an accident, are almost as lifelike as the reality… Crowds, being incapable both of reflection and reasoning, are devoid of the notion of improbability, and it is to be noted that in a general way it is the most improbable things that are the most striking.” …The unreal has almost as much influence on them as the real. They have an evident tendency not to distinguish between the two.”[13]

David Horowitz in February 2011

David Horowitz, in his excellent book titled Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes, gives some excellent examples of this psychosis among the “educated” blacks. He gives the example of Professor bell hooks (her spelling of her name), a professor of English at City College of New York, who wrote an essay called “A Killing Rage,” in which she recounts an incident on an airplane in which her black friend was denied a seat on first class because her ticket was not properly upgraded; it confirmed her hatred of “white society.” When a white passenger, who had purchased a first class ticket, took the seat she exploded in rage, verbally attacking the man and then began to pen her desire to kill the poor fellow. She wrote, “I felt a killing rage. I wanted to stab him softly, to shoot him with the gun I wished I had in my purse and watch his pain, I would say to him tenderly ‘racism hurts.’ “[14]

The idea that an educated person, a professor of English, would explode into such irrational hatred for a total stranger just because he is white, is an incredible example of the power of indoctrination. Obviously, she had been steeped in this racist mentality during critical periods of her life and it had destroyed her ability to think in a rational and civil way. Ironically, her rage was not from her own experiences for she laments, “My rage intensifies because I am not a victim.”

This is not an isolated case. We have professors in major, Ivy League universities holding the same bizarre ideas. They are teaching students, white and black, that blacks are the victims of “domination and subjugation” in the white ruled society. Further, they insist that only whites can be racists as they are the holders of power. They shout such idiocy, yet many major cities have black mayors, and blacks are holding many other governmental positions as well. In the city of Jackson, Mississippi, the mayor is black; the chief of police and most of the city council are black too—so how is it that whites hold all the power? The president is black, the Black Caucus in Congress holds considerable power, and many leaders in law enforcement, federal bureaucracies and international bodies are black. Universities have a number of blacks holding prestigious positions among their faculties. Even a brief review will show the silliness of such a charge that whites hold all the power.

Ludwig Von Mises

The idea that intelligent people are more often the source of such idiotic and inane ideas and statements has been noticed in many situations historically. For example, it was noted that it was the highly educated German, men of high cultural awareness and training, who embraced the Nazi State most enthusiastically. Eric Voegelin refers to such people as intellectual morons. And Ludwig Von Mises noted:

“The feeding of the critical sense is a serious menace to the preservation of our civilization. It makes it easy for quacks to fool people. It is remarkable that the educated strata are more gullible than the less educated. The most enthusiastic supporters of Marxism, Nazism and Fascism were the intellectuals, not the boors.”[15]

In today’s world it will be noted that bloody, destructive riots are routinely justified by the Left and especially by professional race baiters, such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. After the 1992 Los Angeles riot, Professor Cornel West informed America that it was a “largely male display of justified social rage.” Following more recent riots we suffered through the same nonsense rants from media personalities—mostly liberal whites—justifying the mass burning of property, mob theft of stores and multiple assaults of innocent whites. During the riots following the acquittal of the police involved in the Rodney King beating, interviewed rioters told reporters on the scene that they had no idea who Rodney King was—“that they did not follow baseball.” In one such media “show” the reporter informed the audience that the rioters were looting stores because they were hungry. Unless they were eating televisions, stereos, and tennis shoes, the argument holds little weight. In most convenience stores it was the hard liquor and cigarettes that was targeted.

Facts, data and logic have no quarter when the Left is in full power. They can fabricate such ideas as Anglos earning more money than blacks of equal educational status and job description; discrimination in hiring practices; discrimination in home buying, renting apartments and even university entrance—despite the fact that laws prevent such discrimination nationwide. If the white power structure behaved as described by the radicals, we would not have a welfare system, set-aside programs, expensive university recruitment programs, and hundreds of other special programs for the black community.

Despite this overwhelming evidence of white compassion and generosity, polls have shown that two thirds of blacks interviewed agreed with the “black rage theory.” The crowning moment of their outrage came when someone dared suggest that all lives matter. The Black-Lives-Matter group and their leftist supporters immediately screamed their rejection of such an obvious and sensible suggestion—mainly because they needed to make an issue of the brutal police treatment of blacks and a racist nation. Further, and more importantly for their ultimate cause, they needed to emphasize the need for social rule by leftist ideas and the creation of the leftist utopian dream. Further, when it was suggested that well over 90% of violent black deaths in the United States were at the hands of other blacks—mainly gangs—again this was vehemently rejected or ignored. Of course they never bothered to argue with the logic that if black lives do matter then we should approach solutions for the greatest number of blacks being murdered—which include many children and even babies at the hands of other blacks. The abortion industry especially targets blacks.  

What their rejection of these counter arguments demonstrate is that they care little about reality, and that the instigators know full well what they are doing—mainly instigating riots and a breakdown in society and racial relations. I have noticed that every time the races seem to be getting along, the leftists step in and create an issue where none existed before—such as the Confederate flag issue, an event blown out of proportion, or some imagined affront.

What becomes obvious from all this is that there is often no real grievance to corrected. And if a stated grievance is satisfied, then a new one is invented—there is no end to the demands and this has a function—it creates social discord and demands for radical change. One can guess who will step forward with the suggested change—the extreme Left—the utopian Left. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders represent the extreme Left. Their proposals for fixing America, in truth, entail what Lenin and Trotsky and other revolutionaries insisted—permanent revolution. The idea of a permanent revolution actually begins with Francois (Gracchus) Babeuf (1760-1797) who also preached communism before been executed by fellow revolutionists for being too radical. Gerhart Niemeyer wrote about him:

Gerhart Niemeyer (1907-1997)

“Babeuf, like the Communists, preached and planned a revolution that would not stop at having accomplished the correction of any definable injustice, or grievance but would continue until all society, all of mankind, had been made new.”[16]

In the same book, Between Nothingness and Paradise, Niemeyer explains Lenin’s thinking along the same lines:

“Lenin then stands for a ‘revolutionary government’ in the Jacobin sense, a regime of force unlimited by law and right, and ruthless class struggle continued for a period of indefinite duration.”[17]

He importantly notices that Lenin, “Merely devised rules for the management of perennial conflict. Power, strength, irreconcilability, discipline, ruthlessness: these concepts are well anchored in Lenin’s teachings, but peace, community, friendship, justice, forbearance have no home in the world in which he dwelt.”[18]

It is also important to appreciate that once in power, the promised peace and harmony never seem to appear—rather we witness a state of eternal war against imagined enemies. Niemeyer says, “The party of the Revolution must proceed on the assumption that it is surrounded by bitter enemies or false and unreliable friends.”[19] This explains why we never see peace and harmony with the black community no matter how much they advance, because the Left will not let it occur—which it would, if left alone. By portraying the blacks and other minorities as “victims,” one accomplished several goals. First, it makes them dependent on the ones leading the revolution for their relief from the perceived injustice. Second, it keeps the targeted groups in a state of continual anger and therefore available for other acts of social destruction. And third, it generates the collectivist mentality, which works in many directions.

If a police shooting happens in Minnesota, according to the collectivist principle, it is perfectly justified to murder cops in Dallas, Texas, in retribution. The collectivist never holds an individual responsible for any act—responsibility, in this bizarre way of thinking, is always attributed to another collective—in this instance, the police. Contrariwise, if a black person is killed in an altercation with the police, one does not analyze the individual case to see if an injustice was done, rather it is assumed that the individual is innocent as he is a member of a collective—“African-Americans.” Since other blacks in the collective did nothing wrong, the person killed in the incident therefore must also be, according to this thinking, innocent. The ultimate conclusion from the collectivist way of thinking must be that cops are hunting down blacks indiscriminately and therefore black people are all in danger.

When a black cop shoots a white criminal, the white community does not rise up in indignation, demand the head of the policeman, and does not burn down the community. Rather, we assume the person was guilty or resisting arrest. That is because most white people do not think collectively; rather, we approach these situations as individuals.

What is important is that we understand that this is not an issue that requires riots, hatred, retaliatory acts of violence, and massive government action. If there is a problem, it can be worked out by local action through the legal system and by calmly conducted meetings of responsible individuals. This is how a free country solves problems. The extreme Left (led mostly by elitist whites) must be kept out of the issue. The extreme Left is using these issues to further its agenda of total critique of society (total erasure of all existing social, economic, political and religious systems). It is critical to keep this in mind.

When I was growing up in the 1950s and early 1960s, only black policemen patrolled the black parts of town. I remember working in a smaller charity hospital emergency room and being told by the blacks that they much prefer a white cop arrest them because if the black cop came they were in for an “ass woopin.” When the black cop showed up, the troublemaker usually calmed down.

If the blacks think they cannot get justice from white policemen then maybe we should go back to that policy of having only black policemen patrol black neighborhoods. Protest of such a policy would quickly come from two quarters—the black policemen who understandably would not want that dangerous duty in our days and the extreme leftist who would lose a revolutionary issue. It is always interesting to observe that when a rational solution to a problem is offered it is the Left that screams loudest in opposition—it would steal their issue.

We now have a number of well educated, articulate blacks who think logically and have the best interest of all in mind, so that we can ignore the extreme leftist agitators who breed and gain power by disrupting the community and whose aim is to completely destroy our free society. Black thinkers such as Tom Sowell, Walter Williams, Allan West, Herman Cain, Sheriff David Clarke and Doctor Ben Carson come to mind instantly, but there are many more. It is they who should be leading these discussions on black social issues, not the extreme radicals, such as George Soros, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Cornel West, and Jesse Jackson.

Unless we keep in mind that the solution is not building more recreation centers, basketball courts, or other forms of entertainment, but aid all people in entrepreneurship by lowering the tax rate, simplifying taxes, enforcing the law equally, reducing the size of the central government, reestablishing a system of transcended law, and promoting objective morality.

But the extreme Left will never let peace and tranquility reign—they will agitate for more incidences of violence and discord until our free society is completely destroyed, and they can come into unlimited power. Once in power, as history should teach us, they will silence all opposition—not just from the Right, but especially from the Left. The radicals of today will become the enemies of the people tomorrow, and we should all re-learn how the collectivists deal with enemies of the State. When Soviet expert and scholar Robert Conquest was asked who would be at most danger in a Communist United States should the Soviets win, he stated that most think it would be members of the John Birch Society, but in fact it would be the radicals on the Left—the Trotskyites, the anarchists, and the leftist violent protesters. Why, because the new masters are fully aware that someone that would sabotage and betray their own country would rebel against absolute rule by the communists— and that cannot be allowed.


1. Weaver R. The Southern Tradition at Bay: A History of Postbellum Thought. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1989, p. 213.

2. Le Bon G. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Waking Lion Press, 2006, p. 44.

3. Huxley A. The Devils of Loudun. Barnes Noble Books, 1952.

4. Le Bon, op. cit., p. 39, 41.

5. Alinsky SD. Rules for Radicals. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1989, p. 116-117.

6. Le Bon, op. cit., p. 29.

7. Ibid., p. 35.

8. Alinsky, op. cit., p. 121.

9. Le Bon, op. cit., p. 104.

10. Ibid., p. 92.

11. Alinsky, op. cit., p. 116-117.

12. Ibid, p. 117-118.

13. Le Bon, op. cit., p. 43-45.

14. Horowitz D. Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes. Dallas, TX: Spence Pub Co, 1999, p. 33.

15. von Mises L. Bureaucracy. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1969, p. 108.

16. Niemeyer G. Between Nothingness and Paradise. Baton Rouge, LA: LSU Press, 1971, p. 5.

17. Ibid., p. 120

18. Ibid., p.125

19. Ibid., p.123

Written by Russell L. Blaylock, MD

Dr. Russell L. Blaylock is President of Advanced Nutritional Concepts and Theoretical Neurosciences in Jackson, Mississippi. He has written numerous path-blazing scientific papers and many books, including Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills(1994), Bioterrorism: How You Can Survive (2001), Health and Nutrition Secrets(2002), and Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients (2003). He is Associate Editor-in-Chief and a Consulting Editor in Basic Neuroscience for Surgical Neurology International (SNI).

This article may be cited as: Blaylock RL. The Dallas shooting of police officers: What it really means. July 17, 2016. Available from:

Copyright ©2016 Hacienda Publishing Inc.

Share This Story:

1 thought on “The Dallas shooting of police officers: What it really means by Russell L. Blaylock, MD”

  1. Dr. Miguel A. Faria

    The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)’s leftist partisanship and radicalism on the left side of the political spectrum is notorious and intolerant. No criticism even with legitimate articles backing the charges are not allowed in Wikipedia. And for that and all of its political stands, the SPLC’s credibility has been questioned, not to mention how quick it has label conservative groups with which it disagrees “hate groups.” In fact, the Family Research Council (FRC) was labeled a “hate group” by the SPLC for criticizing gay marriages. As a result of it criticism of the FRC– a Christian and pro family values, conservative organization– became a target of a shooting incident to which the media pay scanty attention. On the other hand, the SPLC has not been critical of radical, left-wing groups and refuses to label them “hate groups,” much less “domestic terrorists!”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top