LINKEDINCOMMENTMORE

No one expected a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas in response to the police shootings of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in Minnesota would end with someone shooting five police officers dead and injuring nine more.

But no one was surprised that it happened either.

That’s because Black Lives Matter activists have intentionally increased their inflammatory anti-white, anti-cop hatred. The group has peddled lies regarding the numbers of “unarmed blacks” shot by police in the face of clear statistical evidence to the contrary.

The shooter, Micah Xavier Johnson, wasn’t an official member of Black Lives Matter, but he acknowledged having been influenced by its program of black racial solidarity. He was attracted to their anti-white and anti-cop rhetoric. He was upset that blacks continued to be unjustifiably shot by police and decided to retaliate in kind, telling police negotiators that he wanted to “kill white people, especially white officers.”

Black Lives Matter was the catalyst for Johnson to act on his racial anger and paranoia.

This is the same group that President Obama has not only frequently praised and defended, but has repeatedly invited to the White House, the last invitation—and meeting—occurring only hours after the memorial service for the Dallas police officers in which Obama himself delivered his eulogy.

Some have suggested that Black Lives Matter is simply an extension of the civil rights movement, attempting to extend moral justification to an immoral group. But the events of the past week should have answered that suggestion with unblemished certainty. Black Lives Matter movement isn’t a successor to the civil rights movement. To claim so is offensive and it trivializes the character, sacrifices, risks, and accomplishments of what civil rights activists were able to achieve with less resources and less rights in a much more racist society.

Black Lives Matter unmistakably lacks the kind of moral authority that was present during the civil rights movement. Due to its determined resistance to facts and evidence as it relates to the police-involved shootings of blacks, it has failed morally to convince the consciousness of those outside its racialized bubble as to the sincerity of the cause.

In essence, it has no moral agenda. Rather, these blacktivists consistently seek to provoke, antagonize, frustrate, and offend the people they claim are in need of hearing their message. Black Lives Matter encourages violence and chaos, and its activists and supporters rarely condemn it. It’s an organization of belligerent, wannabe revolutionaries, who take to rioting, pillaging and burning down local businesses as they did in Ferguson and Baltimore when activists “march” for “justice.”

Black Lives Matter isn’t a civil rights offshoot. Instead, it is the ideological, racial and theatrical offspring of the 1960s-era black power movement. Black Lives Matter’s aggressive and contentious tactics demonstrate as much—the raised black fists and the regurgitated revolutionary chants, the celebration of black racial pride and solidarity, and their increasingly violent demands for varying definitions of “justice.”

The social disruptions of Black Lives Matter are simply hostile demonstrations of racial identity politics and the look-at-us melodrama that descends directly from the black power movement. Despite its claim that “black lives matter,” the only black lives that matter to these racial radicals are members and supporters of Black Lives Matter—at the expense of everyone else.

The lack of courageous condemnation of Black Lives Matter by good and decent people ensures more police officers will be shot in neighborhoods that desperately need their presence to ensure the safety of those who cannot afford to leave.

Derryck Green is a member of Project 21. This has been adapted from InsideSources.

LINKEDINCOMMENTMORE
Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2a6ydwx