What would it take for progressives to reject Black Lives Matter?

Yet even under this theory, the malignant effect of Black Lives Matter is evident. It’s easy to activate discontent with lies, and if local and national activists keep saying, “hands up, don’t shoot” — the lie that launched the Ferguson riots — or falsely claiming that Charlotte’s Keith Lamont Scott was holding a book and not a gun when Charlotte police shot him, then the blame for the riots and violence that follow rests with them, not with police.

Rather than ask (for them) the hard questions, all too many journalists are scrambling to minimize the tragic increase in homicide. They characterize the largest increases in decades as “slight” and consistently emphasize and re-emphasize that crime is still well below its historic highs. That is no doubt true, but the concern isn’t that we’re back in the middle of the crack wars; it’s that emerging cultural and political trends may be costing hundreds of lives.

Rarely have I seen more good people hoodwinked by a slogan, unaware of the radical and destructive organization and activists that lurk beneath. As a declaration, Black Lives Matter is simple, unarguable truth. As a movement, it’s poisonous.

Well-meaning white Christians, eager for racial reconciliation, have flocked to its banner. White progressives, suckers for every radical black movement, celebrate its leaders. They don’t know or don’t care that the organization proclaims itself to be “committed” to “disrupting the western-prescribed nuclear family” and calls cop-killers such as Huey Newton, Michael Finley, Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill its brothers.