The past several days have seen the reappearance of a trend that is becoming as common in American life as school shootings and intellectually dishonest Voxsplainers. The formula goes something like this: 1) a black man, usually while engaged in a criminal act is shot and killed by a police officer 2) said black man’s name becomes an instant hashtag on social media 3) Soros funded agitators (sometimes referred to as Black Lives Matter) descend on the city in question and begin to foment “protests” 4) Chaos ensues as said “protest” quickly descends into an orgy of looting, burning and random acts of violence against innocent passers-by.

One of the most interesting facets of this story is that, at least in the cases that led to full-scale rioting (Ferguson, Milwaukee, Charlotte etc) the alleged victim tended to actually be the guilty party.

In Ferguson, Michael Brown, who had all but been sainted by the Black Lives Matter cult, turned out to be precisely the aggressive criminal that the Officer in question Darren Wilson had portrayed him as. An Investigation by the Department of Justice, led by Eric Holder, himself certainly no friend to “racist” police, concluded that “there was no evidence to disprove Wilson’s testimony that he feared for his safety”. The day of his shooting, Brown after violently robbing a convenience store proceeded to begin walking down the middle of a city street after which he was approached by Officer Wilson. Brown proceeded to lean into Wilson’s car window, punch him repeatedly in the face and then reach for his gun. This sequence of events has been verified not only by witnesses at the scene but by physical evidence as well.

Thus, it seems not only that the violent riots that engulfed Ferguson were entirely without justification, but that Brown’s shooting was, not only justifiable but in fact a commendable act of heroism on the part of Officer Wilson. An act, that in most sane societies, would be considered worthy of praise and recognition.

Likewise in Charlotte, police shot and killed a man who they claimed had charged them while armed with a handgun. The man’s family claimed he had been merely clutching a book (Chaucer perhaps?) and had been needlessly murdered in cold blood by police who were apparently just in the mood to kill a black man that day. Unsurprisingly, according to the available evidence, it appears it was the officers who had been telling the truth.

What can we conclude from such events? Perhaps the most obvious is that these riots are not actually about protesting police brutality, or for that matter, anything really. As the events that supposedly triggered them turned out to be completely justified acts of force by the police in the service of preserving public order. The truth is that these events merely serve as an excuse for rioters to enjoy the Caligulan thrill of mob violence.

The official line has been that these outbursts of criminality have been merely the result of the pent up frustration of the black community which has had to endure years of “systematic racism.” Thus, random acts of violence are, if not explicitly condoned, at least understandable and therefore tacitly approved of.

Well-meaning conservatives will frequently respond with rejoinders which point out the obscene rate of black-on-black homicides, or perhaps point out the discriminatory nature of the slogan “black lives matter” when in fact all lives should matter.

These attempts at rebutting the various absurdities put forward by the BLM movement and their fellow travelers in the media tend to miss the point, however.

The primary contention of BLM ideologues is that black communities cannot be held responsible for these pathologies, as they are entirely products of the historical legacy of “White Supremacy.” As the black writer, and darling of the liberal intelligentsia, Ta-Nehisi Coates explained: “The policy of America has been, for most of its history, white supremacy. The high rates of violence in black neighborhoods do not exist outside of these facts—they evidence them.” It is here we find the premise upon which the BLM worldview is based, that due to the all-pervasive reality of “White Supremacy” the black community bears absolutely no moral responsibility for the content of its culture or the criminal propensity of its young people. All of the ills affecting black society can be understood solely as the fault of “White Supremacy.”

The genius of this concept of “White Supremacy,” is that it remains both nebulous and unfalsifiable, existing everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. Thus when asked for a contemporary example of “institutional racism,” such as historical Jim Crow laws, etc, the BLM enthusiast will point to the higher rate of black incarceration (incarceration has been referred to as “The New Jim Crow”) in comparison to other racial groups. The obvious rejoinder to this is to point out that the higher rate of black incarceration is simply due to the higher rates of criminal offenses committed by blacks ( as illustrated by Barry Latzar in his February article for The Wall Street Journal). The BLM enthusiast in question will then respond that these higher offense rates are themselves the product of the historical legacy of “White Supremacy,” and thus “White Supremacy” is the sole cause of this criminality.

When faced with this sort of circular logic, it becomes evident that further dialogue is a futile endeavor. For even if their premise, which remains dubious, is correct, it would not follow that blacks, therefore, are merely pawns of historical forces beyond their control and thus possess no moral agency of their own.

At the end of the day, these arguments are little more than unserious assertions and serve as apologies for acts of lawlessness based upon the specter of eternal black victimhood. Until the purveyors of this incendiary propaganda, which serves no purpose other than to sow discord, are excluded, no honest conversation concerning improving race relations will be able to take place. A conversation which, given the events of recent weeks, desperately needs to take place.

P.T. Carlo is a freelance writer producing political samizdat, he lives and works in the eastern great lakes region and is a contributor for Social Matter.