It’s easy to see that someone taking part in a left-approved movement has committed a horrendous crime. The media is filled with journalists and politicians calling for togetherness and reason.

This would be fine if it weren’t so hypocritical. Black Lives Matter spokespeople are absolutely right to say that we shouldn’t judge a group based on the actions of one or two members. But their rhetoric since the start has been about judging a group based on the actions of one or two members. Sometimes, even, judging a group based on the non-actions of non-members.

If they really wanted togetherness, reason, and non-judgmentalism, they’d switch their slogan to all lives matter. But they can’t, because they were founded on the principle that brown lives don’t matter and that blue lives don’t matter. Black Lives Matter was formed to protest self-defense by a Hispanic against a black man who, it came out in the trial, had told his girlfriend he was going to assault the Hispanic—who was returning to his vehicle. Medical analysis—and police photos from the night of the assault—corroborated the girlfriend’s testimony. Forgoing self-defense would have meant death for the brown man.

After its founding, Black Lives Matter gained prominence by protesting self-defense by a police officer against a criminal who tried to take the officer’s gun¹and was now attacking again. Forensic experts—both for the police and for the dead man’s family—as well as the Obama Justice Department corroborated this, and rejected the myth of hands-up don’t shoot. Forgoing self-defense would have meant death for the officer.

Using the slogan “black lives matter” in response to these incidents is the same as saying that “brown lives don’t matter” and “blue lives don’t matter”.

The response from Black Lives Matter was that the attackers had become “symbols” of victimhood, and that the facts were not relevant because of that. But symbolic or not, it doesn’t change the fact that they still believe Zimmerman should have let Trayvon Martin beat him to death, and that Officer Wilson should have let Michael Brown take his service weapon.

BLM’s response is the left’s reaction to horrendous crimes writ small. When a crime is committed on behalf of the left or a left-approved group, downplay the perpetrator and call for togetherness. When a crime is committed that isn’t clearly on behalf of the left, ascribe it to conservatives and engage in shrill, unreasoning partisanship.

The rule behind the rule is simple: whenever possible, eject conservatives from the public discourse. Either blame the crime on conservatives, or chastise conservatives for wanting to address the actual crime.

A few days before the Dallas shooting, I was watching an Independence Day parade. The Republican Party entry in the parade was simple and peaceful. They had a sign that said “Williamson County Republican Party”, a sign that said “Vote Republican”, and a sign asking people to vote for Larry Gonzalez.

The Williamson County Democratic Party and Mike Clark entry was an unhinged collection of divisive talking points, including calling their opponents “nuts”.

This was a Fourth of July parade, not a political rally. If the left really wants togetherness and reason, this was the place for it. They don’t. Those words mean nothing to them except as weapons to beat down their opponents.

Independence Day.

Togetherness. Very dangerous. You go first.

Following the Dallas murders of police officers during a Black Lives Matter protest, Rolling Stone didn’t headline their article “How BLM paved the way for the Dallas shooting”, and subtitle it “The power of the grievance lobby has made Americans vulnerable to terror”—as when they tried to blame Islamic terrorism on the NRA after Orlando. The New York Daily News didn’t run the front-page headline “Thanks, BLM”. Vanity Fair didn’t headline their article “The B.L.M.’s response to the Dallas shooting is exactly what you would expect”, nor subtitle it “The lobbyist group doesn’t think attacking cops is to blame.”

This despite the fact that the Dallas officers were murdered during an anti-police protest and using anti-police rhetoric, but the Orlando shootings occurred in a gun-free zone perpetrated by an Islamic terrorist.

If NRA President Wayne LaPierre were to chastise reporters that they should always say peaceful gun owners, as Donna Brazile tweeted that the press should always say peaceful protests, he would be ridiculed mercilessly in the press. But, of course, she wasn’t. Even though the news was specifically about non-peaceful protests, but the gun laws the press calls for target law-abiding gun owners rather than criminals.

And for all the calls for “togetherness” and “reason”, President Obama is using the Dallas killer as just another excuse to target peaceful gun owners rather than criminals. This has been his response almost since he was elected. When a killer is a Democrat or clearly motivated by leftist ideology, “it’s very hard to untangle the motives this shooter”, or “I think we don’t yet know the motivations”, he’ll say, as he did with both the Dallas killer and the Orlando killer. Back when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab confessed to working with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the president described him as an “isolated extremist“.

He’s slow to blame the actual criminals, and very quick to blame his political opponents. Even using the funeral for the police officers to do so.

If the left wants a country filled with divisiveness, it’s hard to imagine a better way to create it than a heads-shut-up, tails-it’s-your-fault double standard like this. “Togetherness and reason”, when used by the left, is just Orwellian newspeak for “unreasoning partisanship”.