Vanderbilt Professor Carol Swain has been beset with protesters calling for her resignation since January of 2015 when she made remarks about Islam and its terrorist elements when Muslims attacked and murdered members of the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris.

“In The Tennessean, Swain wrote that the [January 2015] Paris attacks show that critics of Islam are correct. She opens by asking: ‘What would it take to make us admit we were wrong about Islam? What horrendous attack would finally convince us that Islam is not like other religions in the United States, that it poses an absolute danger to us and our children unless it is monitored better than it has been under the Obama administration?’”

If truth does not matter in what’s obvious, then truth does not matter in a movement like BLM.

Truth denial becomes an asset for further aggression.

Carol Swain is a professor of political science and law who has authored a number of books published by top publishers. Here’s how her website describes her:

“From high school dropout and teenage mother to esteemed Vanderbilt University law professor, Carol M. Swain is passionate about empowering others to confidently raise their conservative voices in the public square. Dr. Swain’s education and experiences make her a credible and powerful force for change in today’s social and political climate where conservatives are intimidated to champion an often-unpopular message.”

Carol Swain, Professor of Law and Political Science at Vanderbilt University in Nashville

She can’t be an “authentic black” person and thus can’t be a black life that matters since Professor Swain does not make excuses and does not play the victim and pull the race card. This inauthentic black charlatan has got to go because she spoils the narrative of victimhood.

Only certain types of BLM matter to the BLM movement. If a black person doesn’t support the liberal meme that all blacks are victims, then a person’s skin color does not matter. That’s why you don’t see the black lives of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Jesse Peterson, and many others matter to the BLM’s movement since it would mean calling for a radical shift in thinking among Blacks.

Moral principles related to governing (self-, family, church, and civil) are not rooted in race or ethnicity. Certain governing/economic/ethical principles work equally well with any race or ethnic group provided they are attached to the proper worldview.

The older worldview that made the West the most prosperous and trustworthy was based on the biblical proposition that we are all created in the image of God, that God made the “stuff” of creation, and certain laws — creational (natural) and special (the Bible) as British jurist William Blackstone noted — governed our lives and world.

A you-owe-me, it’s-your-obligation, it’s-not-my-fault, you-need-to-pay-your-fair-share ideology does not work even with those who have the best intentions to govern in a way that they claim will make the world work given the proper legislation and force.

Blacks that the BLM movement rejects do so because the facts don’t support black victimhood. A perfect example is the work of Thomas Sowell:

“What about children being raised with no father in the home? As of 1960, nearly a century after slavery ended, 22 percent of black children were being raised in single-parent families.

“Thirty years later, 67 percent of all black children were being raised in single-parent families.

“What about violence? As of 1960, homicide rates among non-white males had gone down by 22 percent during the preceding decade. But, during the decade of the 1960s, that trend suddenly reversed, and the homicide rate shot up by 76 percent. The welfare state vision was often part of a larger, non-judgmental social vision that was lenient on criminals and hard on the police.

“Few people today know that marriage rates and rates of labor force participation were once higher among blacks than among whites — all of this during the first century after slavery. In later years, a reversal occurred, largely in the wake of the welfare state expansions that began in the 1960s.”

These facts can be large and high obstacles when you are trying to start a victimhood revolution. That’s why it’s important not to acknowledge contrary opinions from people like Swain and Sowell. People might start questioning the manufactured narrative and spoil the revolution.