Why conservatives should support Black Lives Matter


By: J.Anderson

Think back to 2009, and the beginnings of the “Tea Party” movement.  Republican party elites declared, somewhat desperately, that the movement was an uprising in favor of “small government,” by which they meant massive tax breaks for the wealthy.  These delusions can seem almost comical today: did they really believe that poor and working class whites were starting a rebellion…

Click here to view the article.


There are several problems with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The first is that with cases like Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri the BLM movement’s complaint is based on a lie. Michael Brown made one bad choice after another that night. He robbed a convenience store, roughed up the owner and got caught a camera doing it. Then he walked down the middle of the street in the dark in the middle of night. A policeman asked him to get out of the middle of the street, which was a very reasonable request. His response was to attack the policemen by punching him and grabbing for his gun.

After the policeman had repealed Brown, he stated to walkaway, but then Brown turned and charged the policemen. Brown weighed 300 pounds and was as strong as bull. Anyone seeing him headed toward them would be concerned for their safety. The policeman shot and killed Brown.

BLM tried to claim that Brown had his hands up and had his back to the policeman. A subsequent autopsy showed that contention to be untrue, but that didn’t stop BLM from ignoring thefacts and stirring tensions until Ferguson exploded in several nights of rioting that resulted in the destruction of property and businesses.

There have been instances where the police have acted improperly, but the BLM strategy has been to stir up trouble regardless of what the facts of the case have been. In addition BLM is an income redistribution movement. Conservatives believe that people should work to earn what they get.They should have educational opportunities, but they should not expect to live on hand-outs.

I take especial exception to your assertion that the Tea Party movement was formed “to give big taxbreaks to the wealthy.” That is completely wrong. The Tea Party movement was formed to combat the over regulation and threats of tax increases from the Obama administration.

I believe in capitalism and free markets. I don’t believe in excessive government regulation and high taxes that are levied for the redistribution income. I believe business people should be able conceive of products and bring them to market without an lot of government interference. I believe that those who are successful should be able keep most of their earned income and use it to expand their businesses. I do not believe in laws like Obama Care that mark it harder for small business to expand, and place barriers like the number of employees hired by a business or the number of hours they can work without higher government taxes. In short I believe in economic freedom and not government control.

In your essay you try to shame us into acceptance of your point of view by calling us racists. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we seek is true equality based up the premise proposed by Dr. Marin Luther King that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

I am not going to become a Republican In Name Only, a RINO, which seems to be goal of your essay. I differ strongly the modern Democratic Party on most economic issues, and I’m not going to buckle under to their point of view to please you.

If you are Republican, you are a very strange one indeed. It seems like you support the goal of the so-called “Progressives” who want the the Republican Party to become the mirror image of the Democratic Party. In that case elections won’t mean very much, although this year we choice between a flawed business man and woman who can only be described as a lyer and a taker of bribes. It’s not much of choice, but it’s better than what you seem to want. In other words, I think that you are wolf in sheep’s clothing.


I tend to view any “movement” as how it affects the whole of the people. Black lives matter ignores anyone but Blacks. Added to that if I were to start a “White lives matter” movement I would be labeled as a racist. So nope for me to support anything it has to be inclusive of all Americans.


At a demonstation at the Philadelphia Democratic Convention, a Black Lives Matter told their White supporters to get to the back of the line because, “This is a Black demonstration.” I would not call that an organization that supports racial harmony.


I’m not a Republican.

I didn’t say the Tea Party was formed to lower taxes on the rich (in fact, I explicitly and clearly denied that this is what it was really about).

If you started a “white lives matter” movement in a white supremacist country like the United States, then yes, you would be a racist.


> white supremacist country like the United States

Now who’s the racist? This is pretty much what you can expect from the “progressives” who spend all so much time fermenting racial division in this country for their political gain.


White supremacy is a fact. Not debatable to any informed person at least trying to be decent and morally serious.


J, I don’t understand how you got the suggestion that America is a white supremacist country.

But to his defense, I think when he called republicans racist, he didn’t actually mean all the GOP.

Still, I’m jumping on the bandwagon of disagreeing with the post on many things.


Oh now I’m putting two and two together. If you are the same “J. Anderson” who wrote the essay on the front page, you are the one who has called Republicans and the Tea Party racist and called on Republicans to line up with Black Lives Matter. How does a guy like you get write the front piece on a Republican blog? How does a guy like you get to be a moderator with the power to ban people?

You and I don’t have much of anything in common. You think that this country has been completely wrong since its founding. You think it deserves to be taken down, just as Obama does. In all the world, what country’s history would make you happy since this one obviously displeases you? Can you answer that question?


It’s not a “suggestion.” Black people are disadvantaged against white people in essentially every aspect of life in our society. Innocent black people are being harassed and murdered by police on a daily basis.

And I’m not a moderator.


After that over the top statement, I can see that like most “progressives” you think that you are an expert on all subjects. Your assertion is an opinion and nothing more. Yes, things sucked in this country for Blacks for many years, but that’s not been the case over the past four decades for those who were willing work and try to achieve something.

And I will add that things sucked for the Chinese in the 19th century who were subjected to many unfair laws that the U.S. Congress passed as well as immigrants who had to put up with the garbage advocated by the American or “Know Nothing” Party in the 1850s. Jewish people didn’t get a fair shake either. The Irish were treated poorly when they came to this country. All of these things I acknowledge.

BUT today if you are willing to work hard, you can make it and do very well. If you are lazy and don’t care, you will fail regardless of your race. I’ve known white families in a generation or two go from the top to the bottom in the town where I grew up. If anything it’s the actions of the Federal Government with its excessive regulations and high taxes that are limiting the horizons for ALL PEOPLE. The root cause of many of our problems. And much that is due to leaders like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are little more than power grabbers.


I’m not a progressive. Your response is condescending and racist.


No, but you are mixing terms. You don’t mean “White Supremacy”. You mean “White Privilege”.

A racial Supremacist society would be one like in Malaysia, where they have “sons of the soil” laws that guarantee advantages to native Malays over others.

Here, blacks are disadvantaged, but it’s not because of some ideology purporting racial superiority. It’s because of soft power structures that have lead to them having terrible schools and broken families, leading to societal melt down in their communities, which then feed into higher crime rates.

This creates an expectation among law enforcement as to their disposition to commit crime, and their poor education leaves them less well able to navigate the legal system so that they’re punished more often when caught.

Being poor equally leaves them more willing to take on high-risk, high-gain ventures like drugs. Which puts them firmly in the crosshairs of the war on drugs, even though said “war” had no racial motive.


Okay, you’re a liberal, and as usual you throw “racist” into the discussion when you can’t think of anything more cogent to say. That’s the cop-up that liberals use to shut down discussions.

You still have not told me what country in the world pleases you. Could it be Iran or Cuba or perhaps it was the old Soviet Union? If you could answer that at least we’d have template for the “perfect society.”


I am going to put this out there so pay attention.

J.Anderson is not a moderator of this site. A list of Moderators can be found HERE. As to getting a blog published on the front page. It is open to anyone who has blog that does not violate the forum rules. I moderate the front page blog and am open to all points of view, popular or not.


There’s plenty of evidence that these policies were racist in design. For example, one of Nixon’s top aides has said that Nixon (a known racist) explicitly intended the war on drugs to target blacks and the anti-war left. There are other examples. Even though I find your quibbling with terminology in this case to be needlessly pedantic to the point of moral obtusity, this would be “white supremacy” even according to your own definition.


It’s more stopping you from being needlessly provocative in order to stir the pot. B/

You don’t mean White Supremacy, and even if you did, you’re wrong. Supremacy implies intent to do harm, whereas most of the harm visited on African-Americans today is de facto harm made by people with good intentions.

Or even other African-American Politicians & policy makers, who dominate many of the urban spaces blacks live in to begin with.


First, I just gave you evidence of specific intent by government at the highest levels to do racist harm. Your reply isn’t cogent.

Second, actually, you’re objectively wrong about the usage of “white supremacy,” given that it’s been used for some time now by perfectly mainstream writers and thinkers (e.g. Coates) to describe exactly what I’m talking about, i.e., the subtly racist laws and practices which were intended to maintain white privilege (e.g. the many and on-going transparent attempts in the south to suppress minority turnout).


It’s obvious that you still living in the 1960s and long to go back there.

As for “on-going transparent attempts in the south to suppress minority turnout,” do you support voter fraud? What is wrong with showing an ID to vote? You have to show one to get medical care. You have show one to rent a hotel room or car. If you people REALLY cared about the voter issue you would do all you could to help people get IDs. You will need them to implement Obama Care, so what’s the problem?

Do you agree with Lonnie Guineer (sp) whom Bill Clinton tried to appoint as his attorney general? She said that African-Americans should get multiple votes because they are minorities. Is that the way you think elections should be run? One man (or one woman), one vote as long been the legal standard. Do you want something else?


As distasteful as I find a lot of these responses, I feel like I have a bit of a civic duty to put a different perspective out there on this forum. So I’m going to go ahead and just respond to as many of these comments as I can.

A poster asked which country I prefer. I don’t prefer any of them. On my principles, the United States probably has the most civil protections and liberties of any country I can think of; it’s certain less racist than Europe, which isn’t saying much (France and Germany are structurally racist in ways the United States could never be; e.g. it was only fairly recently that Germany allowed non-racially German individuals to become full citizens). The United States is a white supremacist country, and has major problems. But I actually think the U.S. is in a better position to solve these problems than most other countries, because the principles of our country are more liberal and universal. Unlike (e.g.) France and Germany, the word “American” isn’t tied up to any specific racial identity. Anyone can be just as much an “American” as any other, regardless of race or religion.

Moreover, I believe that part of the solution will involve “conservative” ideas. As I said, I think concepts such as “small government” and “getting government off of peoples’ backs” are ethically and politically correct, and that they could be used to solve many of our problems. But this will only be the case if people begin to apply these concepts fairly and consistently, and not just in ways that are either explicitly or implicitly racist.