Protests

Republicans for BLM and Other Things You Don't Remember About the Summer of 2020

Did you think Kyle Rittenhouse's endorsement of Black Lives Matter was odd? Think of all the unusual stuff you've forgotten.

|

I can't say I expected it to happen, but somehow it feels inevitable: Kyle Rittenhouse has endorsed Black Lives Matter. "I support the BLM movement," the culture-war lightning rod declared on Fox News last night. Rittenhouse, whose politics before his trial seemed to be those of a back-the-blue conservative, added that "there's a lot of prosecutorial misconduct, not just in my case but in other cases. It's just amazing to see how much a prosecutor can take advantage of someone."

Rittenhouse, of course, is the teen who went to Kenosha, Wisconsin, during the unrest there last year, where he shot three people, killing two of them; he faced homicide charges, argued that he had acted in self-defense, became a cause célèbre on the political right, and last week was acquitted. Since he made those comments about Black Lives Matter, my social media feeds have been filled with both liberals and conservatives questioning his sincerity. And they could be right: It's not hard to think of reasons why Rittenhouse would be trying to reinvent his public image right now. It might not seem like a great P.R. strategy to alienate your most devoted fans while your most devoted foes continue to hate you, but that doesn't mean it's not a P.R. strategy.

But he could be telling the truth too. The guy just spent a year churning through the criminal justice system, and that's been known to change a person's perspective. And it's easy to forget just how fluid people's goals and loyalties were in the spring and summer of 2020—especially early on, when the George Floyd movement was spilling across the boundaries on our conventional political maps.

For example: There was a time when a majority of rank-and-file Republicans supported the protests.

Officer Derek Chauvin killed Floyd on May 25, 2020. Not long afterward, in the first week of June, a Washington Post poll showed 53 percent of Republicans endorsing the protests sparked by the murder. A Pew poll conducted around the same time asked the different but related question of how people felt about the Black Lives Matter movement. BLM did not get a GOP majority, but it wasn't a blowout either: 40 percent expressed their support.

This was after some of the marches had turned into riots. That Post poll even brought that up, asking if people saw the protests as predominantly peaceful or violent. The responses were split down the middle, with 44 percent saying peaceful and 42 percent saying violent. This wasn't a purely partisan gap: 65 percent of Republicans went with "violent," a clear majority but nowhere near unanimity. (I should add that calling the protests violent didn't always mean blaming the protesters. In the same poll, 66 percent of the country assigned responsibility for the violence to neither protesters nor police, but to "other people acting irresponsibly.") And the Post poll wasn't out on a limb by itself. A roughly simultaneous survey by Data for Progress had 44 percent of Republicans declaring that most of the protesters were peaceful.

The protests even had some support from people who armed themselves to repel rioters. That summer saw many temporary, informal, local groups—call them pop-up militias—mustering to defend homes and businesses against arsonists and looters (or, in some cases, against wild rumors that arsonists and looters were about to be bused in to town). In Kenosha, the most famous of these was the Kenosha Guard, which put out a call for "patriots willing to take up arms and defend our city tonight from the evil thugs." And Kevin Mathewson, the man who launched the Kenosha Guard, reportedly participated in a June 2 "Kneel for Nine" event to protest Floyd's death. "People were upset about George Floyd and what happened to him," he told The New York Times. "I was one of those folks."

If you have trouble taking Rittenhouse's statement at face value, you might be skeptical about Mathewson's sincerity too. Or maybe you just think we should draw a distinction between how he felt on June 2 and how he felt when Kenosha was exploding nearly three months later. OK: Then let's look at some pop-up crews that were active that first week in June—and who presumably weren't driven by white paranoia, since they weren't white themselves. On June 4, Gustavo Arellano filed a dispatch in the Los Angeles Times about "a scene repeated in barrios across Southern California," where Mexican Americans, some of them armed with wrenches or pit bulls, lined up as protesters passed by. "Residents stood outside their homes and shops to support the message," Arellano wrote, "but also to offer one of their own: Don't mess with us." Pop-up security teams also appeared in Minneapolis' minority neighborhoods, and some of them were explicitly aligned with the George Floyd movement. "They support the protests against police brutality but not the destruction," NPR reported of a group called Security De La Lake. They didn't see this as a contradiction, in part because they suspected that racist agents provocateurs were actually responsible for the violence.

I'm not arguing that this was typical of the pop-up crews, any more than I'd want to suggest that they were all like those small-town conspiracists convinced that George Soros was about to bus in an antifa army. The point is how barren the more formulaic narratives about that summer's conflicts are. Groups like the Kenosha Guard were generally comprised of "guys in the neighborhood," Mark Pitcavage of the Anti-Defamation League told NPR last year. His sense was that they "tend to be right-wing" but were "not typically extremists, although there's nothing that could exclude some extremists being among them."

The protesters were not typically "extremists" either, if we must use that word. If they were, there must be a lot of extremists out there: Literally millions of people participated in literally thousands of demonstrations against racism and abusive policing in the summer of 2020. The phrase "mostly peaceful" has become a caustic joke on the right, but most of these protests were in fact peaceful. And the ones that did see violence were more likely to see a little of it than a lot of it; sporadic skirmishes were more common than blocks aflame. Riots certainly did break out in several cities, and in one—Portland, Oregon—they became persistent. But the George Floyd movement as a whole really was mostly peaceful, even if you also saw CNN using that phrase in a stupid way.

Republican opinion shifted by the end of the summer. And by the time Joe Biden was president, a lot of that early ideological fluidity seemed forgotten. The moment when the positions really hardened, I suspect, was the Capitol riot. One Republican rhetorical tack was to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy, claiming that they had tolerated the Floyd riots; and this was easier to do if you conflated statements of support for peaceful protests with support for the fires that sometimes followed. Sedition-hunting liberals, meanwhile, started seeing all sorts of flashpoints as either precursors or echoes of January 6. This too left little room for nuanced distinctions.

And so Rittenhouse was embraced as a hero by the sort of people who think Black Lives Matter is a subversive menace, and he was denounced as a subversive menace himself by many Americans on the other side of the aisle. (Outgoing New York Mayor Bill de Blasio reacted to the Rittenhouse verdict by calling for "stronger laws to stop violent extremism.") The one thing they seem to agree on is that there's a vast subversive menace out there, and that the nation's policing apparatus needs to be stronger to combat it—the exact opposite of what protesters were demanding last year. If Rittenhouse's remarks about Black Lives Matter and prosecutors can help break that spell, then I welcome his comments, whether or not they're sincere.

NEXT: Thousands Beg President Joe Biden for Mercy as He Pardons a Couple of Turkeys

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Republicans for BLM and Other Things You Don't Remember About the Summer of 2020

    Oh, trust me, I haven't forgotten, just like I haven't forgotten Libertarians for BLM.

    1. It was horrible. Jo Jorgensen betrayed all Libertarian principles by attending a candlelight vigil.

      1. She betrayed it more by saying she doesn't want the libertarians to be seen as the party of "angry white men" anymore. Or by saying we have to be actively anti-racist and other positive rights bullshit.

        Go back to sleep. Sleeping is what you're best at.

        1. Or by saying we have to be actively anti-racist

          Pretty much just that. After that, I was not going to listen to her anymore. Any intelligent person should understand that our moral duty stops at being personally tolerant. We don't have to shun our racist grandma to prove that we don't secretly hate our friends of color.

          1. Agreed. I also intentionally juxtaposed her statement about angry "white" men with the anti-racism drivel.

            1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular DD A office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page.......... Visit Here

              1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FUM And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

                Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW

          2. Nobody is shunning their racist grandma.

            Your demographics are pretty white and pretty racist. It's a political and optics matter, if nothing else.

            Unless you want to go into the long and deep ties of libertarianism to segregationist politics.

            1. "Your demographics are pretty white and pretty racist. It's a political and optics matter, if nothing else."

              Could you shut your dumb racist mouth please? It's getting tedious with the repetitive, personality disordered whiners.

          3. No one even has to like anyone different than them either. Just leave them alone. If that were universally practiced, it would solve most of societies problems.

            But then, we have democrats, so not going to happen.

        2. Or by saying we have to be actively anti-racist

          Libertarians are anti-racist. The problem is people who support racism as anti-racism. If Jo wants to suck up to them she's as racist as they are.

          1. And in doing so she reveals herself not to be an on par leader for a group of comparably "independently" thinking folks, which, at least to some degree, is a pre-requisite to supporting a party as unpopular as the Libertarian one.

      2. Optics matter. If you reach out to an organization whose principal mission is destruction of the nuclear family, then you're dead to me.

        FYI, she can be resurrected if she comes out, acknowledges her error and repudiates the organization.

        Or is it ok now to join a group whose central goal is the destruction of the international Jew because they have healthcare policies that you're on board with?

        1. Yet you give Trump mountains of leeway.

          1. Every post Mike Laursen makes is an effort to further collectivist totalitarianism.
            Mike Laursen is actively harming you and your family.
            It is evil, it is your enemy, and it is an imminent threat to your and your family's lives.

          2. WTF are you even talking about?

      3. Yeah and Rosembaum, Huber and Grosskreutz were just attending a candlelight vigil, at a gas station and a burning trash dumpster because they ran out of candles.

        1. You know who else with German names set fire to businesses?

    2. My buddy's sister makes $95/hr on the pc. She has been out of work for eight months but dxc last month her pay check was $25450 merely working on the pc, pop over here..... EarnCash1

  2. >>became a cause célèbre on the political right

    moreso for prosecutorial misconduct.

    1. This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company HTe now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.

      For more info Open on this web Site............E-CASH

  3. The one thing they seem to agree on is that there's a vast subversive menace out there, and that the nation's policing apparatus needs to be stronger to combat it—the exact opposite of what protesters were demanding last year.

    Look, it's not like crowds of roving bandits are raiding businesses and cleaning their merchandise out in flash-mob actions of lawlessness. The world isn't some GOP fever dream. We need to keep things in perspective here.

    1. Look, it's not like crowds of roving bandits are raiding businesses and cleaning their merchandise out in flash-mob actions of lawlessness.

      A lot of groups are copying this. It could be a Ricoh case.

      1. That was inspired, UA.

      2. Had to scan that a second time.

        1. You can feed more puns into the thread, but I am not sure you can duplicate the original post.

          1. We see a lot of the Biden Backer Brigade making duplex posts (i.e., both sides).

    2. https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqNggKIjBDQklTSGpvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoRUtEd2lRNWI2MEJCR0JnYllWTW41c295Z0FQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

      Flash mob robberies spreading to LA from the SF Bay area now.

      Pro tip: it's no longer shoplifting when you bring a crowbar or a hammer or a handgun, and conspire with others to plot the robbery, even if you end up with less than 950 bucks worth of stuff yourself.

    3. I read an article today talking about how the Democrats are in a lot of trouble because it doesn't matter how many pages of stats or reports they pull out showing how awesome things really are (one of shriek's favorite Dem-supporting MOs), none of what they're pushing squares with what people are seeing with their own eyes on the street. Your news orgs mouthpieces can praise your efforts all day long, but if you're seeing "help wanted" signs everywhere, your school can't keep staffed, your food bill is more expensive, and we haven't even gotten in to winter yet when heating bills go up, it's not going to matter that your libshit representative just voted for an "infrastructure" bill that puts more bike trails in an open space park. Add on the fact that BLM and its supporters are angry that there might be vaccination-from-life consequences for burning down buildings outside deep blue shitholes while the Squad are gleefully trying to put violent criminals back on the street, and it's not wonder the Dems are looking at getting their shit pushed in next year.

  4. Rittenhouse went there to protect property and help anyone injured. The rifle was for self defense, which turned out to be a good call on his part.

    He’s also been a political pawn since the incident. Faced a long prison sentence. A trial with a dickhead prosecutor. He’s 18.

    Maybe he does support the peaceful wing of BLM. Maybe he is confused. Maybe he is being directed by his new team of lawyers (he is looking to go after those that lied about him). Shit, maybe he is trolling.

    1. He probably supports the idea that "black lives matter".

      1. Four people assaulted Rittenhouse. Two white guys dead. One white guy disarmed. The only POC got away unscathed.

        1. Black people aren't stupid enough to think a guy with a rifle won't shoot.

      2. If we are talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, his exact words were, “I’m not a racist person. I support the BLM movement. I support peacefully demonstrating,…”

        Does this mean that the right-leaning members of the commentariat now recognize that not everyone who supports “black lives matter” supports Black Lives Matter?

        1. Nobody here ever had a problem recognizing that.

          Many of us support "black lives matter", but not BLM, which stands for "Burn Loot Murder" as you know.

          1. BLM stands for Burn Loot Murder? I thought BLM stood for Blessed Lenin and Marx.

            1. Oh yeah they must have gotten a name change like Freakbook to Beta. You know, to upgrade their publicity a bit.

            2. Bigoted Looting Marxists. Come 'n man. Can't we agree on something???

              1. I suggest the concept of the acronym currently being in superposition. I can then agree or disagree, depending on what it collapses into at any given moment.

            3. There’s no difference.

          2. Nobody here ever had a problem recognizing that.

            Untrue. At one point, there was confusion among commenters about why coastal elites of any political alignment would care to support the Bureau of Land Management, except in their "handling" of the Bundys.

            1. True, Al and Peg always got short shrift.

          3. Oh no no no. Go back to the discussions last summer and you will find plenty of people who claimed that by just attending a BLM protest, even if the person did nothing wrong, is providing cover to the arsonists and the rioters. That merely attending in any capacity made a person morally equivalent to the rioters themselves. So yes it was not as clear as you claim.

            1. That merely attending in any capacity made a person morally equivalent to the rioters themselves.

              This is a lie. The claim is that many people who claim to be just protesters engage in acts designed to provide cover arsonists and rioters. These acts include dressing in all black to obscure the guilty, interfering with police trying to apprehend a rioter, and preventing video from being taken of rioters.

            2. Yes, that was said a lot.

              1. Yes, that was said a lot.

                You should have no trouble supplying a link then.

                1. He always demands them from us.

            3. Can you provide a cite for that? You always want endless cites. So I assume you have one yourself.

        2. Look at White Mike lie about everyone's stances last year. You never miss a chance to be dishonest, do you?

          1. White Mike’s Lies Matter

          2. People who cant make it within a system or framework, be it rational reasoning or llegality, have to ignore said system or framework to get anywhere. That produces liars in the first case and criminals in the second.

            Without false premises, many of our commenters here wouldn't have a thing to say. Check out the recent roundtable where that TDS addled Mango Award chick was countering comments on bidens dumb statements about the verdict by saying "yes, but i cant even imagine what trump WOULD have said about the verdict". That is rational defeat right there. That is "current reality too much for me and i cant deal, lets override it for a moment so I can do or say anything at all".

            1. Legality* edit
              Phone you know

        3. While I haven't personally interviewed the young Kyle Rittenhouse, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that he probably doesn't support "the destruction of the Nuclear family".

          1. But you cannot give the same benefit of the doubt to Jo Jorgensen.

            1. Didn't Jo Jorgensen and this very magazine brag about throwing the election to Biden?
              Fuck totalitarian collectivists and their allies, useful idiots or otherwise.
              There needs be a reckoning or liberty will be forever lost.

            2. Really not the same thing. One is an 18 year old kid that doesn’t appear to know much about politics. The other an older political candidate who received the LP nomination for president.

              So no, JJ does not receive the benefit of the doubt, and should know better.

      3. A lot of us were hopeful that BLM would help lead to police reform. Turned out they're just another bunch of race grifters.

          1. Yep. I hoped for police reform as well. Then it turned into "All Whites are Oppressors".

            1. Then it turned into "All Whites are Oppressors".

              BLM didn't turn into anything, it was always this. The Floyd event had a chance, remember the cops were fired the next day. Reform was a likely outcome. Then BLM got involved to ensure the demands moved away from reform to their primary concern of funding political activists with government money. This was the day reform died.

              1. Yep! People were talking about body cams and QI reform, even police unions were on the table! BLM set that all back decades.

        1. Bingo!

        2. When you call for police reform while simultaneously making the case for aggressive policing, you're not likely to get anywhere.

        3. A lot of us were hopeful that BLM would help lead to police reform.

          That should have been fucking obvious, though, after Ferguson. With leftist race liberation movements, it's important to ignore what they say, and watch what they do. These assholes are masters of framing things in a way that makes any objections to their goals seem offensive, but that's the satanic way they operate--they twist words to meet whatever they think will help them procure more power, no more and no less.

  5. #DefundThePolice

    Patti Cole-Tindall to become King County interim sheriff; department workers, new hires could get bonuses up to $15K

  6. Rittenhouse for BLM = "I'm not a white supremacist, see? Now, judge, order CNN and MSNBC to give me millions of dollars."

    Smart motherfucker.

    1. OT: YouTube updates firearms content policy (again) (this year).

      Typically unconscionable highlights (especially as applied inconsistently):
      -Videos showing "Promotions of the sale of firearm or component, including, but not limited to:... Sights.

      -Live streams that feature someone transporting a firearm from place to place, such as by carrying them or traveling with them in a car, truck or other vehicle. Note: This does not include firearms in video games.

      -Please remember these are just some examples, and don't post content if you think it might violate this policy.

      1. -Videos showing "Promotions of the sale of firearm

        Sweet George Orwell's sphincter! The Ministry of Truth erasing the records that prove people could ever buy guns.

      2. Damn, hickock45 is gonna have to watch his ass from here on out.

        1. Maybe. Again the clauses are unconscionable and inconsistently applied.

          Here's a video from DemolitionRanch titled "Trying The Cheapest Amazon Gun Accessories" that almost certainly violates several clauses in spirit if not in letter. Warrior Poet Society has one titled "Full Combat Setup - Best 'Bang-for-the-Buck' Edition" and another titled "WPS Rifle Sling". TBF TV has one titled "The Best Tactical Shotgun For The Money (Beretta 1301)". Will they be pulled down? Is Hickock45 part of the privileged class? Who knows.

  7. Other things we've forgotten from 2020:

    "2 weeks to stop the spread"

    "Herd immunity will kick in when 70% are vaccinated"

    1. Whose fault is it we never reached 70% vaccinated?

      1. Hitler's, right? Loads and loads of Practically Hitlers.

      2. The CDCs and Faucis would be my guess. Also a public that hasnt shat out their spines yet. Was your spine lost in a boating accident btw?

      3. Whose fault is it we never reached 70% vaccinated?

        The CDCs. Vaccinations are not required to reach herd immunity.

        I say, "We have to buy a red car to drive from New York to LA."
        You say, "I have a green car that will get us from New York to LA."
        I say, "It's not a red car, I refuse."
        You say, "OK, I have a blue car that will get us from New York to Las Vegas where we can borrow a red car that will get us to LA."
        I say, "It's not a red car, I refuse."
        You say, "OK, OK, I can get from New York to LA in the green car and you can find a red car and meet me there."
        I say, "I said *we*, I refuse."
        You say, "OK, OK, OK, I can rent a red car that can get us from New York to LA."
        I say, "I said *buy*, I refuse."
        ....

        Ultimately, we fail to get from New York to LA. Is that your fault?

        1. I say, "I said *buy*, I refuse."

          And even that is an excessively honest and straightforward presentation of the CDC, as opposed to the definition shifting they've demonstrably undertaken.

      4. We're not that far off nationally, and COVID case counts are higher than last year. And countries/states/cities that have hit that threshold are also seeing COVID surges, despite the vaccinations and the magical masks.

        Almost like coronaviruses are very hard to vaccinate against, since they are constantly mutating.

        The vaccines have proven very effective (for a limited time) at reducing symptom severity, but they don't seem to do much to stop the pandemic.

        1. despite the vaccinations and the magical masks.

          Or maybe because of them.

        2. “We're not that far off” — which means we didn’t make 70%, no?

          1. Herd immunity is supposed to be an asymptote to which the numbers and/or relative rate converges. Getting increasingly perpendicular as you get closer to the asymptotic line is non-convergent behavior.

        3. Have they?
          More deaths this year than last...

      5. We'll just ignore where far over 70% vaccinated has taken place, and taken place aggressively and is still having lockdowns because we're all friends here.

        1. Funny that you and CE are desperately trying to move a goalpost CE set when he started this conversation.

      6. Whose fault is it we never reached 70% vaccinated?

        Democrats pounced on Covid from the first moment, seeing it as their opportunity to win the presidency. That's why they insisted on ineffective business closures. Their goal was to damage the economy thus ending Trump's best electoral argument, the strong economy.

        As part of their covid plan both Biden and Harris disparaged the vaccine specifically targeting black Americans. Their goal was to maintain fear by convincing Americans a vaccine was not close, also justifying continued business restrictions. This resulted in blacks having the lowest vaccine rate of any demographic group.

        1. I guarantee that Antonio Brown isn't the only sportsball player with a fake vax card.

      7. You and your Marxist friends.

  8. Jesse sees conspiracy theories everywhere he looks. He wrote a book about it. The conventional wisdom is always correct.

  9. Individual Lives Matter. Skin color shouldn't matter. Last summer, it was appropriate to highlight Black lives. Unfortunately, Whites haven't gotten so worked up over many such incidents of excess force used by armed agents of the state against Whites or Asians.
    Rioters made alliances hard to accomplish so we still have no consensus that the police rules of engagement, qualified immunity, laws against victimless crimes, and scumbag prosecutors coercing "deals" needs to be reformed.

    1. "Individual Lives Matter"

      Hard to use this to establish a divisive narrative and find a group to demonize other than the government or govt crony corporations. Therefore, the media politely turns the offer down and will not use it.

      1. People who said "all lives matter" were branded as racists, even if they shared the goal of reducing police misconduct and use of excessive force against everyone. Assuming the root cause of the problem of police misconduct and lack of accountability is systemic racism is not only divisive, it reduces the chances of finding real solutions that will reduce the problem.

        1. BLM jumped on this after Saint Floyd was revealed. Ruined every chance of practical police reform. BLM (the organization) is pure evil.

        2. Okay, that's correct, but was still just like a side-dish for the media. You can actually ostracize a person for a reasonable stance like that, but if you make it your main stream argument that "all lives matter is bad", people wake up to your divisive shit a little too fast. That's why they stick with BLM. With this narrative it is easier to draw lines that divide large enough groups of people who can then be turned against each other.

        3. People who said "all lives matter" were branded as racists,

          BLM doesn't want progress, if the problem is solved the donations end. So instead of working with other groups they call them racist.

  10. For example: There was a time when a majority of rank-and-file Republicans supported the protests…Not long afterward, in the first week of June, a Washington Post poll showed 53 percent of Republicans endorsing the protests sparked by the murder.

    Hahaha nice gaslighting you fucking hack.

    The dishonesty is not surprising, seeing that it was preceded by:

    Rittenhouse, of course, is the teen who went to Kenosha, Wisconsin, during the unrest there last year, where he shot three people, killing two of them; he faced homicide charges, argued that he had acted in self-defense…

    Consider this re-written as:

    “Rittenhouse is the teen who went to the riots in Kenosha last year who defended himself against armed attackers, and faced a prosecutor trying to send him to jail for the rest of his life on homicide charges”.

    This writer shouldn’t try to make shit up so fast, or perhaps the attention span/memory of the public is worse than I thought.

    1. he shot three people, killing two of them; he faced homicide charges, argued that he had acted in self-defense

      That line is an abomination. It is outright slander now that he was acquitted on all counts by a jury.

      1. Jesse Walker deserves to be run over by a speeding car or beat to death by a pedophile.

  11. "Republicans have always opposed Black Lives Matter." - Jesse

    Jesse seems to have forgotten or can't even conceptualize that you can disagree with BLM without opposing it. It's not until after "All Lives Matter" gets winnowed down and CNN starts abusing 'mostly peaceful' that you allow your mind to get locked inside your own "enemies of BLM on all sides" narrative.

  12. "Rittenhouse, whose politics before his trial seemed to be those of a back-the-blue conservative"

    Only to CNN viewers and uninquisitive lefty bullroarers.

  13. I can remember when Trump used to be a populist.

    1. I can't. Nor can I remember when he was a fan of the Bill of Rights. Makes me wonder what the secret of his popularity was.

  14. BLM is racism in action. It could've been about police reform but instead it's all about the skin-color of a person. They're looting over two subjects that both defied out of pure arrogance law enforcement while one started a street-fight with law enforcement.

    Both are piss-poor examples of police brutality; but the skin-color was right and that's all that really mattered to BLM. They're looting for more *entitlements* (special treatment) for a specific skin-colored people just as the left continues to rally for more *entitlements* (special treatment) for a specific gender. They want the Gov-Gun-Forces POWER in their favor. And so long as that Gov-Gun POWER that *entitles*/subsidizes/picks winners-losers (i.e. National Socialism/Nazism) continues to expand these protests/violence/battles will only get worse. As seen in the USSR right before it's collapse.

    Growing Gov-Gun-Forces in people's lives is EXACTLY how we got to this point.

  15. One Republican rhetorical tack was to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy, claiming that they had tolerated the Floyd riots; and this was easier to do if you conflated statements of support for peaceful protests with support for the fires that sometimes followed.

    It's disappointing Walker pretends this "conflation" was inappropriate. In fact the left's defense of rioters committing arson and attacking Rittenhouse as protesters shows the left itself considers the two groups interchangeable. The carefully maintained bifurcation was always an unconvincing branding effort which was also revealed in several other ways including:

    1. Their bail fund posting bail for violent offenders,
    2. Local prosecutors dismissing cases when only rioters were arrested,
    3. Local governments finally ending the protests immediately after the election showing they always knew how to do it and their protestations of impotence were lies to protect the riots.

    Leftists who claimed they opposed violence were lying to avoid the backlash, but they always supported the violence. Republicans who recognize reality are not "conflating" anything.

    1. It was pure terrorism, and only one of the forms the left has been utilizing.

    2. A+. It was funny how fast the national guard moved in after the election.

  16. One thing I don't remember is any coverage of Jaleel Stallings.

    He was a black business owner that got shot by a rubber bullet, and not realizing he was shot by police, shot back at the van it came from.

    He was arrested and charged (and beaten up by cops) but was acquitted back in September

    Seems like something Reason should have covered, since it was a case of police misconduct and someone defending themselves

    1. Thank you, I hadn't heard about that one...was it too local for Reason?

    2. Don't bitch on the comments like a bitch.

      Emil the editor.

    3. Kinda puts all those "what if Rittenhouse had been black" a-holes in their place doesn't it.

      1. It would if it were getting any ink. But it doesn't support the narrative.

      2. https://twitter.com/DrewHLive/status/1463370581726826498?t=boSX0Fe-ddbSJ2Tt6SsXhw&s=19

        A white kid in Wisconsin shoots three threats and kills two of them in self defense and the fake news media declares him a white supremacist to the world

        A black supremacist in Wisconsin targets white people and murders them with his SUV and the fake news media blames the SUV

        1. https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1463363571669250051?t=VCuGjASCih1xHd0W6yH-FA&s=19

          The suspect accused of plowing through a Christmas parade at high speed in #Waukesha, Wis. and killing six people, all whites, wrote social media posts promoting violence towards white people. [Link]

  17. "conflated statements of support for peaceful protests with support for the fires that sometimes followed"

    Hmm...

  18. Of note: The media lied about almost everything regarding Rittenhouse, the case, points of law about self defense, carrying a rifle across state lines, his motivations. They not only lied about everything, they invented things to lie about.

    Republicans who might say something positive about the BLM movement seems like it should be an 11th paragraph notation in the meta.

    1. BLM deserves criticism for diverting, deflecting, and redefining real abuses by cops into something racist. They're spotlight hounds who are like look at me I'm black and cops hate black people while Kelly Thomas is forgotten. So fuck them for that.

      But they started off with a point.

      1. But they started off with a point.

        The problem is that the intersectionality grifters quickly overtake any left-wing organization that starts off with a legitimate point. For instance, Occupy Wall Street started off just focusing on the fucked-up fact that banks had gotten bailed out for committing securities fraud while normal people had to take it up the ass. Within about a week, the intersectionality/BIPOC-LGBQWERTY shitheads had moved in and taken over the leadership positions there, and it became a VERY different animal than how it started.

        In the case of BLM, the good point was always just a smokescreen for the race grifters. These people aren't any different than an old extortionist like Jesse Jackson, they're just more adept at using modern media platforms and have connections to the upper levels of the Democratic party.

        1. What is a libertarian to do?

          1. Well for one, never trust the words diversity, equity, inclusion, and a host of related words.

            They always give away the game with that.

    2. “the media” being defined as part of the media that did those things. Never mind that there were other parts of the media that got all those things right — they aren’t “the media”, by right-wing definition.

      1. Yes, Fox News seemed to get the Rittenhouse case correct. Plus a bunch of youtubers. They had it right.

        Almost all other legacy media outlets got it wrong.

  19. "One Republican rhetorical tack was to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy, claiming that they had tolerated the Floyd riots; and this was easier to do if you conflated statements of support for peaceful protests with support for the fires that sometimes followed."

    ----Jesse Walker

    Even if it wasn't the case that the progressives and the progressive media were apologizing for looting, arson, and violence in the name of BLM--back in August of 2020--that's become the case now. In fact, I remember progressive news media specifically refusing to use the word "riot" itself--as if that were a racist term. It was as ​if advocating using the police or the National Guard to put down a . . . um . . . mostly peaceful protest riot with looting, arson, and violence were somehow racist itself.

    Meanwhile, even as I type, the progressive media is insisting that Kyle Rittenhouse should be convicted of something--not because he was guilty of anything but because of the message not convicting an innocent kid supposedly sends to racists. I'm having a hard time reconciling the progressives insisting that Kyle Rittenhouse allow himself to be lynched with the progressives and progressive media not supporting the violence of the mob that attacked him. Even IF IF IF progressives and the media weren't supporting the riots in August of 2020, they sure seem to be doing it now.

    1. Progressives got blamed only four times? Slacker. What about authoritarians? Or totalitarians? Rah Rah Republicans!

      1. Sorry to disrupt your precious democrat narrative.

  20. "The phrase "mostly peaceful" has become a caustic joke on the right . . . . Riots certainly did break out in several cities, and in one—Portland, Oregon—they became persistent. But the George Floyd movement as a whole really was mostly peaceful, even if you also saw CNN using that phrase in a stupid way.

    Republican opinion shifted by the end of the summer. And by the time Joe Biden was president, a lot of that early ideological fluidity seemed forgotten. The moment when the positions really hardened, I suspect, was the Capitol riot."

    ----Jesse Walker

    I think this is basically getting it right, but I might have described things a little differently.

    There wasn't any one moment when Republicans turned against BLM as a brand or the protests, even, but significant moments are listed here. All of these things Walker mentioned contributed.

    1) The media refusing to call looting and arson riots and calling them "mostly peaceful"--even if they weren't.
    2) The Portland riots going on for month after month after month.
    3) The media jumping on the couple for defending their home from what they thought were rioters.
    4) The calls to abolish the police.
    5) The events of January 6.

    The biggest contributor to Republicans turning their backs on this may have been the overall behavior of progressive media itself. The last Gallup survey before the election, I saw, showed that 87% of Republicans and 68% of Independents had little or no faith in the media to report the news fairly and accurately--and that was in September of 2020.

    It is probably the case that the media's championing of BLM and their refusal to say anything negative about the violent riots that were happening combined to turn Republicans off completely. As the Democrats and the progressive media appeared to embrace rioting as a campaign issue, Republicans embraced an opposing view.

    Talk about forgetting why people did things, don't forget why Joe Biden picked Kamala Harris as his running mate. Biden had promised back in April of 2020 to pick as woman as his running mate, mostly as a nod to the #MeToo movement. As the George Floyd protests picked up steam, the Democrat base was openly demanding that Biden pick a black woman.

    The reason Biden picked Kamala Harris was because she was a cop loving boot licker. By picking Harris, the progressives couldn't fault him on demographic considerations--and yet she couldn't be used against him to suggest that they didn't care about law and order (at the time). The point being, the Democrats had already rallied around support for rioters by the time Biden picked Harris as his running mate, and once they did that, the chances of the Republican base shifting to oppose that were practically 100%.

    1. The biggest contributor to Republicans turning their backs on this may have been the overall behavior of progressive media itself.

      I think, a bit, we're overlooking Walker's self-service in undue good faith. As you say, the Right never really turned on BLM as a brand and, as I said, was never exactly opposed ("All Lives Matter"). He's essentially playing off "The Right turned on Progressive Media" (which the pre-existing opposition got Trump elected) as "Republicans hate black people."

      Back to the personal responsibility I highlighted in the most recent Rittenhouse article; No, Jesse, Republican racism is not responsible for your dishonesty, you are. Continuing to blame Republican racism for your dishonesty isn't solving the problem.

    2. It's just fascinating how you can keep calling them rioters when right-wing violence is far outpacing any black civil rights violence, up to and including invading the US capitol.

      The joke is that you still think BLM is the violent ones. The joke is that you will place a single Portland Walgreens above the US capitol and democracy itself, because that's what your media diet has made your brain do.

      1. "It's just fascinating how you can keep calling them rioters when right-wing violence is far outpacing any black civil rights violence"

        That's the opposite of reality and an ever growing percentage of internet user is starting to understand this to your detriment.

      2. Tony, you’re a sociopathic lying cunt. Your kind are responsible for 99.9% of the violence. Kill yourself.

  21. BLM squandered their own credibility with the sustained violence. Trying to play it off like the riots were the exception in a summer of peaceful expression is ridiculous. The riots were the main event, and anything else that happened was a side show.

    Turns out, regular people don't support lawlessness and violence. Imagine that.

    1. Then why is the entire Republican party celebrating murdering vigilantes? Spreading lies about the election that get government property invaded and people killed?

      You think the riots were the main event because that's what they showed you on FOX News. Did they even show the Jan 6 riot? That beats any BLM skirmish by a mile.

      Meanwhile I somehow doubt you were actually participating in any protests or demonstrations sufficient to make these characterizations.

      1. "Then why is the entire Republican party celebrating murdering vigilantes?"

        It was ruled self-defense and rightfully so. And there is nothing you can do about it. People are understanding this. Your extreme resistance to facts will start affecting your health at one point.

        1. They're more than understanding, they're outright celebrating the murder of "leftists" and calling for more.

          I just wonder how long you people can go on claiming that the only violence out there is black people. I'm betting a very long time.

          1. "I just wonder how long you people can go on claiming that the only violence out there is black people. I'm betting a very long time."

            If no human being can tolerate your toxic, counterfactual presence you have to resort to surrounding yourself with strawmen.

          2. I would certainly celebrate if you offed yourself. You progs have only yourselves to blame. Next time, don’t riot and loot. You’ll live longer.

            Feel free to cry all you want, you little bitch faggot.

      2. That beats any BLM skirmish by a mile.

        Six months of riots supported by local government are supposedly outweighed by one afternoon. These aren't serious people.

  22. Jackson Sparks, 8, is sixth fatal victim of Waukesha Christmas parade tragedy https://t.co/pKroAtHPxf https://t.co/1ymJ8pUW1W

  23. Experts caution use of 'looting' in describing rash of Bay Area smash and grabs https://t.co/dQfftRG84T

    1. I'm fine with discussing the mass thefts that occurred concomitant with BLM protests.

    2. A cop-turned-professor (best of both worlds!) says: "Looting is a term that we typically use when people of color or urban dwellers are doing something. We tend not to use that term for other people when they do the exact same thing"

      Well, maybe that's how *you* use the term, Professor Cop, but to normal people looting means looting.

      Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, weirdo.

  24. Many people think equality of a good thing. Then they found out BLM is a extreme socialist/communist organization, violent terrorist that want to overthrow the system, and changed their minds. It seems actual information instead of lies and propaganda can have that effect on peoples views.

    1. But they still found themselves agreeing with the slogan, “Black Lives Matter”. For a lot of people, they don’t see a problem with wearing a t-shirt with that slogan, and they don’t give much to the organization of that name.

      1. Everyone’s lives matter. But if you say that, your friends become violent.

  25. You know who else with German names set fire to businesses?

  26. “Officer Derek Chauvin killed Floyd”

    I can understand Republicans initially supporting the George Floyd protests. The videos certainly made it look like Chauvin had killed him.

    But then the autopsy report came out. No bruising of his neck. Combine that with the position on his neck of Chauvin’s knee. Considerable pressure would have to have been applied to that area of the neck to constrict blood flow. And that would have left bruising.

    Chauvin was using an approved method of restraint. And it was approved because it is safe.

    So, no. Chauvin did not kill Floyd. He died from a lethal overdose of fentanyl. The dose he had taken would have killed most people. And he had a bad heart. With considerable narrowing of some heart arteries. Add to that his struggle with the police. And the stress of being arrested, which would likely have resulted in a long prison sentence. Which he really didn’t want. And he had taken other drugs. And he had had Covid. So I don’t believe that starting resuscitation attempts a couple of minutes earlier would have made any difference to the outcome. So he died from the overdose.

    But everybody had already seen those videos and had been persuaded of Chauvin’s guilt. And it can be really difficult for people to change their minds. Especially when their initial belief is being constantly reinforced by the opinion of those around them - and the non-stop 24-hour media. And emotion clouds judgment and overcomes reason.

  27. Minneapolis is COMPLETELY a DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED city, yet they constantly blame Republicans for what ails the city. The majority of the population including Republicans, Libertarians, independents and libertarians openly opposed the actions of Derek Chavin.

    Slowly support has eroded, not due to a change in heart or any sort of support for the actions of Derek Chavin, but rather in opposition to the violent actions of Antifa and BLM rioters.

    What was once a unifying response to a violation of an individual's rights was co-opted by the radical left. Now the sides are back on their polarized sides where they oppose each other just because one side supports something so whatever it is must by default be bad.

    A more conspiratorial minded person would be convinced that the two sides are being played as controlled opposition to each other. It could also simply be that the goal isn't solving the problems we have but rather creating turmoil. Lastly it could simply be a product of mass herd mentality where the mass herd constantly is destructive.

    Personally I blame the corporate media with their constant "Disaster Porn" and lies of omission and spin. The overwhelming number of politicians who are loyal to the party and not the people.

    1. No conspiratorial mind needed to see that the two major political parties spend a great deal of their time and energy whipping up division of the country, hatred for the other team. And trying to create scenarios where neutral people are pressured into siding with one team or the other.

      1. Right, now the ‘both sides’ bullshit comes out. It isn’t. Since Obama, you progs have fixated on generating as much racial hatred and vision as possible. Every single leftist media outlet propagandize this every day. It’s 100% you people.

        Just look at all the hate directed towards whites from you people since last week.

  28. Rittenhouse is getting coached by master trolls. You can bet Tuckers is giving him tips. The right will play bob-and-weave with definitions all day long. They will troll us by saying "all lives matter" and then say they support Black Lives Matter. Rittenhouse was into the Blue Lives Matter sloganizing. What does he think about the fact that the main critique of the BLM movement is that our criminal justice system is a mess? Or will he limit his critiques to the Kenosha DA's office? Or just to his case?

    Maybe Rittenhouse has gotten wise. But it's no longer about him. It's about how he will be used by the media and other social influencers. It would be great if he came out as a spokeperson for justice reform. If he could advocate for all the black people who have been found guilty or forced to plea in cases not unlike his own. Maybe he can recognize that he was lucky and that he was able to walk out of an active shooter situation with an AR-15 in plain site right in front of the cops literally unscathed. His voice could be powerful. Or, he could be just a martyr for the NRA and a prop for their wish to have even more guns in the streets.

    1. More law abiding gun owners in the streets would be a good thing. KR is proof of that. Beyond that, o think the guy wants to be left alone after he finishes telling his side. And suing all the leftist garbage that defamed him.

    2. Yes, the NRA wants more law abiding citizens to carry guns. What they hell is supposed to be wrong with that?

      NRA members are orders of magnitude less likely to commit gun violence than the rest of the population.

      The problem with gun violence in the US is illegal guns owned by gang members. Restricting legal gun ownership further will do nothing to address that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.