On Thursday, Foxnews.com reported on the case of a writer for the Huffington Post who is attempting to defend his recent op-ed which justified violence, rioting, and mayhem as “logical” approaches to derailing presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump’s campaign.
Some stories relative to the antics of the left are just too good to pass up, and this is most definitely one of them…
After reading the FoxNews piece and the referenced commentary by HuffPo writer Jesse Benn, at first blush there was so much wrong with Benn’s perspective that I wondered if there might be something wrong with the man’s mind. Upon further consideration however, a few things that I already knew – indeed, things I’ve known for a long time – came into focus once again, and supplied the answer to my question regarding the writer’s mental state.
“These denunciations of violence from anti-Trump protestors rest on the misguided view that the divide Trump’s exposed is a typical political disagreement between partisans, and should be handled as such. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Trump might not be a fascist in the 20th century European sense of the term—though many of his supporters are—but he might represent its 21st century US version…”
Huffington Post’s Jesse Benn
In his advocacy for fomenting civil unrest and explaining why citizens should be up-in-arms and on fire to neutralize Trump, apart from calling the candidate a potential 21st-Century fascist, the best he could do (later in the article) was to hurl the hollow and largely fabricated invective the left has employed against the candidate to date. “Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.”
As my readers well know, the latter would be fine with me (even though it is a flat-out fabrication), since the creed of Islam is antithetical to the rule of law in America, and Muslims have a 14 century history of barbaric aggression against all non-Muslims. But I digress.
As far as Trump regularly inciting violence goes, in the case of the Trump campaign, the violence perpetrated by the anti-Trump contingent has been universally justified by their claims that Trump himself inspires violence, thereby wholly absolving themselves of any accountability. Trump makes them commit violent acts.
How the candidate has been able to effectively neutralize the restraint and self-control of so many individuals has not been sufficiently explained, but if you ask me, this is no different than a rapist claiming that the manner in which a woman was dressed left him no choice but to commit the rape.
Apart from Benn’s piece giving new meaning to the phrase “hackneyed,” what we have here is yet more evidence that the conventional wisdom – if one can call it that – held by American liberals has come to more closely resemble the ideology of revolutionary communists.
“Violent resistance matters. Riots can lead to major change. It’s not liberal politicians or masses that historians identify as the spark underlying the modern movement for LGBTQ equality… It was the people who took to the streets during the Stonewall Uprising.”
Benn’s reference to the Stonewall riots (which occurred in New York City’s Greenwich Village in June, 1969) is not only completely non sequitur with regard to the issue at hand, but those riots represented the lowest common denominator within that city’s homosexual community at the time.
“Assuming anti-Trump protests should be strictly focused on electoral politics and not these broader goals would be a detrimental oversight,” Benn wrote. Aside from sinister “broader goals” and demonstrating abominable syntax with the phrase “detrimental oversight,” he continues in the style of an old-school communist agitator: “Understanding European anti-fascists use of violent tactics to shut down large rallies from White Supremacists can be illustrative here. Because while Trump isn’t leading full bore White Supremacist rallies, there is value in making it clear that even his fascism-lite has no place in civilized society.”
In this context, neither “white” nor “supremacist” merit capitalization, by the way. I would also remind the reader that when white supremacists in America wish to rally, they obtain a permit for the desired location, their political opponents complain, the press reports on it, the rally ensues, police monitor the event, there’s lots of yelling, then everyone goes home.
For the record, peaceful assembly and protest are lawful under the Constitution. Beating people up at political rallies because one disapproves of their candidate is not.
So, what Benn is telling his readers is that it is acceptable to employ violence as their European comrades did in order to defeat Trump – and to deceive in their justification for doing so. Trump may not claim to be a white supremacist, but if they maintain that he isone, the end justifies the means.
How many people with whom I disagree politically could I summarily dispatch using that logic, I wonder? Thousands? Millions?
Given this radical (no pun intended) gravitation of rank-and-file liberals toward violent antisocial behavior these days, is it time to consider whether the violence suggested by Jesse Benn and increasingly practiced by leftist demonstrators should be responded to in kind?
Am I advocating violence against violent protestors? War in the streets? It would be far superior to waking up in Venezuela or even Britain at this stage of the game. Of course, I run the risk of leftists using my words to validate their charges that conservatives are the violent ones – but they do this anyway, in keeping with their proclivity for projection.
For my part, I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Article reposted with permission from Constitution.com