Another liberal rag advocates violence against Trump, supporters

Another liberal rag advocates violence against Trump, supporters
Mexican flag-waving anti-Trump protesters outside the Trump rally in Costa Mesa, CA on 28 April. (Image: Screen grab of video from Patriotic Populist via YouTube)

Last week, a writer at Vox advised readers on what to do if Donald Trump came to their town — to wit: Start a riot. For his trouble, the writer, Emmet Rensin, was suspended.

Now, having seen the consequences of journalistically yelling “Fire!” in a movie theater, Jesse Bern, a writer at the Huffington Post, decided to see how far he could push the envelope and penned an op-ed that encouraged readers to engage directly in violence against presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump and his supporters.

The post, titled “Sorry Liberals, A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any,” blames Trump for all the evils in the world and further submits that riots by radical socialists and anarchists are all his fault.

Bern is just getting started. According to him, Trump is behind all real and perceived hate crimes against Muslims. “Trump,” he writes, “has not just flagrantly violated the typical boundaries of political discourse, his candidacy is linked to multiple instances of violence. It shouldn’t be a surprise that opposition to him has responded in kind.”

He goes on in this vein:

Yet, a lot of people seem shocked and appalled at this perfectly logical reaction. In the face of media, politicians, and GOP primary voters normalizing Trump as a presidential candidate — whatever your personal beliefs regarding violent resistance — there’s an inherent value in forestalling Trump’s normalization. Violent resistance accomplishes this. In spite of this, such resistance is apparently more offensive and unacceptable to societal norms and liberal sensibilities than the nastiness being resisted in the first place. [Emphasis added]

Wait, what? Is Bern actually saying that violence is necessary to stop Trump? It sure looks like it.

But there’s more — much more. Bern goes on to develop his rationalization for liberal violence, first taking aim at those who felt Rensin crossed the line.

As a result, a litany of think-pieces and condemnations from liberal media and politicians are making their rounds to make it clear how unacceptable and counterproductive any violence or rioting is, urging people to “listen to the other side,” and to use “legitimate means“ to fight Trump’s rise — ignoring the possibility of fascism in the US rising with it. Those who stray from this nonviolent narrative, like Emmet Rensin, an editor at Vox who tweeted that people should riot when Trump comes to town, face swift and punitive redress, urging them to fall back in line. Amidst the hot takes and denunciations from liberals, they all seem to miss a few key points. First, they misplace the blame. Second, they misunderstand the desired outcome from violent resistance and those protesting Trump in general. And third, they ignore the history of successful violent insurrection in the US, instead favoring the elementary school version of history in which nonviolence is the only means of struggle that’s ever achieved a thing.

Notice how Bern goes from justifying violence to advocating insurrection.

After glorifying the need for violence against not just Trump, but the GOP as a whole, Bern warns liberals who might shy away from calling for violence:

Last, I want to briefly note the problematic nature of people with privilege condemning violent resistance to Trump as an absolute moral failing, or denying its logic. Whether you would personally engage in violent conduct matters little to your ability to understand where it comes from. Some people have the privilege to consider the implications of Trump’s rise in the abstract and negotiate which means are necessary. That’s not true for everyone. And when those who hold that privilege dismiss the potential validity or logic of violent resistance, it’s effectively an effort to dictate the rules under which oppressed peoples respond to existential threats, and to silence forms of resistance disagreeable to privileged sensibilities. Don’t be that liberal.

Citing violent statements and actions by left-wing radicals, a former intelligence officer wondered if America is headed for another civil war.

Recently, liberals have proven through their words and actions that they have no problem with employing violence to achieve their ends. Do liberals like Bern really want a second, bloody civil war? It sure looks like it.

It’s only a matter of time before someone takes Bern and others to heart and murders someone for attending a Trump rally.

Related Articles

Joe Newby

Joe Newby

Joe Newby is an IT professional. He has written for Conservative Firing Line, Examiner, NewsBusters, and Spokane Faith and Values.


Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.