Posted on

by Sue Doe Nym

One of the hallmarks of a functional, thriving society is the principle of freedom of speech: neither the government nor society can use violence, or the threat of violence, to intimidate you into silence. But after their embarrassing defeat to Donald Trump, the Left has grown more and more shrill and desperate; as a result, they’ve grown more radical (and quite frankly idiotic). Portions of their ideological movement have taken a firm hold of the rhetoric, both in the media and in universities. Violence has become their new modus operandi. Deep down they know they’ve lost the battle of ideas, so now they’ve resorted to insane justifications of force and intimidation.

This idiotic defense of political violence is mostly the offspring of the Charlottesville protests/riots; it’s suddenly acceptable to assault people who disagree for having different opinions. I detest white supremacists: as a mixed race, Spanish-speaking child of immigrants, they aren’t too fond of me either. But as detestable as they are, no one has any right to assault them for what they are saying; do you really think that you can hit someone because they have a different opinion?

Sarah Molano apparently thinks so, as she explains in the 9/18 issue of Pipe Dream; political beliefs (which is what Nazism, like Marxism, is) are no longer political beliefs. Molano claims, “since white supremacist groups are inherently violent, violence against them is not only justifiable, it is moral as well.” Really?

Who are you to decide that? After all, you’re now the apparent arbiter over whether or not violence (aka people being beaten with bike-locks) is justified. So please, present me your case. Is it the rhetoric that makes them inherently violent? I admit that their ideas and proposed “solutions” are racist and evil, but that should not, under any circumstances, be the linchpin over whether or not you can assault them. Sarah continues, “for those who are part of the groups these neo-Nazis wish to eliminate, violence against them is merely self-defense.” It isn’t self-defense when you aren’t actually being attacked, Sarah. If I say, “I really dislike you and wish you’d go away,” you can’t just punch me and claim that you were acting to defend yourself. You actually have to be, you know, attacked to defend yourself. Otherwise you’re the aggressor (duh). But you’re an idiot, and thus predictable, so your likely rejoinder will be “well, they’re calling for the deaths of millions of people, and would gladly do so if they got the chance.” History lesson: do you know who the Nazis hated most? Correct, it was the Jews. Do you know who else really, really dislike the Jews? Muslims, quite a few of them. Both the Palestinian and Iranian governments, for instance, have gone on record calling for the global genocide of every Jewish man, woman, and child. Even in the United States, Imam Ammar Shahin prayed that Allah “count them one by one and annihilate them down to the very last one.” Hmm, that sounds like it incitement to me. What do you think, Sarah? Should my Jewish friends preemptively attack these people for their hateful, genocidal rhetoric? After all, you said that we have to fight intolerance (namely with physical violence). Seeing as 60% of Turks, 74% of Pakistanis, 76% of Indonesians, 88% of Moroccans, 99% of Lebanese Muslims and 100% of Jordanians have either “somewhat unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” feelings towards Jews, according to Pew Research Global. It seems we need to fight against Muslim anti-semitism. And using your standards, I mean actually physically fight them.

You seem like the type to be a hypocrite, so you’re probably going to say that “it’s different” or some such nonsense. But the fact of the matter is that it isn’t. As I said before, you have NO right to hit someone for having a different opinion, even an evil one. Are you proud that rhetoric like yours shamed so many conservative groups into silence? Is that something that makes you happy? Do you really want the United States to have a heckler’s veto, where I can simply intimidate my political enemies into silence by rioting? Like I said before, you seem like an idiot so you probably wouldn’t understand how the threat of political violence is definitionally fascistic. I know, I know: everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a fascist. But gimme a second here: the dictionary definition of fascism is “a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce.” Notice the phrase, “forcible suppression of opposition.” I would say that having men in masks assault conservatives constitutes “forcible suppression.” You try to justify it by claiming, “using violence against neo-Nazis is about defending those people,” but all you’re really doing is haphazardly condoning political violence against people with opinions you don’t like. If Jews can’t assault Muslims for their active calls for a new, global Holocaust (spoiler: they can’t), then you can’t punch Nazis/white supremacists when they spew their idiotic garbage.



Image from here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *