Because we can’t spend enough time talking about the duplicity of the media and Democrats, on the matter of political violence, we bring you this.
In a textbook example of psychological projection, [the media] ascribed to the president actions and motivations which proved to be their own: making excuses for political violence. The claim that President Trump was too forgiving of neo-nazis and Klansmen turned out to be a more accurate description of their own assessments of Antifa. The media all but lionized the group, mitigated criticism of it, and allowed the political violence Antifa engages in to be swept under the rug of good intentions.
While some light has been shed upon the truth, we still have a pro-violence faction in New Hampshire that includes Dartmouth Professors and Democrat politicians providing defense or cover for violence and intimidation that favors their political ideology.
The Democrat politicians from New Hampshire in the best position to take a stand against it can’t be bothered. Antifa produces zero results on the government sites of all four of New Hampshire’s congressional women. They can’t even bring themselves to object to Antifa’s violence against women.
And good luck finding any reference to violence or intimidation as a tool to suppress opposing political opinion unless it’s in some other foreign land where government use-of-force or advocacy for the use of force by third parties–by not denouncing that violence–are crimes against humanity.
But New Hampshire Democrats not-denouncing left-wing stormtroopers silencing speech in America isn’t even newsworthy.
Meanwhile, at Dartmouth, well over one-hundred professors have come out in defense of Mark Bray, the visiting scholar who expressed support for the sort of premeditated intimidation and violence Democrat Senators like Jeanne Shaheen oppose when they happen along the Nile. Dartmouth President Phil Hanlon should have warned Bray of his intention to separate the University from the remarks so Bray could prepare himself for the death threats he later received.
The professors are mad because Dartmouth President Phil Hanlon should have warned Bray of his intention to separate the University from the remarks so Bray could prepare himself for the death threats he later received.
I can’t say for certain, but I’m willing to bet that Bray didn’t warn Dartmouth before he spoke on national television in support of preemptive violence for any purpose and that the words he chose are more likely the cause of any threats against his person real or contrived (to sell more copies of his book).
I also take issue with the hundred-plus profs pretending he didn’t mean what we heard him say, which Bray reinforced in a second interview in which he said: “through whatever means they see fit.”
Organizing (for action) through whatever means they see fit is not the turn of phrase one uses to retreat from the presumption that you are advocating violence by a group with a history and predisposition to it.
So, Hanlon isn’t wrong to object to Bray’s premise.
Bray is certainly entitled to say what he said (as are the professors defending his right to say it).
But defending the right to speech that says Antifa can and should use the threat of force as intimidation to silence other people’s speech (however distasteful) isn’t just a bit hypocritical, it’s laughably hypocritical.
Not that we were expecting anything different.
Violence is a key ingredient in the pursuit of the progressive utopia. That’s why they haven’t got anything to say against it. And that is why the media, as Democrat party stenographers, won’t press any Democrat in New Hampshire or anywhere else to denonce it.
