HuffPost Backs Use of Violence to Stop Trump

"Violent resistance matters. Riots can lead to major change..."
Chris Menahan

InformationLiberation
Jun. 07, 2016

According to the leftists at the Huffington Post, the use of violence against Trump supporters is as "logical" a response "as any" to stop Trump's rise.

Evidently, the Mexican thugs who assaulted Trump supporters were actually taking some sort of stand against Trump's "racism," "nativism," "xenophobia," "misogyny," "Islamophobia" and "ableism."

HuffPo's Jesse Benn writes under the headline: "Sorry Liberals, A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any":
The rise of Donald Trump has exposed the frightening underbelly of Americaís foulest tendencies. Our racism, nativism, xenophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, ableism, and propensity toward authoritarianism have been laid bare. Reactions from those who stand opposed to these manifestations of oppression have varied from calm condemnation and routine peaceful protests, to blockades of roads and borderline riotous outbursts, including sporadic violence in various cities.

This isn't a coincidence.
No doubt, we can be certain the real motive for their assaults was Trump's "ableism," which the dictionary defines as "discrimination in favor of able-bodied people."



Nothing gets these young revolutionaries more angry!
There are so many examples of Trump inciting violence [...] It shouldn't be a surprise that opposition to him has responded in kind. 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.

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 [...] 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.
Indeed, the street thugs are just channeling the spirit of history's great revolutionaries.



As one young revolutionary intellectual wearing a Mexican flag on his face says in the video above, "this was our land... before... it was... whatever it is now..."

I'm sure he knows all about the revolutionary "struggle"!
Trump doesn't exist in a vacuum. He's the natural consequence of, among other things, Republicans longstanding embrace of racism, perpetual attacks on the credibility of media, scientists, and the federal government, defunding public education, railing against so-called PC culture, and using immigrants as scape goats. Defeating these systems of power and their underlying apparatuses--think tanks, conservative radio, Fox News, the Tea Party, etc.--is a much longer-term and more demanding task than assuring Trump isn't elected. Taking on the attitudes that drive them is even more difficult. Assuming anti-Trump protests should be strictly focused on electoral politics and not these broader goals would be a detrimental oversight. 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. And whether his candidacy represents how fascism comes to the US or he's simply opened the door to it is immaterial. Either should be stopped post haste.
He's defending the use of violence to achieve political aims -- that's the textbook definition of terrorism.



Who knew punching people in the back of their heads and pelting women with bottles and eggs is how you fight "fascism"?
Violent resistance matters. Riots can lead to major change [...] Itís not liberal politicians or masses that historians identify as the spark underlying the modern movement for LGBTQ equality. Nor was it a think piece from some smarmy liberal writer. It was the people who took to the streets during the Stonewall Uprising. It was the Watts Rebellion, not the Watts Battle of Ideas, that exposed the enduring systemic neglect, poverty, inequality, and racism faced by that community. Similarly, it was the LA Uprising, not the LA Protests, that led to significant changes in the Los Angeles Police Department. More recently, the Ferguson and Baltimore Uprisings both helped prompt the Justice Department to investigate their corrupt police forces. And since weíre talking about fascism, itís worth remembering that it wasnít the election of a moderate centrist (hello, Hillary) or a sanguine protest that stopped its ascent in Europe. It was, primarily, the Russian military, and to a lesser extent the US military; neither of which practiced nonviolence if memory serves.
Again, supporting the use of violence to achieve political aims, yet ignoring the reality the rioters were sub 80 IQ morons.


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 Trumpís rise in the abstract and negotiate which means are necessary. Thatís not true for everyone. And when those who hold that privilege dismiss the potential validity or logic of violent resistance, itís 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. Donít be that liberal.
A terrorist supporter and a social justice warrior, seems like a perfect writer for the ladies running The Huffington Post.



Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter and Facebook.













All original InformationLiberation articles CC 4.0



About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy