Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Do Some in the Far Left Take Pleasure in Violence?
It’s clear that many of the gutless wonders or calculating members of Congress, the Left-leaning media, and those who are indoctrinating young minds in academia are deliberately characterizing intimidation, mob behavior, and occasionally violence as “speech.” At the same time, they claim that speech from conservatives is “violence” … a glaring example of Orwellian “doublespeak”. Silence to condemn mob violence should be considered assent especially from those who are routinely before the public and on the airwaves. Making excuses for it, as some in the political and media class have done by declaring that Republicans who voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh (Senate Majority Leader McConnell being the chief offender) have brought it upon themselves and is reminiscent of the charge that America itself was really to blame for the attack on 9/11 and the nearly 3,000 lives lost.
If you think I exaggerate, give a listen to former left-leaning Prof. Janet Fiamengo (University of Ottawa) in this interview with Dave Rubin. At about 16 minutes into the interview, Professor Fiamengo’s references one of the pivotal moments that occurred in her academic career that forced her to completely reevaluate her ideological outlook when she describes the “barely contained vaunting pleasure” of her fellow academics at the University of Saskatchewan when they first learned of the 9/11 attack on New York and Washington, DC.
This should be a cautionary lesson that radical Leftists not only adhere to an “ends justify the means” modus operandi in a matter-of-fact way but some actually take pleasure in mass murder to achieve their ends — in this case, radical Jihadists’ attempt to destroy western civilization, an aim with which Prof. Fiamengo’s colleagues were sympathetic because it was the effort in which they were also engaged.
The lessons of the horrors of communism and fascism, even what’s happening in Venezuela currently, aren’t enough apparently to discredit those in Congress, the media, or academia who gleefully carry water for or endorse the ideology of the oxymoronic democratic socialism. For this is really the fight we find ourselves in. It’s not simply about the Supreme Court or Climate Change or a Woman’s Right to Choose. The core of all of this is the embrace of a movement bent on the complete destruction of a capitalist free republic by force if it cannot be achieved at the ballot box.
When the Left characterizes any speech that runs counter to their ideology as violence, it’s clear that they are done debating ideas, no longer willing to compromise and not interesting in finding common ground on any given issue. The shift of the Democratic Party from the late 1960s onward from a fairly patriotic party to a party increasingly controlled by radical Marxists has been well documented. If Democrats don’t achieve the gains this November or in 2020, do you honestly think that they will moderate their rhetoric and behavior and begin working with Republicans to govern or that radical socialists will seize more control of the party, force unreliable wafflers like Senator Joe Manchin out of it, and openly support more violent tactics even if it means that many leave the party? Any guesses?
While pondering that, one has to also ask, how many Leftist elected officials, so-called journalists, or those throughout academia not only find mob violence necessary to achieve their ends but take pleasure when they see people being hurt? The answer may be more disturbing than you think.
And of course, there’s this:
I think you’re right, Brian. I would qualify my agreement that it is the radical Left, and that means there are not a huge number of people. But you don’t need a lot of them to create havoc or to try to be elected. I’m seriously discouraged by the current state of things.
I wonder what that protester’s girlfriend thinks of his behavior.
There are those who actively take to the streets, those who fund them, those who openly and enthusiastically endorse them, and those elected officials, ‘journalists’, and academics who quietly wish them well even when, or because, they use violence. So, I’m happy to put them all into the radical Leftist bucket. I’m not convinced, therefore, that it’s not a huge number. Hillary Clinton received 65 million votes in 2016. Many radical activists also may have never voted in an election. I would hazard to guess that radical Leftists, as I have defined them, number in excess of at least 3 million and I wouldn’t be shocked if it was much more. I don’t think the numbers are declining.
I suppose one can also do a calculation that a certain percentage of college students – perhaps 15% are willing to protest routinely…and a percentage of those may be inclined to act out violently. Not sure what that number is considering many activists may not be attending college…but probably a significant number.
I was told to “calm down” on another thread.
I do not see how we don’t end up with lots of blood being spilled. This will continue until it is stopped.
I. Just. Don’t. Get. These. Knuckleheads.
Great post, Brian. Thanks.
I agree with Susan that we’re talking about a relatively small number: I continue to believe that the vast majority of Americans find the violence and ugliness tiresome and off-putting. (That’ why the media go out of their way to whitewash it, or to portray it as something that both sides do.)
The post-9/11 line is still there. It may not be much longer, but there’s still a point where people on the left are wary of returning to the Vietnam era days, where you’d have domestic terror actions like with the Weather Underground, and other liberals would decry the actions, but then go on to say we all have to understand the root causes of their anger. They did that because they thought they could make it fly among moderate swing voters, something they were proved wrong about during the 1972 election.
Same deal here. As long as they don’t think the “You’ve got to understand how they feel” excuse will work, they aren’t going to try to excuse away life-threatening terrorism on the left, and as long as the angry types don’t think others in the coalition will have their backs, they’re reluctant to take the final step over the line, because trying to excuse away terrorist acts became a non-starter after 9/11.
I know why they feel that way — too many “self-esteem building” exercises and participation trophies.
I have to agree. The open glee some of them displayed over the assaults on Rand Paul and Steve Scalise, the responses of even elected Democrat politicians to violence against Trump voters and Republicans in General has been disgusting. Disconcerting as well. The Rs and Ls would do well to capitalize on this and pitch the 2018 mid-terms as the battle of sanity against violent extremism. Funny, the Left kept warning us about the “violent extremism of the Christian Right” for decades. And look who’s auditioning for spots in the new SA….they are.
I think I do. Like Brian said, they can’t win at the ballot box. But they don’t need to if can win in court. Now that Trump is nominating conservative judges at all levels, the left sees their modus operandi of last resort slipping away.
All they have left is violence . . .
I think they act this way because it simply makes them feel powerful. These are people who probably feel little power in their lives, and by trying to intimidate others by abusing their free speech rights, they feel in charge. Of course, it’s mostly an illusion.
And just to add that some on the Left are encouraged to take pleasure in violence.
nazi brownshirts during the weimar republic, they don’t even really have meaningfully different ethnic conspiracy theories. Factional street armies create factional street armies which create a crisis of legitimacy.
As soon as the feds gave up the prosecution of the J20 terrorists, because black masks and uniforms make prosecution too hard, the die was cast.
At some point someone is going to have to pull an Ike and deploy the National Guard in the face of local and state fecklessness/complicity, and then mama mae’s baby boy (like Senator Tim Kaine’s terrorist son, them some christian values you passed on there Timmy boy) is going to get shot, and then we will have to go through the DINDUs, which will turn into a kent state like fiasco with investigations and ambiguity and hopefully at that point the idea of getting legit shot over nonsense puts some of it to bed. Because we are dealing with rich white kids with affluenza combined with an absolute sense of moral righteousness.
Right now their worst consequence is losing a fight and going home, and maybe some extra credit at college. Because right now the idea of a 2-way rifle range actually being 2-way is kind of an abstraction.
This stuff should have been clamped down on in 2015.
After the 1999 W20 violence in Seattle, when I inadvertently got to see and hear some of the anarchists from Portland speaking candidly and gleefully about their activites during the day and activities they were planning for later on (I was still divorced then and had been invited to a Thanksgiving meal by the director of an acting school I had been taking improvisational acting with), I realized that for many of these people, the opportunity to create and observe violence is its own reward. These people enjoy seeing the messes, frustration and anxiety they, and others, cause. I have believed this now for some time that some on the far left do take pleasure in violence and seeing people suffer. I’ve also thought that at some point for Middle Eastern terrorists, once they have begun to engage in violence, it’s no longer about a noble battle of religion. After they have perverted their sense of right and wrong, they begin to enjoy that activity and look for excuses to engage in it and it becomes a thrill. They are past reform at that point. Far leftists have to be confronted with their behavior and choices and stopped.
I want to be very honest about this. I sometimes take pleasure in violence, both real and fictional.
I could go on and on.
I am generally pleased when a truly bad guy (or gal) gets what is coming to him (or her). I am looking forward to Jamie killing Cersei in the final season of GoT.
I submit that the problem is not taking pleasure in violence. The problems are: (1) disagreement about identification of the bad guys, and (2) use of excessive force for minor offenses.
Don’t worry. They’ll be able to be “civil” again when the levers of power are firmly in their hands again. Really firmly. It’s your fault now if they just can’t be “civil” yet.
As to their being a minority? So were the Bolsheviks.
A bit different when the violence is perpetrated on the innocent, the elderly, or other law-abiding citizens. The original title of this post was, “Taking Pleasure in Violence and Mass Murder”, a headline meant to draw immediate attention. My assumption is that the one of the editors might have felt someone happening upon story might assume that Ricochet was advocating violence and mass murder. The term “Mass Murder” was removed by the editor who rewrote the title as: The Far Left Takes Pleasure in Violence” which was not my original claim. So, I further edited it to make it a question and apply it not to everyone on the Left but “some” on the Left.
Momentary pleasure to see that justice may have been applied in order to stop a mass murderers like Bin Laden or Sadam Hussein is quite different than extended celebration or smug and barely-contained glee when innocents or thousands of innocent people’s lives have been murdered (i.e., the attack on 9/11) as was the case with Professor Fiamengo’s academic colleagues.
Most people watching violence on TV or in a movie realize that the violence, mayhem, and bloodshed is fabricated even as it is sometimes made to appear as realistic as possible. I personally don’t watch horror movies with gratuitous slashing or sawing of victims and I wonder what kind of demented human being a filmmaker is who continues to put out this kind of so-called entertainment. When you are momentarily elated that a villainous character gets his or her due in any fictional drama, you are obviously being taught a lesson about what is likely to happen and in some cases what should happen to evil people, especially those who derive pleasure in torturing or murdering their victims.
When presumed responsible politicians or media celebrities wink at mob violence or actually attempt to justify it and in some cases encourage it, in situations where innocent people can be attacked, hurt or killed then they’ve opened a portal to Hell and nothing good can come of it.
This will get worse, my Fox affiliate radio station (WOAI) is reporting that RBG is suffering from dementia.
A column coming from the south, with some interesting people almost certainly along for the ride:
And a fifth column masquerading as a mainstream political party here at home.
I wonder if a sitting justice can be removed for health reasons without impeachment . . .
Frustrated young men often express their angst via physical release. For lower class uneducated young men, this has long manifested in street gangs. For mid-to-upperclass “woke” young men, this kind of outlet was previously deemed unacceptable, so that energy would be channeled into sports. However, a combination of decades of idolization of street gangs through music and lower participation in sports (replaced by video games), we have a new generation of physically frustrated educated young men who wish they were thugs. Politics, they think, gives them license to act like it without losing prestige within their communities.
FWIW, I don’t think this is a one-sided impulse, but the right believes in controlling impulses, while the Oprahfied message on the left, for decades, has been “follow your feelings.” That’s why we have a bunch of puffed up chests talking about how ready we are to throw down and teach those punks a lesson, but most of us aren’t following through on it, while those leftist punks are actually in the streets breaking things.
My bad, working in the shop and wasn’t paying attention and thought I heard something, but rush in half-cocked. Anyway, when I went in for lunch I got the full story and it isn’t RBG, but Sandra Day O’Connor who announced she is suffering from dementia. That being said, Sandra is 88 and Ruth 85, so I still stand by first statement that the progressive left violence will get worse particularly if another Scotus position opens up.
The interim quality control report is in, and the problem with 2016 seems to be one of inadequate indoctrination:
25% of students say they were traumatized by the 2016 election, study says
A mere 25%! Only a small percentage of “traumatized” people will respond with justifiable revolutionary violence. Many more young people must be made to understand how injured they have been before there will be enough suitable people who can be recruited for direct action.
This turns out to be an interesting question with a very predictable answer. Leaving aside Article II impeachment for crimes and misdemeanors Article III says they hold office during good behavior. So arguably, if RBG’s alleged dementia leads to even more aberrant behavior than we’ve seen in the last couple years, she is liable to be impeached. Conviction requires a 2/3s vote of the Senate. She could do a strip tease at high noon in front of the Lincoln Memorial and the Democrats would vote against her impeachment.
Of course they do. If you are literally fighting Hitler, you’d feel good about it, right?
And since the radical left has been fighting Hitler since the days of the Chimpy Bu$hitler, they see no reason to stop.
I have zero data to back this up, but I think 15% is a steep number. The number who are willing to get up off their pampered rears and go “protest” is a small percentage of any college population.
For a college of 30,000 (a decent-sized state college), 3% is 900 students. 15% is 4,500. Local protests aren’t sporting 4,500 students at every protest. It’s dozens and hundreds.
Of losers.
From an article about two Boston University students who decided to look into what the numbers were for those who participate in protests:
Perkins and Leung also gathered information on other protests and marches throughout the United States. If their methodology is sound and their numbers are accurate then this bolsters the idea that the numbers are significant. Obviously a much smaller percentage of those totals may be engaged in violent behavior – vandalism, attacking police or pedestrians, motorists or otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Keep in mind that their research was for protests only since January 2017, so long-term protests that turned violent, like Occupy Wall Street that transpired in 2011, are not captured for indications of scale, accounts of arrests, vandalism, deaths, drug overdoses, rapes, or attacks upon law enforcement; nor are the violent protests that took place in Portland, Oregon in 2016 captured for their specific data points.
Further…
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to suggest that the number of protests and protests that have turned violent since Occupy Wall Street have only increased year after year; and to the degree that Left-leaning politicians, news outlets, and professors or university administrators are reluctant to condemn them, then we should assume that the numbers of violent protests will grow not diminish…especially if the Left loses at the ballot box…and if activists continue to get financial support from the Soros family and other sources.
The essential point that some on the Left actually take pleasure in violence and in the case of 9/11 took pleasure in mass murder as Prof. Fiamengo relates was really what sparked me to write the OP. I don’t think I’m incorrect in making that assertion.
Interesting, but I wonder how many of the protestors Perkins and Leung counted were one person counted at each of several events and how many were participants in one event; this would offset the underestimation in their numbers to some extent.
Here’s a member of Oathkeepers describing his undercover work:
A report on the Berkeley violence described concentric circles; entry into a more inner circle involved vetting and demonstration of commitment appropriate to the level. In addition to the usual hangers on and the like, there was a largish group the members of which were nonviolent, but who would form the crowd from which a violent attack would be perpetrated and then screen the escape of the perpetrator; the latter was a more restricted membership and typically involved training of various kinds. There were also on scene shot callers in the crowd who weren’t the first line of violence but were willing to use violence if necessary.
Yes, I’m sure there’s some duplication.
Fascinating reading from the Oath Keepers link. Thanks.