“When Richard Spencer was punched, it was a cathartic moment”
A video commentary published by the London Guardian makes the argument that violence against “racists” should be tolerated in order to stop Donald Trump.
The video features Nesrine Malik, a Sudanese journalist living in London, arguing that physical attacks on Trump supporters should not be condemned because his voters are bigots.
Physical violence to advance a political goal – more commonly known as terrorism – has been embraced by segments of the left in the aftermath of Richard Spencer – a leading “alt-right” figure – being punched in the face by an Antifa protester during the the inauguration last month in Washington DC.
“When they go low, going high is not enough,” argues Malik, adding, “When Richard Spencer was punched in the street, it was a cathartic moment for many.”
Claiming that the attack on Spencer “caught us up,” Malik goes on to assert that “reasoned debate” is no longer sufficient when confronting “racists and misogynists”
“Why should we be better?,” she asks, adding that the refusal to embrace violence is “paralyzing liberal democracy”.
Malik says she wouldn’t encourage people to “punch Nazis,” having just made a philosophical argument encouraging that very thing.
She claims that “hard won freedoms” and “equalities” are under threat, without being able to name a single one, and that there is a “narcissism of good behavior” from liberals “that needs to be jettisoned”.
Malik overlooks the fact that ordinary Trump supporters, not Nazis, have already been the victims of numerous vicious attacks by crazed leftists throughout his campaign and after he won the election, including a mentally disabled teenager who was kidnapped and tortured while his abusers yelled “f**k Trump!”
Numerous left-wing journalists have also joked about or even openly called for terrorists to assassinate Trump, the latest being British Sunday Times columnist India Knight.
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) January 29, 2017
She also fails to take into consideration the fact that once violence against one set of people for having the wrong opinion is normalized, it legitimizes violent attacks against any group based on the same premise.
So when a far-right extremist commits violence against minority or leftist groups, as happened in Quebec earlier this week, Malik has forfeited the right to have an opinion on it since she advocates the idea that you can violently attack people if you dislike their belief system without being condemned for it.
In essence, Malik’s argument is that simply labeling everyone a ‘racist’ or a ‘misogynist’ “doesn’t work” and that violence is now the only recourse.
Reaction to the video was vitriolic.
“You can justify anything as righteous, can’t you Guardian? You’re so sensitive that you respond to words with a fist and think it’s proportional?” said one respondent.
“In the political sphere the refusal to condemn those who employ violence as means of squashing dissent is equivalent to condoning it,” added another.
“Remember when you guys said calling someone a liar on the internet was cyberviolence? First you tried to silence people you hated, now you’re justifying physical violence. This will not end well for any of us,” commented another.
To witness the regressive left now brazenly embracing violence and domestic terrorism is chilling but not that surprising given their increasinglyclose alliance with Islamists, to the point where ISIS is now working to recruit far-left activists because the two groups broadly share the same goal.
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) February 1, 2017