Guest Post by Joe Newby
It seems that David Alpher, an adjunct professor at George Mason University who has a PhD in “conflict resolution” doesn’t think much of those who hold to the Constitution, i.e., “Patriots,” and, after lumping them all in with the likes of Timothy McVeigh, has decided that patriotic Americans who take a stand against an overbearing government are far more dangerous than foreign terrorists.
You know, like ISIS and the terrorists who killed 3,000 innocent people on 9/11.
In a screed entitled, “An expert explains why domestic extremists are a much bigger risk than foreign terrorists in America,” he refers to patriots as essentially, “the threat from inside,” and naturally ties it all to Donald Trump.
In short, it’s your typical left-wing propaganda designed to inflame passions and hatred among fellow travelers.
And of course, he names all the usual left-wing targets of hate: Whites, Christians, males and those he calls “ideologically extreme.” And he links them all to the Bundys and their supporters.
The GOP has spent many years mobilizing both(sometimes tacitly and sometimes actively), in the form of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, racist and antigovernment sentiment. This strategy has secured them votes from the white, Christian, male and ideologically extreme demographic needed to offset the party’s growing distance from an increasingly diverse and progressive American society.
This has typically been done in code, a practice that’s come to be known as “dog whistle politics” – but this election has brought it into the open.
Few have emerged unscathed. For months, Republican candidates traded shots claiming that each other, liberals, immigrants and Black Lives Matter protesters – to name a few – are to blame for the picture they’ve painted of a degraded America that’s fallen into hostile hands.
I’m not going to go through his entire manifesto line by line. You get the drift. I will, however, touch on some of the “high” points, such as they are.
Here’s another excerpt:
Every violent group in history describes its own violence as the legitimate response to a threat that was forced on them. Groups survive in the long term when that description makes sense to enough of the population to buy them tolerance and safe space to operate, plan and grow. That’s true of terrorism and violent extremism – but because protesters and supporters alike view each other as enemies of the state and therefore legitimate targets, it also helps to explain the growing physical violence at Trump rallies. It should also provide a warning for what that as-yet-limited violence could grow into.
Again, Alpher wants to blame violence at Trump rallies on the candidate, not the people actually engaging in violence, namely, the leftists and socialists carrying Mexican flags and signs reading “f**k Trump.” Apparently, he’s okay with that and thinks Trump is to fault for the death threats leveled at him. Naturally, those who support Trump and believe in the Constitution are “terrorists.”
And of course, people like Pam Geller, Ann Coulter (with whom I’ve had some disagreement lately), Michael Savage and Glenn Beck are also to blame.
“In an age defined by the fear of terrorism, ‘taking America back from people who betrayed her security’ has real power at the polls, as Trump can attest. But this strategy for winning elections isn’t just divisive. It’s creating a risk of violence that has already outgrown the threat it’s supposed to be a shield against,” he added.
No, professor, it’s you and your ilk who are not just “creating” a risk of violence, but are actually fomenting and calling for it.
It’s enough to make one wonder if leftists like Alpher really do want a second, bloody civil war in America…
Crossposted from Conservative Firing Line