Be careful what you wish for.
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.
Oh really?
Well, let's go through a few things.
Trump has said he wants to deport all the illegal invaders in this country. What part of illegal did you miss? Someone who comes to this nation and ignores our laws isn't an "immigrant", they are a criminal. Their very first act is not only a crime it does violence to the desires of others to come here legitimately, following the rules, even if only by line-jumping.
But it's not just line-jumping, you see. It's also the cost of said people -- cost that is forcibly imposed on everyone else, and which takes from those who are legally coming here along with those who are less-fortunate and could use the resources they consume. It's theft, fraud, and a crime.
Oh sure, today we don't want to call it that, but that's what it is, whether you name it properly or not.
The author charges Trump and his supporters with "fascism." Really? Is it fascist to expect that people who come into the United States present proper identification (e.g. a passport from the country of which they are a citizen) and document both their identity and the purpose and intended duration of their stay? I am expected to do this everywhere I go outside of the United States, including, I remind you, when I travel to Mexico -- which I have done several times. I've also been to Bermuda, Japan, Canada and a few other nations and every single one of them demanded my identification, the purpose of my visit and its expected duration.
Indeed, in Mexico it it is prohibited by law for a foreigner to in any way participate in the political process of the nation. You can and will be arrested, prosecuted, deported and possibly permanently barred from entry if you break that law. What the hell are we doing allowing illegal invaders to wave Mexican flags at political events, say much less participate in any form of violent demonstration? That is a de-facto act of war.
Next, may I ask what demanding that boys be allowed to parade into a girls locker room with a raging hard-on might constitute? Is that not threatened sexual assault? Sure looks like it to me, and unless said girls and their parents, being that said girls are under the age of consent, are both ok with it I'm not and you shouldn't be either.
Yet this is what our current President just shoved down every school system's throat. You want to talk about fascism?
Drink a big cup of STFU, jackass.
Defunding public education is long overdue. Education is the responsibility of those who bring children into the world, not the state. Never mind the fact that so-called "state education" does a terrible job and despite throwing more and more money at the problem results have continued to deteriorate. Portland, Oregon recently decided that they'd join the literal flat-earth society by mandating that instructional materials not raise questions about whether global warming is man-made. This, despite the fact that essentially every alarmist claim of the last 20 years from said "global warming scientists" has been falsified through time. If you claim to have a theorem that predicts an outcome and it doesn't happen then refusing to face that and question said theorem isn't science -- it's witchcraft.
I could go on point-by-point but there is no need, because the salient point of the Huffington Post's article doesn't lie there. No, it lies in the validation of something that few are willing to say: Revolution is what formed this nation and the people have always, through history, had the right to engage in it whether the ruling class liked it or not (they don't -- duh.)
However, the Huffington Post might want to consider whether giving voice to such a buttclown as this guy is wise. There are several reasons that no matter how stupid things have gotten in the years I've been writing The Market Ticker you have never seen the endorsement or advocacy of violence and you never will.
Let me list them for you:
1. A violent mob is by definition out of control. You can light the fuse but once it goes inside the box you have no idea how much explosive is in there, how much fuse remains between the outside of the box and the explosives (in other words, how much time you have to run -- or whether you can even outrun what's in the box at all), or what else is in there with the explosives. In other words once you walk down this path by definition you irrevocably cede control over the outcome.
2. History says that in virtually every case what comes out the other side of such an event is worse than what you had before. There's a simple way to express this that I've used before when asked this question during a Q&A after a speech: For every George Washington, historically, you get 10 Hitlers. Those odds suck and nobody in their right mind openly promotes a path of action that has a decent probability of ending up there unless there is no other choice. Today, there certainly are other choices.
3. If violence is acceptable in the political process then it is legitimate for everyone, not just you. By refusing to condemn such actions and instead claiming they have legitimacy, especially when such is done on the pages of a media publication in this nation, you are putting forward the premise that both you and your opposition have the same right to resort to these tactics. To the extent you decide to assault someone, destroy or damage their property you have lost any claim to peace if and when they respond in-kind and since your act was the initiation of violence they have no duty to constrain their response.
Are you willing to be responsible for a rapidly-escalating cycle of violence ending in murder or even violent revolution which you cannot control and might well end in a fascist, totalitarian nation?
If not then an author has no business advocating through his or her writing, and The Huffington Post has no business printing, an article such as what was in fact just published.