As much as I disdain the editorial page of Al Jazeera America, they remain the leftist gift that keeps on giving. For the most part, adherents of far left ideology are able to cloak their pernicious views with lofty rhetoric about social justice and inequality. However, every now and then a few of them slip up and reveal the naked totalitarianism that characterizes the leftist mindset. This latest gem from one Malcolm Harris, in which he fulminates against the evils of white nationalists, is worth thoroughly scrutinizing for its sheer absurdity and disturbing approval of totalitarian tactics. Our noble social justice warrior begins his screed with a ringing endorsement of violence:
“On Jan. 22, Jason Hammond accepted a noncooperating plea deal from prosecutors in Cook County, Illinois: He will serve 41 months for his role in an organized assault on a casual dining establishment in the Chicago suburb of Tinley Park. On May 19, 2012, Hammond and 17 others stormed the Ashford House restaurant with bats and hammers, interrupting lunch and leaving 10 people injured. But instead of years in jail, America should perhaps consider sending Hammond a thank-you card.
He is not to be confused with his twin brother, Jeremy Hammond, who is serving a 10-year sentence in federal prison for hacking the security firm Stratfor. Jason Hammond is a member of the Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement (HARM), an affiliation of Indiana militant anti-fascists. That day in May, the Ashford House was playing host to a meeting of the Illinois European Heritage Association, a not-so-subtle white nationalist group. Anti-fascist (antifa for short) groups like HARM are committed to disrupting neo-Nazis and organized white supremacists by any means necessary.”
In case it wasn’t already clear, the author deems assault an appropriate means of disrupting a gathering considered offensive by radical leftists. I think we can all imagine what the response of liberals, leftists, and even various members of the alternative right would be if radical white nationalists started storming SJW gatherings and wailing on people with baseball bats. The morally sound Mr. Harris likewise has a very distorted notion of law and justice:
“Because of their militant tactics, antifa associations also end up doing a lot of prisoner support. Five other participants in the Tinley Park action agreed to similar pleas in January 2013, and all are now out on parole. When push comes to shove, the police are always willing to defend neo-Nazis in suits from anarchists in hoodies. You can host a fascist meet-up, but God forbid you try to stop it by breaking a window.”
For starters, if white nationalists and those who wish to preserve a white majority are “fascists,” then that makes most of the world fascist. That aside, I find it amusing how he equates voicing unpopular opinions with unlawful activities such as vandalism. Stay classy, lefties. Harris also demonstrates that he is either morally retarded or utterly clueless about the purpose of free speech (probably both):
“American liberalism prides itself on making space available for all, including white supremacists, as in the 1969 Supreme Court decision Brandenburg v. Ohio, which affirmed the Klan’s right to rally on public streets. But when liberalism protects white nationalists against those who seek to disrupt their vile, anti-liberal activities, what does our system hope to gain?”
How about protecting dissenting, unpopular speech and other fundamental liberties. In fact, the best rebuttal to this fatuous argument comes from such Nazis as the liberal Jewish dean of UC Irvine’s law school, Erwin Chemerinsky. He specifically denounces the kind of “heckler’s veto” that Malcolm Harris promotes:
Freedom of speech, on campuses and elsewhere, is rendered meaningless if speakers can be shouted down by those who disagree. The law is well established that the government can act to prevent a heckler’s veto — to prevent the reaction of the audience from silencing the speaker. There is simply no 1st Amendment right to go into an auditorium and prevent a speaker from being heard, no matter who the speaker is or how strongly one disagrees with his or her message.
Harris asserts that white nationalists don’t deserve constitutional protections due to their lack of respect for liberalism and the Constitution. Yet, as Chemerinsky’s editorial demonstrates, it it Harris and his fellow travelers who spit on classical liberal and constitutional values. Worse, they scream bloody murder when the government doesn’t endorse their desire to play Whac-A-Mole with pro-white activists. He goes on to claim that all white nationalists (I’m sorry, “Nazis”) are violent, even as he supports violence when used on behalf of “antiracist” causes.
I also find it tremendously ironic that the left devotes so much energy to attacking white nationalists given that the left frequently employs the argument that “racism equals prejudice plus power.” Last time I checked, white nationalists don’t wield any real power. They certainly don’t enjoy major platforms in the mainstream media (Pat Buchanan perhaps being one exception), lucrative speaking gigs at universities and corporations, or entire university departments dedicated to promulgating their ideas.
Malcolm Harris is especially abrasive, but his fundamental beliefs are pages from the typical leftist playbook. While the left brands any and all pro-white thinkers “fascist,” far left radicals are the legitimate offspring of Stalin, Mao, and other authoritarian communists. Just like their ideological forebears, they will use any means necessary, including violence, to silence those who oppose their anti-white, anti-Western agenda. Given the opportunity, they would gladly send any white person who doesn’t worship at the altar of suicidal leftism to the wall. This embarrassing tirade is yet further proof that it is people like Harris who are extremist degenerates on a global level.
Let us continue to remind people that the left does not argue in good faith, and that leftist activism is little more than a blatant power grab. Let us also make it unequivocally clear that the far left has no clothes.