Dirty Huffington Post Kike Jesse Ben Endorses Violent Terrorism Against Trump Supporters

June 7th, 2016

Awake Goy

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 7, 2016

While the majority of liberals refuse to condemn the violence against Donald Trump supporters, saying it’s bad but blaming it on Trump himself (saying if you hurt someone’s feelings with words you should expect to be the victim of terrorism), one Jew SJW has come out and endorsed the attacks.

Jew proofs.

The Jew Jesse Benn wrote an article entitled “Sorry Liberals, A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any” for the Huffington Post.

The Jew starts with the established narrative that the violence is Trump’s fault, then quickly switches it up to encouraging people to riot and attack Trump-supporters.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that opposition to him has responded in kind. Yet, a lot of people seem shocked and appalled at this perfectly logical reaction. 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. In spite of this, such resistance is apparently more offensive and unacceptable to societal norms and liberal sensibilities than the nastiness being resisted in the first place.

The only way that violent attacks on supporters “forestalls Trump’s normalization” is that it makes people afraid to attend his rallies for fear of being physically attacked.

As such, it fits the textbook definition of terrorism.

As a result, a litany of think-pieces and condemnations from liberal media and politicians are making their rounds to make it clear how unacceptable and counterproductive any violence or rioting is, urging people to “listen to the other side,” and to use “legitimate means“ to fight Trump’s rise—ignoring the possibility of fascism in the US rising with it. Those who stray from this nonviolent narrative, like Emmet Rensin, an editor at Vox who tweeted that people should riot when Trump comes to town, face swift and punitive redress, urging them to fall back in line. Amidst the hot takes and denunciations from liberals, they all seem to miss a few key points. First, they misplace the blame. Second, they misunderstand the desired outcome from violent resistance and those protesting Trump in general. And third, they ignore the history of successful violent insurrection in the US, instead favoring the elementary school version of history in which nonviolence is the only means of struggle that’s ever achieved a thing.

His first point on why people need to accept terrorism against Trump supporters is that Trump is not a normal politician.

Oh, no.

He’s literally Hitler.

Trump might not be a fascist in the 20th century European sense of the term—though many of his supporters are—but he might represent its 21st century US version. There’s no doubt he’s expanded the Overton Window to include rhetoric previously well outside its bounds. His calls for a “deportation force“ to expel 11+ million people from the country, his claims that most Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals, his calls to keep databases of Muslims and to enact a total ban on Muslims entering the country, his rampant sexism, his mocking people with disabilities, and his propensity for lying have brought the already pathetic state of US political discourse to astoundingly precarious lows. Treating this like politics as usual allows it to become politics as usual, and those who do so risk complicity ushering in a new era of fascist politics in the United States.

His second terrorist-defense point is that opposition to Trump is not merely political, but ideological.

Anyone who thinks like Trump must be terrorized and afraid to spread their beliefs, he argues.

My biggest issue with looking at the Trump problem as an exclusively political issue, though, is that if he loses this fall everyone will go back to ignoring the things that got us here in the first place. No matter who wins in November, the forces underpinning his rise will remain.

…

Taking on the attitudes that drive them is even more difficult. Assuming anti-Trump protests should be strictly focused on electoral politics and not these broader goals would be a detrimental oversight. Understanding European anti-fascists use of violent tactics to shut down large rallies from White Supremacists can be illustrative here. Because while Trump isn’t leading full bore White Supremacist rallies, there is value in making it clear that even his fascism-lite has no place in civilized society. And whether his candidacy represents how fascism comes to the US or he’s simply opened the door to it is immaterial. Either should be stopped post haste.

Because this isn’t a democracy.

It doesn’t matter what the people want.

This is a Jewocracy.

It matters what the Jews want.

His third point in defense of anti-Trump terrorism (really anti-Trump supporter terrorism) is that terrorism is actually good.

Violent resistance matters. Riots can lead to major change (*note the irony of that hyperlink going to a Vox article). It’s not liberal politicians or masses that historians identify as the spark underlying the modern movement for LGBTQ equality. Nor was it a think piece from some smarmy liberal writer. It was the people who took to the streets during the Stonewall Uprising. It was the Watts Rebellion, not the Watts Battle of Ideas, that exposed the enduring systemic neglect, poverty, inequality, and racism faced by that community. Similarly, it was the LA Uprising, not the LA Protests, that led to significant changes in the Los Angeles Police Department. More recently, the Ferguson and Baltimore Uprisings both helped prompt the Justice Department to investigate their corrupt police forces.

LOL

The nerve of this kike!

And since we’re talking about fascism, it’s worth remembering that it wasn’t the election of a moderate centrist (hello, Hillary) or a sanguine protest that stopped its ascent in Europe. It was, primarily, the Russian military, and to a lesser extent the US military; neither of which practiced nonviolence if memory serves.

Meanwhile, Hitler was installed through the democratic process and didn’t ever feel the need to start a war to stop his enemies. He rebuilt Germany peacefully.

So while terrorism is clearly needed to accomplish Jewish goals – as this Jew proved with all of his citations just now – it is not necessary to accomplish fascist goals.

The kike Benn’s conclusion is so classic, it needs to be preserved and taught to children in the future in a required elementary school class entitled “why we hate the Jews 101.”

Last, I want to briefly note the problematic nature of people with privilege condemning violent resistance to Trump as an absolute moral failing, or denying its logic. Whether you would personally engage in violent conduct matters little to your ability to understand where it comes from. Some people have the privilege to consider the implications of Trump’s rise in the abstract and negotiate which means are necessary. That’s not true for everyone. And when those who hold that privilege dismiss the potential validity or logic of violent resistance, it’s effectively an effort to dictate the rules under which oppressed peoples respond to existential threats, and to silence forms of resistance disagreeable to privileged sensibilities. Don’t be that liberal.

There you have it, you filthy goyim: opposition to Mexicans throwing filthy ooze on a woman, or smashing a man’s head in with a bag of rocks, or any of the other things these terrorists were caught on video doing in San Jose, is racist.

Only a privileged White would be against violent attacks by mobs on unarmed civilians for their political beliefs.

And you don’t want to be a racist, do you goyim?

Well then, you’d better start endorsing this terrorism.

Because a Jew already called you a racist for opposing it.