The truth about political violence
Tags: Politics, Society, Antifa, Terrorism, Violence

Very often — almost always, in fact — mainstream forms of media remind us of who really IS hateful. Republicans are party of bigotry and racism. Conservatives are sexists and hateful. Right-wingers are so hateful and intolerant that we need the site Right Wing Watch to keep an eye on them…

It might seem obvious that one side of the aisle has a near-monopoly over hate. After all, right-wing acts of violence are consistently being talked about, while you hear nothing about “socialist terrorism” or “far-left violence”. It’s safe to say that right-wing violence should be our main concern. Or is it?

Coming to that conclusion seems like the sensible thing to do if you’re not very in-the-know, so to speak. However, we should take into consideration two factors:

First, that most of the mainstream media is heavily biased in favor of the left. And second, that many people are trapped in their own echo-chambers and therefore are only exposed to one viewpoint. With this in mind, we need to dig deep into the statistics ourselves to see if this conclusion holds up.

The claim that “right-wing extremism” is on the rise comes from domestic terrorism statistics from groups such as the Anti-Defamation League. These statistics show that right-wing terrorism is on the rise and is the biggest threat of violence in comparison to other ideologies.

The problem with this data is the way these crimes are often categorized under “right-wing violence”. For example, some cases in which the perpetrator’s motivations are uncertain are still considered right-wing terrorism, instead of being labeled under a more general term. The same is true for cases that are labeled as “anti-government extremism”, they conveniently end up backing up the supposed “right-wing terrorism” trend.

Image from New America’s report on terrorism. Surprisingly, it shows that Islamic terrorism is still a greater threat than right-wing terrorism.

There is also the fact that definitions are not applied equally to both sides. For example, they often consider anti-Semitic hate crimes as right-wing, whilst similar crimes committed by black people are not considered left-wing. Also, the data usually begins after 2001, conveniently omitting the 9/11 attack which killed nearly 3000 people.

There is enough reason to consider these statistics to be self-serving and disingenuous. Even if they were completely credible, the idea that right-wing violence poses a grave threat to our safety is ludicrous. In none of these reports do the yearly number of deaths attributed to right-wing extremism surpass the number of those caused by bee stings. Not even half of that number, in fact.

That said, statistics can only help us so much. They can be very useful in identifying trends, but with such low numbers of incidents even that proves to be difficult. It takes more than data to quantify ideological and narrative changes.

This is why keeping up with the news is so crucial. Clairvoyance doesn’t exist, but keeping up with the latest current events can give you an idea of what’s going on in our society. That is, of course, limited to what your sphere or influence is feeding you.

An echo chamber problem? Or…

One could boil the problem of only right-wing outrage being talked about down to a mere echo-chamber issue. This isn’t the case at all. Both sides of the aisle suffer from polarization and see the world through their biased lens, but they are in no way on the same footing. Leftist/progressive views will always take precedent because, as previously stated, the mainstream media is overwhelmingly biased towards that side.

The average person won’t go out of their way to find alternative, non-biased sources of media that will inform them about left-wing violence. Those that do so are often labeled as consumers of fake news, even when their sources provide clear pieces of evidences such as video footage.

For example, the beating of journalist Andy Ngo by Antifa protestors was seldom covered by mainstream media sources. The attack was brutal, to say the least. Antifa protestors threw cement-filled shakes at him, leaving him hospitalized with head contusions and a brain hemorrhage. Nevertheless, it seems that the episode wasn’t relevant enough in the eyes of the mainstream media.

Some people on the left did talk about it on their own, mostly on Twitter. Instead of condemning the attack, many people on the left excused it by saying he “had it coming’. Slate writer Aymann Ismail even said he “deserved worse”.

There has been a very worrying amount of leftist apologists since 2016 election. He who falls silent concedes, and a growing number of leftists are refusing to outright, firmly condemn acts of violence such as these. Political violence is not a partisan issue. Blaming the victim just because their political views don’t align with yours enables more of these attacks to happen.

Recently, an Antifa terrorist was killed by the police while attempting to blow up an ICE facility. Although he received almost universal bashing from both sides, there were still people who called him a “martyr”. Surprisingly, this story also wasn’t covered by any mainstream media outlet, let alone by CNN or The New York Times. Apparently not relevant enough either…

Not as relevant as covering a random act of violence by a Trump supporter, anyway. Or petty controversies and events that turn out to be hoaxes. Or, god forbid, a widespread conspiracy theory about Russian interference in our elections.

Even more recently, there were two deadly mass shootings in Ohio and Texas. Both happened in less than 24 hours. The Ohio shooter was extremely liberal, pro-Antifa and pro-communism, as evidenced by his social media. He thought of the ICE bomber as a “martyr”, expressed support for Elizabeth Warren, and said that he “wanted socialism” and that he would “not wait for these idiots to finally come round to understanding”

An image showing Connor Bett’s Twitter account retweets

Devin Patrick Kelley, the Texas Walmart shooter, also left a piece of his mind for us to see. In his manifesto, which is something mass shooters seem to have every time now, he expresses many of his political opinions. Among some of them is the support for universal basic income, universal healthcare, and climate change awareness.

Of course, his manifesto also had its fair share of far-right support. He stated his support for people like the New Zealand gunman, as well as promoting the idea that there is an ethnic “invasion” of Hispanics going on. The point of knowing these facts is not to blame the other side, but to realize that the caricature of the crazy right-wing shooter doesn’t represent reality.

In general, people — Kelley included — have a complex set of beliefs that are often contradictory. Otherwise known as cognitive dissonance. It seems that both the far-left and the far-right have contributed to this man’s radicalization, not just the far-right.

But yet again, these facts are ignored in favor of pushing the far-right fearmonger narrative. As the next election is taking place relatively soon, ignoring facts like these can prove to be very dangerous.

What’s especially telling about the state of the left-wing is not the one-sided coverage by news outlets, though. Pushing a narrative that lines up with your political goals is one thing. Endorsing or failing to denounce violent groups is much more pathological.

Unfortunately, this is what we’ve seen from certain groups in society. It’s no news that academia is mostly supportive of progressive, often straight-up socialist ideologies. This is so much so that students often get indoctrinated into becoming activists and radicals. This is not a recent occurrence either. Organizations such as Campus Reform, the National Association of Scholars, and independent reporters have been covering these educational problems for a long time now.

Former John Jay professor and supporter of Antifa’s tweet on policemen

The problem is that many college professors and faculty often fail to condemn groups like Antifa and their violent or disruptive acts. Some college professors even call for discrimination and even violence against conservatives themselves. In an environment which shames and censors dissenting ideas, it’s inevitable that people will get radicalized. Yet this is an ongoing issue that won’t get better anytime soon.

A similar problem occurs with one of the most important political institutions in the country. The Democratic establishment has been largely silent on far-left violence, even as recent attacks unfold. Following the attack on the ICE facility, figures such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar (the same Ilhan Omar that routinely expresses anti-Semitism) were asked if they condemned the ICE attacks. They stayed silent.

When Antifa attacks police and Trump supporters in places like Berkeley, Democrats stay silent. When they Riot in other Democrat-run cities, the police are told to stay on the sidelines. Despite how many times they and other leftists instigate violence, Democrats never deem any far-left group as a threat.

Some Democrats are actually open about their support to them. Rep. Keith Ellison Tweeted out a photo of himself holding an Antifa “Anti-fascist handbook”. He claimed that he had “found the book to strike fear in Donald Trump’s heart”. A morbidly similar phrase to “striking fear in the hearts of the unbelievers”. Former Vice President Joe Biden opened his presidential campaign by calling Antifa a “courageous” group of Americans.

Picture of the Ellison’s deleted tweet

These and more examples suggest something troubling about the Democratic grassroots support. It shows that a lot of it might come from a fundamentally radical constituency. Despite all the claims about the Republicans and conservatives having ties to white supremacy, Republicans unilaterally condemn white nationalism and far-right extremism whenever they can. The same cannot be said about the left and Antifa.

And as much as you want to criticize Trump for saying there are fine people on both sides, trying to argue the opposite is falling onto a divisive, partialized, and dishonest narrative. A greater evil doesn’t take away from the lesser one. They’re both evil. Terrorism should be condemned regardless of who is the perpetrator. Bad actors should be shamed regardless of who they support.

This is why it’s so important to acknowledge that hatred from the left is also on the rise. Not only from people who support far-left groups, but also, to a lesser extent, liberals in general. People with MAGA hats being harassed has become a common occurrence. Violence against political opponents has practically become glorified in many spheres. Intolerance towards dissenting opinions has become so bad that your livelihood can be put in jeopardy if you don’t fall in line.

It’s time to put a stop to hate, and the first step to doing that is to realize that both sides are guilty of contributing to the problem. One side controls the popular narrative and mostly gets free rein to do what they wish. The other side reacts to an almost systematic shutting-down of their speech.

This is not to paint the right wing as the victim here. Any act of extremism or blatant bigotry is unacceptable, and there is no justification for it. Nonetheless, we need to realize one thing, which is the topic for a future article: radicalization doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

The question the left should be asking is not “What can we do to stop far-right extremism?”, it’s “What can we do to stop contributing to both far-left and far-right extremism?”

To wrap it all up, the takeaway from this article should be clear by now: the left needs to recognize that a portion of its crowd is going down a terrible path. A path of intolerance and disdain, which is often encouraged by public figures and political figures. If the left wants to “heal” this country’s divide, they have to start by healing their own bloc.