“Buckinghamshire County Councillor Phil Gomm, UKIP candidate in a local district council by-election, was physically assaulted while out leafleting and canvassing. The individual responsible was throwing Nazi salutes and yelling that UKIP is a party of fascists, racists and no different from the BNP” – http://www.trendingcentral.com/assaults-ukip-members-follows-incitement-fearful-mainstream/

I’ve always been baffled by left-wing violence against those on the right. This development has not really occurred in Britain (yet), although this story does remind me of another article I read a year ago, detailing a Liberal Democrat being harassed by Galloway supporters in Bradford (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-17957678).

It does seem to occur more in America though, where we witness left-wing law breaking to a much greater extent. For instance, the violence witnessed when Unions protest, as in Wisconsin.

 

Union thug

 

Or the Occupy Wall street protests.

Whoever said hugs weren’t violent

 

Or how about the recent fracas over the Zimmerman trial.

This could be Zimmerman’s car…

 

Perhaps you would care to remember the Seattle riots?

http://libcom.org/files/Biot211PhotoD[1].jpg

Venti some anger…

Perhaps Seattle was too long ago to count? Here’s something from yesterday which the media did not report (http://hoh.rollcall.com/congressman-sean-duffy-assaulted/).

Attacks on conservative politicians by the left has always baffled me. Clearly, violence like this is unjustified whatever the political stripes of the perpetrator, and the victim. And this includes those incidents where right-wingers attack those on the left (although I cannot think of any instances off the top of my head…). But it is very strange it always seems to be left-wing perpetrators, and right-wing victims.

Political violence seems to make the most sense when that side is politically disenfranchised, suppressed, or excluded. That’s why banning parties can lead to increased political violence, if those who would formally have been councillors, become terrorists instead.

But the left-wing own all the institutions. The media has a left-wing bias to it. Universities are overwhelmingly liberal in their staff, and any attempt to disagree is ruthlessly suppressed. Politicians tend to be a lot more to the left, for instance on social issues, than the people they represent, even those politicians on the right. The entertainment industry, again the same. The music industry. Popular culture in general.

So why the attacks if they are so well (over) represented? And especially considering all the claims that it is those on the right who are ‘gun-toting’ wackos.

I do not know the answer to this question. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that those on the right see those on the left as A) stupid, B) annoying, C) mis-guided and D) self-righteous. Those are not things one beats somebody up over.

I suspect those on the left tend to see those on the right as A) stupid, B) annoying, C) evil, D) to some extent, racist, and E) selfish. It is much easier to justify violence against somebody so beyond the pale as many on the left view those on the right, than it is to justify it against people who are wrong, but whose heart is likely in the right place.

It cannot be justified to physically assault somebody who is factually incorrect. It is, however, when somebody is seen as intrinsically evil, or less moral.

Advertisements