The worldwide Left has been working for a very long time to legitimize political violence and terrorism from themselves and their allies. They're devoted to the idea that violent "resistance" is justified by grievances they deem valid.
The Left wants political violence legitimized because it thinks it will always have a decisive advantage on the streets. Its followers are always on offense, always seeking to destroy what they deem unjust. They see themselves as "revolutionaries" even when they have total power.
The Left has worked very hard to eliminate the old understanding that violence and terrorism delegitimize political causes - the "don't negotiate with terrorists" mindset. They have replaced it with the toxic notion that grievances must be evaluated before violence is condemned.
This is one reason the Left is very big on claiming the American Revolutionaries would have been considered "terrorists" by modern standards, or damned as terrorists if they had lost. Their cause was just, so their terrorism was justified - just like Black Lives Matter and Hamas!
Justifying political violence by examining grievances is exactly what terrorists want. It grants them the shred of legitimacy they need to prosecute their agendas. Blaming victims for the violence perpetrated against them is a natural consequence of grievance politics.
"You wouldn't have rockets raining down on your apartment buildings if you hadn't done something that made the terrorists angry!"
"Your cities wouldn't be burning if your society wasn't systemically racist!"
"You wouldn't have so much crime if your society had more equity!"
"Your cities wouldn't be burning if your society wasn't systemically racist!"
"You wouldn't have so much crime if your society had more equity!"
In every case, the Left begins with the presumption that the terrorist, the violent militant, the criminal isn't *entirely* wrong, or entirely to blame for the violence. "Root causes" must be addressed. The victims must share some of the blame for being attacked.
Conservatives mistakenly believed the Left was merely "soft on crime" because it had a "bleeding heart." That was never true of the Left's academic and political leaders. They were legitimizing violence for political ends, recruiting footsoldiers for an assault on our society.
This is blindingly obvious with the current crop of Soros-funded prosecutors and their wanton release of violent criminals to destabilize society, but it was always true. It was just better-hidden in previous decades. The Left sees violence as a political instrument.
The Left's mythology of noble criminals and guilty victims provides the narrative for a sustained assault on societies they hate. They want people to believe peace and safety can only be secured by giving total power to the Left so it can remake society according to its agenda.
Rest assured that once the Left has power, it will never, EVER accept that violence or "resistance" against itself is justified. Even today, the same leftists who justify riots and street crime from their allies and clients will lash out with fury at anyone ELSE who gets rowdy.
You will notice that when a non-left-wing group is accused of violent behavior or lawbreaking resistance, there is absolutely zero discussion of their "grievances," no effort to "understand their rage," no criticism whatsoever when extreme force is used to suppress them.
In half a century or so, we've gone from "terrorism is never justified" to both-sides equivalence, grievance analysis, root-cause ruminations (remember Obama's "unemployment causes terrorism" brainstorm?) and victim-shaming. In sum, political violence IS justified, and effective.
It's a natural consequence of the Left believing any system it doesn't completely control is fundamentally corrupt and unfair, so "resistance" is noble. And it gives terrorists what they desire above all, the foundation of legitimacy: "it's your fault that I'm killing you." /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
