Sorry – this is not a post about lingerie.
I happened to have the TV on in my office yesterday afternoon while I was working for a little current event awareness – but mostly for white noise as I finished some exciting contract and bid reviews. It was on Fox News and I just happened to catch The Five and see/hear panelist Juan Williams try to excuse the rioting at Trump rallies by saying that Trump used “hateful rhetoric” like “Mexicans are murderers and rapists” and we shouldn’t be surprised that such statements make people angry. He said we should not be surprised that illegal aliens would be mad that they were being called illegal and that Trump was planning to build a wall to keep them out.
Williams was trying to make the argument that Trump is a provocateur – one who provokes solely for the sake of provoking. I don’t believe that – the real provocateurs are on the other side – it’s the same George Soros funded, anti-globalist anarchists, the communists and the open borders crowd that are paid to protest at every G7 meeting and “climate change” conference.
Juan is a moderate progressive (if there is such a thing) who stumbles over a reasonable thought every now and again, but this is another example of how progressives rarely examine there own reasoning before pontificating. He is wrong to assert that 1) Trump is responsible for the actions of a mob and 2) rioting is legitimized by disagreement – but if his statements are critically examined, he might just be on to something.
Follow me here – if we accept Williams’ premise as true, then we must consider this: what other group might have a reason to riot at Democrat events? Which constituency has been so vilified during the Obama administration to the point of dehumanization?
I would assert that it is the group consisting of people who are predominantly white, Christian, heterosexual, gun owning, financially secure, anti-collectivist and male.
This is a group that is blamed by every left leaning Democrat hand puppet for the ills of the world. Racists accuse them of “white privilege”, the LGBT cabal forces them to bake cakes and share the toilets and if they don’t they are homophobic bigots, Islamists want these infidels to die, the cowering, fearful anti-gun activists want to strip them of their second amendment rights, the collectivists want punish success and for the evil “rich” to “pay their fair share” (which simply means “more”) and feminists fight the so-called heteronormative patriarchy by castigating boys and men every chance they get.
This has metastasized to the point of influencing a government school curriculum that essentially teaches that being a man is bad – and if you are male and Christian, you are quite possibly evil. Much better to be atheist, gay, transgender or at a minimum, an agnostic effeminate bearded hipster if you have a penis that it is to be an ax-wielding, gun toting, flannel shirt, blue jeans and beat up work boot wearing, scruffy, testosterone driven, woman loving real man. Being a girl is where it’s at – even if you are biologically male.
I happen to be a member of the ax-wielding, gun toting, flannel shirt, blue jean and beat up work boot wearing, scruffy, testosterone driven, woman loving man group, so I might be a little biased…
Somehow, I can’t see Juan or others on the left who are excusing the violence against Trump supporters will be making the same argument if the rioting group consisted of white, Christian, heterosexual, gun owning, financially secure, anti-collectivist males but if his logic is valid, they must be excused when they choose to saddle up to defend Trump, his supporters and free speech from the rabid dogs of the left – at least Juan Williams won’t be surprised.
3 thoughts on “Agent Provocateur”
I’m partial to lumberjacks.
And Here he is in all his current relevance and splendor……
Juan Williams try to excuse the rioting at Trump rallies by saying that Trump used “hateful rhetoric” like “Mexicans are murderers and rapists” and we shouldn’t be surprised that such statements make people angry.
I’m puzzled by something: How is it that The Donald’s rhetoric can easily explain, and some would even go so far as to say justify, public rioting which exposes one to potentially lethal force, but there’s no way in the world that it could possibly bias a judge? Even though the judge can easily hide his bias?