“Any rational person would agree that violence is not legitimate unless the consequences of such action are to eliminate a still greater evil.” Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus of MIT, Marxist Philosopher & Linguist
Of course, such a statement demands a qualifying question: who defines what is the greater evil?
Today’s Leftwing political views have become so absolute that they sincerely believe they do. Denying Leftist absolutes not only attracts vitriol, in some cases it comes with criminal charges. Countries that once had liberal and open debates are now imprisoning those with contrary viewpoints. In Canada, you can have your children taken by the state if you question your child’s “gender choice.”
The Left has gotten to the point at which its causes are now sacrosanct and like religious zealots, not only do many Leftists find anyone who disavows their positions as heretics, some justify violence against non-believers.
Thus, we have seen hundreds of incidents of violence exacted against conservatives, and especially Trump Republicans, and yet, almost no incidents of violence against Leftists in the United States. The Left has now gotten to a point in which non-believers in their religion are kefir. As such, all debate from within the Leftist context views conservative positions as perpetuating “evil” results, if not outright evil motivations.
Transgender identity is no longer questionable. Despite the fact that even the College of Pediatric Doctors is concerned with the politicization and immediacy of transgender adoption, the Left has brought lawsuits and violence to those who question their cause. What could be more evil than stopping someone from being “who they are?… how about starving them?
Wealth redistribution, also called the progressive tax, has devolved into a matter of moral obligations of the wealthy. The Left views individuals as immoral who do not want to pay higher taxes. The Leftist argues that the immorality of the conservative is based on “greed.” To the Leftist, a conservative’s decision to keep more of what he or she earns is not merely an economic freedom argument, it is a conscious immoral decision to deprive others of basic necessities, such as food and housing. What could be more evil than starving people… how about killing them?
Health insurance has gone from a privilege to a right. In fact, no one on either side of the political spectrum has ever denied the right to health CARE. At issue is whether someone should pay for another’s insurance should they need that health care. The Left has now defined this question not in economic arguments as to whether someone is entitled to another person’s money (i.e., “who pays for another person’s health insurance?”). Rather, the Left has defined the subject in moral terms: “people die when they do not have access to health care.” Nothing could be more evil than killing someone, right? How about killing EVERYONE?
Climate Control is no longer open to scientific debate despite the fact that most scientific data suggests it is neither man made, nor even happening. Instead, the conservative that questions Climate Change laws are “threatening our species.” Ending life as we know it does not get more evil…
And thus we find ourselves back at Noam Chomsky’s enduring statement: “…violence is not legitimate unless the consequences of such action are to eliminate a still greater evil.”
In the context of depriving human dignity, food, shelter, health care, and a livable world, what could be more evil than conservatives?
This is the Left’s perspective, and while all leftists may not necessarily adhere to that mantra, a significant number do. In fact, just enough to exact violence and soon, killings.
But what about the Right’s moral warriors? To date, none of the matters with which the Right considers immoral have crossed the line of “murderous,” with the exception of one: abortion.
No one dies from being married to a gay partner.
No one dies from a man wearing a dress.
A baby’s life is in fact terminated.
That last cause – abortion – has been used by individuals from the Right to kill on those grounds. But the similarity ends there. The Rightwing murderers of eleven abortion providers since 1993 defy the very Biblical precept which they sought to stop: thou shalt not kill. That is why such individuals receive almost universal condemnation from the Right.
No such mechanism for eternal consequences exists in a Leftist political philosophy that is becoming overwhelmingly secular and atheistic.
Read Twitter today, and you will find no such universal condemnation from the Left regarding the shooter of Steve Scalise and other Republicans… or for that matter, other violent assaults on Republicans that have grown in ferocity over the past two years.
Anyone not subscribing to a Leftist ideal is inherently evil and therefore, a justifiable target of violence.
This is why, per the FBI, neither rightwing nor, for that matter, Islamic terrorists have been the most historically active assailants of peace on US soil. The Left has been the most violent and vicious of all groups by a long shot. More than 80% of all attacks in the United States between 1980 – 2005 were committed by individuals from the Left (including Communists; https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005#terror_05sum).
The justification of Leftists for committing violence against conservatives is not new. The justification of Leftists to commit violence against conservatives is not an accident. The justification of Leftists to harm you is predicated on impassioned moral grounds and consequently a very real threat.
 Noam Chomsky’s personal website highlighting his various works, “The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act? Noam Chomsky debates with Hannah Arendt, Susan Sontag, et al.,” 15 December 1967, https://chomsky.info/19671215/
 The Islamic term for non-believers and consequently, sub-humans.