A common Republican talking point is that the left regularly engages in politically motivated violence—something that they claim has especially been on the rise in recent years. Conservatives use language like "the left is an angry mob"; they talk about "the violent left"; right-wing media outlets like Fox News put banners on the screen that say things like "Out-of-control violence from the left." I would say that my goal in this video is to help people fight back against this myth, but then I might be accused by Sean Hannity of encouraging left-wing violence!
As we'll see here, when you actually look at the data on the subject, you find that deaths from right-wing violence and right-wing terrorist attacks far outweigh the number of deaths from left-wing attacks. This is a trend that we see in recent years and this is a trend that goes all the way back to the 1980s.
Oddly enough, Republicans also cite many examples of alleged left-wing violence or incitements to violence that are actually nothing of the sort. They seem to be simply confused about the meaning of words and they wildly misinterpret what's being said—in a manner that reeks of intentional dishonesty.
It doesn't make sense to portray an entire party as represented by the extremely rare, violent individual, and you'll be shocked to hear that there also seem to be a number of contradictions and double-standards built into the right-wing position on this subject. Finally, I'll talk in this video about the far left and the far right battling it out at protest events.
Let's start out by doing something that right-wingers almost never do when they talk about this subject, and that's take a complete look at the data on this question.
Matthew Lenoe writes the following in a Washington Post article:
"The real threat of violence comes from the right. The Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism reports that right-wingers and white supremacists were responsible for 74 percent of the murders committed by political extremists in the United States over the past decade. Only 2 percent were committed by left-wing radicals. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, has calculated that 'terrorists inspired by Nationalist and Right Wing ideology have killed about 10 times as many people as Left Wing terrorists since 1992.'"
Ok, you might say, maybe over the past decade or two, this has been the trend, but we're talking about political violence over only the past few years! That's when the left-wing violence has really ramped up and far surpassed right-wing violence, you might argue. This again is just not true.
Luis Romero, in a Quartz article, shows us data on the ideologies of US terrorists in 2017. He finds that 37 incidents were committed by right-leaning people compared against 11 that were committed by left-leaning attackers. That is to say, even in 2017—one of the years in which we've been led to believe that left-wing violence has reached epidemic proportions—3x as many US terror attacks were committed by right-wingers than left-wingers.
More data on this question is revealed in a Washington Post analysis. As we can see, in 2017, 36 terrorist attacks were committed by right-wingers whereas 10 were committed by left-wingers. The fatality numbers in these attacks were 11 and 6, respectively. So basically, in 2017, 3x as many terrorist attacks and 2x as many political murders were committed by right-wingers.
If you look at the data going all the way back to 2002, what you see is that there has been a similar number of left-wing and right wing attacks—yet there have been far more fatalities in right-wing attacks, which leads us to an obvious conclusion: These girly, leftist soyboys simply aren't man enough to get the job done! No, what this data shows it that, over the past 15 years, right-wing terrorist attacks have been much more lethal than left-wing attacks.
The final set of data is the most comprehensive, and it comes from a 2017 publication by The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, also known as START, for short. (Pfft, yeah, "START the liberal propaganda" is more like it!)
In their paper, they categorize terrorist attacks by the ideology of the attacker from the 1970s all the way to the 2010s. As we can see, the ideological categories include left wing, environmental, right wing, religious, nationalist or separatist, and single issue.
Complicating the analysis is that there's often overlap between these categories. As they write in the paper,
"One-third (33%) of the attacks were classified as having been motivated by more than one type of ideology; therefore, each column sums to a number (of ideologies) greater than the number of attacks that occurred in each decade."
So in some cases, for example, what they classify as a nationalist or separatist attack also gets classified as either a left-wing or a right-wing attack. I'm gonna simplify the analysis by showing explicitly left-wing attacks in blue, right-wing attacks in red, and everything else in monochrome.
As we can see, the comparative number of terrorist attacks committed by each group has fluctuated over the decades—although overall, we can say that more attacks have been committed by left wingers. More specifically, more left wing attacks were committed in the 1970s, 80s, and 2000s, where as more right-wing attacks were committed in the 1990s and 2010s. When we look at the data presented as a percentage of attacks, we see similar trends.
More important than the number of attacks are the number of deaths as a result of these attacks. Looking at the raw numbers isn't very informative because all other data points in the graph are dwarfed by the number of deaths from the September 11th attacks.
When we look at the percentage of deaths by each category, a more visible picture emerges. The overall conclusion is that more deaths have resulted from right-wing terrorist attacks. More specifically, more deaths resulted from right-wing attacks in the 1980s, 90s, and 2010s, whereas only in the 1970s did more deaths result from left-wing attacks. So similar to what we saw earlier in that Washington Post data, right-wing terrorist attacks tend to be more deadly than left-wing attacks.
Indeed, as they write in the paper,
". . . most left-wing terrorist attacks in the 1990s (82%) were carried out by environmentalist groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Terrorism motivated by environmentalism comprised nearly one-quarter (23%) of all attacks in the 1990s, but resulted in no deaths.
. . . The number of attacks by left-wing extremists increased 80 percent in the 2000s. These attacks were nearly all motivated by environmentalism and carried out by perpetrators affiliated with ALF and ELF. All of these attacks were intended to cause property damage and intimidation; none were lethal."
This is a little misleading, actually, because I heard that in some of these attacks, the vegan activists did try to beat a few people to death; they were just so scrawny and fatigued that they couldn't cause any serious damage and they were like "Fuck this; let's get outta here and eat some humus." (I know! A skinny people vegan joke. How original!)
So since a large portion of left wing terrorist attacks are oriented towards property damage and intimidation, we might be able to infer that people on the left surpass the right when it comes to lesser offenses like vandalism and theft—but we can't say this for certain because the data isn't perfectly clear on this question.
Also noteworthy is that Timothy McVeigh's 1995 Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people—so this one attack was responsible for many of the right-wing deaths we see during this decade.
This data may have also underestimated the number of right-wing attacks, and this is due to how they categorized the ideologies of attackers. For example, they write that:
"At least 46 percent of the anti-abortion attacks in the 1990s—including all of the lethal attacks and all of the attacks for which the assailant’s religious identity was specified in source documents—were carried out by perpetrators whose anti-abortion beliefs were rooted in Christianity.
. . . As a narrowly defined single issue, attacks motivated by anti-abortion ideology were classified as religiously motivated if source documents specifically indicated the assailant’s religious identity."
They don't state anywhere in the paper that they classified any of these anti-abortion attacks as right-wing; it appears that they may have classified them as only single-issue attacks or religious attacks. I would argue that anti-abortionism is basically a right-wing position, even if grounded in religious beliefs.
Aside from this, though, they appear to have done a pretty good job of classifying attacks in multiple categories as appropriate, so let's just base our conclusions off the data as is and not overcomplicate things.
So the overall conclusion we can reach from this data is that more attacks were committed by left wingers in the 70s, 80s, and 2000s—although more deaths resulted from left-wing attacks only in the 1970s. I think it's informative, interesting, and important to look at the overall history of left-wing versus right-wing attacks, but remember, the argument being made by conservatives is that the left is a violent mob—not that they used to be a violent mob in the 1970s over 40 years ago.
But even if you want to take a deep, historical look at this question, you find that from the 1980s onwards, significantly more deaths have consistently resulted from right-wing terrorist attacks in the United States. This is a conclusion that we also reach when look at data exclusively from the past decade or so—or even just the past few years. So pretty much no matter what your timescale is, you find that this conservative argument about the left being uniquely violent is a complete reversal of the facts.
How is it possible for the conservative to be so obviously wrong on this question? Frankly I think that's because a lot of conservatives' idea of researching this question is to watch Fox News B-roll footage of violent Antifa protesters. Many of these people live in an echochamber where they're largely getting just one side of the story presented to them.
Here's a comment where a guy is just flaunting his ignorance on the subject, from an Axios article on the prevalence of right-wing violence. WhiskeyBravo writes:
"This is absurdly laughable. I can’t even take it remotely seriously. Look at the reality of any of these events, it is universally Antifa socialist types who begin the violence. Just YouTube 'Portland Riot' or something similar, and you can do the same for any other location. The true 'right wing' stuff is very few and far between."
Notice that one thing is conspicuously absent from this comment of his, and that's actual data to support his position. Here is the full extent of this guy's research on the subject: He's watched some YouTube videos on the Portland Riot and probably some other Antifa protests. Well I guess that settles it, then! We can just throw our data in the trash can and pack it all in!
Notice also that this guy is spotlighting a much lesser form of violence. The article he's commenting on presents data on acts of domestic terror, and this guy's like "Oh yeah? Well what about these protests where some people beat each other up?" Fine, we can talk about the protests, but the occasional mutual skirmish between the far left and far right isn't exactly on the same level as premeditated political killings.
And I simply wasn't able to find any data that breaks down and compares the political ideology of people who committed exclusively these less severe crimes. This START terrorism data is probably the best that you're going to find on this subject.
As we'll see later in the video, this guy is also just flat wrong when he says that "it is universally Antifa socialist types who begin the violence."
Comments like these are a clear reminder that just because somebody confidently asserts something doesn't, in any way, suggest that what they're saying is true.
Brietbart, since September 2015, has been collecting a list of 639 incidents of "Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters." Right, I'm sure they bust out the confetti and champagne on CNN every time another incident like this takes place.
I looked at the first 100 of these events, and only 11 of them featured actual violence. And of these, most of the violence is very minor: One guy forcefully grabbed a Republican woman's arm; a Republican candidate was punched in the face at a bar during a discussion about politics—which is probably the first recorded instance of a drunken disagreement leading to violence.
Another guy punched a female representative in the arm—my goodness, punched in the arm? She was probably in critical condition for months after this! A man who was canvassing for a Republican candidate alleges that he was punched in the back. A Republican college student was shoved backwards. A Trump supporter gets punched and a fight breaks out, but both of them are shoving each other before the fight starts.
So 8 of these 11 incidents were pretty mild instances of violence. Three of them were pretty serious: One guy unsuccessfully attacked a Republican candidate with a knife, another woman rammed into a Trump supporter's car, allegedly because of his pro-Trump bumper stickers, and a Trump supporter at a concert was beaten pretty severely.
Look, don't get me wrong: People who violently attack political opponents—even mildly—are wrong to do this and should be held legally accountable. I have to point this painfully obvious fact out because morons who watch this video are gonna be like: "Uhh, so you're saying it's ok to assault Trump supporters?" No, obviously that's not what I'm saying.
My point is that the severity and prevalence of violence on the left is being vastly overstated. When you look through this Breitbart list, you find that only 10% of these incidents feature actual violence, and the majority of these violent encounters are very mild. I'm not excusing the violence by saying this; I'm simply drawing important distinctions between degrees of violence so that people don't get the wrong impression when they come across a headline like this.
The other 90% of these incidents feature things like threats made via the mail or Twitter, vandalism, and elected representatives being badgered by protesters.
Make no mistake: Many of the things compiled in this list are contemptible. But I should also note that we're only looking at one side of the picture; this certainly isn't a statistical comparison of such actions on the left versus the right—so we have no idea how the number of right wing threats and assaults and acts of vandalism stack up against the left wing numbers. As is the case with politically motivated killings, it very well could be the case that the right-wing numbers actually surpass the left-wing numbers.
Many people seem to think it's enough to just cherrypick a couple of incidents like this and be like: "Well, that proves it: This is more of a problem on the left!" No, I'm sorry, that's just not good enough. To reach a conclusion like that, you would actually have to provide data from a rigorous comparison of these things—which I don't see anybody on the right actually doing.
I could play this game and show counter-examples from the same time period of even more severe violence committed by right-wingers: Trump supporters beating who they think is an undocumented immigrant with a pipe and then urinating on him; a Trump supporter who stabbed three people in the neck after going on a racist tirade; and the Trump supporter who plowed his car into a crowd of protesters in Charlottesville.
If you want to make actual comparisons between the left versus the right, you have to look at data which does this—and when you do, you find that the body count from right-wing violence is much higher.
Another point worth making is that even if conservatives were correct about the general trends, and even if we found that substantially more people died in the United States from left-wing terror and violence, it still wouldn't make sense to characterize the left as a whole as bloodthirsty and plagued by violence. The percentage of people actually committing such acts of violence is a minuscule proportion of either the left or the right-wing, so why portray the entire party as represented by these extremely rare, violent individuals?
If I wanted to engage in such cheap, partisan smear tactics, I could present this data to you, and be like: "Haha! Actually it's the right wing that's the violent mob," but this sort of guilt by association just doesn't seem fair to me—especially considering that the vast majority of us wouldn't hesitate to condemn any such acts of political violence committed by people who share our views.
The only reason I'm making this video is because this is such a prevalent talking point and misconception on the right. I would never be having a conversation with a Republican and just, out of the blue, bring up these political violence statistics as if it's something that they have to apologize for and answer for. But since they seem incapable of shutting the fuck up about political violence, fine, here we are talking about political violence.
Make no mistake about it: There are genuine acts of political violence committed by people on the left. The thing is, far too often you see right-wing commentators clutching their pearls about things that aren't even violence and portraying them as examples of violence!
Here's a great example of this in a Fox News clip featuring Sean Hannity:
"But when you have leaders, the former candidate for the Democratic Party saying 'we can't be civil with them,' you have the former Attorney General of the US saying 'kick 'em', ya know, 'if they go low, we kick 'em', then you got Maxine Waters says 'If you see these cabinet people, you get a crowd and you follow them into department stores and gas stations and grocery stores!' Well we saw that to your successor, Sarah Sanders, Pam Bondi, Secretary Nielsen, Ted Cruz—somebody's gonna get killed here! But they don't seem to care!"
None of these are examples of violence or even incitements to violence! Let's run through the examples that he gave here.
Hillary Clinton said the following in an interview with CNN:
"To keep a Supreme Court seat open for a year, to deny a distinguished jurist—they could've voted him down! They could've said, well, for ideological reasons, philosophical reasons, we're not gonna vote for him. But no! They stonewalled. And that was such a breach of Senate ethics and the Constitutional responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent on nominations that you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that's when civility can start again."
After the interview, I'm told that she dressed up in an all-black pantsuit and viciously assaulted some Republicans in the streets.
How warped does your brain have to be by partisan politics to hear this and think she's advocating violence? "Civil" is synonymous with "polite." When I say "don't be polite to a person," that is obviously not the same thing as saying "violently attack this person."
The "kick 'em" line came from Eric Holder in a speech that he gave.
"They have used the power that they have gotten for all the wrong things. They wanna keep themselves in power, they wanna cater to the special interests. It is time for us, as Democrats, to be as tough as they are, to be as dedicated as they are, to be as committed as they are. Michelle [Obama] always says . . . 'When they go low, we go high.' No. No. When they go low, we kick 'em!
That's what this new Democratic Party's about. We're proud as hell to be Democrats, we're willing to fight for the ideals of the Democratic Party, we're proud of our history, we're proud of our present, and we're proud of the future that we can create for this country."
Again, really? People are framing this as an incitement to violence? When Eric Holder says "When they go low, we kick 'em," he clearly means don't be afraid to jump in the mud with Republicans and play dirty politics; take off the kid gloves, forcefully make your case and forcefully attack your opponent's position.
Look at how "GOP War Room" portrays this speech in the title of his upload.
[I made a typo when I was working on this video and it said "Eric Holder Tells Crowd To 'Lick' Republicans." Now that's what I call reaching across the aisle! And you thought Chris Christie's 2016 debate performance left a bad taste in your mouth!]
"Eric Holder Tells Crowd To 'Kick' Republicans. . .", yeah, he obviously meant this metaphorically. It's not like when he said this, he meant that when you hear a Republican saying something you disagree with, front kick them in the chest and send them flying backwards across the room.
"Prompting Crowd To Cheer & Chant 'Fight'," yeah, as in fight for their beliefs, as in fight politically. Just listen to what Eric Holder says in the speech:
"We're willing to fight for the ideals of the Democratic Party"
That sure as hell doesn't sound like a call to violence to me.
What about Hannity's final example, Maxine Waters encouraging people to form a crowd and follow members of the Trump Administration around? Even by his own description, this is nothing even approaching a call to violence. What did Maxine Waters actually say?
"And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd! And you push back on them! And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere!"
"Create a crowd . . . and tell them they're not welcome anymore"?
What the fuck is this maniac talking about? Somebody lock this woman in a prison cell for the rest of her life—because this is utter madness.
Having a crowd of people voice their displeasure with your politics I'm sure would be quite a pesky annoyance, and taken to a far enough degree, it might even constitute harassment. But this is a call for non-violent political activism, plain and simple.
Now you might disagree with this particular tactic, but that's a separate conversation from whether or not Maxine Waters was calling for violence here—which she clearly was not.
So after citing these three examples of Democratic politicians not in any way calling for violence—but instead clearly calling for non-violent political activism—Sean Hannity concludes by saying "somebody's gonna get killed here!" How he managed to reach this conclusion on the basis of these three examples is a mystery to me—but with such poor reasoning skills, it's no wonder he works for Fox News.
The people in the comments section don't do much better. User "Keep America Great" says: "The Democratic Party is a terrorist organization." Uhh, thanks for sharing your two cents, I guess. You know what would really keep America great? If you never posted a YouTube comment ever again.
To say that any of these examples feature prominent Democratic politicians calling for or even hinting at the idea of committing violence is extremely dishonest garbage. Again, there are plenty of examples of genuine left-wing violence being committed and called for—but that is simply not what we're seeing here.
What a bunch of snowflakes and pussies these right-wingers are. "Oh! Hillary Clinton said don't be civil with Republicans! I'm so triggered that I need to run to my safe space and cry about it for a whole week!" I thought conservatives were supposed to be the alpha, tough-guy, macho men? Why do they turn into such pants-pissing little girls when they hear the most lukewarm attempts to pump up Democratic voters?
Right-wingers cry and shit themselves when they pretend like politicians on the left are calling for violence, but how about all of the times that Trump has explicitly endorsed violence at his rallies? Here's just a small sampling from a compilation posted by Mashable Deals on YouTube:
"Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing. . . . If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out 'em, would you? Seriously. . . . I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell ya. . . . Try not hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it. . . .
Chuck Todd: Do you plan on paying for the legal fees of this older gentlemen in North Carolina who sucker punched the protester?
Trump: From what I understand, he was sticking a certain finger up in the air and that is a terrible thing to do in front of somebody that frankly wants to see America made great again.
Chuck Todd: It's possible you could help him with legal fees if this man needs it?
Trump: I've actually instructed my people to look into it, yes."
If Eric Holder had said things like this during that speech he gave, just imagine the endless denunciations we'd hear from the right wing? He would be called to testify in front of Congress! He would be waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay.
Presumably all of the right-wing drama queens who have condemned these Democratic politicians for their non calls to violence have been equally forthright in condemning Trump when he explicitly endorses violence like this? Well, if they were consistent, they might do that—and to their credit, many of them do—but then you have the conservatives who defend Trump when he says things like this: "Oh, Trump was clearly just joking and you people on the left have no sense of humor."
There are some people on the right who have completely different standards when it comes to their political opponents and their political allies: They'll condemn imaginary calls to violence not made by Democrats, yet they'll ignore or apologize for actual calls for violence made by Republicans—even if made jokingly in some cases. I'm not one of those stick-up-your-ass types that can't take a joke; I just don't like inconsistency, partisan mindlessness and double standards.
Here's another example of an overly dramatic right-winger crying about an alleged act of left-wing violence. Charlie Kirk posted the following video in a Tweet of his.
*video shows guy splashing water on Charlie Kirk/his team*
Charlie Kirk: "Whoa, are you serious? That's assault!"
*police officer grabs person who splashed the water as he tries to walk away.*
Here's what Charlie had to say about this event:
"Today I was on campus at University of Texas-Austin. A intolerant liberal today was upset to see conservatives on campus and threw water on our team member. This happens far too often, conservatives met with physical violence and recourse on campus. Violence is never the answer."
Charlie, you were probably just all red in the face and sweaty after ranting about conservatism, and this guy was just trying to prevent a heat stroke!
Now look, obviously splashing water on somebody you disagree with is an extremely childish action that nobody should endorse—and frankly I hope the little turd that did this did get in trouble. But Charlie Kirk seems to be confused about what the word "violence" even means.
Yes, technically from a legal standpoint, this probably can be considered as assault, but he's being very dramatic when he describes this as "physical violence." What kind of a man gets so completely triggered and traumatized by such a minor event? "Ooh! I got some water splashed in my face! It reminds me of that time I took a shower! It'll take at least 10 minutes before my shirt dries!"
Poor Charlie. He was probably up all night having nightmares about this brutal act of "physical violence."
Let's look at one final example of non-violence being lumped into the violence category by right-wingers, featured in a Fox News clip with Bill O Reilly entitled "Far left violence out of control in America."
In the video, they start out by showing a bunch of clips from some rather chaotic looking public protests. Many of these protests do appear to be getting out of hand, but noticeably absent from these videos is clear violence being committed by these protesters. Yes, there's some vandalism; yes, they're in the middle of the roads causing chaos, but I'm just not seeing the violence that he's talking about.
The clearest example of what could be described as violence is this guy dressed in all black basically touching this cop on the chest for a second. Ooh, wow, look at this unbelievable far-left violence! It is out of control!
And then there's this other guy that sort of chests up with a cop for a second and they play a little game of push and shove. The raw brutality of this footage is hard to even stomach!
To be fair, O Reilly does point out that a couple of police officers were injured during the protests. Yeah, that's probably 'cause they had such tunnel vision as they were beating these protesters that they ended up turning on each other! No, obviously injuring police officers during a protest is wrong and we should condemn this. How brave of me to say that, I know.
After this mash-up of protest footage, they also show a bunch of kids protesting against Donald Trump while holding up middle fingers and shouting and cussing at Trump supporters that are driving by. These kids are American heroes, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, fuck, when I was their age, my top priorities were ding-dong-ditching my neighbors and playing videogames; I didn't know the first thing about politics—yet here these kids are attending a political protest.
I also think it's kind of funny that you often hear these elderly Republican types moaning about how the younger generation is so disinterested in politics, yet here we have some kids that aren't just interested, but are very passionate about politics. You got what you asked for, old man, and unfortunately it comes some tiny middle fingers.
Trump drives by and he's like: "Hey, you talk to your mother like that?"
And the kid's like: "You deported my mother, you asshole!"
And Trump's like: "Oh, well...this is awkward...get us outta here! Drive!", and then he throws a Diet Coke at them.
(This video brought to you by Diet Coke! No, totally not. Although I did just give them some free advertising, so perhaps they owe me a little something? You scratch my back, I scratch yours! [The Coke executive is like: "Sir, please stop touching my back.])
Like the sensitive snowflake that he is, Bill O Reilly condemns the naughty language being used here. We can of course have a conversation about whether protesting in such vitriolic ways is counterproductive and unwise. But using naughty language and flipping the bird simply can't be described as "far left violence."
There obviously is violence committed by people on the left, but why is there such a pervasive pattern on the right wing of taking things that aren't violence and condemning them as if they are violence? Can't we just keep things simple and condemn actual violence?
O Reilly finishes strong in this video by citing one final example of alleged far left violence:
"Citing that interview with Terkel, this man—Ryan Grim—who works for the Huffington Post, confronted Jesse Waters at a party after the correspondents' dinner. A scuffle ensued and Waters will brief us on that a bit later on. The whole thing is insane! This 'Grim' character had no business bothering Jesse Waters about anything! But that is what the far left does! They seek to harm people with whom they disagree."
So basically, two journalists had a disagreement at a party and there was a minor scuffle—the details of which are a complete mystery to us. From this, O Reilly makes a grand condemnation of the far left as a whole—because it's totally reasonable to condemn an entire group of people after two guys get in a fight at a party. Man, they sure do have some real thinkers over there at Fox News!
I'm also not so sure Bill O Reilly is the best person to voice his principled opposition to violence. Jon Levine writes the following for Mic.com:
"Gawker posted court transcripts revealing some details of the case, including that O'Reilly's teenage daughter said she saw the conservative pundit 'choking her mom' while he 'dragged her down some stairs' by the neck."
In his defense, I think it's possible that he was just really drunk and confused his wife for a member of Antifa or something!
Obviously I'm no fan of Bill O Reilly, but to his credit, I do think that of everybody that has been or is on Fox News, he does take their "fair and balanced" mantra the most seriously: I've heard that when he beats his wife, he hits her with left and right hooks.
Hilariously enough, in the comments section of this video decrying left-wing violence, you see right-wingers calling for even more extreme violence in response. One guy says: "we need to start opening fire on these people. please god please......." Yeah, that seems like a mentally healthy thing to be praying about!
There's even another guy that seems to recommend killing them with hand-grenades: "People with Anonymous masks should be considered no different than terrorists. They should have whipped out the grenades on these loony left wingers."
Yeah, the left wingers are the loony ones here—and apparently the left is such a violent menace that they deserve death by explosion. I'm no lawyer but I wouldn't exactly call that a proportionate use of force.
Could you imagine that 911 phone call?
"911, what is your emergency?"
"Yeah, I was at this political protest and this guy threw this really sloppy punch at me that barely even connected, so I threw a hand grenade into a crowd of people to defend myself."
There also seems to be a hilarious contradiction here that's lost on conservatives. On the one hand, they'll talk about men on the left as if they're these pathetically effete soyboys who need to run to their safespaces. Then they'll turn around and talk about how brutally violent the left is. Which one is it? Are they a bunch of feminine weaklings wearing their pastel-colored V-necks at Starbucks, or are they a bunch of violent savages that dress up in all black and wreak havoc? If we're in the business of painting the left with such a broad brush, let's at least make sure that we're sticking with the same color of paint.
And if you wanna talk about violence, how about the fact that the left-wing political ideology is much less violent in nature and is grounded much more in harm reduction? Generally speaking, which political party and which voters oppose the death penalty? How about militarism and overseas aggression? Which side is supportive of strict gun control? Ending the drug war and the violence that comes with it? How about prison reform, poverty reduction, education, and other programs that address some of the root causes of criminal violence? How about police reform?
Go down the line, and on issue after issue, it is the left-wing position that aims to reduce violence and reduce the number of deaths. Obviously that's a large claim and exploring it in detail is beyond the scope of this particular project, but I think in many of the examples I've given, it's self evident.
I don't think a video about left-wing violence would be complete without talking about Antifa. There have been many examples of Antifa members committing vandalism [at 5:00 in video] and property damage and we should condemn them for this. I've also seen clear examples of Antifa members being the ones who instigate violence. Here are two such examples. In the first one, this guy gets hit on the head [3:15 in video] with something and starts bleeding pretty badly, and in this second one, this guy swipes a dude's MAGA hat and another guy smacks him in the head [8:30 in video].
But contrary to what WhiskeyBravo claimed earlier, you can also find videos where the apparent right-wingers are the ones who start the fights. Here's one example, where the anti-Antifa guy throws the first punch [9:20 in video]. Look at this other guy throwing some kicks! Man, this guy must've listened to one-too-many Eric Holder speeches!
And check out the Antifa hottie in the pigtails! Damn, girl: You can seize my means of production anytime! (She's like: "I'm actually a lesbian." I'm like: "Ah fuck. Of course you are.")
Look at this other chick pepper-spraying the right-wingers. She looks like she's calmly smiling as she does it. How are you so relaxed right now? I look more nervous than this when I'm waiting in line for a sandwich! There's a crowd of people brawling in front of her and she's like: "I'm chillin', man! I am on cloud nine!"
Look at this other kid with the world's slowest reflexes over here: The guy in the blue steps way back and he's like, "Alright, time for me to throw some kinda half-assed groin kick!", and then he misses by like three feet. I heard that by the time he threw his second kick, the guy in the blue shirt was already halfway home!
You think that was bad? Look at this other guy [2:12 in video] who's so far away from his opponents that he's basically shadowboxing. What the fuck is he doing? He's like, "Man, I really thought my arms were like five feet longer!"
Here's another example [0:45 in video] where the apparent right-winger is the one who throws the first punch—in fact, the only punch, in this case.
You sometimes get the impression, when you listen to right-wingers talk about the issue, that it's always the violent Antifa thugs that instigate the violence, and the poor, peaceful, conservative protesters are just the helpless victims of these unprovoked attacks. When you actually dive down the rabbit hole and watch a bunch of Antifa videos, you see that it's a pretty mixed bag. Trump was famously denounced for saying, about the Charlottesville protests, that there were fine people on both sides, but I would argue that there are violent assholes on both sides.
Frankly a lot of the people that show up to these events appear to me like they're just looking for a fight, and some of them seem to be really enjoying themselves when the violence breaks out. Look at some of these people: They show up to these events dressed for war [0:55 in video], and they look like they're having the time of their lives!
What exactly are these people [2:00 in video] doing here, by the way? They're like: "We're not gonna actually hit each other, but... we'll push a dumpster at each other! Yeah, that'll show them!" It's like a reverse game of tug-of-war. It's like some kind of primitive show of strength.
And I've gotta hand it to the right-wingers: They're generally the ones that show up to these brawls wearing helmets and goggles. Perhaps they're smarter than they look!
I think I have a solution to all of this left/right violence: The Proud Boys and Antifa should meet up for one final showdown like in the movie Gangs of New York.
Time to wrap things up and summarize the key points made in this video. Contrary to the right-wing portrayal, left-wing violence is less common than right-wing violence—and there are many more politically motivated killings that come from the right wing. This trend applies to the most recent years and also goes back several decades.
Many of the examples pointed to of Democratic politicians allegedly calling for violence actually involve nothing of the sort as becomes clear when you simply read or listen to the quotes in context. Such dramatic over-reactions are ironic examples of right-wing snowflake-ism. The overall conservative position on this subject simply doesn't match up with the facts and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.