There was another night of protests against Donald Trump's presidency in Portland, Oregon. All nights have witnessed violence. Clearly, these rioters aren't giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. After all, it's quite possible that Trump will nuke Israel or marry a Muslim illegal immigrant.
Anyway, the fascistNazibigotedracist Portland police arrested 29 completely innocent and lovely people. All of them were innocent by – their own – definition. And all of them were protesting violently and hatefully against violence and hate.
These Portland's peaceniks, according to the police, were also carrying bats and rocks (during their cerebration of love and joy). Pacifist objects were also thrown at the police. The police responded with racist pepper spray.
In Philadelphia, crowds held placards with the slogans "Not Our President" and "Make America Safe For All". Now I'd suggest that rioting and random violence (against Trump supporters) isn't the best way to “Make America Safe For All”. That's unless anyone to the Right of Pol Pot is excluded from this universal “all”. The other thing is that Trump is their president, whether they like it or not. And clearly - from the tantrums they've had outside of their safe spaces - these cretins don't like it. Still, as some left-leaning Christian churchman put it: “Their hearts are in the right place.” Yes, their hearts are hidden under their weapons and Che Guevara t-shirts.
In Baltimore, the demon-strators marched through the city - in the process blocking all the capitalist traffic - waving rainbow banners (probably hugging flowers too). Now that's a strange fusion: rainbow banners and random violence. As we all know, historically, all those Communists and Trotskyists who were against nuclear weapons were only really against the British and American “capitalist states” having them. (i.e., not against the Soviet Union and China having them.) Now we have pseudo-pacifists and peaceniks who believe in violent demos and violent revolutions. These people just don't like “capitalist violence”.
Now for Chicago. I'm with the driver who shouted "shut up and accept democracy" at these juveniles. I'm also with Rudy Giuliani. He called protesters (on college campuses) "a bunch of spoiled cry-babies". Some may think that's a bit over the top on Giuliani's part. However, he was reacting to the sad fact that these students were suffering from what clinicians call “democracy-anxiety”; and, thus, they're now being offered therapy (to ease their massive political woes).
Perhaps this is a naïve question. Still, I'll ask it anyway: What's the connection between Trump being elected and the smashing of shop- and car-windows? Did Trump own these shops and cars? As for setting rubbish alight: that rubbish mightn't have even voted for Trump. (My guess is that the rubbish was Clintonite.)
So what has Trump had to say about all this?
On the one hand, Trump has said that the demonstrations were incited by the media. On the other hand, Noam Chomsky (Praise Be Upon Him) often tells his legions of disciples that the platonic Mainstream Media is uniformly evil – that is, right-wing (i.e., non-Chomskyan). The fact is, however, that the mainstream media – not every nook and cranny of it, of course – is culturally and politically left-wing and only economically capitalist. For Chomsky, that's still not enough. He wants his books to sell even more than they already do. He wants his monthly books to be reviewed by the New York Times every week; instead of every few months (as is presently the case). Only then will Chomsky, and his mindless tribe, be happy.
Readers will be aware that many Clintonites and violent demonstrators have said that the Trump presidency will “create deep divisions along racial and gender lines”. Oh yeh?! So, on the 7th of November 2016, every damn thing was hunky dory? So what was all that guff coming out of the backside of the Black Lives Matter movement? Shouldn't these morons have said that Trump's presidency would create deeper divisions, not deep divisions? Trump could of course create deep divisions if he were omnipresent and omnipotent. As it is, certain Americans (as groups) create divisions for themselves to bathe in, not individuals on their own. And even the “most powerful man in the world” can only really tap into moods and positions which already exist.
Let's face facts. Liberals/Leftists have a serious problem with democracy. Of course most people already know that. Just a quick glimpse at the 20th century demonstrates it. The UK's Brexit Show showed it too. And now we have riots in Portland. Of course democracy is all fine and dandy when it goes the right way – when it delivers exactly what these people want. When it goes in the wrong direction, then there's violence and talk of revolution. Or, in the UK's case, talk of another referendum or even of London's separation from the rest of England (as some are also saying about California).
These students, layabouts and Clintonites simply don't accept democracy. That's crystal clear. They accept democracy when it goes the way they want it to go. When it doesn't, they're against it. Some of them even attempt to come up with various arcane and convoluted theories as to why that's the case. (It usually involves a quote or ten from the prophet Chomsky and/or the prophetess Naomi Klein.) Oh, and since we're on the subject, these “progressives” are also vehemently against free speech when the speaker dares to say something they disagree with.