Professor Says American Patriots More Dangerous Than Foreign Terrorists

Progressives Today

David Alpher has a PhD in “conflict resolution” and teaches at George Mason University. He also writes for some leftists website that no one’s ever heard of until now called The Conversation. His most recent article was picked up by Raw Story on June 1st, at the stroke of midnight.

Entitled “An expert explains why domestic extremists are a much bigger risk than foreign terrorists in America“, Alpher attempts to make a case for painting the modern Patriot movement as being the most dangerous group on the planet. The article originally featured a picture of a Trump rally, but was since replaced with a collage of the mugshots from the Malheur Wildlife Refuge takeover.  

Alpher starts off by trying to blame everything on Trump, by saying:

Take America back from those who have stolen it.
Protect America from those who want to destroy it.
Restore the principles that these usurpers betrayed.”

These are the messages that have defined the GOP presidential race. They have been used for the past eight years to justify obstruction of the Obama administration, and are now being used to paint the democratic candidates as dangerous. In the late stages of the GOP primary as the rhetoric became increasingly xenophobic, they were applied to increasingly broad swaths of the American population as well.

Years of constant repetition by members of the GOP have given them an appearance of legitimacy, now strengthened by Donald Trump’s victory in the GOP primary contest and the party’s growing embrace of him as their standard-bearer.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party isn’t alone in using these messages.

Right-wing extremist groups use them as well, and to very specific ends: to define the conditions under which antigovernment violence becomes legitimate in their worldview.

I have spent nearly 15 years studying how the risk of violence grows within societies around the world, and running programs designed to stem the tide. I have seen rhetoric like this used to mobilize violence in countries like Iraq and Kenya.”

He then uses a picture of someone at the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014, where not a single shot was fired, no one was beheaded, no one was killed, and no one was tortured.

He goes on to say:

For months, Republican candidates traded shots claiming that each other, liberals, immigrants and Black Lives Matter protesters – to name a few – are to blame for the picture they’ve painted of a degraded America that’s fallen into hostile hands.

Apparently he is completely unaware of things like a Black Lives Matter leader getting hauled in for sex trafficking, or another pair who assaulted a decorated veteran, or Black Panther leaders calling for killing all white people, or 124 illegal aliens who were set free from jail only to eventually get hauled back on a total of 138 murders, or El Chapo’s drug cartel literally beheading people. This list could go on and on.

Alpher continues with:

Every violent group in history describes its own violence as the legitimate response to a threat that was forced on them. Groups survive in the long term when that description makes sense to enough of the population to buy them tolerance and safe space to operate, plan and grow. That’s true of terrorism and violent extremism – but because protesters and supporters alike view each other as enemies of the state and therefore legitimate targets, it also helps to explain the growing physical violence at Trump rallies. It should also provide a warning for what that as-yet-limited violence could grow into.

Once again, Alpher seems to be unaware that it is the people protesting Trump, not his supporters, who are starting violence at these events, such as the guy who punched a Trump supporter, or the riots that broke out Costa Mesa, where fires were started and cop cars were turned over. But he is right in the sense that people are concerned over what the “as-yet-limited” violence could grow into.

David Alpher throws in the token Timothy McVeigh reference, something that happened 20 years ago, as there are no recent examples of anyone actually getting attacked and/or killed at any Patriot function, gun rally, Trump event, Tea Party rally, or anything else remotely “right wing”.

He ends by saying:

In an age defined by the fear of terrorism, “taking America back from people who betrayed her security” has real power at the polls, as Trump can attest. But this strategy for winning elections isn’t just divisive. It’s creating a risk of violence that has already outgrown the threat it’s supposed to be a shield against.

Trump’s emergence as the GOP candidate has added fuel to the fire, especially while the GOP dithers over whether or not to embrace him and his message. Trump himself is unlikely to stop or be convinced of the effect he’s really having on American security. It’s left to the GOP to decide whether American security or winning an election is more important to them.

Rather than focusing on groups who speak positively about the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment while carrying Gadsden Flags, perhaps the domestic terrorists that Alpher is looking for are the groups who sport Che Guevarra shirts, make Atzlan references, and carry #BlackLivesMatter signs as more people have been killed and harmed by those demographics than by anyone associated with the Patriot movements.

Meanwhile, maybe someone as delusional as David Alpher should be staying far, far away from any educational institution that young adults are attending.

Progressives Today