Most human beings were disgusted by the murder of Aaron “Jay” Danielson, the member of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer, in Portland. University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis is not among them. Loomis defended the killing by Michael Reinoehl, an Antifa member who appears to have stalked Danielson before gunning him down. Loomis insisted that any problem in gunning down right-wing counterprotesters was tactical not moral.
I testified in the Senate about the erosion of free speech and rise of violence on our campuses and in our streets. Antifa and related groups have succeeded in advancing anti-free-speech agendas as students and faculty justify attacks on those with opposing views. Loomis has long espoused extremist views and violent language, including calling for NRA executive Wayne LaPierre’s “head on a stick.”
In his latest post, Loomis has been criticized for appearing to justify the murdering of those who hold opposing views. He adopts the rhetoric used by Antifa extremists in labeling those on the other side of protests as “fascists” and then justifies any means to resist them, including apparently murder. While Loomis does not call it murder, he dismisses the killing because it involved someone he classified as a “fascist.”
In his blog post titled “Why was Michael Reinoehl killed?,” Loomis is outraged not by Reinoehl killing Danielson but the fact that police killed Reinoehl. (Police say that Reinoehl pulled a gun when they were trying to arrest him). In a quote attributed to him, Loomis insisted that it was murder:
“Michael Reinoehl is the guy who killed the fascist in Portland last week. He admitted it and said he was scared the cops would kill him. Well, now the cops have killed him. I am extremely anti-conspiracy theory. But it’s not a conspiracy theory at this point in time to wonder if the cops simply murdered him. The police is [sic] shot through with fascists from stem to stern. They were openly working with the fascists in Portland, as they were in Kenosha which led to dead protestors.”
Loomis seems more concerned that he might be espousing a “conspiracy theory” than a justification for murder. In responding to a comment that “Erik, he shot and killed a guy,” Loomis responded “He killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective.” He then added that “tactically, that’s a different story. But you could say the same thing about John Brown.”
So it is merely a tactical not a moral question to stalk and murder someone with opposing views?
Loomis has repeatedly referenced John Brown. Brown of course was not just responsible for the raid on Harper’s Ferry but the Pottawatomie massacre that helped triggered the period called “Bleeding Kansas” and involved the hacking to death of five unarmed settlers viewed as pro-slavery.
The most Loomis conceded is that “the problem with violence is that it usually, though not always, is a bad idea. That I agree with.” Yet, he then added
“Yes, sometimes violence is necessary, say to avoid greater physical harm, i.e. self-defense, or to defeat a literal army of fascists who are trying to kill people. But, ideologically, I think the idea that violence is good if it’s against our political enemies is a core part of fascism, and so the ideological opposition to that idea should be its opposite – that violence as a general rule is bad, unless the specific context of that situation requires a violent response.”
The specific context in Portland is that Danielson went with a right-wing group to advocate for his own views, just as protesters from Black Lives Matter have been doing. He was stalked and murdered, which Loomis finds perfectly moral.
Loomis’ rhetoric and views are strikingly similar to those in the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. As I stated in my Senate testimony, Antifa bears strong resemblance to groups that emerged during earlier periods of attacks on free speech. Simply replacing anti-communism with anti-fascism does not materially change the same anti-free speech purpose of these movements. The purpose of governmental or non-government threats are the same in seeking to not only silence opponents, but to deter others from joining them. The absolutism of their goals is used to justify any means to achieve them. Specifically, Antifa’s categorical rejection of opposing views as worthy of protection is strikingly similar to the view of anti-Communists during the Red Scare. Antifa followers refuse to recognize the views of opponents as legitimate or “a difference of opinion.” Their goal is not co-existence but, as stated in the Antifa Handbook, “to end their politics.” Bray and other academics are liberating students from the confines of what they deem the false “allegiance to liberal democracy.” Once freed of the values of free speech and democratic values, violence becomes merely politics by other means. It is the very mindset that was once used against communists and Marxists in the 1950s.
What is so striking is how Danielson is no longer treated as a human being with family or even individual worth. Loomis seems to revel in the notion that such lives are now inconsequential and can be taken for purely tactical reason. It is the liberating element of extremism. Once uncoupled from the confines of morality, Loomis and others can assume a license for violence, even murder, to advance their agenda.
For an academic to espouse such hateful and violent views is particularly distressing. There are likely many conservatives among the student body at Rhode Island who Loomis would also declare “fascists.” Their lives would be equally fungible and worthless under this view. It is often hard to advocate for the free speech rights of people like Loomis when he justifies not just the silencing but the actual killing of those with opposing views. However, Loomis is the price of free speech.
Notably, however, few of his colleagues have come forward to denounce his statements. Indeed, when the University President last criticized Loomis’ violence rhetoric, he was attacked by other faculty for siding with the critics of Loomis. We have seen universities denounce academics who have espoused opposing views, but this academic can reportedly defend murder without widespread and immediate condemnation from his colleagues. Indeed, academics have been sacked for declaring “All Lives Matter” but Loomis does not even generate immediate condemnation for saying that this life does not matter if actually terminated in the name of the greater good. This was clearly made in his personal not academic capacity. Yet, that does not mean that other academics cannot stand against such hateful, violent views.
Update: As noted by a couple of our commenters, Professor Loomis has responded:
Koch Brothers hack
thinks I support murder. Meanwhile, his preferred policies kill people around the world every day. But hey, I’m not bought and sold by capitalists. Wonder what it feels like to be a disgusting human being.
I am not sure where the reference to the Koch Brothers comes from since I have never had any connection to them (and criticized them in the past), but Loomis continues his signature style of hurling insults rather than addressing the underlying issues addressed in the blog.
I would bet $1000 that Loomis dons black-bloc every weekend and flies around the country on Soros money hoping he can take out a cop or a Trump supporter. He’s just jealous that Reinoehl got to kill one and he didn’t.
You’re obsessed with Soros.
“He’s just jealous that Reinoehl got to kill one and he didn’t.”
Sounds like projection to me — the whole violence thing.
Many of these comments have become completely sidetracked from the main import of the article. The things that we should be concerned with are 1. Is the justifation of violence of one group against another and 2. The lack of condemnation of such by the faculty. Is the oppression in this nation sufficient to justify murder of the opposing parties members? What is the faculties motivation in not speaking out against the propagation of political violence? In answer to the first question, in this country proffesor Loomis can freely speek his mind. In answer to the second question, university faculties are ever aware of the political positions of their endowment participants. To stand against these supporters would take great acts of courage. Such acts of courage are found sadly wanting. Conversely, acts of cowardice are abundant.
.
I would be afraid to send my son, when he comes of age, to any university where such a maniac taught.
Universities have become Democrat madrassas, turning out good little Democrat soldiers. They are taught not to reason. Not to question. They are trained, Pavlovian dogs of war, eager to bay upon command. Or even bite, on occasion.
This is why the unthinking dogs are so easily manipulated by inaccurate news stories and propaganda. Ironically, universities train them not to think for themselves. Only to be indoctrinated.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/university-to-remove-world-war-ii-murals-because-they-show-too-many-white-people/
And another prize from the University of Rhode Island. This puts it in relief what’s up here, which is to deny and denigrate the accomplishments of previous generations.
I think this would be more understandable if we quit viewing Loomis as a professor, and instead view him as what he is – a religious fanatic. Many Democrats and Leftists have gone off the deep end the same way some people go off the deep end over religion. I think it is a certain mindset that manifests itself in different ways over different time periods. Move Loomis back in time a hundred years and he would be busting up saloons and trying to save fallen women from alcohol. Move him to 1930-1940s Germany, and he would be just peachy with rounding up the Jews. Move him back several hundred years and he would be burning heretics at the stake.
The root of this is the whole “we are on the side of the angels” belief among Democrats, that they are good and moral and smart and anybody who isn’t one of them is on the side of the devils. It explains the violent SJWS who are literally trying to burn people (heretics) alive with Molotov cocktails. It explains the Original Sin-like attributes of White Privilege, and the hysterical over-reaction to people who simply say All Lives Matter. It explains the hyperbole about Global Warming and its apocalyptic effect on Earth.
Outside of the cynical power mad maniacs like Pelosi, the Democrat Party is being led by religious fanatics. The Democrats had to go to a faith-based belief system because their main theories about life have turned out to be crap. No, you can’t replace fathers with a welfare check. No, you can’t make black people equal by affirmative action and score-padding. No, you can’t be nice to criminals and cut down crime. No, feminism doesn’t work, which is why you have to import religiously conservative baby-makers from Mexico and Central America. No, smoking dope doesn’t make you a better person, or a better citizen. Etc.
Democrats are starting to be confronted with the fact that cities and states they have run for decades are not paradises. No, they suck by and large. Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Philadelphia, etc. Electing Democrats did not make things better. So that is why they need that Old Time Religion, so to speak, that wasn’t FDR a pip!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Great post with some rather compelling parallels drawn.
From my perspective, this Leftist movement would be controlled if the media didn’t, by in large, believe the very same tenets of the faith. The same voices that once demanded all sides be heard now attempt to shut down debates.
“I think this would be more understandable if we quit viewing Loomis as a professor, and instead view him as what he is – a religious fanatic….”
Interesting. I was thinking this very topic myself this AM. We are watching all the dark personas of history walking the Earth again under different names. The vernacular has changed, but the meaning and the results are the same. Do good works by creating more atrocities. Atrocities are good work. All that has been selected as good and just by the unyielding gauntlet of time is now under attack and attempted to be disposed of by deranged narcissists bent on acts of destruction. And when they’ve destroyed all they can, they will turn on themselves. One’s particular point of intersectionality will become more just than another’s–and it will be labeled as evil and eventually will have to be destroyed. We see plenty of the purveyors who torture basic understandings to suit their troubled needs on this blog.
Don’t know what happens from here. Will it get hot and people in familiar uniforms with the branding from the last generation of the conflict start handing out their own perverse and wavering justice? Will it continue to metastasize slowly, consuming more and more institutions until we are living Fahrenheit 451? Or are there enough western-tradition folks who have had enough and will choose not to enable this perversion of civilization?
Guess I’m going to have to look back to Hegel and Nietzsche. I wonder if they would have thought there would be a Foucault, and that such a dead-end crap argument could make it to the mainstream.
Unfortunately, religious wars are some of the worst. Near where I used to live, in France, there is a town called Bezier, where the last of the Cathars took up shelter after Pope Innocent III sent a Crusade against them. The town was filled with refugees, both Cathar and Catholic, and eventually fell. The Catholics had been guaranteed safe passage, because they were not heretics. But when it came time to identify which of the people were Catholics, the leader of the Crusade forces told his people to “Kill them all. The Lord will know his own.”
I think that your analysis is very good, but the results are going to be terrible, no matter who is declared the winner in November. The left insists that everyone who does not fully agree with them in every way is a facist racist evil person. This is not the way to win hearts and minds. It is not going to end well.
“Wonder what it feels like to be a disgusting human being.”
The intellectual bankruptcy of this statement alone should disqualify him from being an academic. It’s amazing he doesn’t understand it’s fallacious underpinnings. Scary,
That the U of RI faculty has not recommended dismissal speaks volumes.
“That the U of RI faculty has not recommended dismissal speaks volumes.”
You would think if they were a self-respecting institution that accepts its responsibility as providing a guiding light to the future for the children, they would have already gotten on this. Parents need to check into alternatives for education for their soon-to-be young adults.
He’s a punk hiding behind a computer. Karma will come his way.
Murder just isn’t.
Let the trial decide on who/what, not some ding-dong on faculty.
Kurtz” what needs to be done”. ? Is you put out of our misery . You need to be gone you don’t belong there. Here or anywhere on earth for that fact
I may not always agree with him, but really?
If you don’t like what Kurtz writes, the don’t read his comments. It’s that simple.
What a horrid, despicable person!
Loomis, that is.
What I would like to know is the professor still teaching. If so does his students parents know his views. Because he is truly dangerous. With his views murder is ok as long as you don’t believe as he does. Parents need to be advised of his belief.
Jonathan: It was only a matter of time. For months Trump has encouraged his right-wing supporters in Patriot Prayer and similar groups to confront protesters in Portland and other cities. Now one of Trump’s own has been killed by a protester. The first. That’s grist for Trump, and conservative academics like you, to argue that Antifa is responsible for all the rioting, looting and violence. That’s, of course, not true. The Southern Poverty Law Center has documented over 100 people killed by right-wing groups or individuals that have occurred since Trump took office. That includes the killing of 2 by right-wing vigilante and Trump supporter Lyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha late last month. Trump wants to make Aaron “Jay” Danielson the center piece for his last ditch “law and order” campaign. After the Danielson shooting Trump tweeted: “Rest in peace Jay”,and then retweeted a message claiming Danielson had been “murdered in Portland by ANTIFA”. Trump didn’t have a similar RIP message when a woman was killed by a right-wing supporter in Charlottesvillle or when police murdered George Floyd. “RIP” is reserved for Trump supporters. Not to be outdone your good friend AG Barr followed up with his own anti-Antifa comment: “The tracking down of Reinoehl–a dangerous fugitive, admitted Antifa member (sic), and a suspected murderer–is a significant accomplishment in the ongoing effort to restore law and order to Portland and other cities”. Sounds like something former Texas ranger Frank Hamer might have said after he and his posse tracked down and killed Bonnie and Clyde. Barr knows how to take cues from his boss.
You claim Danielson was in Portland simply to “advocate for his own views”. Sure, Danielson was just in Portland to practice what you often refer to as “free speech”. That’s laughable. Danielson was there with his Patriot Prayer brothers to provoke violence and mayhem. Danielson arrived in Portland in a caravan of Patriot Prayer vehicles dubbed a “Trump 2020 Cruise Rally” many with Trump campaign stickers and flags. They wanted a confrontation with protesters and they got it. If Danielson was only interested in dialogue why was he carrying a loaded Glock and brandishing a can of mace? Danielson should not have been killed by Reinoehl. But neither should academics exploit the killing for their own anti-Antifa and Trump’s “law and order” agenda.
Rittenhouse killed in self defense. Of course the SPLC doesnt care about context. They just want your donations. And Dennis, please give to the SPLC. They had to give golden parachutes to Mo Dees, Cohen, and the rest of the Dees clique that was ousted when Dees “harassment of women and people of color working at SPLC” came to light. So they need more money. The half a billion in the bank won’t do. Open your wallet Dennis.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center
No self defense claim IF he was armed and looking for a situation to “protect” as he stated. That excuse will not legally fly. You should know better as it takes a few minutes to validate before posting.
It WILL fly if the jury accepts it, Charles.
But perhaps I can learn something here.
Tell us if you’re an expert,
a- how would the prosecutor keep a self defense instruction from being given to the jury
b- and if that worked, would it be reversible error?
I’ll check back tomorrow
The Rittenhouse situation is a tragedy, not a cause to line up on either side of. Regardless of his intent, his actions resulted in the deaths of 2 and probably ruined his young life. The vigilantism you and others here celebrate exploded that night in Kenosha, even if you fail – or willfully resist – to look at the consequences.
Book, you always bring up “vigilantism” as if what the Antifa/BLM rioters are doing isn’t “vigilantism”.
A vigilante is defined as a “self-appointed doer of justice”. Which is exactly the excuse they use to justify their violent activities.
Does “No Justice. No Peace” ring a bell with you?
Furthermore, defending your or someone else’s private property is not vigilantism. Whereas destroying other peoples personal property under the thin cover of being “a self-appointed doer of justice”, is vigilantism.
Your grasp of proper vocabulary is not good.
“Furthermore, defending your or someone else’s private property is not vigilantism. Whereas destroying other peoples personal property under the thin cover of being “a self-appointed doer of justice”, is vigilantism.”
This reminds me of the recent events in my father’s hometown of Schellsburg, PA. BLM-Anitfa showed up in the middle of the night in a very tiny town, brandished weapons, and as a result, one of the BLM-Antifa folks was shot in the face. Fearing reprisal the next day, armed citizens showed up in the county seat, Bedford, PA in case BLM-Antifa attempted a return engagement. They did not come back, and the representative for that group offered a very conciliatory note explaining that they wouldn’t be back. Seems as though these concerned citizens, or “vigilantes,” were effective in their actions.
Which begs the question…
“The Rittenhouse situation is a tragedy, not a cause to line up on either side of. Regardless of his intent, his actions resulted in the deaths of 2 and probably ruined his young life. The vigilantism you and others here celebrate exploded that night in Kenosha, even if you fail – or willfully resist – to look at the consequences.”
Thank you for clarifying my statement about posters on this blog who torture the truth. Well done, and thank you.
Later news reports explained that he came to protect a friend’s business, and while doing that, he tried to help some other people and then became the target of physical attacks. That’s at least one side of things, and considering how much deception there is in the media, I suspect it’s closer to the truth than what we’ve been told.
But he was fleeing both times and was chased and in the first killing someone fired a weapon straight up in the air. He didn’t know it but probably assumed he was being shot at.
The $PLC is a money grubbing hate group.
Dislike
Moreover, you say Proud boys was there to do violence. What violence? Stopping ANTIFA and BLM from more riot, arson, and felonious assault on police?
One man’s violence is another man’s self defense. Well, we will see how this all gets sorted out. In the end victory will go to those who are stronger and stronger means more well organized.
I want patriots, conservatives, right wingers, and even silkstocking Republicans to read this quote from Mao and in place of Communists, say the word, PATRIOTS
then you will understand, as Lenin said, “what must be done”
“Now that Japanese imperialist oppression and the nation-wide resistance to it have pushed our labouring people into the arena of war, Communists should prove themselves the most politically conscious leaders in this war. Every Communist must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun. According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Some people ridicule us as advocates of the “omnipotence of war”. Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war”
But don’t misunderstand Mao. The point was not just guns. but the ever stronger organization of a leadership party which is organized and capable of calling efficient hard working brave cadres into action and deploying them effectively. That is the basis of political power, not the guns, but those who are capable of using them well, when and as organized violence or its lesser means are needed.
The BLM and ANTIFA and the Professor Loomis have done us all a favor by making this issue clear. As Clausewitz said, “war is an extension of politics by other means” or something like that. In other words, there is a continuum. It is not white and black, but shades of grey.
Now a wise person understands: sporadic, random and chaotic violence achieves nothing. All these riots of BLM for example, clearly have not achieved whatever the supposed aims were. Really BLM is achieving mostly the opposite, by making average people dislike BLM and those who support it with their obnoxious demands and acts of crime and intimidation.
No, organization comes first. And with organization, lesser dramatic things than outright violence are possible. Such as voting and winning in November. The humble things always come first.
And with more broad based leadership than merely Orange Man, the sort of new leadership that is emerging in this crucible, the stronger alloys, if we have done the easier and milder act of winning the election first, then perhaps more dramatic achievements may yet be done.
Other more long lasting changes that will bring greater law and order peace and harmony, for the good of society. Things which must be done, however more vigorous and painful, yet necessary, to lay a foundation for a just society in America and not submitting to globalization.
You see there is a power which can put the billionaires in their place. it is the power of law, deployed by the state. Which is in its very essence, organized violence. Sporadic chaos will never outdo the security teams of a guy like George Soros who only hires the best. But even his teams can’t outdo the levers of the state.
This is why the election is of critical and existential importance just as the Democrat leadership has said. It will mean we are all either slaves on the global plantation if Biden and the real candidate Kamala win, who both are nothing more than the yes men of the oligarchs and plutocrats—
or if Trump wins and a sovereign American people by free citizens seeking law, order, and prosperity, prevail
You began your diatribe with a falsehood – One man’s violence is another man’s self defense. When you are armed and there for the purpose of protecting there is no self defense applicable. End of statement.
it’s a falsehood in your opinion
the difference between an act of lawful self defense or an act of crime, all comes down, in some instances, to whether the jury sees it one way or another
end of statement
anyhow the point was not about one on one acts of violence it was about war. perhaps read the “diatribe” before you endeavor to criticize
Sorry Charles but you’re a dumb guy. Lies aren’t truth, facts aren’t opinions and self-defense isn’t murder. You can be armed in this country. It’s legal.
“When you are armed and there for the purpose of protecting there is no self defense applicable.” – Charles Weber
Charles, the “purpose of protecting” and “self defense”, are one in the same.
The individuals who got shot by Rittenhouse were on the offense, not the defense.
Street fighting is not self defense. Both Antifa and groups like the Proud Boys are misguided or evil jerks seeking violence and causing more, not less of it. Your encouragement of it is revolting for an educated – and safe – person.
Book, were it not for the actions of Antifa there would be no Proud Boys.
You’re right, in that both groups are “misguided or evil jerks seeking violence”. But Antifa are the originators of the violence, and unlike Antifa, the Proud Boys aren’t attacking and destroying innocent people and their property.
Sowing and reaping. Antifa’s reaping has barely even begun. They have a hell of a lot more coming their way.
And the Proud Boys are the least of their problems in that regard.
Rhodes, I’m glad we can at least agree on the character of these 2 opposing groups, but neither one is the antidote to the other – as they each claim – but an accelerant.
“You’re right, in that both groups are “misguided or evil jerks seeking violence”. But Antifa are the originators of the violence, and unlike Antifa, the Proud Boys aren’t attacking and destroying innocent people and their property.”
Yes, this is very clear to the honest among us. We don’t have to torture the truth to justify this fact. The problem is that if they are not careful, the Proud Boys will be the useful idiots of the left–just one mistake is all it takes. Unlike BLM-Anitfa, there are no passes for the Proud Boys. And fine folks like “By the Book” will be waiting right there to point the finger.
I wouldn’t believe anything the Southern Poverty Law Center publishes. Oh and regarding Rittenhouse you can go on youtube and see the videos of both killings. In the first a man fires a weapon straight up in the air while Rittenhouse is running away. This shot spooks him and he turns and shoots the guy chasing him (self defense albeit a tragedy). The second shooting is much the same way. Dudes are basically attacking him and one does have a weapon drawn. So there is just one example of the Southern Poverty Law Center distorting figures.
You know if the police that killed FLoyd were republicans it would have been all over the news. I’m guessing they were independents or registered democrats. Heck one of them was half black half white. I don’t think the Floyd killing was racially movtivated either.
People need to start seeking the truth instead of doing anything they can to support a fake narrative world view. Turley for his part does a lot of truth seeking and I respect him for it in a time when activism is taking priority over truth.
So I guess it would be OK with Loomis if he got killed in the “war.” I’d like to start a go-fund-me page now…
“Jonathan: It was only a matter of time. For months Trump has encouraged his right-wing supporters in Patriot Prayer and similar groups to confront protesters in Portland and other cities….”
You are reaffirming your own personal perverse fantasies. Please stop, or publish them on another forum.
Loomis needs to read the 10.
Maybe Loomis has never been shot at, or shot back at someone. The experience of knowing someone is trying to kill you, changes your perspective on life. Easy to pontificate when you sit in an Ivory Tower, but get dirty in a fire fight then I may take what you say with some validity. Loomis reminds me of Chicken Little!
“Maybe Loomis has never been shot at, or shot back at someone.”
Hmmmm. I bet Loomis has been shot at quite frequently, probably on “Call of Duty” or similar game. He is quick with overreach. I would be interesting to see if he had such bold words if he was physically confronted to stand by them.