Murder of Trump Supporters Is Fine From “Moral Perspective”

Murder of Trump Supporters Is Fine From “Moral Perspective”

Murder of Trump Supporters Is Fine From “Moral Perspective”

Murder of a Trump supporter is absolutely fine.according to Erik Loomis, a history professor.

“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 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.”

Oh my…. where to begin? First of all, Erik Loomis is a HISTORY professor at the University of Rhode Island. Secondly, he essentially asserts that anyone who supports President Trump is a fascist. Third, Loomis is supporting a guy who literally targeted a Trump supporter and shot him in cold blood. In a response to a comment on his blog post – Loomis wrote: 

“”Erik, he shot and killed a guy,” referring to Reinoehl.

Loomis responded by saying, “He killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective.” He further added that “tactically, that’s a different story. But you could say the same thing about John Brown.””

We are supposed to feel sorry for Reinoehl?? No. As Lisa wrote, this is a guy who has been protesting for weeks, endangered his children, and declared he was sure and certain his cold blood murder of Danielson was fine. 

The Portland riots are now at the 100 days mark. The Portland mayor has snuck out of his condo building lest he encounter any more of those looting thugs, the Portland PD is being targeted by all of Reihoehl’s pals, a facial recognition ban was passed…to protect the looters, what was once a lively downtown area is a disaster… and here we have a history professor claiming an unarmed Trump supporter is a fascist and essentially deserved to be shot. 

When the pushback happened, he doubled down in a second blog post. 

“Fears about CANCEL CULTURE are always projections from right-wingers who want to fire, if not imprison, liberals and left-wing professors for speaking out for justice. And thus of course, they are trying to cancel me. In the blog post about the police killing the guy who shot the fascist in Portland, we had a bit of a debate over the use of violence in protest movements. This means that like the NRA, I am not objectively pro-murder, at least according to the fascists at Campus Reform and bought and sold man of the Koch Brothers Jonathan Turley.”

Defensive much? In his original post Loomis literally stated that Reinoehl was a victim of police brutality, why? Because all police departments are riddled with fascists. Therefore, that somehow justifies the killing of Trump supporters he has labeled as fascists? Good to know.

Needless to say, he isn’t a fan of Jonathan Turley, and definitely didn’t appreciate Turley calling him out. Turley specifically shows how Loomis gets John Brown completely wrong, and then lays out the following for consideration.

“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.””

Is it any wonder that Loomis got all defensive? Thus, when called out about his remarks, he starts pointing fingers at…William F. Buckley??

He also tweeted this.

Supposedly that supports his “argument” that violence is fine as long as those Loomis designates as fascists, police and Trump supporters evidently, are the ones shot and/or killed. Keep in mind Erik’s credentials as a history professor. He’s a professor of LABOR history. And yes, he’s all in for unions, and isn’t a fan of capitalism. Explains a great deal doesn’t it? 

Murder is morally wrong. Period. Unless you are Professor Erik Loomis that is. Then, all the violence and looting is fabulous and murder is morally acceptable if the ‘right people’ end up being the ones getting killed. 

Feature Photo Credit: olograsso248 via Pixabay, cropped and modified

Written by

  • Michael Zorn says:

    I don’t suppose it’s worth asking why this Loomis person is still employed at Rhode Island U. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

  • GWB says:

    the guy who killed the fascist
    No, he killed a citizen. Without cause or provocation.

    If we really want to get into the concept of hunting down marxists (communists and fascists) I’m ok with that. We’ve got a target-rich environment in those Portland ‘protests’.
    (Can we find a Soros-like sugar daddy to put out bounties on big ones?)

  • GWB says:

    But you could say the same thing about John Brown.
    Exactly. The man was an insurrectionist, and the US sent the f*ing US Cavalry after him. The Marines caught him after Harper’s Ferry and he got the rope. I definitely would have preferred to see the murderer hang from a rope, but I’m ok with cops shooting him (in self defense).

    projections from right-wingers
    These people are truly demented. They can’t even see this is their own projection.

    for speaking out for justice
    No, Skippy, that’s precisely NOT what you’re doing. It might be what you – in your perverse, grotesque progressive religion – think is justice. But it’s not. What you demand is what Western Civilization has rejected (because it sucks).

    I am not objectively pro-murder
    I guarantee you’re pro-abortion, so that statement is factually a LIE.

    strikingly similar to the view of anti-Communists during the Red Scare
    No, Jonathan, not really.
    It IS strikingly similar* to the “AntiFa” that arose at the end of the 1920s, in order to brutally stifle their opponents (the German and Italian fascists) in the struggle to recreate Europe into one great Soviet.
    (* Because it IS the exact same group, duh.)

    Their goal is not co-existence but, as stated in the Antifa Handbook, “to end their politics.”
    Which is why it IS perfectly ok to STOP them. This isn’t an argument over how a new federal agency should be formed or how much of a raise the city council should get. It’s over the very foundational principles of our civilization. This isn’t a Roman Senate debate, this is barbarians sacking Rome.

    He’s a professor of LABOR history.
    So, he’s definitely an out communist.

    Murder is morally wrong. Period.
    Yes. It’s all in the definition of “murder” you have. His – with him being a communist – is morally warped.
    (IMO, the blackshirts have declared war on America, and therefore, shooting one – or a few dozen – is NOT murder. It’s warfare. They are fair game for any citizen, just like Bonnie and Clyde.)

    • Scott says:

      Interesting note that doesn’t your point is that the officer who led those Marines was non other than Colonel Robert E. Lee…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner