Leftists believe that those who dissent from the Left’s agenda have no rights that Leftists are bound to respect.

Since being doxxed by far-Left Huffington Post “journalist” Luke O’Brien, as I wrote about here at FrontPage on Monday, the popular Twitter counter-jihadi @AmyMek has seen her husband fired from his job and some of her family disavow her. She has received multiple death threats, including some in the Huffington Post itself. But the intrepid O’Brien is unrepentant, claiming victim status for himself and asking: “Why would I feel remorse calling out a bigot?”

O’Brien also lamented: “If a bigot like @AmyMek can spew hate for five years without being corralled and then prompt death threats directed at a journalist before he even publishes his story, it’s going to be hard to save social media.”

Of course. A “bigot” such as Amy Mek needs to be “corralled.” A family is in tatters, a man has lost his job, and a woman is living in fear for her life. And as far as Luke O’Brien is concerned, she had it coming, because she held opinions that are unacceptable to today’s media and political elites.

In his infamous Dred Scott decision of 1856, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney declared that black Americans were “so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Nowadays everyone considers such language abhorrent; yet the Left today, while not proposing to reduce dissenters to slavery, does consider them “so far inferior” that they have “no rights” that Leftists consider themselves “bound to respect.”

Accordingly, if Amy Mek has been so “racist” as to oppose jihad mass murder and the Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims, gays and others, she and her family (even if they had nothing to do with anything she wrote) have forfeited all right to be spared from death threats and personal and professional ruin. And as they leave all this destruction in their wake, the destroyers will feel right and righteous, because she is, as far as they are concerned, a “racist” and “bigot.”

It is becoming increasingly accepted on the Left that those who dissent from its agenda and are classified by its lights as “racists” and “bigots” indeed have no rights, and deserve to have their careers and very lives destroyed. They are as convinced of their correctness, and the error of those who disagree, as were medieval Christians burning heretics at the stake. O’Brien himself clearly thinks that the heretic Amy Mek got nothing but what she deserved, as is clear from an exchange he and I had on Twitter. I sent him a series of questions:

Hey @lukeobrien! I hope you enjoyed my piece here: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/06/huffington-post-fascist-luke-obrien-doxes-counter-jihadi-gets-her-husband-fired-for-holding-the-wrong-opinions … Now I’m doing a follow-up. Will you consent to an interview? You being a big-time journalist and all, I’m sure you’ll be happy to talk. For your convenience I’ll put the questions right here:

1) How did you decide that foes of jihad mass murder were worse than jihad mass murder itself (I’m basing that on the fact that you haven’t written a word against the latter), and must be targeted and destroyed?

2) Did you attempt to interview any friends and supporters of @AmyMek for your piece, or would that have interfered with your agenda?

3) If your own views fall out of favor with the elites one day, will you stand then for the freedom of speech or support attempts to silence you?

4) What other foes of jihad terror do you intend to target and destroy next? Would you like the name of my third-grade teacher?

5) Why did you repeatedly call @AmyMek a “racist”? Are you aware that Islam is not a race and that jihad terrorists come in all races?

6) Do you applaud the fact that @AmyMek’s husband was fired from his job because of you, and that her relatives’ business have been targeted because of you, even though neither has to do with her tweets?

7) Do you applaud the death threats that @AmyMek has received?

8) Do you have any comment on the close resemblance of your actions to that of the Nazi Brownshirts? Thanks for your answers, @lukeobrien! You might find it more convenient to send them to me via email at [email protected] Thanks again!

After a delay of several days, O’Brien actually answered, but he answered only the first question. Here is his answer:

I didn’t decide this. If you lying about a decision I never made based on me not having written anything about “jihad mass murder” is evidence of your thought process, you should be institutionalized. When did you stop raping your dog, Robert Spencer?

Yet O’Brien clearly thinks that Amy Mek is so evil that her life and her relatives’ lives should be destroyed. When has he ever subjected an actual jihad mass murderer to the same treatment? Never, of course. And this is obviously because O’Brien, the Huffington Post, and the Left in general thinks that foes of jihad terror are worse than jihad terrorists. This was obvious from my reception at Stanford University last year: I was greeted as the second coming of Jack the Ripper, when a jihad terrorist screaming “Death to America” in the middle of that campus would no doubt be welcomed as a hero. And it is obvious from the Left’s peculiar combination of self-righteousness and thuggery that we see ever more frequently expressed in all kinds of contexts.

It is hard to see how this can end well. When one faction in the American public square thinks that the other faction deserves not even basic human respect, and is rightfully shamed, vilified, and even brutalized (that’s where Antifa comes in), it is hard to see how America can survive as a free society without armed conflict. If and when that conflict comes, it will be in large part thanks to the likes of Luke O’Brien and the Huffington Post.