And one of those actions is to provoke violence. The Unabomber tried it, and so did Charles Manson with his race war fantasies. They failed because they were lone wolves, not social movements. The good news is that when they start talking like this, they do so because they are really scared, they know the jig is up. They sense that their insanity is coming to an end and they are ready to risk chaos before oblivion.

If you read between the lines in this little piece you’ve quoted, what you see is someone spoiling for a fight because he’s losing the argument, not just among the “globalists” (or, “statists”, as the more genteel wackos are more likely to say), but among those in their own party who feel their movement has gone astray and been hijacked by extremists. Look at the history of the Nazi and Bolshevik movements; they spent most of their time fighting street brawls against rivals in their own movements rather than the forces of reaction or the State.

I have always felt that an attempt of violence directed at a controversial leader like Trump is just as likely to come from his partisans as from his opponents. Assassinations and sabotage can be used to create martyrs and unify movements just as easily as they can be used to destabilize and decapitate an enemy. What better way to mobilize extremists than to give them an excuse to “fight back against unprovoked aggression”, to demonstrate how their foes are moving against them violently?

The Alex Joneses of this country can sense that their movement and their constituency are rapidly becoming unsustainable. They’ll stop at nothing to keep it at a fever pitch.