Village, which describes itself as “Ireland’s Political and Cultural magazine,” released its new issue on Friday in which the cover showed President Trump in a firearm’s cross-hairs of a gunshot with the caption, “Why Not?”
The magazine offered an editorial in which it portrayed Trump as a “purveyor of hatred, a contrarian: anti-liberal, anti-democratic and hostile to a free press, an anti-environmental, corruptible bully; a liar, a misogynist groper and a boor.”
The editorial continued, “He holds the reins of power in the most powerful country in the world. He holds the nuclear codes, he can start wars, he can ensure nothing is done about climate change, so that civilisation itself is threatened.”
After slamming Trump for his executive order regarding immigration, the magazine warns:
His approach comprehensively breaches the Geneva Conventions and Protocols. It is uncivilised to bar humans suffering such misery. It is unAmerican to bar what the inscription on the Statue of Liberty describes as “Your tired, Your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Yet that is the new President’s agenda.
Village then segues to ripping Trump for bullying Mexico, pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Trading Partnership, welcoming disintegration of the EU, encouraging hatemongers like Nigel Farage in Britain and Marine Le Pen in France, and curtailing U.S. funding to the UN.
Next on their list, climate change, where they delineate Trump’s hostility to climate change devotees. Then on to women; as Village states, “Trump is sexually predatory,” abortion; Trump’s lack of ethics; “Trump has no awareness of ethics: he has not published his tax returns or distanced himself properly from his financial affairs , he lies, bullies and harasses,” and hatred; “In support of all of his agenda, Trump brings the language and the methodology of divisiveness, difference, intolerance, misogyny and machismo. His currency is dishonesty and boorishness.Trump encouraged violence at his rallies, like Fascists do, and has incited hatred against Muslims, Mexicans and Chinese.”
Village adds, “His entire influence is nefarious, he sows fracture and hatred, particularly among beleaguered white men with unrealistic expectations, most of all about their country and themselves.”
Asking, “So what is to be done?”, the magazine answers, “Perhaps the solution is tyrannicide. As he might say himself – ‘take him out.’”
Astonishingly, the magazine then reviews the history of tyrannicide, noting it has had the “support from various philosophers and theologians through the centuries.” After noting tyrannicide was approved by Saint Thomas Aquinas, Village continues, ‘If he pushes towards curtailing freedoms and minority rights it may legitimate for Christians to think about removing him.”
The editorial then discusses the perspective of Utilitarianism and Rights Theories vis-à-vis killing Trump before it concludes that Trump will eventually destroy himself, and thus:
On these bases, the Natural Law would wait to see democracy play its proper role, utilitarianism would say the backlash against an assassination would risk all it might achieve and lose the benefits that a democratic backlash would itself achieve. Rights-based theories would perhaps come closest to condoning violence against Trump but the right to life of Trump himself would weigh heavily. More trivially, any would-be assassin, more even than von Stauffenberg, risks being uncovered and discredited – in person and ideologically.
The magazine then generously concludes: “The calculus is clearly against violence, even in the case of Trump. Stick to democracy, rigorously but applied, as necessary, stealthily and aggressively.”
An explanation for such a monstrous attack? Michael Smith, the editor of Village, told The Sun Online: “WHY NOT signals an explanation ‘why not’; not a question ‘why not? It’s not an incitement to anything. We’re politically correct, right-on, the last magazine that would recommend violence or killing anyone. Our cover is a provocation to think. Village is a) a magazine of ideas and b) aims to challenge. The methodology of the editorial which backs the cover and conclusion are clear.”