“Defusing hatred, retaliation, and violence” is just below… Note also below, Grok’s response to a query if the advocacy for political violence was more of a problem on the “left/liberal” side of the US. He provides results of varied surveys. Also, “Bury the ‘Words are Violence’ cliché. We need maximal tolerance for speech; zero tolerance for force”, by Greg Lukianoff. And varied other summaries of good articles, and comment on the “madness of crowds” era that we are living through.
I want to be clear that I approach the central themes of Historical Jesus (posted below as the best defusers of hatred and violence) as a non-religious person who views this wisdom sage and his message as entirely non-religious. Yes, it has been preserved within Christianity for some two millennia now, but research over the past 3 centuries has enabled us to understand what Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy were arguing when they stated that the “diamonds” of Jesus had been buried (trigger warning) in the “dung” of Paul’s Christ myth that dominates the New Testament.
“Buried” in that the main themes of Historical Jesus- i.e. themes of a non-retaliatory God (no more eye for eye but love enemies because God does), a non-apocalyptic God (a non-retaliatory God will not engage the ultimate act of retaliation that is apocalypse), an unconditional God who did not want sacrifice but instead desired love and mercy (Jesus took up the protest of Old Testament prophets against the sacrifice industry, and also presented the unconditional nature of God in stories like the Prodigal Father). He taught themes of non-domination (do not lord over but serve others), non-discriminatory inclusion of all as equals (sun and rain given to all, to both good and bad), etc.
Paul rejected the early “Q Wisdom Sayings” Jesus movement two decades later (50 CE) and re-affirmed the very opposite theology of Jesus in presenting again a retaliatory God (he quoted, “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, says the Lord”), an apocalyptic God and Christ (“Lord Jesus will return in flaming fire to destroy all”). He reaffirmed the ultimate divine condition of the sacrifice of a godman, taking Jesus’ death for protesting against sacrifice and turning that into the very opposite- i.e. his death as ultimate cosmic sacrifice. He took this wisdom sage who rejected domination (do not lord over others) and turned him into the ultimate Lord, “Lord Jesus”. And Paul re-instated tribal exclusion in the eternal separation of true believers in his Christ myth from eternally damned unbelievers, etc.
Paul’s Christology dominates the New Testament, with gospel writers (all four affirming Paul’s Christology) putting many things into Jesus’ mouth (claiming he said them), things that contradict entirely Jesus’ basic Q Wisdom Sayings (see, for example, the Jesus Seminar book “The Five Gospels”).
The conclusion above that Paul buried the diamonds of Jesus under his Christ myth is credibly reliable from “Jesus Seminar” and “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel research (e.g. the research of scholars like James Robinson, Stephen Patterson, James Tabor, etc.). I have covered this research in varied articles and summaries in sections below. I would also suggest the excellent research of Bob Brinsmead on this…
“The Historical Jesus: What the Scholars are Saying”
https://bobbrinsmead.com/the-historical-jesus-what-the-scholars-are-saying/
“The Doctrine of Christ and the Triumph of Hellenism”
https://bobbrinsmead.com/the-doctrine-of-christ-and-the-triump-of-hellenism/
I watched Bill Maher’s podcast interview of Charlie Kirk and they both, when arguing about Jesus and Christianity, seemed entirely unaware of this critical research on Historical Jesus. The historical person existed but presented a message that Paul contradicted on all the main themes when he created his Christ myth.
Why does any of this matter? Because the ideas presented by these two iconic historical persons have influenced Western civilization in profound ways (see James Tabor quotes in sections below). The main themes of Paul’s Christ myth- i.e. apocalyptic millennialism- have shaped the mass-death crusades of Marxism, Nazism, and now shape environmental alarmism. The opposite themes of Historical Jesus have presented the counter message that moderates the influence of Paul and orients us to the basic principles of Classic Liberalism/liberal democracy.
Added note:
To make proper sense of Jesus, and what he actually taught, you have to do as Thomas Jefferson did and take Jesus’ Wisdom message and parables out of the New Testament context (he used his scissors), uncover the diamond by cleaning off the distorting Christology of Paul, and then you can clearly see the profound contradictions between Jesus and Paul’s Christ myth. They are so entirely opposite that the merger of Jesus with Christ (“Jesus Christ”) then appears for what it is- a supreme oxymoron that has resulted in two millennia of immense cognitive dissonance called Christianity.
That religion has never presented the true wisdom sage as really he was and has never presented his stunning new theology of an unconditional God. No conditional religion (they are all most essentially about religious conditions) has ever presented such unconditional theology to humanity. And hence, billions remain enslaved in mind and spirit to the primitive threat theology that our religious traditions have inherited and re-affirmed in their belief systems- i.e. angry God threatening apocalypse and hell, and then demanding the salvation conditions of sacrifice/payment and submission to religious authorities.
Some new stuff- I asked Grok:
Grok, any thoughts on this comment for my site at wendellkrossa.com- “This site is committed to alleviating fear, especially ultimate fears (i.e. fear of divine punishment through the natural world, fear of after-life harm) created by the threat theologies of religions- i.e. angry God threatening judgment, exclusion, punishment, and eternal torture. Fear incites the human survival impulse and renders people susceptible to irrational salvation schemes that have had destructive outcomes.
Notable in this regard- the mythical themes of the “apocalyptic millennialism” complex that promotes “salvation through destruction” (i.e. the theme of “murder the right people in order to make things better”, as in the required human sacrifice portrayed in Paul’s Christ myth, or the larger-scale apocalyptic destruction as necessary to purge the present corrupt society so saviors/messiahs can introduce their new utopian society). Fear is often behind rage and violence, fear of some threatening enemy (posed as the threat to one’s world) that incites felt obligation to conquer, defeat, and exterminate such threat in order to save one’s self and one’s world. These themes drove Marxism and Nazism and now drive environmental alarmism.”
Grok responded:
Your comment for the site strikes at a profound intersection of psychology, theology, and ideology, emphasizing how deeply ingrained fears— particularly those amplified by narratives of divine or cosmic retribution— can warp human behavior and societal structures. It’s a compelling mission statement, positioning the site as a counterforce to what you describe as “threat theologies,” which exploit the survival instinct to peddle salvation through catastrophe. This resonates with historical patterns where apocalyptic thinking has fueled not just religious fervor but also secular movements, often with tragic consequences.
At its core, your point about fear inciting irrational “salvation schemes” aligns with observations from thinkers who’ve traced how existential dread manifests in collective actions. For instance, the myth of apocalyptic millennialism— envisioning a purged world leading to utopia— has indeed appeared in various guises. In religious contexts, it’s evident in prophecies of judgment and renewal, like those in apocalyptic literature that promise salvation after widespread destruction. You extend this to the Christ myth in Paul’s theology, where sacrifice (personal or mass) becomes a prerequisite for redemption, echoing themes of “necessary” violence to cleanse corruption.
Extending this to modern ideologies makes for a provocative critique. Marxism, for example, incorporates a dialectical view of history culminating in a revolutionary upheaval that overthrows the old order to birth a classless society— a secular millennialism where the proletariat’s triumph requires dismantling capitalist “evils.” Nazism twisted similar motifs into its “blood and soil” ideology, blending racial purity with a romanticized return to nature, where purging perceived threats (Jews, minorities) was framed as essential for national rebirth. Your linkage to environmental alarmism is particularly bold: here, the “threatening enemy” shifts to human impact on the planet, with calls for drastic measures (e.g., de-growth or population control) portrayed as salvation from impending doom.
Critics like Michael Shellenberger have argued that this apocalyptic framing in environmental discourse mirrors religious end-times narratives, fostering hysteria that prioritizes fear over practical solutions and can lead to anti-human policies. Some even draw parallels to “ecofascism,” where environmental purity justifies authoritarian control, though this is a fringe association not representative of mainstream environmentalism.
That said, while these connections highlight shared psychological mechanisms— fear of annihilation driving demands for radical purification— they’re not without pushback. Equating environmentalism directly to Marxism or Nazism risks oversimplification; Marxism’s environmental critique focused on capitalism’s exploitation of nature and labor, but socialist regimes often prioritized industrial growth over ecology, leading to their own disasters (e.g., Soviet environmental degradation).
Nazi “environmentalism” was more about racial mysticism and autarky than genuine conservation— policies like reforestation served wartime needs and ideology, not biodiversity. Critics argue such linkages can be a rhetorical tool to discredit legitimate environmental concerns, ignoring how modern movements often emphasize equity and science over coercion. Apocalyptic rhetoric in climate discussions can indeed mobilize action but also risks burnout or backlash if predictions falter, as seen in past doomsday forecasts.
Ultimately, your site’s focus on dismantling these fear-based narratives could foster more rational discourse. By highlighting how they recur across ideologies— from ancient prophecies to today’s alarmism— you invite readers to question salvation-through-destruction tropes. It might even bridge divides, encouraging environmental advocacy rooted in hope and innovation rather than dread. If you’re open to expanding, exploring counterexamples (e.g., optimistic environmental successes like reforestation or pollution reductions) could strengthen the argument against alarmist extremes. Solid piece— it could spark some lively debates.
(End of Grok comments)
Defusing hatred, retaliation, and violence, Wendell Krossa
Qualifiers will punctuate this material below but it has to be said again and again because we have no better ideal to aim for in order to maintain our humanity in the face of offenses and evil in general. This ideal endlessly functions to reorient us to what it means to be authentically human in the midst of assaults and consequent suffering.
What I repost below from the Palestinian Wisdom sage Historical Jesus (“H. Jesus”) is not a precept urging warm or fuzzy feeling toward offenders who rightly deserve anger and outrage for the horrors and insanity that they inflict on others. I would insist that the wisdom precept below is more about maintaining our own humanity in the face of the inhumanity and evil of all sorts that we will endure in varied ways during our life stories in this world. It offers us a lodestar ideal about how to think, respond, and act toward offenders, not descending to become like them but to try and act as God does which is the summary point of the Jesus message below- “Be merciful just as your Father is merciful”.
We don’t have to respond as the Jesus precept advocates. It doesn’t come with threat of punishment if we don’t. It just shows us how God acts, what God is like, and what God does. And it is the basis of Jesus’ “stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory God” that overturned entirely all religious theology of what God was like. It pointed to a stunning new image of deity that no religion has ever communicated to humanity. A stunning new understanding of love and hence the ideal for human ethics/behavior. Most religions, including Christianity, still refuse to fully acknowledge this new theology of Jesus and continue to bury his “diamonds” (Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy) in the theologies that they have inherited and copied from past primitive mythologies.
There is simply no better ideal anywhere in human history or human narratives to remind us who we are, or who we should try to become, and how we should act if we want to “tower in stature as maturely human”, as the heroes of our own stories.
More qualifiers: The unconditional ideal presented by H. Jesus is not a call to back down from advocacy for our personal beliefs, to become silent on our differing positions on varied issues just to de-escalate someone else’s intolerance and create a false environment of peace that gives the bully dominance. It is not a call to relinquish the vigorous defense of what we believe is right or true.
I take it more as a potent approach to defusing the hatred that wants to incite a similar hatred in response and fuel ugly “eye for eye” spirals of hatred, of violence for violence, of coercion and force for force, etc. And the fact that approaches oriented to unconditional work at a personal scale and national scale is evident in that Nelson Mandela was able to defuse the push of his colleagues for retaliatory civil war in South Africa, while at the same time similar situations of tribal hatred in Rwanda and Serbia, that chose eye for eye responses, descended into the horror of mass-death outcomes. See, for example, Richard Stengel’s statements on this in his biography of Mandela, “Mandela’s Way: Lessons on Life, Love, and Courage”.
Obviously, when situations reach the level of actual attack we are responsible to respond to such assault and defeat the violent attackers in order to protect ourselves and others. That is why we support police and military to fulfil the number one responsibility of government to protect citizens from assault, to arrest and imprison violent people. So unconditional does not counter such fundamental responsibilities. It is not the advocacy for pacifism in the face of violence. It is not a call to abandon common sense as we see in US cities releasing repeat violent offenders or decriminalizing crimes out of some “suicidal empathy” that may be more “virtue signaling for status as morally superior” to one’s opponents.
I take it more as attitudinal or intentional advice- to not yield to hatred, but to eventually come to some recognition and pity for the failure of the offending other to act as human. And then to not be like the offender in response but to hold to the intention to act differently, to act better and to show a better way in response, that will have more chance for success over the long-term to resolve differences and defuse “eye for eye” trajectories that just lead to endless war/conflicts.
As Mandela said of his approach of unconditional love for opponents- “It turns enemies into friends and brings out the best in others”. Not all, but most. Obviously, psychopathy or mental illness change the formula/mixture in the equation of how to respond, etc.
So rather than outright rejection of this precept, I offer it as something critical to wrestle with, just as Simon Wiesenthal did in his books after surviving the Nazi death camps, losing his family to that murderous hatred, and spending the remainder of his life hunting down Nazis. He urged fellow Jews, who suffered in the Holocaust, to not take hateful vengeance against their Nazi tormentors, to “not be like them” in retaliating with similar violence. Note especially his dealing with the Jewish father who wanted to kill the Nazi soldier who had murdered his young son.
Moving along… Here is my point:
There is a way out of the darkness of the current time where hatred has been unleashed too constantly across the public, in news media, social media, etc. The endless petty name calling, vilifying differing others, excessively demonizing, dehumanizing those who disagree with us, with follow-up efforts to destroy reputations, character, careers. What is this urge to make instant harsh judgments and condemnations on the comments, and even just the words that are spoken by differing others, that do not resonate familiarly with our narratives, that upset us, disturb us, make us uncomfortable, even anger us. Why do we then follow with excessively harsh demands for punishment, censoring, banning from public spaces, and then demand cancelling, even criminalizing of the differing others? What is all this obvious stirring of tribal hatred toward differing others?
How do we crush the hatred that drives this judgment, condemnation, and ultimately too often results in the insanity of violence?
Insert on an epitome example: The insanity of the intensifying tribal hatred is most evident all day long in the media spewing of their hatred of and constant vilification of Donald Trump, demonizing, dehumanizing everything that he says and does (I see this in the daily news article titles on MSN homepage Canada). And this is not a defense of all that he says and does, as I am in disagreement with him on varied things, notably his unseemly tendency to “petty vindictiveness”. But overall, there is something pathological in the constancy and intensity of the public hatred for him.
There is a pathology in the refusal of many to recognize the basic humanity of disagreeing others, like Trump.
Getting right to the point:
We were told thousands of years ago how to defuse this inhumane madness of retaliatory hatred and violence. What the ancient sages told us is still the premier feature defining authentic love- i.e. unconditional “love for our enemies.”
There are other definitions of love that are less shocking to our conventional senses and traditional views of “justice”, that are less disturbing to such orthodoxy. That do not in a full-frontal manner feel like a shove or direct punch in the face to long-established views. That give us escape clauses to still retaliate in some similar manner to the one offending or assaulting us, that permit us to hit back in some way and we can still validate such response as proper “justice”.
The adjective “unconditional” has the impact of appearing to advocate for abandoning millennia of “common-sense” on justice and replace that with silly Kumbayah-like pacifism. Unfortunately, for those of us willing to at least wrestle with understanding this ideal, many around us just react to the ideal as impractical for real life and take its meaning directly to the nonsensical extreme of pacifism in the face of violence and evil.
But then why do most of us intuitively respect and honor the Mandelas of life for what they exhibit? We sense that they are doing what all of us should be doing.
Again, unconditional pushes us to consider what Simon Wiesenthal did as he wrestled with “Justice, Not Vengeance” and asked readers if he had done the right thing in refusing to offer forgiveness to the dying young SS man who wanted to confess his taking part in atrocities toward Jews (“The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness”).
Note- I add the feature of “unconditional” to the Jesus’ statement “love your enemies” because it is clearly implied in the total context of his message below, and in his illustrations such as the story of the Prodigal Father. I add also further defining features like “universal inclusiveness”, noting that there are no discriminatory exceptions of anyone in his statement that God generously gives “sun and rain to both good and bad people”.
And what does the “unconditional love of enemies” mean in terms of forgiveness, in terms of tolerance of the slowness of others to change their behavior, and the generosity and mercy to offer “second/third/fourth/etc.” chances to reform, develop, and grow? What does “love your enemy” mean in terms of respect for the basic humanity of offending and differing others, no matter their offenses and the disagreements, or in terms of the fundamental obligation to treat all as family (i.e. recognizing the human oneness thing)? And what does it mean in terms of holding all fully responsible for behavior and outcomes- i.e. the obligation to restrain and imprison violent people in order to protect all others? And the responsibility to make full restitution?
Joseph Campbell on recognizing our oneness, even with enemies: “For love is exactly as strong as life. And when life produces what the intellect names evil, we may enter into righteous battle, contending ‘from loyalty of heart’: however, if the principle of love (Jesus’ “Love your enemies”) is lost thereby, our humanity too will be lost. ‘Man’, in the words of the American novelist Hawthorne, ‘must not disclaim his brotherhood even with the guiltiest’” (Myths To Live By).
Note in Campbell’s advice the recommendation to remember our oneness (“brotherhood”) with all others, something affirmed by the “Mitochondrial Eve” hypothesis that states all humans on Earth today are descendants of an East African woman. Add the discovery of “quantum entanglement” that affirms an underlying fundamental oneness to all reality. And then the NDE revelations of our fundamental oneness.
And critical, when thinking of this unconditional response to offense and violence, is consideration of the victim’s viewpoints on this. It is very interesting how some victims deal with tragedy and pain. I think of one mother whose son was brutally murdered by some thug and yet she found the way to think through and past her personal agony to argue in court against the death penalty for her son’s murderer. She argued against it, not for the sake of the murderer, but because she did not want his mother to suffer the same horror that she had to endure at the loss of a son.
That is empathy beyond heroism. Add the father who decided to “forgive” his young daughter’s murderer, not for that man’s sake, but so as to liberate himself from the hatred and bitterness that would harm his other children subsequent to that offense against their family.
Or “The Forgiven” in South Africa (movie on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission), and many similar stories where victims find some reason for embracing these different responses to violence. Others hold the hope that the offenders can be rehabilitated in some way.
Moving on…
This precept to “love our enemy” defines, more than any comparable precept, what it means to think and behave as truly human. It argues that we should consider that anything less is subhuman, even inhuman. As Bob Brinsmead has noted- Anything less is not authentic love. Certainly, similar retaliation in response to offenses committed is not fully human. It is considered anti-human, even animal, by some. Listen to the Roman sage Musonius Rufus of the first century AD- “To bite back the biter is animal and not human”. Think of angry dogs in the street.
This precept to love your enemy goes way back before Jesus, to the Akkadian father, who told his son,
“Do not return evil to your adversary; requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, maintain justice for your enemy, be friendly to your enemy. Give food to eat, beer to drink, grant what is requested, provide for and treat with honor. At this one’s god takes pleasure.”
Returning to my opening point- The way out the present darkness is not through perpetuating “eye for eye” cycles. That retaliatory response has always furthered the descent into more darkness and hatred, and then even violence. Retaliatory vengeance renders us all petty and subhuman.
Yes, “Justice”, as holding offenders responsible, including restraining/imprisoning the violent to protect others, this is obligatory to any common-sense love.
And it takes those among us with great spirits and great courage to initiate and break the natural descent into “eye for eye” cycles by choosing to be the first to take things in entirely new directions with forgiveness, de-escalating anger, calming things down. The self-sacrifice of courageous spirits to break such cycles may be misunderstood, misconstrued, and mislabeled as “weakness, backing down, being a pussy, letting others walk all over one, etc.” So be it. But subsequent history, legacy, will prove such an approach to have worked better to lessen violence.
Again, yes, we hold all people responsible for behavior and consequences, including restraint and imprisonment of the violent. I hesitate at times to even make these balancing qualifiers lest I lessen the blunt impact that the unconditional feature may have on some that will lead them to choose to freely take this precept somewhere unconventional, even pacifist-like in the face of violence.
I see it as a freedom of choice issue, not an across-the-board demand for all in all situations of offenses. That is the point of the generous vineyard owner story of Jesus. He argued with the pissed all-day workers that it was his money to do with as he chose. Matthew 20- “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?”.
We all need the constant reaffirmation of love as our ultimate common responsibility to one another. As Leo Tolstoy said, “The whole trouble lies in that people think that there are conditions excluding the necessity of love in their intercourse with man, but such conditions do not exist. Things may be treated without love; one may chop wood, make bricks, forge iron without love, but one can no more deal with people without love than one can handle bees without care.”
Love, especially “love of enemy”, is the authentic expression of our true self, our essential human spirit in its oneness with the “Ultimate Unconditional Love” that is God (the oneness or unity thing). This version of love offers the most potency in enabling us to defuse our darker inherited impulses to tribal hatred, lust for vengeance, and the urge to humiliate and destroy differing others.
Listen, for an example, to this governor of Utah and his uplifting call to be something better, to heed the words and behavior of Charlie Kirk…
“FULL UPDATE: Arrest made in fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk”, CityNews, Sept. 12, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsyCoHOSTjc
The full statement of Historical Jesus on what it means to love with no conditions.
Loving all unconditionally, even enemies, is how we tower in stature as ‘maturely human’, conquering the real enemy and monster that is inside each of us- i.e. our inherited animal drives to tribalism, domination, and retaliatory destruction of differing others.
Unconditional love is the “weapon from the wise man” that enables us to fight and conquer the real enemy in life, in the real battle of life, the real Hero’s Quest that is an inner battle inside each individual heart.
As a non-religious person who views Historical Jesus as an entirely non-religious person with a non-religious message, I view these wisdom sayings just below, with Thomas Jefferson, as the “diamonds of Jesus” that were buried in the larger New Testament context that distorted them with Paul’s retaliatory theology.
Jesus’ core message:
“Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Everyone finds it easy to love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Everyone can do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Most will lend to others, expecting to be repaid in full.
“But do something more heroic, more humane. (Live on a higher plane of human experience). Do not retaliate against your offenders/enemies with ‘eye for eye’ justice. Instead, love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then you will be just like God because God does not retaliate against God’s enemies. God does not mete out eye for eye justice. Instead, God is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Be unconditionally loving, just as your God is unconditionally loving”. (My paraphrase of Luke 6:32-36 or Matthew 5:38-48.)
This can be summarized in this single statement: “Love your enemy because God does”.
Prime example of non-retaliatory, unconditional love: The Prodigal Father story in Luke 15:11-31.
The Father (representing God) did not demand a sacrifice, restitution, payment, apology, or anything else before forgiving, fully accepting, and loving the wasteful son. Again, this is not to affirm general policies of pacifism in the face of violence or not holding others responsible for behavior and its consequences. There is always the primary responsibility of government to protect all citizens from violence, meaning the restraint and imprisonment of repeat violent offenders. This is more about the individual freedom of choice in how people want to respond to and treat their offenders.
Added note:
I am with Tyrus (independent, libertarian) who stated that he was not a religious person (and disagreed with Charlie Kirk on that issue) but he admired Kirk for his approach and treatment of those who disagreed with him, as in the defense of competing ideas, his patience in listening to those who mistreated him, calling him names and yet he still gave them the mike to voice their different views because he believed so passionately in such liberal democratic things as free speech.
Others on this Gutfeld panel speak passionately of the man, and note that after his murder there was no rioting, no burning of stores, and no abuse of police, etc. Very different from what we saw after the death of George Floyd, and other similar deaths on the left side. Interesting to consider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4jWntgYsIc
“Gutfeld! 9/12/25 Greg Gutfeld FULL END SHOW”, ᗷᖇEᗩKIᑎG ᑎEᗯS Tᖇᑌᗰᑭ September 12, 2025
“Transcript – America This Week, September 12, 2025: “The Assassination of Charlie Kirk, and a New Age of Political Violence”: Recalling the rising level of incivility and rage surrounding the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, a symbol of political dialogue. Also, the conventions of Conan Doyle’s detective novel”, Matt Taibbi, Walter Kirn, Sept. 13, 2025
https://www.racket.news/p/america-this-week-september-12-2025-b66
Interesting points from these two this week:
They note that Charlie Kirk was a young person doing what universities in the past were supposed to do, encourage open debate over differing ideas, in a civil manner. Kirk, they recount, did exactly that “sitting back in his chair, listening, engaged” and then suddenly he was shot. And then, say Taibbi and Kirn “the dehumanization of this person before he had even left the earth, truly, literally, was for me,,. the most terrifying aspect of the whole thing.”
They note that Kirk was not rude, abrasive, or profane. He “(did) one thing that a lot of these others don’t do quite so well, which is, listen. The guy is a good listener.” And they add, he was a gentle soul.
“This person, whose lane was discussion, and as you said, the old school way of the sort of right-wing conservative radio person was to bark over you and not give you a chance to answer. And I’ve been in some of those discussions and been very frustrated. That’s not what he did. As you say, he listened…”
Then they note that many commentators have responded to his death, blaming Kirk for his own death because of his “hate speech”.
“But that trope has been revived quite a lot lately. Also, there’s a thing that Dow did in that clip that has become incredibly common and drives me up a wall as a journalist. It’s referring to hateful acts and hateful speech and not telling you which ones.
“What do you mean ‘hateful acts, hateful speech’? It’s saying, ‘Well, measured against Trump’s lies, which lies? Which ones?’ That has become a shorthand thing that happens all the time now. And look, we all understand that cable news is a job where you have to take up a lot of time with discussion, and maybe you don’t always have the facts at hand, but if you’re going to use an inflammatory word, if you’re going to call it, say somebody is guilty of hate speech, you got to quote them. You got to make it clear what you’re talking about exactly.
“Walter Kirn: Well, and they invented the category too, let’s remember, so they get to use it at will and flexibly. And by that, I mean places like MSNBC mean by hatred something that’s almost technical compared to what you and I mean by it. You, and I mean violent emotion, powered by loathing. On MSNBC, hate speech can be merely being against some movement or political idea or not signing on with the transgender orthodoxies, for example.
“Matt Taibbi: I think that’s the thing that he’s most commonly pilloried for as… Most often when they talk about hate speech, it’s because he won’t say that a trans woman is a woman, right? Or he talks about keeping men out of women’s bathrooms, that kind of thing.”
Meaning that the smear “hate speech”, much like “racist, fascist, Nazi”, is just thrown at opponents without specifying exactly what they mean or which statements are referred to.
Kirn then expresses his frustration at the state of affairs today:
“You want to blame the victim, go to hell. You want to dehumanize them or somehow cast their death as righteous judgment on their political opinions, go to hell. You want to believe that this is a both sides thing, well, for the moment go to hell because it’s not. It seems to be a war on this populist surge in American politics. If you want also to believe that there are simple morals to be driven from, to be derived from it, that you can apply, go to hell too.”
Taibbi talks about the eruption of nihilistic violence today that scares people and discusses the general environment that incites such violence. They quote Clay Travis on this:
“Riley is so brave, and I am so glad that she is speaking out, and so many people are, but let me hammer something home here. I am sick and I am tired of hearing people say, like Barack Obama did, like Hillary Clinton did. “Oh, we condemn this violence.” Guess what? You can’t call the President of the United States for 10 years, Adolf Hitler. And you can’t say that he’s a fascist dictator. And you can’t say that anyone who voted for Trump or advocated for him like you, me, Riley and Charlie Kirk are Nazis.
“And then when someone tries to kill us, you can’t suddenly say, “Oh, we condemn this violence.” You caused it. Look at me right now. You caused this. When you tell people that someone is Hitler, you are telling crazy people go kill them. I am sick of pretending that that is anything other than what they’re doing. That guy in West Palm Beach, what did he say? He was killing Trump because he believed Trump was Hitler. This is what they do. All right. This left-wing violence, it’s out of control.”
(End of Taibbi/Kirn discussion.)
A short one from Brit Konstantin Kisin (Independent) on issues like the dehumanization of political opponents as “Nazis, fascists” over the past 10 years, and what that does to people in the general population. Plus a good one on the point that no one expected this would be followed with riots, looting, burning cities, and more violence (after the assassination of Charlie Kirk). But we all saw what happened when there was a death on the other side, says Konstantin. Interesting point.
He says that if we are told and we believe that “Fascists/Nazis” are in power then we are all validated in using force to fight them, commenting on the shift toward violence on the left today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5YHR4Zz-rs
“These People Have Blood On Their Hands” – Konstantin Kisin of “Triggernometry”
“Thinking About Charlie Kirk”, Theo Von
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA6enA1wWSU
Theo is not a religious guy and says that he does not agree with Charlie Kirk’s views on varied things but he admires Kirk’s courage to go talk with people and defend free speech. Here Theo tries to express what he feels about Kirk’s murder.
I think what Theo is trying to express is similar to what many of us are feeling. Though we are not religious and would disagree with Charlie Kirk on religious issues, among other things, we sense that he was a decent man, a good man, who just wanted to discuss all sorts of things with differing others in a respectful, civil manner. Not shouting angrily over others, refusing to let the others share their points without interruption. Not raging at one another like angry kids in a sandbox argument.
Charlie is like the many Christians that we all know. Kind, gentle people, good people trying to do the right thing, like most of us. I know these people as members of my family, and as friends. Even though I have left Christianity, they still talk to me, we laugh together, share views on all sorts of things, and they tell me that they pray for me. Just really good people that I respect, valued friends that are a pleasure to know and communicate with.
The fact that Charlie Kirk was a person like that, makes his murder all the more painful to most of us. And as Theo says, he feels “scared” now that there are hateful people out there who won’t come up and speak civilly to you, but from a distance will vent that hate in violence, and murderous destruction.
There are too many such people today. And as many are trying to understand- What drives them to such hatred and violence against differing others?
This Email from a friend, responding to some article that I posted on this site honoring free speech advocates like Charlie Kirk:
He said,
“Kirk was killed by a befuddled young man who had found him not extreme-right enough. This was fascist on fascist, and the left had nothing to do with it. As an American leftist, I fully support the First Amendment, even when the protected speech is repellent to me, as it was every time Kirk opened his mouth. Killing him served only bad purposes. Kirk was enriching himself spewing hate, Christian nationalism, etc. He was a repellent schmuck, but his death has in some people’s eyes made him a martyr. As for the Second Amendment, it never stood in the way of gun laws until fascists on the US Supreme Court misinterpreted it. I regard it as obsolete and I favor gun restrictions at least as strict as, say, those in Canada. But the strictest laws probably could not keep a bolt-action hunting rifle out of an assassin’s hands.”
My response:
“_____, I position as Independent/Classic Liberal and with you fully support First Amendment speech freedom similar to positions of those like Ira Glasser, former ACLU director. Tolerance even for offensive speech. I am not very familiar with Charlie Kirk except from varied clips and comments of others and it appears that he was not a “repellent schmuck” but actually quite civil except for minor exceptions. And appears to have defended free speech rights for all and treated opponents quite civilly. “Spewing hate”. Not sure about that.
“And I would affirm what many say today that there has been a shift on the Left over past years in the US toward an extremist Woke Progressivism that has become too hateful and hysterically demonizes and dehumanizes disagreeing others (the endless smears of “Hitler, fascist, dictator, Nazis, racists, etc.”), even intolerant toward those on its own side just for holding unorthodox ideas and words that don’t toe the leftist elite’s narratives. We see this in media daily. Hence, the environment for fringe types to find incitement and validation for violence. And actually, too much direct advocacy of such violence. Yes, from the left. I think, for example, of comments by Joy Reid and others on this.
“While both sides have the extremist factions to guard against, the predominance of dangerous extremism today appears to be coming from the left (I put up an article that noted surveys on this- the growing support from Democrats for censorship of opponents and political violence). Consider that over past years there has been a predominance of leftist narrative ideology shaping mainstream media, and that same dominance in much of state institutions/agencies, certainly leftist domination of higher education, with the majority of censorship from that side as the Twitter Files exposed. So also Russiagate (trying to overturn a democratic election), Hunter Biden laptop coverup with push of the “Russian disinformation” lie that influenced an election, and so much other “threat to democracy”, a charge that leftists constantly project onto opponents.
“Some good sources on all this- former State Dept. guy Mike Benz in both his appearances on Joe Rogan, and others. Also, note how many solid Democrats/”leftists” have had to leave that side due to its shift too far left into extremist Woke Progressivism dominated by DEI. Joe Rogan, RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, Musk, even Maher, and on and on…”
“I forgot to add that “leftists/liberals” (all previously life-long Democrats) like Matt Taibbi, Walter Kirn, Michael Shellenberger, give some of the best information and balanced takes on all this in their “Substack/Public/etc.” forums, probably the best of independent news media today.”
(End of post)
What’s this “eye for eye” stuff going on now? I thought the man stood for free speech.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/charlie-kirk-supporters-targeting-critics?tbref=hp
“Charlie Kirk supporters leading campaign to have people punished for mocking his death: Teachers, firefighters, federal workers and military personnel among those targeted for their public comments, with some losing their jobs”, National Post, Sept. 14, 2025
This is just one example: “Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered members of the military to identify colleagues who mocked or celebrated Kirk’s death.”
Do you really think Kirk would want this? Apparently, he sat and calmly listened to opponents, even when they berated him with ugly smears, and answered politely. He thought that free speech had to be tolerated and protected, not punished. No matter how offensive. What about continuing his project? Doing what he fought for.
The National post on campus fear and silenced majorities: Who’s your bully now?
Backed by a majority of “leftist woke progressive” professors a tiny minority of threatening activists (0.4% in Canada) bully majorities into fearful silence. Where in this is the “inclusion, diversity, and equality” (not “equity”)? Is this training future generations to understand and defend a free and liberal society?
“Nearly half of all Canadian university students are actively hiding their real beliefs: survey. The survey by Aristotle Foundation also finds that students with conservative views now outnumber those with liberal views”, Tristan Hopper, Sept.3, 2025
“Liberals basically feel free to say anything they want on any subject, regardless of consequences — that’s not an overstatement — while moderates and conservatives and libertarians feel like they have to radically self-censor, if they want to avoid consequences for their beliefs,” wrote David Hunt, research director for the Aristotle Foundation, in an email to the National Post.
“He added, ‘we knew students were self-censoring and that some students felt their views weren’t welcome in class discussions … but the data was even more damning than expected’.”
And… Lorrie Goldstein: “Liberal bias in Canadian universities is a fact, study says”
“73% of academics sampled from 40 top-ranked Canadian universities identified as left-wing, 4% as right-wing.”
This does not sound at all like a man who is constantly smeared and vilified as “Hitler, fascist, racist, dictator, etc.”
Could it be the media has been lying to us about Trump the Orange Monster?
In this article, Conrad Black provides some insight into how President Trump responded on hearing that Charlie Kirk had been assassinated. Black was present in the Oval Office as Trump and J.D. Vance first heard of and commented on the murder.
“I was with Trump when Charlie Kirk died. He grieved like a leader: The president had no thoughts except charity for the bereaved and concern for the country”, Conrad Black, Sept. 14, 2025
Here is what Black observed in the Oval Office as Trump and Vance responded to the news of Charlie Kirk’s murder.
“We were shortly joined by the vice president, J.D. Vance, known even by me to be a close friend Charlie Kirk. He was reporting on the initial results of the investigation. My offer to excuse myself was declined and there followed a surrealistic and unforgettable scene: the president and vice president lamented their deceased friend and I was likely almost as improbable a third party as could be found to participate in such an exchange. In the circumstances, I only commented when my opinion was asked.
“Especially in the light of ungenerous imputations of motives to both men in their public remarks in ensuing days. I would be remiss not to emphasize that neither the president nor the vice president expressed any sentiment except sorrow at the death of their friend and sympathy for his wife and family and close associates, and calm, deep concern at the extent of violence in the country.
“There was not a vengeful or partisan word or even an ill-tempered one. Both men were absolutely exemplary and in fact somewhat inspiring in their sole preoccupation with the horribly premature and violent death of a talented friend and supporter, and their shared concern at the frequency of recourse to political violence in America and much of the western world.
“The only reference to the immediate political implications of this tragic event was by me when I said that this was such a ghastly episode it might have a salutary effect in sobering public discourse and discouraging violence. This elicited a noncommittal response.
“All Americans, whatever their political leanings, should be reassured that the two holders of the national offices of the United States, in a poignant hour of great sacrifice and sadness, had no thoughts except charity for the bereaved and concern for the country. It was my sad privilege to be a witness to this and the completely spontaneous tastefulness and generosity of the thoughts of the president and vice president did not reduce but somewhat ameliorated the deep sadness of the occasion.”
Also, this observation of Black as he had earlier waited in an outer room to see the President:
“As I was arriving at the White House visitors’ entrance I saw on my mobile phone that Charlie Kirk had been wounded in an assassination attempt. I did not really know him and was only generally conversant with his Turning Point movement and from the initial wording of the bulletin I hopefully assumed that he would recover. There was no sign of alarm as I sat in the outer anteroom with a number of distinguished fellow visitors including a prominent senator and the well-known economist Arthur Laffer…
“Although I had been a number of times to the White House before, it was in groups and in reception rooms. Here it was possible to see how the private office functioned and it was clear the president’s staff is devoted to him personally and that he, unlike some holders of great offices that I have known, is unfailingly polite to staff.”
Compare Black’s comment on Trump’s treatment of staff to reports of Kamala Harris’s treatment of her staff:
“Vice-President Harris has an abnormally high staff turnover rate”
Quote from article: “She would routinely berate and cuss out her staff, and that the office environment around her was, quite frankly, a toxic hellhole.”
So also with Joe Biden…
Now who’s your real monsters?
Celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk
Tim Dillon spends the opening minutes of his podcast commenting on people who are celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. As he says, he had substantive disagreements with Kirk (Dillon is a gay man) but he still could not celebrate another person’s murder- the father of young children. Dillon says Kirk was a decent man willing to sit and discuss differing views with others.
Dillon tries to reason with such people that something is profoundly wrong if they can express delight in Kirk’s assassination.
I would suggest that is the deforming power of our narratives. If we dehumanize differing others as “Nazis, fascists, racists, etc.”, then we can make ourselves feel justified in the destruction/extermination of such people. Much like the relief that most of us embrace due to the Allies defeating the actual Nazis in WW2. Maybe not gleeful celebration but gratefulness that such a scourge was ended.
But this man was not a Nazi. Those celebrating Kirk’s murder illustrates the outcome of the relentless smearing of the differing others among us as evil monsters. The smearing of others as “Nazis, fascists, racists” has been so consistent over the past 10 years that many minds among us have been entirely deformed and now see violence as necessary to stop their fellow citizens from expressing their “dangerous” views that differ.
“The silencing of Charlie Kirk”, The Tim Dillon Show, number 461
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsWRClaBYI4
As Dillon says, I would never want any of the people I disagree with to die, to be shot in front of their children, as Charlie Kirk was.
And this…
This now the increasing reality in the US… I think of even comedian Bill Burr shouting “Free Mangione” during an interview.
As others have noted, the term “Hate speech” is now used by too many to define any who disagree with Woke Progressive views (DEI, trans ideology, etc.), including fellow liberals. This “concept creep” on the term “hate speech” now includes the disagreeing political/social views of opponents. And this loosening of hate speech limits now drives the censorship laws in Europe that liberals/leftists there want to implement worldwide. Including the arrest and imprisoning of those who express differing opinions online (differing from government approved opinions/speech), as is now happening at increasing rates in Britain (30 a day, 12,000 a year) and other places (Germany, Brazil, etc.).
https://nypost.com/2025/08/19/world-news/uk-free-speech-struggle-30-arrests-a-day-censorship/
“Bob Vylan responds to Charlie Kirk’s assassination with ‘rest in piss’ comment during his show: Bob Vylan made inflammatory remarks at Amsterdam concert after Kirk was gunned down at Utah university”, David Spector, Sept. 15, 2025
Quotes from article:
“’Assassination culture is spreading on the left. Forty-eight percent of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. Fifty-five percent said the same about Donald Trump’, Kirk wrote in a post April 7, 2025.
“The conservative activist linked to a poll suggesting a massive cultural shift occurred after Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
“After Kirk’s assassination, many on the left appeared to celebrate that attack, or imply that he had it coming due to his conservative views.
“Ex-MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd called Kirk ‘one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures’ upon learning of his murder, and said he was constantly pushing ‘hate speech’.”
(End of quotes)
What has happened to “liberal” that once meant the protection of the rights and freedoms of all, equally? As in the “Classic Liberal” principles, systems of common law, and representative institutions of liberal democracy?
Many on the left are pushing back, arguing that we should judge people as individuals not as collectives. To do what Martin Luther King did. But it has become undeniable that the use of political violence has become somewhat more pronounced on what is known as the political “left” in our liberal democracies. And as many have noted for comparison, after Kirk’s murder there have been no riots, looting, burning of stores and police stations, as we saw following George Floyd’s death. The BLM leadership was, by self-admission, Marxist.
I asked Grok to check this:
’Assassination culture is spreading on the left. Forty-eight percent of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. Fifty-five percent said the same about Donald Trump’, Kirk wrote in a post April 7, 2025. Grok, is this advocacy for political violence a more serious problem on the left?
Grok responded:
The quote you provided is accurate and comes from a post by Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) on X (formerly Twitter) dated April 7, 2025. In it, he references a poll from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), a nonpartisan research group focused on online extremism and misinformation. The post included an image of the poll graphic and expanded on concerns about left-wing protest culture contributing to violence.
Fact-Checking the Specific Claim
The NCRI poll in question, titled “Assassination Culture Brief,” was based on a survey of 1,264 U.S. adults conducted via Prime Panels (a market research platform) and weighted to match Census demographics on age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, and party ID from Pew Research. Respondents self-identified their ideology (e.g., far left, liberal, slightly liberal for “left-of-center”; slightly conservative, conservative, far right for “right-of-center”). The survey measured attitudes toward political violence using a 1-7 scale (1 = “not at all justified,” 7 = “completely justified”), with scores of 2-7 indicating “at least somewhat justified.”
Key results for the questions on murdering high-profile figures (paraphrased as assessing justification for such acts):
• Elon Musk: Overall, 31% of respondents said it was at least somewhat justified. Among left-of-center respondents, 50% said so (including 11% who rated it “completely justified”). Right-of-center support was lower (exact figure not broken out, but implied by the overall average).
• Donald Trump: Overall, 38% said at least somewhat justified. Among left-of-center, 56% (including 14% “completely justified”). Again, lower among right-of-center.
(Note: Kirk’s post rounded to 48% and 55%, likely due to slight variations in categorization or reporting, but the underlying data aligns closely.) The poll also found correlations between support for such violence and factors like left-wing authoritarianism (a psychological scale measuring dogmatic progressive views), heavy use of platforms like Bluesky, and tolerance for property destruction (e.g., 40% overall said destroying a Tesla dealership in protest was at least somewhat acceptable). NCRI argued this reflects a broader “normalization” of assassination rhetoric online, amplified post-2024 events like assassination attempts on Trump.
Is Advocacy for Political Violence More Serious on the Left?
This is a subjective question, but we can evaluate it based on available polling data from 2024-2025, which tracks attitudes toward political violence (e.g., justification for violence to achieve goals, celebrating opponents’ deaths, or specific acts). Overall, majorities of Americans across the spectrum reject political violence—typically 70-80% say it’s “never justified”—and actual incidents remain rare (fewer than 2% of people report personally engaging in or planning it). However, support for it in the abstract has ticked up slightly since 2020, driven by polarization, and recent data shows partisan asymmetries.
Here’s a summary of key recent polls comparing liberals/Democrats vs. conservatives/Republicans:
Poll/Source Date Key Question/Findings Democrats/Liberals Republicans/Conservatives
NCRI Assassination Culture Brief (1,264 adults) Early 2025 (exact date not specified) Justification for murdering Trump or Musk (at least somewhat) 56% (Trump), 50% (Musk) Lower (overall avg. pulls it down; ~20-30% implied)
YouGov (for Newsweek) (2,623 adults) Sept. 11, 2025 Violence justified to achieve political goals? 14% say yes (72% never) 6% say yes (81% never)
YouGov (post-Kirk assassination) (sample size not specified in summary) Sept. 2025 Acceptable to celebrate death of opposed public figure? 11% say usually/always (71% unacceptable) 6% say usually/always (89% unacceptable)
PRRI American Values Survey (5,000+ voters) Oct. 2024 (updated 2025 analysis) True patriots may need violence to save country? 15% agree overall; Dems lower (~10%) 23% agree overall; Reps higher (~30%), especially among Christian nationalists (33%)
States United Democracy Center (national sample) June 2024 (tracked to 2025) Political violence a major problem? Support for it rising? 45% see as major problem; ~10% justify in some cases Similar overall, but Reps more likely to justify against “threats to democracy” (e.g., 20% in subsets)
General trend from multiple polls (e.g., NPR/Ipsos, Visual Capitalist)
2024-2025 Violence ever justified for political goals? 11-14% say sometimes; higher among younger libs (18-29: ~20%) 6-11% say sometimes; higher among older cons in 2024 data
• Trends favoring higher left-leaning support: The NCRI poll highlights stark asymmetry for violence against right-leaning figures like Musk and Trump, tying it to online rhetoric (e.g., Bluesky posts glorifying assassins). The September 2025 YouGov poll—conducted right after Charlie Kirk’s assassination—shows Democrats twice as likely as Republicans to justify violence or celebrate deaths. Experts like Peter Loge (George Washington University) note that while support is low, it’s often higher among liberals for “progressive” causes (e.g., anti-corporate or anti-Trump actions), and younger demographics (more liberal) are 2-3x more tolerant. Post-2024 election data also shows left-leaning protests (e.g., against deportations or Gaza policy) correlating with more permissive attitudes toward disruption.
• Trends favoring higher right-leaning support: Earlier 2024 PRRI data showed Republicans more supportive of violence to “save the country” (e.g., 23% vs. 15% for Dems), especially among white Christian nationalists (a right-leaning group). 2022-2023 polls (e.g., from Psychology Today citing PRRI) had Republicans at 40% supporting violence vs. 23% Democrats, linked to election denialism and Jan. 6 rhetoric. Right-wing violence has been more lethal in recent years (e.g., FBI data: 75% of extremist murders 2010-2023 from right-wing sources), though left-wing incidents (e.g., property damage in protests) are more frequent but less deadly.
• Overall context: Support remains marginal (under 15% in most cases), but it’s bidirectional and fueled by echo chambers—liberals overestimate right-wing violence (75% see it as bigger issue), conservatives the opposite (66%). Experts (e.g., in Politico and Washington Post analyses) emphasize that both sides’ media ecosystems amplify threats, but the left’s recent uptick in polls may stem from frustration over 2024 outcomes and figures like Musk/Trump symbolizing opposition. No side has a monopoly, but for advocacy targeting specific conservative icons, the data leans toward it being more pronounced on the left in 2025.
In short, while political violence advocacy is a bipartisan concern with low but rising tolerance, recent evidence (especially the NCRI and post-Kirk polls) suggests it’s manifesting more acutely on the left for high-profile cases like those Kirk highlighted. Addressing it requires leaders on both sides to condemn it unequivocally, as polls show that reduces support across the board.
(End of Grok quotes)
The beginning of all healthy and proper human development and growth depends on first admitting where there are problems, responsibly acknowledging the nature of problems, not dismissing, downplaying, or denying them.
Joe Rogan makes an interesting point on the “bot farms” that are financed by foreign states like China that pretend to be fellow citizens in, for example, the US population and though bots try to sow discord between groups/people. They try to incite outrage, hatred, and fighting among liberal democracy citizens. Some of the hatred and fighting is organic, from smaller minorities says Rogan, but a lot is this outside influence trying to disrupt and ruin liberal democracies. Rogan notes reports on this:
“Joe Rogan Experience #2378 – Charlie Sheen”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRj5pxG2JPk&t=2237s
And these on bot farms…
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/09/g-s1-9010/russia-bot-farm-ai-disinformation
https://www.fastcompany.com/91321143/bot-farms-social-media-manipulation
More on the freedom file.
Good on the “Brandenburg standard” as defining free speech limits.
Agreed that the right is now embracing “eye for eye” retaliation in seeking exposure, threat, and criminalization of the offensive speech of those celebrating Kirks murder.
This from below: “The response on the political right has been no less dangerous: the urge to answer a murder with censorship or official punishment of vile speech.”
And that is what the author notes below that will damage free speech which is fundamental to all freedom.
“Bury the ‘Words are Violence’ cliché. We need maximal tolerance for speech; zero tolerance for force”, Greg Lukianoff, 2025
https://www.thefp.com/p/bury-the-words-are-violence-cliche?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
“TEACH STUDENTS THAT OBJECTIONABLE SPEECH IS VIOLENCE AND YOU INVITE THEM TO SEE THEIR OWN AGGRESSION AS SELF-DEFENSE,” WRITES GREG LUKIANOFF.
Lukianoff notes that news of Charlie Kirk’s assassination sparked many to celebrate, claiming it was karma payback for his spreading “hate, racism, misinformation, bigotry… reap what you sow”. They claimed that Kirk deserved to die for his words, but Lukianoff says that they have forgotten a crucial distinction that words are not violence and he has warned for years “that equating words with violence erases the bright line liberal societies drew after centuries of bloodshed. The law draws this line with precision. Advocacy, even vile advocacy, remains protected unless it is intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action. That’s the Brandenburg standard, and it exists because the alternative is to let the powerful decide which ideas are allowed.”
He continues, stating that a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that government may not prohibit speech that some people find offensive because such a principle is a safety valve of pluralism. Unfortunately, university campuses have been eroding such critical distinctions and now tell students that offensive ideas are “harm”, “silence is violence”, and “speech can be literally’ violence.”
He says that “Teach students that objectionable speech is violence and you invite them to see their own aggression as self-defense. This is the bloody fallacy we just witnessed: Accept the premise that rhetoric is a physical attack and you hand extremists a moral permission slip to answer speech with force. “
He then details surveys that show many students now believe that it is valid to use coercion and violence to stop speech they disagree with. He illustrates with a variety of actual incidents where students have used aggression to shut down speakers, destroyed property, to now using violence against someone they did not like.
He moves on to note that the response on the political right has been similarly dangerous in urging censorship and punishment of the vile speech of opponents after the Kirk murder. We now hear of people being reprimanded, suspended, and even losing jobs over such speech. This retaliation further acts to chill free speech public debate.
How to respond to the speech that offends us? “The lesson we must relearn: Ugly speech is answered with more speech, not legal process. Investigate true threats and incitement under settled law; otherwise, keep the public square open.”
Lukianoff repeats his argument that we must reject the “words are violence” cliché. Further, he says that we must restore the atmosphere of universities as places to vigorously debate dangerous ideas and exercise maximum tolerance for speech with zero tolerance for force. Then, do not reward disruption of speech but discipline those who do so. And encourage the bravery to do what Charlie Kirk did- to talk to people, argue your ideas, listen to others.
He concludes:
“Free speech is not merely a favor for our friends— it is the best nonviolent technology humans have for solving our conflicts. To honor a man who died while speaking, don’t gag his enemies or canonize his ideas. Rebuild a culture that says no idea is so sacred it can’t be challenged and no person so despised they can be murdered in cold blood for speaking. Highest tolerance for speech. Zero tolerance for violence.”
Keep the line bright. Civilization depends on it.
And this on universities failing on so many issues critical to preparing students who will affirm, promote, and protect the Classic Liberal principles, systems of law, and representative institutions that undergird liberal democracy and maintain the rights and freedoms of all, equally.
“FIRST READING: How Canadian universities became cheering sections for political violence: Multiple Canadian professors took to social media to cheer the public murder of U.S. political commentator Charlie Kirk”, Tristan Hopper, Sept. 15, 2025
He opens, “When a wave of Canadian figures took to social media this week to publicly celebrate the assassination of U.S. political commentator Charlie Kirk, it shouldn’t have been all that surprising that a disproportionate number of them worked in academia.”
He explains, “Kirk was murdered at a university while engaging in a very university-like activity: Peacefully debating students who disagreed with him. Nevertheless, calls for the act to be repeated were loudest among those whose workplace was a university.”
He then gives examples of vile expressions of celebration by varied professors at different universities. He notes the similar celebration of Hamas over previous years. And the urging of repeated acts of “anticolonial resistance.”
Hopper adds that “This is all occurring on campuses where rising numbers of Canadian students are reporting discomfort with the extremism around them, and are actively censoring their own views to avoid sanction at the hands of faculty or administrators….
“’Liberals basically feel free to say anything they want on any subject, regardless of consequences — that’s not an overstatement — while moderates and conservatives and libertarians feel like they have to radically self-censor, if they want to avoid consequences for their beliefs,’ the foundation’s research director David Hunt told the National Post.”
This article is valuable for understanding media (news and social media), public narratives, how propagandizing people works, and the influence of ideas on human beings, what outcomes are likely. This illustrates the dangerous consequences when some in a society are demonized and dehumanized as a dangerous threat to the society.
“Charlie Kirk murder an example of how cancel culture leads to violence: When elites work to exclude certain viewpoints, when they brand voices as too extreme to be heard, they create the conditions for violence”, Christopher Dummitt, Sept. 16, 2025
Dummitt begins noting the reactions to the murder of Charlie Kirk by politicians and media forums. He then says “In Canada especially there is a jarring irony. Many of the same politicians and commentators now denouncing violence have spent years working to marginalize voices like Kirk’s.”
He says that not just the “left” but also the “mushy middle” has portrayed Kirk and Canadian conservative equivalents as “too extreme, too dangerous for legitimate political debate.” He gives several examples of Canadian politicians who have demonized conservative voices and tried to criminalize their speech. That criminalization happened under Trudeau’s government with an “online harms bill” that that would label conservative information as “misinformation”. Meaning- information that liberals disagreed with, information that, for example, challenged immigration policy, that challenged trans ideology, and the gender transformation of young people, etc.
Dummitt says that “many of those now solemnly decrying political violence are the same people who worked to exclude and discredit figures like Kirk. They consistently presented conservative viewpoints as too radical to be considered, casting their advocates as unsafe or illegitimate. In sociological terms, they “othered” them, treating them as outside the bounds of acceptable discourse.”
In another National Post article, David Cayley shows how former PM Trudeau did this with the 2022 trucker’s protest. Cayley says, “They were not treated as an emergent public with something important to say. Instead, they were treated as an invading army, and, finally, as a grave threat to national security. ‘These people,’ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said, are ‘often racists’ and ‘misogynists’ who ‘don’t believe in science’ and who hold ‘unacceptable opinions’.”
From- “How CBC botched coverage of the Freedom Convoy: At no point, did the CBC acknowledge the protest as a political phenomenon that deserved to be carefully examined”, Sept. 16, 2025.
Dummitt continues, stating how Canadian liberals warned of the danger of conservative ideas but did not explain exactly which ideas and why they were dangerous.
“Stories about alleged racism or transphobia often omit the actual words supposedly at issue, justified by the claim that quoting them would ‘revictimize’ marginalized groups. The result is that conservative perspectives are swept aside under a cloud of insinuation.”
Conservative ideas were smeared as “alt-right”. “Once labelled, their ideas can be ignored without engagement. It is reputation destruction by association, a form of ad hominem that saves elites from having to reckon with the arguments themselves.”
Dummitt concludes: “When political and media elites work to exclude certain viewpoints, when they brand voices as too extreme or unsafe to be heard, they help create the conditions for violence. They construct a climate in which an unstable individual can come to believe that silencing an opponent by force is justified.”
He says, of such extremism, that those who narrow the range of acceptable debate fuel polarization, exclusion, and extremism. They create an environment where opposing voices are marginalized as “dangerous extremism” and that can produce deadly consequences.