When major and shocking events occur, there is, of course, a tendency for people to respond more emotionally than rationally, and to overinterpret their significance. But it seems to me that two general points can safely be made about the current situation.
The first is
that Kirk’s murder has vividly illustrated how dangerous and destructive of social
order are the ideologies that have in recent decades come to have such a
pervasive influence in academia and the culture more generally. This is evident not only from the so-called “anti-fascist”
motivations of the shooter, but the approval of this murder shown by a
disturbing number of people on the left side of the political spectrum (the
same people, it seems, who also lionized the murderer of United Healthcare CEO
Brian Thompson).
In an
article at Postliberal Order last
year, I argued that “woke” ideologies are, in spirit, essentially revivals of
the toxic and antisocial Manichean heresy which, in various guises, occasionally
spread like a pestilence through medieval Europe. Much of the political violence we have seen
in recent years, such as the riots of the summer of 2020 and the assassinations
of Thompson and Kirk, illustrate just how dangerous these ideologies are. Their influence within academia and the
broader culture must be thoroughly extirpated, root and branch.
By no means do
I deny that there are also serious problems on the right end of the political
spectrum. On the contrary, I
have argued that Manichean tendencies can also be seen on the right, in,
for example, the QAnon movement. Some of
the recent political violence has also come from the right, as in the case of
the January 6 riot and the assassinations this June of Democratic Minnesota
state legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband. Right-wingers have also sometimes been guilty
of ugly responses to violence against left-wingers, as in the case of the
attack on Paul Pelosi. In no way does
this entail positing some “moral equivalence.”
Let the blame be parceled out in whatever unequal way you like – 60/40
or 70/30, say, instead of 50/50 – the fact is that there is bad behavior on
both sides.
All the
same, I would argue that the problem is more fundamentally on the left than on
the right, because the cultural left more thoroughly dominates major
institutions – academia, journalism, pop culture, and so forth. This is why the moral and cultural center of
gravity has in recent decades moved steadily leftward (as the decline of
religious belief, traditional sexual morality, and the like illustrate). The right has in some ways reacted badly to this,
but precisely because it has been in a position of greater weakness and thus
greater desperation. Nor, in my view, does
recent GOP electoral success show otherwise.
I would argue that that mainly reflects dissatisfaction with Democratic
excess and incompetence rather than any revival of cultural conservatism. Indeed, it occurred precisely as the GOP
itself moved
leftward on moral and cultural issues.
But this
brings me to my second point, which is that as bad as things are for moral and
religious conservatives, they are nevertheless not as bad as too many on the right pretend. In the days since Charlie Kirk was murdered,
many hotheads on social media have suggested that we are now essentially in a
state of civil war and ought to respond accordingly. This is foolish and dangerous talk, and not
true to the facts. In reality, despite
the evil things too many “rank and file” left-wingers have been saying about
Kirk’s assassination, most of the leading voices on the left have strongly
denounced it, often in ways that show real human solidarity with their rivals
on the right (some examples I’ve called attention to on Twitter being Bernie Sanders, Cenk Uygur, and Tim Robbins).
Not only as
a matter of justice and charity, but also for the good of the country and of one’s
own soul, it is crucial not to fall into the trap of pretending that all people
whose political views are contrary to one’s own are monsters, or that they
otherwise basically all think alike. Real life is more complicated than that. It is crucial to acknowledge this reality,
and to work with all men of good will to bring down the political temperature
while this is still possible. For as bad
as things are now, an actual civil war, or any level of political violence
approximating it, would be incalculably worse.
In recent
months, the bitterness of current U.S. politics – and especially the stubborn
insistence of too many on fighting ideology with counter-ideology, lawfare with
counter-lawfare, and so on – has often brought to my mind Thucydides’ account
of the civil war in Corcyra, in his History
of the Peloponnesian War. We have,
thank God, not descended to the level of violence he describes. But the mentality
he describes, which led to that violence, is all too disturbingly evident. I’ll end this post with some relevant
passages, a warning from antiquity that we ignore at our peril:
Civil war ran through the cities… And they reversed the usual
way of using words to evaluate what they did. Ill-considered boldness was counted as loyal
manliness; prudent hesitation was held to be cowardice in disguise, and
moderation merely the cloak of an unmanly nature. A mind that could grasp the good of the whole
was considered wholly lazy. Sudden fury
was accepted as part of manly valor… A
man who expressed anger was always to be trusted, while one who opposed him was
under suspicion... In brief, a man was
praised if he could commit some evil action before anyone else did, or if he
could urge on another person who had never meant to do such a thing.
Family ties were not so close as those of the political
parties, because party members would readily dare to do anything on the
slightest pretext… To take revenge was
of higher value than never to have received injury...
Those who led their parties in the cities promoted their
policies under decent-sounding names: “equality for the mass of citizens” on
one side, and “moderate aristocracy” on the other. And although they pretended to serve the
public in their speeches, they actually treated it as the prize for their
competition; and striving by whatever means to win, both sides ventured the
most horrible outrages and exacted even greater revenge, without any regard for
justice or the public good… The citizens
who remained in the middle were destroyed by both parties, partly because they
would not side with them, and partly for envy that they might escape in this
way.
Thus was every kind of wickedness afoot throughout all Greece
by the occasion of civil wars... People
were sharply divided into opposing camps, and, without trust, their minds were
in strong opposition. No speech was so
powerful, no oath so terrible, as to overcome this mutual hostility... For the most part, those of weaker
intelligence had the greatest success, since a sense of their own inferiority
and the subtlety of their opponents put them into great fear that they would be
overcome in debate or by schemes due to their enemies’ intelligence…
Those who attacked… primarily out of zeal for equality… were the most carried away by their undisciplined passion to commit savage and pitiless attacks… Human nature, having become accustomed to violate justice and laws, now came to dominate law altogether, and showed itself with delight to be the slave of passion, the victor over justice, and the enemy of anyone superior. Without the destructive voice of envy, you see, people would not value revenge over reverence, or profits over justice. When they want revenge on others, people are determined first to destroy without a trace the laws that commonly govern such matters, though it is only because of these that anyone in trouble can hope to be saved. (Book 3, Paul Woodruff translation, at pp. 139-43)
I don’t know if this advice is philosophical but the Christian approach should be to “love thy enemies”.
ReplyDeletewho is he even addressing is the question.. seems like edd just fails to find his place in politics .. and he is trying for years
DeleteI don't think any nation whose founding myth involves the violent overthrow of tyranny can ever unequivocally condemn political violence, if only as a matter of political culture. I mean, try and enter imaginatively into the mind of Kirk's assassin for a moment. How many Americans would have mourned the murder of, say, Baldur von Schirach, even if it was carried out in front of his wife and children? Practically none, I would imagine. But if we wouldn't object to that, can we really, unhesitatingly say (as Sanders does) that political violence is never the answer? Sure, we can quibble over whether Kirk's slavish Trumpism really was fascism, but that's not the point. Americans resorted to violence to solve political problems in 1775, and again in 1861. We took our crusade against tyranny overseas in 1914 and 1941 (at least, that's how Americans like to tell the story). And yet when it comes to delivering a little "sic semper tyrannis" in 21st century in America, respectable opinion recoils. Why? Nothing about the story that Americans tell themselves about who they are rules out assassinating people that you think are a threat to democracy. The real political fault line here is not the radicalization of left or right. It's the fact that in American politics, neither side can really, honestly say that killing bad people is bad. The real debate is which people are bad enough to kill.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's a much scarier problem than extremism, bitterness, or polarization.
Last year we were on vacation staying in a bed-and-breakfast, and a British couple who were also guests commented on the large number of firearms in the US. I replied: "The trouble is not that the US is full of firearms; the trouble is that it's full of Americans."
DeleteSure, we can quibble over whether Kirk's slavish Trumpism really was fascism, but that's not the point.
DeleteNonsense and shame on you Shaggy.
Kirk was not some Nazi war criminal and it is deranged to imply that any sane person could think so.
Are you even a Christian?
How many Americans would have mourned the murder of, say, Baldur von Schirach, even if it was carried out in front of his wife and children? Practically none, I would imagine.
DeleteObject to his murder? More than a few, I imagine.
Americans resorted to violence to solve political problems in 1775,
Kirk held no office, held no power by which he could force others to his will. If you cannot notice any moral distinction between a town's militia defending its town after years of remonstrances made through elected representatives, and a sniper killing Kirk out of distaste for his vocal opinions, I fear your moral imagination is a sad and dangerous place.
America’s founding story isn’t “kill whoever you think is a tyrant.” It’s lawful resistance under public authority and then government by elections. The Declaration counsels prudence. Madison designed institutions to curb the violence of faction. Washington crushed mob law and restored peace under law. Assassination by a private actor is wrong because it lacks legitimate authority and goes against the common good.
DeleteEven Nazis like Baldur von Schirach weren’t assassinated. He was tried and imprisoned.
In other words, yes, a nation born in a revolution can unequivocally condemn private political killing.
The real debate is which people are bad enough to kill.
DeleteTrue enough. But when a substantial minority of one side of the aisle not only privately, but even publicly, celebrates the assassination of a guy who can, at worst, be accused of publicly debating in favor of bad ideas, the scope of the problem becomes fairly serious.
Contrast this with the murder of Melissa Hortman. Those of a broadly conservative temperament seemed, by and large, embarrassed, if not outright horrified of the thing.
These are made up numbers, but to illustrate:
If one political persuasion found about 10-15% of its adherents were meaningfully sympathetic to assassination of their political opponents, and the opposing persuasion had about 35-40% of its adherents being so sympathetic, that would be a difference worth commenting on, no? I know of no reasonable way to quantify the actual standing of conservatives and progressives on the above question, but the contrast in response between the Kirk case and Hortman case appears to provide some informal indication of the gulf between the two camps on how okay it is to murder the political opposition.
You're spot on when you say that it's not the point whether Kirk was a fascist or not. They don't kill you for being a fascist, they call you a fascist to kill you. And the moment one admits that it's ok to kill a fascist to preserve democracy, they admit the ineptitude of democracy at its self-preservation. Since to have faith in "democratic solutions" like dialogue is to become an easy prey to the real "defenders of democracy" who won't limit themselves to such means, one must wonder what's the point to keep playing this game. If violent overthrow is justifiable against tyranny, it doesn't take much to conclude what must be done to a democracy that has become tyrannical.
DeleteI think it’s important to draw a sharp distinction between the founding moments of a nation and the moral framework that sustains it today. The American Revolution and Civil War were responses to systemic, entrenched crises—moments when the very structure of governance had collapsed or become intolerable. They weren’t acts of individual vengeance; they were collective upheavals, shaped by public declarations, constitutional debates, and, yes, immense tragedy.
DeleteTo suggest that political assassination in the 21st century is somehow consistent with that legacy is not just historically imprecise—it’s morally dangerous. Baldur von Schirach was a Nazi war criminal. To even entertain a comparison between him and Charlie Kirk, whose activism operated within the bounds of American law and democratic discourse, is to abandon moral clarity. Disagreement is not tyranny. And if we lose the ability to distinguish between the two, we invite chaos.
The real fault line isn’t whether Americans have a tradition of violence—it’s whether we still believe in the rule of law, the dignity of debate, and the sanctity of human life. If we start asking which people are “bad enough to kill,” we’ve already surrendered the very principles that make democracy possible. That’s not political realism—it’s nihilism.
Violence begets violence. And if we want to preserve anything worth fighting for, we must reject the idea that murder is a legitimate form of political expression. We must return to the marketplace of ideas, not burn it down.
@bmiller
DeleteSince when is "fascist" a synonym for "Nazi war criminal?" I obviously couldn't be using it that way, since my (carefully chosen, I'd like to point out) example was Baldur von Schirach, head of the Nazi Student Union before the Nazis came to power. If I wanted to equate "fascist" with "Nazi war criminal," I would have chosen Heydrich or Keitel.
But setting up an impossibly high (and ahistorical) standard for what constitutes fascism is terribly convenient, isn't it? Until Trump and his devotees literally start sending people to the gas chambers, the response will always be "Hysteria! Slander! How dare you!" and the conversation never even begins. It's like the pro-choice fanatics who can't countenance even for the second that they might be the moral equivalent of the SS just because they're not literally wearing black uniforms and setting up death camps.
I like to think I am a Christian, incidentally, although I'm also fairly certain that most self-identified "Christians" in America aren't going to make the cut when the Kingdom arrives, so I wouldn't encourage anyone to be complacent on that score.
@Anonymous
Delete"America’s founding story isn’t “kill whoever you think is a tyrant.” It’s lawful resistance under public authority and then government by elections."
Tell that to the Sons of Liberty. They seemed to have missed the memo.
Also, the standard interpretation of the 2nd Amendment offered by American conservative is that the right to bear arms exists so that those arms can be used to overthrow (and presumably kill) a tyrant if necessary. Kirk himself believed this. If resistance to tyrants was supposed to be lawful and orderly, those arms should be locked in the local armory, awaiting the approval of public authority before being put to use.
@ccmnxc
DeleteI would love to see some actual numbers before we start claiming that one side in American politics likes violence more than the other. I mean, 30% of Republicans approve of the January 6th riot (which was blatantly murderous in intent), and a poll in 2023 found that Republicans were significantly more likely than Democrats to support the claim that "American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save the country" (1/3rd of all Republicans agreed). Sure, it's also true that Democrats are more likely (22% vs. 12%) to approve of the murder of Thompson, but then Democrats are also more likely to believe that the standard practices within the insurance industry are often tantamount to murder, whereas Republicans (being generally sympathetic to privatized healthcare) are more likely to see Thompson as an innocent victim. I think my point stands that neither side in American politics is actually firmly opposed to political murder; they just have different circumstances under which they think it might be necessary or permissible.
(It is also undeniable, by the way, that right-wing groups have historically been the main source of political violence in the United States since the 1970s. It's not even close. White supermacists, Neo-Nazis, sovereign citizens, and religious nuts commit more violence than Muslims and the Left combined.)
"Americans resorted to violence to solve political problems in 1775, and again in 1861."
DeleteWell I'd prefer to say they resorted to violence to implement political projects. To talk about "solving political problems" in this context seems too baldly presumptuous and question-begging.
"Nothing about the story that Americans tell themselves about who they are rules out assassinating people that you think are a threat to democracy."
Um, yeah, that's a bit problematic: "The story"?? "Nothing" about it?? Gee, man, those seem like less than obvious, highly debatable claims, doncha think??
"The real political fault line here is not the radicalization of left or right. It's the fact that in American politics, neither side can really, honestly say that killing bad people is bad. The real debate is which people are bad enough to kill."
Oy. What wonders of self-indulgent, grandiose, pompous, bloviating ignoramitude! Might as well just say it: you're not concerned here to say anything remotely sensible; you're perfectly self-satisfied with nonsensical provocative moral posturing. Perhaps you'd have been better advised to say, "the real debate is who to kill so we can impose our view without having a real debate." But of course that's not a real debate that's happening either, so that too would have been a lie, but at least a lie with some topical resonance.
Shaggy,
DeleteI obviously couldn't be using it that way, since my (carefully chosen, I'd like to point out) example was Baldur von Schirach, head of the Nazi Student Union before the Nazis came to power.
You're apparently not to careful.
From Wikipedia:
Baldur von Schirach was a German Nazi leader and the Hitler Youth leader from 1931 to 1940. He was also the Gauleiter of Vienna and was convicted of crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg trials.
But setting up an impossibly high (and ahistorical) standard for what constitutes fascism is terribly convenient, isn't it?
Calling everyone you think is doing something bad a fascist or Hitler is lame. It is also a calumny which most Christians consider a sin.
@Thurible
DeleteMan, where do I begin?
1. For starters, I'm not talking about generic "political violence." The Boston Tea Party could be construed as "political violence" under a broad enough reading.
I'm talking about "Is it okay to assassinate your political opponents?" That's a hell of a lot weightier and more pointed.
So to that end, can you find a recent example of a progressive figure (politician, personality, etc.) where conservatives openly celebrated their murder in a way comparable to how many progressives are celebrating Charlie Kirk's death? I'm aware there aren't "numbers" for such a thing, but one does not need such numbers to get a general sense of "Wow, many of these people, who seem otherwise normal and well-integrated into society, seem pretty elated by such a killing."
2. Re. Jan. 6th, assuming we're looking at the same poll (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-analysis-republicans-jan-6-attack/), if you actually look at the breakdown, only 7% strongly approve, whereas 24% somewhat approve. Not exactly a praiseworthy position, but I can envision many of those who said "somewhat approve" thinking along the lines of "I have some sympathy for the rioters and their cause, but also some reservations." So simply reading off "30% of Republicans favor political violence of the Jan. 6th variety" from that poll is not terribly moving to me. It might be the whole violence part of the affair that makes their approval only partial.
3. Comparable issues go for the poll where 1/3 of Republicans say yes to "American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save the country." Are they expressing their own personal commitment? Or are they simply predicting something like "Yeah, things are bad and someone (patriots in this case) might have to do something about it." And what level does this envisioned violence reach? Defending their property or businesses with deadly force if need be? Or literally going out and killing the opposition?
4. It's hard not to conclude we're in a motte and bailey scenario re. the claims you say you are making. Nobody is taking issue with your contention that neither side thoroughly condemns political violence. It's your further claims that progressives are in fact better than conservatives (or at least not provably worse) that we're pushing against.
5. Okay, I'll bite: I deny that "right-wing" extremism has been more violent than "left-wing." And I do this mostly because the above categorization is...coarse-grained, to put it politely. So since you said you wanted numbers, let's talk numbers: What is the respective body count for right-wing and left-wing/Islamic extremism since 1970? How about damage cost in billions of dollars?
> (which was blatantly murderous in intent)
DeleteI can't take anything else you have to say seriously. This is the most absurd take I've heard on January 6th, and sounds like it's informed entirely by MSM lies.
John Wilkes Booth assumed he would be hailed as a hero in the South. However, Confederate leaders and many ordinary Southerners were appalled by Lincoln's assassination and considered it cowardly, dishonorable and barbaric.
DeleteIt's interesting to see the left is celebrating this week's assassin who likewise dishonorably gunned down an unarmed man in front of his family. And to think they consider themselves so morally superior to the Confederates.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."
ReplyDeleteMatt - 10:34
And you just proved what is wrong with this country with that rhetoric.
DeleteThen you had better take it up with the horrible extremist who uttered those words, hadn’t you?
DeleteYou need to brush up on your biblical exegesis., Tom. Bringing a sword was a metaphor for how the teachings of Jesus would have a divisive impact. But I don't think the other Anonymous had that meaning in mind.
DeleteAt one point, Jesus told His disciples to buy swords, even if they had to sell their cloaks to do it.
DeleteBetter brush up on your memory of the literal text.
And you need to read Scripture in context:
Delete"What other reason might Jesus have had for making his disciples bring swords? The answer is provided by Jesus himself as explains that it was to fulfill the prophecy, “He was numbered with the transgressors” (Is 53:12). To fulfill prophecy as well as to further force the hand of the authorities, if necessary, Jesus and his band of disciples had to appear to be criminals. More specifically, they had to appear like a typical band of sword wielding zealots, thus justifying the arrest and eventual execution of their leader."
This explains why Jesus says, “It is enough,” when the disciples produce only two swords. If Jesus expected his disciples to actually engage in sword fighting, two swords would obviously be completely inadequate. But for the mere purpose of appearing to be a band of lawbreaking zealots, two swords would suffice.
anonymous@7:53 pm, is that interpretation a quote from a book?
DeleteThose who led their parties in the cities promoted their policies under decent-sounding names: “equality for the mass of citizens” on one side, and “moderate aristocracy” on the other.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, in 1789, "Liberty, equality, fraternity" opened a reign of terror over at the aristocrats at first, but then eventually fed by any who dare to say nay to even a smidgeon the excesses. In 1917, the "permanent revolution" for "the worker" led to even more grotesque excesses, murdering over 20M workers, a famine, etc. Scary how clearly Thucydides hits the mark.
People assume "society" can withstand any number of small evils done in spite of her, but when the evils done are prevalent, and order crumbles, they rediscover (too late) oh, yes, law and order are not impervious.
So how are you going to extirpate root and branch woke ideology? And to point out the many hateful and offensive things Charlie Kirk said does not equate to approving his murder. The only sane unifying voice I heard today came from the Gov. of Utah. When Trump was asked on Fox News how he could unify the country, he said, " I could care less." That tells you all you need to know about him and his MAGA base.
ReplyDeleteNo unity is possible between those who wish to have free speech and those who wish to exterminate it, nor between those who wish to improve their country and those who hate it and wish to see it destroyed.
DeleteAs for your claim – ‘does not equate to approving his murder’ – that is an obvious red herring. Thousands of Leftists on social media have already posted texts and videos expressing their full-throated approval of the murder. You won’t absolve them by niggling over hypothetical border cases.
Nor, at bottom, does it matter if the things Kirk said were ‘hateful and offensive’, because those are matters of opinion, and your opinion will depend on your own political beliefs. Leftists, of course, find Kirk’s statements hateful and offensive, because they find ALL disagreement hateful and offensive. They aren’t particularly careful about finding things to hate and be offended by, either: Stephen King, for instance, made a royal ass of himself by taking offence at Kirk based on things Kirk was easily proved not to have said at all. At least King had the decency to retract his accusations.
What matters is not whether Kirk’s speech did or did not offend certain people, but whether he spoke the truth. No man is infallible, but for the most part, Kirk did speak the truth, and he was always open to debate with his opponents, whereby his errors could be shown to be wrong. Neither his murderer, nor the ghouls who are rejoicing at his death, offer any such courtesy to those who disagree with them. As Trotsky said about Stalin, they seek not to strike at the ideas of their opponent, but at his skull.
I thought trump said that too and then I watched the video and it’s clear he was saying he didn’t care that people would be upset with him for pointing out that (in his opinion) most political violence is coming from the left.
DeleteI had almost gotten in an argument with someone about it (I guess you could say it was an argument, but I realized my error before things got heated) so I felt like a real idiot when I saw the video.
"And to point out the many hateful and offensive things Charlie Kirk said does not equate to approving his murder."
DeleteDon't count on our naivety. When Antoine Barnave was questioned about revolutionary violence, he asked: "the blood that was just spilled, was it so pure?" Same thing.
And Tom, Stephen King should not have apologised for what he said. Kirk didn't personally advocate that gays be stoned; instead he quoted Leviticus in the O.T where stoning of gays is mentioned.
Delete"The initial claim by King was in reference to comments that Kirk had made on his podcast in 2024, in which Kirk criticized children’s YouTube star Ms. Rachel for citing God’s wish for Christians to “love thy neighbor” in Leviticus, saying that should include gay people. Kirk responded, “By the way, Ms. Rachel, you might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In a lesser reference, part of the same part of scripture, in Leviticus 18, is that ‘thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death.’ Just saying.”
Wolf, No, Trump did say he could care less about bringing the country together. H
DeleteDuring an appearance on "Fox & Friends," Trump was asked about the presence of radical individuals on both sides of the aisle and how it can be fixed to bring the country together.
"Because we have radicals on the right as well. We have radicals on the left. People have gotten are watching all of these videos and cheering. Some people are cheering that Charlie was, was killed. How do we fix this country? How do we come back together?" co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked the president.
"I'll tell you something that's going to get me in trouble, but I couldn't care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don't want to see crime. They don't want to see crime. Worried about the border. They're saying, We don't want these people coming in. We don't want you burning our shopping centers. We don't want you shooting our people in the middle of the street," Trump said
If you watch the video, it’s clear he was saying he could care less that “it’s going to get [him] in trouble” to say that leftist extremists are the bigger problem.
Delete“By no means do I deny that there are also serious problems on the right end of the political spectrum. On the contrary, I have argued that Manichean tendencies can also be seen on the right, in, for example, the QAnon movement. Some of the recent political violence has also come from the right, as in the case of the January 6 riot and the assassinations this June of Democratic Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband. Right-wingers have also sometimes been guilty of ugly responses to violence against left-wingers, as in the case of the attack on Paul Pelosi.”
ReplyDelete• QAnon movement,
• January 6 riot,
• the assassinations this June of Democratic Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband
• Right-wingers have also sometimes been guilty of ugly responses to violence against left-wingers, as in the case of the attack on Paul Pelosi.
QAnon movement. zero killings
In the proclaimed January 6 riot only one person was murderer, unarmed Ashli Babbitt, shot in the head by government officer.
From Wikipedia, “In a letter addressed to the FBI, Boelter [Vance Luther Boelter, alleged assassin], claimed that Governor Walz instructed him to kill multiple officials, especially Klobuchar, to allow Walz to run for her Senate seat.”
Right-wingers have also sometimes been guilty of ugly responses to violence against left-wingers, as in the case of the attack on Paul Pelosi. Are you serious?
Having read this long before, it seemed foreign and brutal. Now it reads like an eyewitness report from events this year. Fallen human nature has not changed much over the centuries, has it? I happen to be reading “The Last Superstition” (you are correct when you tongue-in-cheek mock your own title creativity) and it is hard not to see a correlation or at least a consequence of nominalistic or conceptualistic metaphysics winning the modernists’ hearts, and academia abandoning the “reasonableness” of final causes and the argument for God from logic not emotion. “Radicalization” formerly sounded like a jihadist training camp. Now I think it is more like freshman college core curriculum. I hate labels, but “Marxism” is not totally inaccurate as well as “anti-theistic” for our environment. My prayer (and I believe that truly) is that the shock of hearing neighbors mock and rejoice over an assassination of someone they simply disliked will jolt us all out of our stupor and seek “reasonableness” in accepting we don’t all think the same, and maybe we can still have a common enemy and so find enough common ground to avoid wholesale civil warfare.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest the labels (i.e., concepts) 'anxiety,' 'sin,' 'demonic'; Kierkegaard writes: "Once sin is posited, and the individual continues in sin, there are two formations... The individual is in sin, and his anxiety is about the evil. This formation, when seen from a higher standpoint, is in the good, for that is why it is anxiety about the evil. The other formation is the demonic. The individual is in the evil and is anxious about the good. ... The demonic therefore first comes clearly in sight only when it is touched by the good, which now comes to its boundary from outside."
DeleteSafe spaces, triggering, hatred of open honest discourse, these are all manifestations of demonic anxiety about the good. A demon says to Christ: "ti emoi kai soi, what have I to do with you?" IOW, I am in evil, leave me be; be gone from me, I cannot bear the good.
There is a certain artificiality to a social and political truce at a moment like this. But I think that very artificiality is a part of what makes civilization.
ReplyDelete"This is evident not only from the so-called 'anti-fascist' motivations of the shooter..."
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence at all that he was "anti-fascist," outside of literally one phrase written on one bullet casing (which is a direct quote from a video game.) He was from a well-off religious Republican gun culture family, start there if you want to investigate a "toxic and antisocial" ideology that is "destructive of social order."
Oh, and the famous antifascist song inscribed in title on another round.
DeleteSeriously trying to pin it on his family? Good grief.
The shooter was just one of the many mentally disturbed young men we have in this country.
DeleteYou forgot about the other clearly leftist inscriptions and quotes that were expressed. Don’t just vaguely refer to one and ignore the others.
DeleteOne can only concur with the sentiments of this post. All the more so as this conflict is not one of night versus day, detestable as the woke ideology is. There will be more victims of the extreme left, but these victims may not necessarily be defenders of the Christian West. This seems to be the main symptom of the West's malaise. Almost nowhere is there a political position that is not mediated through one or other of the Enlightenment's ideologies - Liberalism, Socialism and Conservatism. When will we learn to speak with our own language again?
ReplyDeleteI hope that Ed will remove the comments here that justify murder, beginning with the Great Thurible of Darkness comment.
ReplyDeleteThat guy spouts a lot of intentionally provocative nonsense, but what you allege he did, he did not do. Otoh, the question he asks, "can we really say political violence is never the answer?" seems to me by no means a trivial one. If one's answer is "yes, obviously: NEVER!", I'd be interested to hear how one justifies that view. I'd at least like some clarification: what exactly is 'political violence'; and it's "never the answer"... to what??
DeleteNo, Rob, Thurible didn't say what you think he said. But the Far Right is going all out to squelch all those who criticized Kirk:
Deletehttps://www.wired.com/story/right-wing-activists-are-targeting-people-for-allegedly-celebrating-charlie-kirks-death/
@Rob
DeleteI feel like there's an object lesson here. Demanding censorship of something you haven't even understood correctly. The other two are correct; I did not, at any point, attempt to "justify murder." I was simply arguing that it's very difficult for Americans to articulate a constitent, principled opposition to political violence because of the way most Americans interpret their own history—namely as a history of using violence (call it "killing" if you want more clarity) against tyranny. You can do so on other grounds (Sanders does so as a democratic socialist, for example; Dr. Feser does so as a Thomist), but America's recent fad for assassinations and attempted assassinations isn't some weird aberration imported into American history by the radical left (or right); it's a central part of America's political self-identity. Fear and anger have brought it to the surface, but the problem runs much deeper.
As for my "provactive nonsense" (Hi @David McPike), I don't have a particularly high opinion of the reasoning powers or historical knowledge of the commentariate in this venerable blog, so there's a certain point at which being called crazy is a compliment. However, while Dr. Feser is an accomodating host, but I would hate to wear out my commenting privileges any further, so I'll save any further provocations and nonsense until next time.
Bro you had some people reply to you in good faith. Seems a bit of a cop-out to stop now.
DeleteI may not have understood your intent but it seemed as if you personally could not unequivocally condemn political violence. If you can then I retract my request for your post to be deleted.
DeleteSo, assassination is a term being freely-associated now. Having been fully aware of the attempted-assassination of Mr. Trump, I never knew of an earlier plot(?) to assassinate him, before he became infamous, er, sorry, famous as the "you're fired!" guy. I got no beef with freedom of speech. I am sorry for the family's loss of a loved one. I am not yet fully cold to exigencies of history. But, I'm getting there. I phrase it as excess, exaggeration and extremism. The prosecution rests...Be well, Professor.
ReplyDeleteSo out of all this, the thing you find most important is to object to the use of the word ‘assassination’? Not the shooting, not the killing, not the fact that thousands of people openly and publicly rejoiced at a man’s murder?
DeleteTalk about ‘majoring in minors’.
What we are seeing played out is the old principle that liberalism is tolerant of everything except hate and violence ... which out of dumb blind luck are defined as failing to conform to liberalism. Beyond those taking to Social Media to celebrate his murder or mock his wife, are those in that gray area of 'we would have killed Hitler wouldn't we' or 'we've fought wars before haven't we'. Not to mention those pulling the 'we need to love our enemies but never forget that they are our enemies' observation, reminding us of what all of those folks think of people who disagree with them. Though always wrapped up in the banner of diversity and inclusion of course.
ReplyDelete"liberalism is tolerant of everything except hate and violence ... which out of dumb blind luck are defined as failing to conform to liberalism."
DeleteBut obviously, as Ed was at pains to point out, this kind of claim paints with too broad a brush. And so it is simply not true.
Actually, it is true. Can it be said about every person to the left of center ever? No. But right now, even among progressive Christian sites, we're seeing the murder of Charlie Kirk framed in the context of his hate and harmful and violent rhetoric, when often it looks to these eyes like all he was doing was challenging basic progressive assumptions. Now we're seeing the press rush in and make people being fired for celebrating his death or saying he deserved it or wanting to see more into a free speech issue. This would be the same press that has had no problem reporting on people who need to be fired or punished for dropping the N-Word in a 20 year old email, or lecturing us why some speech that is harmful and dangerous should be banned. Again, does this mean it is 100% universal to the left of center? No. But it's clearly a go-to framework for how a movement that still proclaims the importance of tolerance and diversity can demand a person be fired for disagreeing with its approach to tolerance and diversity, again under the auspices of stopping the spread of hateful and harmful rhetoric.
DeleteEd, thank you for doing a blog post on this. I assumed you had posted on X but I think that I am better off for not having a Twitter/X account. I agree with both your points: that the pervasive ideologies in Academia (critical theory and its various branches, Frankfurt school of Marxism, rejection of objective truth, etc) are extremely dangerous and destructive to the social order; and that as bad as things are for moral and religious conservatives, they are nevertheless not as bad as too many on the right pretend.
ReplyDeleteIn a future post, I hope to expand upon your second point. In this post, I shall briefly expand upon your first point.
It was for his extremely effective opposition to the ideology pervasive in Academia that Charlie Kirk was assassinated. He opposed that ideology with truth. The left claimed that the categories of male and female are not grounded in biological reality; a claim that would rightly be regarded as ludicrous in almost all eras prior to this one. Charlie Kirk opposed this (and related ridiculous doctrines) with truth and optimism. He was the efficient cause of many other young men and women having the courage to oppose this ideology also. I celebrate his work and life.
A note of clarification. My comment regarding me being better off for not having a Twitter account was not intended as a criticism of you or anyone else willing to suffer the damage done by operating in that medium in order to communicate a message. It is not for me personally.
DeleteThis is Charlie Kirk's Legacy
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reuters.com/world/us/charlie-kirks-allies-warn-americans-mourn-him-properly-or-else-2025-09-13/
So all that whining about "political correctness" and "cancel culture" for past decade was really just jealousy? Who would have guessed.
DeleteNo, it is not "jealousy", but "escalation".
DeleteAs we can see, the "Far Left" has escalated from "cancel culture" to sporadic political assassinations, praised by "A Bit More Moderate Left".
And the "Far Right", lagging behind, has finally escalated from debates, voting and complaining to that same "cancel culture".
Further steps in the escalation would be frequent assassinations, forming paramilitaries, street battles...
Now, of course, there is a difference between the Left and the Right. The Right usually attacks (or, at further stages, at least tries to attack) the ones that are guilty of violent crimes and support for them. The Left attacks everyone who is on the Right, is sane, and (at later stages) even random bystanders.
For example, Solzhenitsyn (in "The GULAG Archipelago", Part I, Chapter 4) writes about some Divnich, who was (at different times) arrested by both Gestapo and MGB. Gestapo, after showing much cruelty, have found that he was innocent, and decided to let him go. MGB did not care if he was innocent. And Nazis were not a very pure Right, they had many features of the Left.
And, while this might not be seen from Thucydides, we do see that sometimes at least such "lagging" escalation makes sense, that it might not be quite as imprudent, as it might look. We have, effectively, an iterated prisoner's dilemma. And it is not "profitable" to keep choosing to "cooperate", when the other side keeps choosing to "defect".
In other words, "Civil war" is bad, but "One-sided civil war", where only the other side escalates, is not much of an improvement.
And so, complaints about hypocrisy of the Right miss the mark. "Cancel culture" was not intrinsically wrong. It was wrong because: 1) it targeted innocents, 2) it forced people to assent to lies, 3) it led to further escalation, 4) it was merciless (apologies only tended to strengthen the attacks). The Right is not targeting innocents, and escalation has already happened.
Well, you should be rejoicing that your political opponents are tending toward your direction on how politics should be practiced. You either disagreed with them then or now. Chances are, you disagree with them no matter what they say which makes you as big of a hypocrite as those you criticize.
DeleteArsonists whine that that're caught in the burning building they set on fire. How surprising.
Delete"So all that whining about "political correctness" and "cancel culture" for past decade was really just jealousy? Who would have guessed."
DeleteAppealing to your self-serving, Alinskyite interpretation of what our principles entail, is not bound to impress anyone. I speak only for myself, but I imagine for most of us is "Frankly, Margaret, I just don't care".
Regarding Ed’s second point that the situation for conservatives is not as hopeless as too many seem to think, I shall approach this topic by considering how much of the left view the situation at the moment.
ReplyDeleteI work in Academia, most of my colleagues are left-wing politically, and many of them promote some form of critical theory (notions such as “mansplaining,” “transphobia,” “whiteness or white privilege,” “Christian nationalism” [for any who agree with the Declaration of Independence that rights come from nature and nature’s God rather than from government], the evils of cis/heteronormative etc). They, and much of the left, believe that they have lost control in America and are losing it in Europe. The politically astute know that so many leftist organizations were funded by USAID or by other areas of government which were exposed by DOGE and which funds are now cut off. The lawfare to stop the U.S. government from doing this failed at the Supreme Court level. The lawfare to stop the U.S. government defunding Planned Parenthood failed even earlier when 3 Biden appointed(!) judges overturned a radicalized judge. The SCOTUS justice who does not know the definition of a woman is becoming an object of public scorn by all but the left. Woke ideology is being removed from government agencies (this will take a lot of time but Charlie Kirk’s assassination has visibly accelerated that project). The Department of Education has already been significantly reformed and will likely be dismantled. More to come.
To me civil war and maybe a dictator seems like the only way to end the dominance of liberalism in our country.
ReplyDeleteWeouro, I appreciate you posting that. It just proves my point of the violence that the Far Right espouses.
DeleteFacile response to Waeouro. It's the same argument as the Great Thurible made to justify assassination.
DeleteSupercilious retort to Waeouro. It's the same argument as the Great Thurible justifying assassination and no such "smart" replies.
DeleteI don't understand this response. Clearly, there is a more than negligible amount of progressives that are openly celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. Somehow you convince yourself that this is solely a problem on the right? At the very least, if you do reject violence as a political tool, you can acknowledge the fact the progressives have as much of a problem as conservatives. More than likely you are progressive. I think it would serve the interests of your party to address their own violent tendencies. This whataboutism on both sides is tired. It leads to nothing positive.
DeleteWeoro,
DeleteYou are absolutely wrong. The way to end the dominance of leftist ideology (this critical theory stuff is not liberalism) is by standing up for objective truth, persuading people, making your voices heard regarding corporations trying to impose critical theory DEI etc (this was happening before Charlie Kirk's assassination and will accelerate now). Ed is completely right in his second point to argue against this sort of despair. Parents are standing up for their children and against the leftist ideology that teachers have previously imposed. There is more hope now than there has been for a long time.
A leftist dictator could achieve the same result. I'm talking about the political philosophy of liberalism, not the fake left/right dichotomy.
DeleteDem. Congressman, Seth Moulton, a former Captain in the Marine Corps, urged Trump to condemn violence. What he got were death threats from the Far Right:
ReplyDeletehttps://thehill.com/homenews/house/5501823-moulton-death-threats-charlie-kirk-shooting/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAMxsDVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHp1mbeCWnuDuYqO9ZG4cXwg2L7p50IJeEmevV693F5HfT_P8Jkuyb3q_I9Eh_aem_d0UWzQ4uL2sguhyIaEJVcQ
Charlie Kirk supposedly believed in free speech and was against cancel culture. His followers are all about cancel culture now,
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thedailybeast.com/maga-karens-go-full-cancel-culture-on-charlie-kirk-critics-by-trying-to-get-them-fired/
I believe in free speech. I also believe that those who celebrate murder and think it is a good idea should not be in positions of power over vulnerable people.
DeleteExcellent comments, Tom Simon.
DeleteAs far as I understand, Turning Point USA would not be against a school firing a teacher who celebrated the assassination of a left-wing advocate by a right-winger; on the contrary, they would condemn the assassin's action and pray for the victim's family.
You don't think people on the Right would have cheered if Kamala Harris had been assassinated right after her debate with Trump when she bested him when she was leading in the polls? You know they would have. She very pro abortion, or a "baby killer." Some might have thought it was providential that she was killed. Or what if Rep. Alexandria Octavia Cortez was killed. You think Trump, Vance, Steve Bannon, etc would mourn her loss? They would celebrate it and call her a traitor.
DeleteThat said, they have a right to say that, and I see no reason why they should lose their jobs for that. As for Charlie Kirk, the website,"Expose Charlie's Murderers" says it all by its name. Those people didn't murder Charlie, and most of the people on that list didn't celebrate his murder; they just criticized his views. And now the pent up fury of the Far Right is being directed at them, including death threats.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/13/business/charlie-kirk-death-fired-comments
Anonymous,
DeleteAs Ed pointed out in the OP, the majority of people on the left did not celebrate Charlie Kirk's death, and neither Tom Simon or I are saying otherwise. We claim that it is not wrong for a school or company to fire someone who did. The same would be true in your scenario for a right-winger who celebrated the assassination of Kamala Harris.
@anonymous This approach is going nowhere. I say that as someone who, by and large, can't stand either party. Until recently, most of my criticism had been of the right. Honestly, progressives should be focused on shaming their own crazies, not shaming conservatives for shaming. To the moderate lefty/apolitical voters, whether you think it's justified or not, the left appears unhinged. For all our sakes, put your energy towards policing your own.
DeleteTim, Suppose a very devout Catholic, who demonstrates at abortion clinics, commented at the hypothetical assassination of Kamala Harris by saying, "Thank God she is gone from this earth. Countless innocent lives have been saved. Had she been elected she would have been the most pro-abortion president of all time." Or words to that effect. Say the person is a legal secretary, dental assistant, factory worker, federal or state worker, engineer, etc. Why the hell should they be fired? If they ADVOCATE for someone's murder, yes, they should be fired. But not for celebrating it. We are a free country.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteMany of the people who have been fired went way beyond that--celebrating the assassin (as with the assassination of Thomson) or saying that Kirk deserved to be assassinated, or taunting his family and friends, or whatever. There is a spectrum of bad speech. I am not saying that all the firings are justified, but I do think that many of them are.
Charlie Kirk, in his own words. Disgusting.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs
Not sure what you find disgusting although the words were better defended when Kirk explained them in context.
DeleteNot sure?
DeleteOn race
If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024
If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022
Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023
I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.
– Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023
The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 20 March 2024
The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 March 2024
Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.
– Charlie Kirk social media post, 8
September 2025
From NYT
Mr. Kirk did speak freely. He called Dr. King “awful” and “not a good person.” He described the Civil Rights Act as a “huge mistake” and George Floyd as a “scumbag.” He said that Islam “is not compatible with Western civilization,” and accused “Jewish donors” of fueling radicalism by financing “not just colleges — it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.” Democratic women, he said, “want to die alone without children."
Yes, those are quotes. But you were not merely asked which quotes you find disgusting. I am pretty sure "Not sure what you find disgusting" meant "Explain what in those quotes you find 'disgusting'".
DeleteI guess it is not so easy to explain this, since it seems that neither "Guardian", nor NYT, nor you managed to do this so far.
So, maybe it is not those quotes that are disgusting, but rather you being so sure that they are disgusting without knowing why?
Part I
DeleteTo: Anonymous September 15, 2025 at 11:59 AM
«He called Dr. King “awful” and “not a good person.”»
With respect to MLK, you may find this video interesting: https://youtu.be/hGsPzT9NIl8.
«He described the Civil Rights Act as a “huge mistake”»
I would need to hear his specific critiques of the Civil Rights Act, what he considered to be its mistakes. They are not there, just his conclusion.
«and George Floyd as a “scumbag”»
About George Floyd, you may be aware of his crimes. If you aren't, search about them. Still, I don't know how Charlie Kirk talked about his death, and no previous criminal activity would excuse that killing, since the cops weren't aware of it and were called because of a minor issue — though it may count against Floyd being taken as a martyr; and I believe you agree with the latter, since you're so intent into demystifying Kirk right now.
«He said that Islam “is not compatible with Western civilization,”»
(Mainstream) Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization.
«and accused “Jewish donors” of fueling radicalism by financing “not just colleges — it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.”»
Given how often he sided with Israel, and how strong was his denunciation of anti-Semitism in certain places (for instance, here: https://youtu.be/JGqwCfsNezM, and here: https://youtu.be/az1UE99Za_Q; there's a video where he's asked by a Jewish man if he was willing to engage with anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, and there Kirk speaks about how evil, demonic and poisonous those conspiracies are; I couldn't find the link to it, though), I find it hard to believe he was anti-Semitic. He may have believed a substantial portion of the powerful is Jewish, and that many of those were individually responsible for contributing for the proliferation of many evils, but he certainly didn't distribute the blame to every Jew.
«Democratic women, he said, “want to die alone without children."»
I don't really care about this.
«If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.»
This joking quote doesn't mean Kirk believed black pilots were worse as such, but that he believed DEI affirmative action reduced the average quality of the staff of the specific identity groups targeted by them, because something other than competence is added to consideration for their selection. I'm not saying he's right, but that's a milk toast take.
«If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?»
I don't see the terribleness of this quote, even out of context. One of these adjectives seems to be chosen because it is, in Kirk's eyes, a good reason not to treat the person better — “pot-smoking”. The others seem generally neutral, not motives for the person to be treated worse, but neither good reasons to be treated better than a marine, and yet he seems to mention them because he believes those make some people respect the person in question more.
Part II
Delete«Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.»
I don't know if that's true. If he had good reasons to believe it is, then what? It doesn't imply any kind of inferiority of black people in general, he's just pointing to an alleged social phenomenon. Evaluate the following sentence: “Some decades ago it was common for whites to linch blacks for very little reason other than the colour of their skin.” That's not a racist, anti-white phrase, just an unfortunate fact.
«I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.»
He gave the explanation for his take right there: he believes the evil that's reasonably expected to come from banning civil ownership of guns (tyranny) outweighs the evil from allowing such ownership. Charlie mentioned cars as an example: there's a multitude of car related deaths every year in the US, but that doesn't make us want to ban them, because the benefits of their use are thought to outweigh the costs.
«The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.»
Individually, each of these sentences is perfectly expected to come from a right-wing influencer. Much of the Democrat party does express a great dislike for American history, and seem to value some foreign cultures over that of their own country; “they” wanting its “collapse” is sensationalist language, but it's not that out there for a political speech, depending on the circumstances; the Democrat party loving to see a less white country is plausible enough. The problem with the quote is the apparent link between the substitution of “whiteness” and the collapse of America. Indeed, it could mean the white race is somehow needed for the functioning of society, which is a dastardly implication. But it could also be a short-hand for other things, accidentally correlated with “whiteness”: cultural heritage. The people of colour coming from other countries often have very different cultures and values from America, not because they are brown, but for historic accidents. If too many people with a different cultural identity, uninterested in fitting in come at the same time to the country, its identity will change, and if you have American culture in sufficiently high regard, the changes are to be expected to be mostly bad. I do believe this is the most damning quote you shared, most of the others are pretty easily explainable away.
«The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.»
That's a whatever quote. It doesn't link the “browness” of the replacers to the problem as directly as the previous quote seemed to do. Here he doesn't seem to mention “whiteness” because it's important to him, but because it's important to his adversaries, and there is indeed a number of leftists who speak very negatively of all things white. I don't know if there is a strategy of demographic replacement by the Democratic elite, but I don't think believing it would make a person evil.
«Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.»
I don't know his reasons to believe Islam is that big of an issue with America at the moment. That is certainly a dangerous religion, though. Some prominent Muslim influencers have recently come fourth to defend child marriage, for instance, and you must know about Sharia.
It should be noticed Charlie Kirk was recorded speaking out of the cuff for hundreds of hours, and what we have here is a tentative to select his very worst moments. They do not represent the best formulations of his thought, and he may have repented from some of it — though, as I said, a lot of it is not really that problematic.
Every single comment on the Grauniad site is carefully and sometimes viciously deprived of the context in which they were originally uttered. I bothered (unlike Anonymous, presumably) to track down the various speeches and responses from which these quotations came, and they're all perfectly sensible and often even anodyne. For instance, the 2nd Amendment/gun rights bit here is extracted from a long and thoughtful meditation in which Kirk discusses the trade-off between utility and damage, comparing gun rights to the right to drive a car, which causes thousands of road deaths a year which we tolerate (while obviously trying all the time to lessen the bad effects) because of the convenience of personal car ownership.
ReplyDeleteI am curious to hear other thoughts on this thought:
ReplyDeleteIn recent months the rhetoric of the right has been more dangerous than the rhetoric from the left. Why is the rhetoric from the left less dangerous, because it is primarily directed against specific increasingly authoritarian ( at least in their perspective) figures. Rhetoric from the right is more dangerous because it is directed against an idea virus called wokeism that supposedly all even slightly left leaning individuals "must" (that's the falsehood) inevitably tend towards which ultimately aims to destroy family and nation. The left at least at the moment has specific human political competitors while the right seems to think they are engaged in spiritual warfare against any who hold certain ideas. That I find to be dangerous.
I pray for our nation brothers. I care deeply about our republic. Voicing my concerns to see if anyone else has been feeling the same.
Anonymous@September 14, 2025 at 3:04 PM
DeleteA leftist just assassinated a rightist advocate. He didn't "rhetoric" him to death, he literally shot him.
You have a warped sense of what dangerous means.
No offense. That's a pretty bad take. Even if you believe the rights rhetoric is a bigger problem, now is about the worst time to try to have that conversation. Not sure if you've heard but one of the right's biggest political activists was just assassinated.
DeleteRhetoric from the right is more dangerous because it is directed against an idea virus called wokeism that supposedly all even slightly left leaning individuals "must" (that's the falsehood) inevitably tend towards which ultimately aims to destroy family and nation.
DeleteI suppose that there are a few on the right who promote ideas along these lines, but they are at least matched, if not outclassed, by the rhetoric from the left on any number of fronts: that religious people are a threat to the US (or to democracy, take your pick), that resistance to the woke virus is a form of nazism, etc.
The left at least at the moment has specific human political competitors while the right seems to think they are engaged in spiritual warfare against any who hold certain ideas. That I find to be dangerous.
I think you need to re-examine your view of the left on this with a clearer lens. People on the left are just as ready to fight the ideas on the right as fight the people who promote them, as their opposite numbers on the right...except that those on the right are often (probably more often than those on the left grasp) willing to acknowledge that the majority of the left-leaning are hoodwinked, unwitting tools for the more clear-thinking elites on the left who are principally responsible for the ideas.
But either way, the right knows very, very well that ideas have consequences, and whether you target specific persons with those ideas or not, you ALSO need to address bad ideas with better ideas to ultimately overcome their effects. It IS a kind of spiritual warfare to elevate truth over ignorance. The left elites have been pursuing a somewhat similar agenda for at least 9 decades, which is why they have taken over media, academia and the public schools.
The religious right does believe that they are engaged in spiritual warfare against those who are ultimately responsible for the evil ideas that have been in the drivers seat of the Dem party for years, but those targets are principally spiritual personal beings who are hell-bent on wreaking evil upon all of us, left and right alike. They also extend that personal targeting to those humans who are knowing collaborators with such devils, and then in the second rank to those elites who, while not formally aligned with demons, ought to know better that their agenda is contrary to human welfare, and whose lack of recognition is at least partly self-imposed.
Tony,
DeleteThis is so well articulated. Hopefully it will help the less thoughtful to learn to make distinctions. Grateful for this comment.
Tony, To equate the Dem party as the party of evil with demons in their midst is lunacy and dangerous. Kirk's killer was a mentally disturbed young man and an online gamer (an edge lord) who admitted to his crime on Discord, then told his dad what he did. He was also having a break up with his trans partner. If Satanic forces wanted to kill Kirk, a professional hitman would have been recruited and he would have shot Kirk in the head (the shooter aimed for Kirk's head but missed and hit his neck because he wasn't a trained marksman). He would have slipped away and never been caught. You post here a lot. I didn't realize how bizarre your world view is.
DeleteTony, The writer of this article had you in mind:
Deletehttps://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/how-demonology-won-the-2024-election/
Tony,
DeleteIt seems that the less thoughtful want to continue being less thoughtful.
To the Less Thoughtful,
I see you are an expert in what sorts of folks demons will or will not use. I wonder. How did you attain this knowledge? By what criteria do you offer these assertions? And what precisely is "bizarre" about what Tony said?
That demons exist? Well it can't be that because you claim to not only know that they exist but to have some real insight into what sort of folks they might make use of. I still wonder how you might know this. Possibly the demons that you are friends with like to use certain types of folks, but surely you understand that the demons you are chummy with don't speak for all demons. With a little more thoughtfulness, you would recognize that such a suggestion is fallacious.
Tony can speak for himself. And he seems to know a lot about "demons," "devils" and "principally spiritual personal beings hell-bent on wreaking evil upon all of us."
DeleteTony, To equate the Dem party as the party of evil with demons in their midst is lunacy and dangerous.
DeleteAnd here I specifically denied that the Democrat party as a whole is identified with demons: many in the party are merely hoodwinked by others.
Nor did I assert that the ENTIRE platform of the Democrat party is demonic: I didn't even speak to how much of what the Dems push is demonic in origin. But some of does appear that way: e.g. abortion and woke insanity. And these elements had become the DRIVER of the Democrat machinery: e.g. in the 1990s, the Dems wantonly forced out good, high-minded Democrats who were not pro-abortion. You could no longer be a Dem public figure in good standing if not vociferously in favor of abortion through 9 months. This was a change, and it is reasonable to conclude it was driven by demonic motives, as that level of toxic extremist view did not actually advance core Dem principles up to that time, it was self-damaging.
And he seems to know a lot about "demons," "devils" and "principally spiritual personal beings hell-bent
I only know what God has revealed to us: for example, St. Paul tells us or we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Hence "principally" spiritual persons. I don't need to know in detail, I can leave that to God, Who knows. And obviously, demons would be hell-bent. Did you imagine using term was improper for the denizens of Hell?
We wrestle with these demons by various means, e.g. by exposing their activities and by pulling people away from being used by them, either as unwitting useful knuckleheads or as more knowing and willing agents, through information, education, and conversion. And by prayer and fasting.
If Satanic forces wanted to kill Kirk, a professional hitman would have been recruited.
It appears that God, in His providence, hinders demons by limiting what they can do directly, and in large part they operate by inducing temptation in people. They do not mainly just dictate operations to their pet humans like mob bosses. But they cannot see the future clearly, and sometimes their activities backfire: because sin clouds the mind and weakens the will, the people who are saddled with habits of grave sin act in ways that accidentally conflict with both their own AND the demons' agenda. When you befuddle a great many people, you get a great deal of befuddled activity, much of it unpredictable.
Dear Less Thoughtful,
Delete"Tony can speak for himself."
Yes, he can. See above for a guide into the world of thoughtfulness.
Whenever you see evil and particularly evil that is difficult for the normal person to even imagine (like a sudden societal shift where young boys imagine that they are girls and girls imagine that they are boys and then start murdering those who say otherwise), you can be certain that demons are involved. Demons aren't idle and they are hell bent on the corruption of individuals and societies.
Yes, Tom, there are very few centrist Dems or Reps. We are more polarized. Woke ideology may be overdone, but even if you believe America is a systemically racist society, that is not mortally sinful and demonic. As for abortion, The late Rep. Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming was fiscally very conservative but was pro abortion and was eventually forced out of his party's leadership position. You can be a Dem without being in favor of abortion in the 9th month. 93% of abortions occur in the first trimester. The 1 % that occur in the last trimester are for medical reasons. If demons are driving abortion, they got started a long time ago, back in Colonial America when abortions were fairly common and performed by midwives. Doctors didn't like that and got states to start outlawing abortions by mid 1800s.
Deletehttps://www.americanprogress.org/article/scarlet-letters-getting-the-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/
So I guess the demons came and went and came back again in 1973, and now are somewhere in between. Strange how demons work, isn't it? Now, as for God in His providence, He apparently saw fit for Trump's assassin's bullet to miss Trump but decided to let Kirk's assassin's bullet kill Kirk. Well, God's ways are inscrutable.
I think you have deeply-felt sincere beliefs, but I think those beliefs have caused you to be befuddled.
Dear Befuddled Anonymous,
DeleteI think that the only one beffudled here is the anonymous commenter who thinks he has posted his comment under a thread that includes a conversation with Tom.
Brian Kilmeade apologized for his remarks AS HE HAS DONE BEFORE. MSNBC FIRES PEOPLE. FAUX NEWS WON'T.
ReplyDeleteIn 1968, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated. Riots broke out across the country and 40 people were killed. Some pundits said that was the year America died, but it didn't. The tragic death of Charlie Kirk doesn't portend the end of America, although some of our elected officials and commentators on the Left and Right would like for you to think that it does.
DeleteI'm glad that Ed was at least somewhat fair in acknowledging that extremism exists on both sides but it seems incredibly telling and unfair to me that this article targets and blankets the left for political violence when no prominent left politician has ever advocated for anything of the sort, but our very president Trump has actually many times publicly called for violence against the left? Is it really "the left" that has the prominence of this issue if we are being honest? Not factually and statistically (invite everyone to look it up for themselves). The very same day that Charlie Kirk was shot it was a student indoctrinated in right wing extremism that shot up another high school in Colorado. But that has largely been silenced by right wing media.
ReplyDeleteMoreover the fact that there is a rush to demand people feel bad, lower flags to half mast and have a show enforced by the government about all of this is concerning. CK was not a veteran or public servant. Trump barely even could be persuaded to lower the flags to half mast when Jimmy Carter passed and barely acknowledged the Minnesota murders and did not honor them with flags at half mast. And yet people are being fired from government jobs for even the mere questioning of this? All from the "freedom of speech" folks? You have to be honest about the hypocrisy if there is ever truly going to be change in this country.
And finally, if the right wants to stop being called fascists or nazis, perhaps they should stop doing things that would typically be called fascist and nazi. If one google's fascism the definition lines up very squarely with everything we see this administration doing. I mean just days ago a prominent fox news host literally said we should just euthanize poor people. How is that not nazi eugenics?
Violence and extremism exist on both sides but it is time to be honest about how its much more of a problem on the gun-culture indoctrinated right.
Ah yes, after Trump being shot (twice), after Kirk being gunned down, after the reaction of a substantial portion of the Left, etc. and etc.remember guys, it is time to be honest: "its much more of a problem on the gun-culture indoctrinated right."
DeleteAnonymous@September 15, 2025 at 9:31 AM
DeleteI don't care what deranged leftists call me. Deranged leftists they call everyone a fascist who is not a deranged leftist.
And people are being fired for advocating the murder of innocent people that disagree with them. I'm not a HR expert, but I'm pretty sure that is classified as creating a hostile work environment.
Stop hating and turn to Jesus Christ.
Trump was shot at by a registered republican, the second shooter didn't have a chance to shoot at him and voted for him in 2016, so republican. The CK shooter grew up in a republican family that introduced him to guns at a young age. Melissa Hortman and John Hoffman were shot at by a registered republican. The teenage shooter the same day CK was assassinated was indoctrinated in far right wing ideology. Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked by a republican. Oklahoma City Bomber - republican. Jan 6 - speaks for itself. There are many examples. I stand by the statements.
DeleteAnonymous@September 16, 2025 at 8:41 AM
DeleteIt would help if you paid attention to what people criticized your post for. It was for leftist reactions to Kirk's assassination and the reasons for that reaction. Such as the deluded idea that everyone that disagrees with deranged leftists are akin to murderous Nazi fascists that deserve to die and we should celebrate those assassinations.
If you want to convince people that leftists value reason then you should actually listen to their criticisms and address those. All you've done is indicate that you agree with those deranged leftists.
With all do respect bmiller, this article was about a few different topics including how the left has a problem with political violence. Instead of acknowledging that it’s actually the right that has the larger problem with political violence, when presented with facts that pierce the veil of that narrative - you deflect to arguments about what various topics are at hand. I responded to the thread about the trump shooter with actual facts, which are not favorable to the right wing narrative about this issue.
DeleteAnonymous@September 17, 2025 at 6:23 PM
DeleteWhy are you replying to me then? I was addressing Anonymous@September 16, 2025 at 8:41 AM. If you want to contribute to a useful conversation you should at least pick a fake name rather than the countless, nameless Anonymous.
I also wonder why said "I stand by the statements." after the criticisms if you aren't Anonymous@September 16, 2025 at 8:41 AM. Why wouldn't I suspect you're not being honest?
AnonymousSeptember 17, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Deleteyou deflect to arguments about what various topics are at hand.
Are you both Anonymous@September 15, 2025 at 9:31 AM and Anonymous@September 16, 2025 at 8:41 AM?
Because I originally responded to the following statements from Anonymous@September 15, 2025 at 9:31 AM"
And yet people are being fired from government jobs for even the mere questioning of this?
and
And finally, if the right wants to stop being called fascists or nazis, perhaps they should stop doing things that would typically be called fascist and nazi.
So, if you are both Anonymous@September 15, 2025 at 9:31 AM and Anonymous@September 16, 2025 at 8:41 AM, I directly addressed your statements and you when you ignored my response I pointed that out. And you are doing it again.
You write, "And finally, if the right wants to stop being called fascists or nazis, perhaps they should stop doing things that would typically be called fascist and nazi." Such as??
ReplyDeleteUndermining democratic institutions
DeleteElection integrity attacks: Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election have been a major point of concern. This included promoting baseless conspiracy theories about a stolen election, pressuring election officials, and allegedly inciting the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. According to scholar Robert Paxton, this is a key reason he now applies the fascist label to Trump.
Attacks on the press: Trump repeatedly referred to journalists and major news outlets as "enemies of the people," a tactic used by authoritarian leaders to delegitimize dissent and independent reporting.
Targeting the justice system: Critics point to efforts to weaponize the Justice Department against political opponents, attack the integrity of federal judges, and replace career officials with loyalists.
Civil service purges: Concerns have been raised about plans to replace non-partisan, expert civil servants with political appointees who are loyal to him, a move that critics say erodes democratic norms.
Rhetoric and ideology
Dehumanizing rhetoric: Trump has repeatedly used dehumanizing and xenophobic language to describe immigrants, such as calling them "vermin" or saying they are "poisoning the blood of our country". This kind of scapegoating is often a feature of fascist rhetoric.
Cult of personality: Critics argue Trump fostered a cult of personality, demanding absolute loyalty from his allies and asserting unlimited presidential power, even beyond constitutional checks.
Endorsement of political violence: Concerns were raised over Trump's rhetoric that seemed to condone or encourage political violence by his supporters, particularly leading up to and during the January 6th Capitol attack.
Immigration policies
"Zero tolerance" policy: The administration's "zero tolerance" immigration policy, which led to the separation of families at the U.S.-Mexico border, was compared to historical fascist racial laws by some academics.
Proposed mass deportations: Ideas for mass deportations and the use of military camps for immigrants have also drawn comparisons to fascist tactics for targeting minorities.
Muslim ban: Trump's 2017 executive order banning travel from several Muslim-majority countries was seen by some as a classic fascistic attack targeting a specific group.
Supporters and enforcement
Loyalists and violence: Some observers, like historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, argue that Trump's rhetoric has conditioned supporters to see violence against perceived enemies as justified. This was demonstrated by some of his supporters on January 6th.
Targeting of dissent: The use of militarized law enforcement against peaceful protesters and the arrests of some student protesters have been cited as examples of authoritarian behavior.
"According to scholar Robert Paxton", "have been cited as", "that critics say", "Critics argue", "Concerns were raised"...
DeleteAnd you? Do you say anything?
It seems that you didn't even care to edit the response of whatever generative AI you have used. Nor did you disclose which generative AI was that, nor what query you have used.
Thus this answer is not exactly very informative. Why don't you try again.
Not to mention that, for example, "Some observers, like historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, argue that Trump's rhetoric has conditioned supporters to see violence against perceived enemies as justified. This was demonstrated by some of his supporters on January 6th." sounds ridiculous now. Many leftists have already proclaimed that they think killing Charlie Kirk was justified. That's more violence than in the cited example.
So, are you going to call those Leftists "nazis" and "fascists" too?
Or are the listed justifications for such name-calling fake?
Frankly the actions of this administration doing things which are could be considered fascist is so prolific that a book could be written about it. So using an AI summary was a quick way to provide some examples. Just another new example came today with the cancellation of jimmy kimmel. Another silencing of any dissent or anyone that dares question anything about this administration. Done by using the power of the government via licensing agreements.
DeleteI do not agree with what happened to Charlie Kirk and I also do not agree with much of what he believed. No one deserves to be killed for their beliefs. Those celebrating it are wrong, but it’s not wrong to question or distain what he said nor how this administration has responded to it by leveraging the power of the government to push rhetoric. And every left-wing politician has soundly denounced what happened, has the right done so? Other right wing leaders openly called for civil war. But in reality the facts do not comport with violence being a largely left wing issue. And when presented with those facts folks on the right dance around and deflect.
Instead of acknowledging that extremism exists on both sides and denouncing political violence altogether, Trump immediately attacked the left before the shooter was caught or a motive identified. Trump is only fanning the flames of division and using this as a justification to accelerate his attacks on free speech. When is the right finally going to be honest about any of this? I’m still waiting for a timely article in which Ed responds to any of the affronts this administration has done. We have far blown past all of the constitutional checks and norms in this presidency and the right has either championed it or been silent to it.
“ first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
"Frankly the actions of this administration doing things which are could be considered fascist is so prolific that a book could be written about it. So using an AI summary was a quick way to provide some examples." - using AI to get a list is fine. Not using your own reason afterwards to edit and filter that list is pathetic and silly. And not disclosing that this is the process by which you produced the response (and not giving the query that you used) means that all of us lose an opportunity to learn a bit more about making good queries (which would have been a bit of a redeeming quality).
Delete" first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye." - as a matter of fact, isn't that a good response to you?
"Those celebrating it are wrong" - but, apparently, they are not the ones that you are going to call "fascist" or "nazi".
So, when you think that Trump and his supporters have "conditioned supporters to see violence against perceived enemies as justified", you want to call them "fascist" and "nazi". When their opponents (the members of your team) do the same (and, in fact, more manifestly), you seem to be suspiciously reluctant to call them "fascist" and "nazi".
So, what is the definition of "nazi" or "fascist" that you use? As we happen to suspect that it is the "traditional" one: "someone I really do not like who does something I do not like, that might be somehow (perhaps vaguely) connected with politics".
So, when you write "And finally, if the right wants to stop being called fascists or nazis, perhaps they should stop doing things that would typically be called fascist and nazi.", we understand this to be a rather uncharacteristically honest demand to stop doing things you do not like and to start doing things that you do like. Oh and it is "uncharacteristically honest", for "things that would typically be called" effectively concedes that this is not about objectively being anything like Hitler or Mussolini, just about things to which you react by shouting "Fascist!" or "Nazi!".
As you might suspect, we are not all that impressed by such a demand.
Guys, with all due respect, I think most of the comments are just missing the point.
ReplyDeleteEd is pointing out that social order, normal human being relations, are being cracked from the inside. Ideologies are pulling the strings in people's minds, and we must join forces and try to stop a possible civil war or conflict, which, as a matter of fact, will not help anything at all.
I think that the major problem he is also addressing is not only ideology but, IMHO, the metaphysical background that allows people to even do such deplorable acts. Ideas like reductionism, materialism, and so on could not help but facilitate the diminishing of human life value (compare: most of the people who commit these atrocities nowadays implicitly or explicitly hold these kinds of views). This may not be a clear idea to most people who are from other generations, but from a Gen Z perspective, that's what I have most experienced in my lifetime till now. This needs to stop. Ideas have consequences, as Richard Weaver's book was aptly labelled.
Unless we face those ideas, these kinds of behavior will just stay there. Even if, for the sake of the argument, any of these ideas were true, they are incompatible with human nature as such (and I barely even started to talk about the chimerism of transgender ideas or other divisive ideologies that tend to blind people and make them see everything contrary to them as enemies).
God may seem to have abandoned us by permitting these kinds of things, but that is not true. God permits these evil things to shake us up so we can see how wrong we are going, how far off course we are getting from the good. And, as Ed wisely points out, or at least gently nods when quoting Thucydides, we are in fact confused, we are calling vices virtues (e.g., "Sudden fury was accepted as part of manly valor… A man who expressed anger was always to be trusted, while one who opposed him was under suspicion," or "Family ties were not so close as those of the political parties, because party members would readily dare to do anything on the slightest pretext").
To be completely honest, I'm also one of the wrathful types; I constantly wished bad against my political enemies and so on, but, more than ever, God touched my heart in such a way that, even if my enemies want to destroy me and my wrath was always high, I chose to obey my Father rather than indulging in my hate against my enemies. God will never want us to simply kill or wish bad things against other people of His creation. In His eternal moment, He willed that all of us exist, and even though I'm not a very happy person, and the world is falling into ruins or even in a "blink of an war," so to speak, I am happy to be part of His creation and to exist, and I don't want to disobey Him. I think if we all share the beauty of this and truly admire His inteligentsia, things can only get better, or, as Ed aptly said very recently in "The Devil’s in the Details of Modernity," Gravely damaged though human beings are, they do not lose their nature. "And the good in that nature will manifest itself in even the most disordered circumstances, like flowers growing through rubble."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/doj-quietly-scrubs-study-on-far-right-attacks-after-kirk-shooting/ Of course Pam Bondi had the study deleted. It doesn't fit into Trump's narrative about the Radicalized Left and political violence. Although the 2024 study was deleted from the DOJ's website, the Daily Beast was able to access it from the archive.
ReplyDeleteA study from the libertarian Cato Institute comes to the same conclusion.
https://time.com/7317383/political-violence-america-trump-crackdown-right/
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1967652381019214330
ReplyDeleteCharlie Kirk
@charliekirk11
·
May 2, 2024
Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech.
And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.
It seems very much to be contrary to the spirit of Charlie Kirk to fire people over their speech or writings.
DeleteThat may be, but employers have the right to fire employees over their behavior, particularly if they are in a position which serves the entire population. Would someone who voted Trump or liked Kirk go to a doctor who celebrated the death of a "racist fascist" in Kirk? Would conservatives want their child being taught by someone who hates them? Food preparation? The list goes on.
DeleteCharlie Kirk might not have agreed with it, but the left wingers celebrating assassination have their own wicked stupidity to thank.
DeleteKevin,
A society that grants Charlie Kirk the right under the First Amendment to say whatever he wants should also
give that same right to every single doctor, teacher, caterer, housewife, talk-show host, garbage truck driver
and Silicon Valley tech billionaire.
You, of course, should also have the right to choose what doctor you want to go see. But the kind of state-
approved intimidation and threats to peoples livelihoods we are seeing now is a very dark path to walk down
indeed. History is full of examples.
Just a few days ago, our Vice President, a man who calls himself a Catholic, ended an hours long tribute to
Charlie Kirk with basically asking his fellow Americans to snitch on each other, to actively go out and ruin other
peoples livelihoods. This, in my view, is gravely immoral and dangerous behaviour from a leading political
figure, and goes against one of the main tenets of Christianity, to love thy enemies.
I read another quote from Charlie Kirk the other day, I don´t remember it verbatim, but he supposedly said
something to the effect that a civilized person should be able to disagree profoundly and debate vehemently
with an opponent, and then afterwards go out and have a beer with that very same person.
That is the kind of society we should be working towards, and each one of us should start with ourselves.
Raymond,
DeleteYou can't have a beer with someone you just shot to death. Why haven't you told us that it is wrong to kill people you disagree with?
I don't think you regret that he was killed.
bmiller,
DeleteThat is a serious accusation. Would you care to explain to me exactly what I wrote here, that makes you come to the conclusion that I don´t regret Charlie Kirk was killed?
Or is you opinion based more on what I didn´t write? Some vague and highly subjective notion that I don´t show sufficient outrage towards the enemy?
Would you say that my employer ought to fire me, based on my comments here?
Raymond,
DeleteI didn't make an accusation. I offered my opinion. Free speech, right?
Your response confirms my opinion is correct.
Raymond,
DeleteAre you denying bmiller's claim or not? If you are, state unequivocally that you regret that Charlie Kirk was killed. It is very simple.
bmiller,
DeleteThat is some pretty weak sauce sophistry you are serving up there, bmiller. And on esteemed professor of philosophy Ed Fesers blog, of all places.
Ok, I´ll rephrase it then. You didn´t accuse me of anything. But you did say: "I don´t think you regret that he was killed."
So I will ask you again: How did you come to that conclusion?
Also, if you feel like answering my second question, that would be great. I´m curious.
@AnonymousSeptember 20, 2025 at 12:07 PM
DeleteI will say unequivocally that I find the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk to be absolutely abhorrent. Not only did the coward of a gunman rob two small children of their father, and a wife of her husband, but he also undermined the very fabric of our democratic society. Any act of political violence is an act of cowardice.
What I am curious about is, why would you think I believed otherwise?
Raymond,
DeleteHow did you come to that conclusion?
Because your first posts on the topic of Charlie Kirk's assassination focused on blurring the distinction between First Amendment rights and the rights of employers to fire employees. This is a current deranged leftist concern since so many leftists are being fired from government jobs and now most recently after celebrating the assassination in the private sector. Normal people would have expressed outrage at the murder rather attempting to use the deceased's words to attempt to justify those celebrating his death. I don't think deranged leftists are normal people.
As Anonymous@September 20, 2025 at 12:07 PM pointed out, instead of answering the question I asked, you avoided it. As he also pointed out, it was an simple question. Why was the answer so long in coming?
Raymond,
DeleteThank you for your unequivocal statement abhorring the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk.
Dr Feser you should do an article on Charlie Kirks murderer and if it is just for him to receive the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteThe leftist comments on this page are largely just bad faith trivial sophistry.
ReplyDeleteThe papal states don't exist, World War II ended 80 years ago, Francisco Franco is dead, etc.
Even Sen. Ted Cruz didn't approve what the FFC did to Jimmy Kimmel
ReplyDeletehttps://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/09/19/congress/cruz-calls-out-fcc-for-taking-down-jimmy-kimmel-00573159
Except the FCC did nothing to Kimmel. ABC did. Just as it did to to Rosanne Barr.
ReplyDeleteI think Ted Cruz knows more about the situation than you. And this
Deletehttps://www.cnn.com/2025/09/18/media/brendan-carr-jimmy-kimmel-fcc-first-amendment
MJR,
DeleteYou linked a CNN article, not Ted Cruz. Brian Stelter no less. Since he is on cable his lying is not covered by FCC broadcast rules.
Check my comments in the next blog post. Nexstar agrees with what I wrote.
ReplyDeleteIt was my intent to link CNN and here is NBC saying same thing
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rand-paul-fcc-chair-comments-absolutely-inappropriate-jimmy-kimmel-rcna232703
Check my comments next blog post
ReplyDelete