End of Tolerance
By Brent Regan
You can’t cure diarrhea by treating the plumbing in the bathroom.
If you want to truly fix something you must first understand the problem and then fix it at the source.
The political assassination of Charlie Kirk has been seismic. So many, me included, are profoundly and deeply saddened by our loss, and especially for the loss his loving wife and two children now must endure. I have a granddaughter the same age, so the thought of Charlie’s daughter never seeing her father again, feeling his loving embrace, breaks my heart.
Compounding the injury are the insults offered by the left, including celebrations of the death of a man whose “crime” was that he would debate, one on one, members of the left on their home turf, colleges and universities. Charlie’s effectiveness was intolerable and so they turned to violence.
Political violence and the policies of the left are inseparable. In the 20th century the efforts to enact socialist or communist societies resulted in the murder of over 160 million people, killed by their own governments. This democide was always preceded by the confiscation of arms, done for the excuse of “safety.”
Firsthand accounts from German citizens in the late 1930’s tell how government officials came to each house to register the owner’s firearms. Months later they returned to confiscate those same firearms “for their own safety.” Months later they returned again to confiscate the homeowners and load them into boxcars destined for concentration camps.
The left says that Charlie Kirk was a monster for saying that gun deaths were a consequence of the 2nd Amendment. Every year we lose over 40,000 people for the privilege of having cars. Nobody calls for cars to be eliminated because the negative consequences would outweigh the gains.
The left acts as if eliminating private gun ownership would eliminate gun deaths. It is an historical fact that the opposite is true, where the cost of gun confiscation is measured in millions of lives lost at the hands of tyrants who were omnipotent over a disarmed population.
What should be done about those that celebrate and encourage political violence? If you believe in freedom of speech then shouldn’t their political speech be protected? Sane people objected to cancel culture where people suffered real social or economic harm for uttering forbidden thoughts. Would it be right to cancel people because they celebrated the death of their “enemy?” The short answer is yes, for two reasons.
First, freedom of speech does not cover “fighting words” that would lead to violence. At the recent Charlie Kirk candlelight vigil in Boise a local BLM organizer rode a scooter through the crowd shouting, “F*** Charlie Kirk!” Multiple mourners took those as “fighting words” and a heavy dose of street justice was administered.
Second, bullies won’t stop unless they’re stopped. Cancel Culture is administered by bullies who would force you to conform to their ideals. Having the tables turned on them may be the only way to stop the cycle. Mutually Assured Destruction has prevented thermonuclear war for sixty years. It should work here too.
Those that are celebrating Charlie’s death seem to be sincere. They are actually happy. They have been brainwashed that Trump, and those associated with him, are literally fascist Hitler dictators. If you killed Hitler, wouldn’t you be happy too? You can understand their motivation but that does not make it right.
By taking the 80% of every 80/20 issue, Trump has forced the Democrats to take the 20% side. Democrats are pro-crime, pro-illegal immigration, pro-war, pro killing and mutilating children, pro higher taxes, pro-defund the police, etc… They are on the losing side of every major issue. They cannot argue the facts so they attack the man. We have seen the relentless ad hominem attacks on Trump and his administration for the last 9 years. We have seen how the media outlets issue the same talking points simultaneously supporting the myriad of lies and hoaxes. It is obviously a coordinated effort, but by whom?
People familiar with the tools of persuasion know that a story, any story, will be believed by some percentage of the population, even if it is obviously untrue. Repeat the story that Trump is dangerous enough times to enough people and it is assured that someone will “do something” about it. The people funding this are fully aware of the foreseeable results. They are calling for violence.
Both sides are commenting online that we need to “lower the temperature” of political discourse. Even if it happened, it wouldn’t work because it is not the source of the problem.
Follow the money. Funds from wealthy democrat donors are working through a myriad of NGOs and political action committees to produce a deliberate narrative that is designed to incite political violence. These same sources are funding the nationwide “protests” like BLM and No Kings.
The DOJ needs to investigate these funding sources on the probable basis that they are criminal conspiracies to induce violence, and as we have seen, even murder.
We need to stop tolerating the bullies locally but if we want to solve a national problem, it requires national resources. Don’t treat the plumbing. Go to the feculent source.
It’s just common sense.