I used to call leftism a mental illness as well. However, upon further reflection, I believe many, if not most, leftists suffer from brainwashing. The very culture itself, as well as the leftist-conquered institutions of academia, entertainment, advertisement, and even partially religion, all help instill the same message over and over which can serve to weaken the brain's natural defenses until they fall.
Indeed, I believe America largely has been suffering from mass delusion for a while. However, many have been awakening, especially since the debacle of 2020, and Charlie's assassination will galvanize countless others to realization of the demonic influences that have long been at work in America. As John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." Indeed. Let us reclaim this faded legacy. Rise.
I believe that the only people who exhibit this level of psychopathic apathy are either psychopaths or cultists. So yes. Full on indoctrination seems likeliest.
So much for reacting to violence by doubling down on civility: "Let us be unsentimental about the nature of the enemy. Leftism is not merely a rival policy set or an alternate party program. Leftism is a mental illness." This effort to pathologize political differences is not constructive or even broadly accurate. Defining fellow American political opponents as "the enemy" weakens us and divides us against our real enemies in China, Russia, Iran and elsewhere.
You missed the difference between Leftism and Liberalism. Liberals can be reasoned with. Leftists view everything in terms of power politics, and see themselves as struggling against those they label as oppressors in society. Everything good and constructive in the West is cast as oppressive—an existential threat to their way of life. Perhaps they’re right though. After all, if conservatism is allowed the chance to make its appeal, people will naturally turn away from leftism, so long as they’re thinking logically. If Leftists threaten with violence, which is their typical modus operandi, then this author was absolutely correct in his characterization.
The many Democratic party leaders who rightfully denounced Kirk's murder are not the enemy.
However, the thousands (millions?) of normies on Facebook and Tiktok who cheered and mocked Kirk's murder are very much suffering from a mental (and spiritual) illness.
I agree that characterizing Leftism as a mental illness is wrong. Pathologizing it also legitimizes it to the therapeutic class, ironically providing them a potential escape from criminal responsibility. But I am not remotely convinced that doubling down on civility will be effective. Maybe it would work if the Democrats did it. It is their responsibility to police the extremists on their side. We can't.
As for our "real enemies," many American Leftists have joined them in celebrating Jew-hatred, rape, torture, and murder. I never imagined that this could ever be the case, but it is. I'm unsure why we should treat them differently than their Middle East pals.
We should be confronting people that their belief that others are one step away from killing them is a false belief. The Catholic church is not trying to kill people who have gone trans. President Trump is not planning to become president for life.
I hear such claims often. We should channel Charlie Kirk's "prove me wrong" style to tell people that these beliefs are false, and challenge people to substantiate their claims. I do so, but we all need to do so more. That is a good way of honoring the approach to which Charlie Kirk dedicated his life, and the approach for which he was assassinated.
Many people on the Left have claimed that people such as President Trump or Charlie Kirk want to kill people of their identity. That is incorrect, and that is what feeds the drive to shoot people like Trump and Kirk.
We should call out that incitement. Charlie Kirk should be remembered as the one who would reason with anyone. Someone should endow a prize for civil engagement in his name.
People get the belief that others are trying to kill them; I don't know to what degree it is from the media or social network sites.
People who have gone trans tend to claim that President Trump, the Catholic church or others are trying to actually kill them. It is not difficult to draw a line from such a false belief to a person who has gone trans shooting up the chapel at a Catholic school.
We don't just need to stop demonization. We also need to stop the false belief that authority figures are trying to kill people who have gone trans.
The belief is that any criticism, any argument that trans isn't good for the individual or for society and anything other than complete, total acceptance of trans as just a normal choice on a spectrum of normal choices, will result in the death of trans individuals not only by physical violence but by the fact that they will kill themselves as a result of being thought of as "other", not normal, not accepted for who they think and feel they are.
This argument puts the responsibility for a happy, pain free life for these individuals in the hands of society as a whole. One side argues that we should celebrate all differences and choices and that will make everyone happy and free from judgement. The other side argues that the human person needs to understand himself as made in the image of God, rightly order himself as God made him, male or female, recognize that as good, and he will find peace in both joy and suffering.
How does one who believes in a loving God, whose creation has a natural order in which we are happiest and who thrive when we don't rebel against it, argue against those who don't believe in God or believes in a God who loves all choices and only judges people as unloving when they don't also accept the all choices made by humanity? Where is the common ground to be found?
I don't know. Do you? I can think of many factors that influence it-the demonic, rebellion against God, mental illness, self-hatred, sexual abuse, psychiatric medications at a young age, attention-seeking, online communities that gave people who once would have been community oddballs a place to feel accepted and indulge their deviant ideas, capture of our higher education institutions by leftists who encourage victimhood to name a few.
This found my way to my feed. Unaffiliated with Harvard and, frankly, didn’t even know there are conservatives somehow alive there. Thank you for this thoughtful piece. Keep up the good work. I’m sure it’s not easy to be conservative there (or most universities these days.) I truly believe this is a moral battle. The difference between right and wrong is what it boils down to. And there is much work to be done to restore institutions to a reasonable baseline of measured thinking. I believe the first place all of this begins is in the home with moms and dads and families.
It begins with Christ, followed by the family, which should reflect the love of Christ. After that, country, which should as well reflect the values of Christianity. God bless you.
The time and heart-felt sentiments behind this article are appreciated.
I live in Provo, UT - just a few miles from the campus of UVU, where Charlie Kirk lost his life so violently. And, during a school year in which my beloved daughter is applying early decision to Harvard in an effort to extend our family's 3-generation Harvard legacy, I am particularly interested to read thoughts, opinions, and sentiments from my college alma mater.
After reading this piece, I turned to the website of the Harvard Crimson to seek out other points of view on this week's events. Not finding a single Crimson article on the Charlie Kirk assassination is somewhat disturbing. That the Crimson has not published a piece on Charlie Kirk feels to me like a great insult. The event has shaken me to my core, like an earthquake, and yet the Crimson does not even mention it.
Is this the cold, dark heart of crimson communism turning a blind eye to the suffering of its opponents? Is this a deliberate effort by leftists to downplay the impact of the assassination on the modern body politic in an effort to prevent migration of liberals to the conservative camp? Or, is this an artifact of the careless planning of a liberal student-author who is simply running late in submitting their contribution to the Crimson?
I'm not sure, but from what I have been reading, there are more than a few Americans who are actually celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. So, the absence of an article from the Crimson is certainly eyebrow raising.
The best revenge that we can get for Charlie Kirk and his family is to turn this week's tragic events into a big win for the Republican Party in next year's mid-terms. A mass migration of liberal students to the conservative ballot next year is the grand triumph that Charlie Kirk would want. This kind of shift in student voting patterns is often noted as one of Ronald Reagan's greatest victories in the 1980s, and I think it would be counted as a great conservative victory in 2026 as well, both for Donald Trump and for Charlie Kirk.
But, if there is to be such a migration, it will be founded on a desire for peaceful political discourse, not on a desire for violent revenge. It will be the students' repudiation, en bloc, of left wing violence that propels such a shift in student voting patterns next year.
If they don't repudiate it. If they embrace it. Then all bets are off, and the second amendment will take on a much greater role than the first.
Opinion articles in the Crimson take a few days to appear. I had an opinion article in the Crimson today; it was submitted 5 days ago.
There have been feelers from the Crimson that it is interested in having a wider set of views than previously, and I think you'll agree that my article is progress in that direction. It even has a hyperlink to a Harvard Salient article. My article is at: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/9/12/segal-harvard-trump-trust/
News articles in the Crimson tend to focus on specific events that occur at Harvard. I would expect a Crimson article covering Saturday night's vigil in memory of Charlie Kirk.
The assassination is also being discussed in non-public forums such as the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, with attitudes that show the best of Harvard.
The significance of the assassination of Charlie Kirk will not be lost on the Harvard community. In evolutionary biology one refers to a "punctuated equilibrium" in which things move slowly until something happens, followed by major change. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is one such punctuation.
Brilliant, brilliant. Brilliant. The Radical Left’s hold on us is formidable and insidious. I became all too aware of this on the day Charlie was assassinated.
Charlie Kirk, should not have died. Political violence like this is senseless and horrific. Let's be clear though, while intense aggressive rhetoric and politically violent acts have risen on both the Left and the Right data from non-partisan sources (ADL, Global Terrorism Database, U.S. Extremist Crime Database) shows that right-wing extremism is responsible for the majority of political violence fatalities. Calling the Left the "enemy", saying we are "at war", and that Leftism is a "mental illness" is exactly the kind-of rhetoric that puts people down the path of thinking about violent actions as a viable solution to deal with people who disagree with them. It does NOT make us a better nation.
ADL is far left. USECD is far left. Global TD includes Muslim terror. Your far left side is showing and you give no examples. Here are some : 1 attempted assassination of Trump 2 second attempted assassination of Trump 3 assassination of Charlie Kirk 4 conspired assassination of Judge Cavanaugh. Where have you been the past year? The trend is obvious. Marxism advocates violent change and I unfortunately met several Marxist morons at Harvard
Okay, then how about a couple of sources from the Right that affirm the same point.
1. In this article (link below) from Fox News, the outlet reports data from DHS and GAO showing right-wing attacks as the most common and deadliest form of domest terrorism from 2010 to 2021, accounting for ~73% of violent extremist fatalities since 9/11. The framing of this article was meant to push back against the “hype” of right-wing violence by also bringing attention to left-wing violence, but it does NOT challenge the figures from the DHS and GAO thereby implicitly affirming that there is more right-wing extremism than left-wing extremism. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/government-private-think-tanks-hype-right-wing-threat-ignore-left-wing-violence-experts
Who here believes that external communists - China, perhaps, or Russia - are stoking hatred both ways in American politics, in an effort to weaken America by internal division or even civil war?
Governor Cox of Utah says this is happening via some kind of online bots.
I used to call leftism a mental illness as well. However, upon further reflection, I believe many, if not most, leftists suffer from brainwashing. The very culture itself, as well as the leftist-conquered institutions of academia, entertainment, advertisement, and even partially religion, all help instill the same message over and over which can serve to weaken the brain's natural defenses until they fall.
Indeed, I believe America largely has been suffering from mass delusion for a while. However, many have been awakening, especially since the debacle of 2020, and Charlie's assassination will galvanize countless others to realization of the demonic influences that have long been at work in America. As John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." Indeed. Let us reclaim this faded legacy. Rise.
I believe that the only people who exhibit this level of psychopathic apathy are either psychopaths or cultists. So yes. Full on indoctrination seems likeliest.
Thank you for this well written memorial. I'm heart- broken & pissed.
So much for reacting to violence by doubling down on civility: "Let us be unsentimental about the nature of the enemy. Leftism is not merely a rival policy set or an alternate party program. Leftism is a mental illness." This effort to pathologize political differences is not constructive or even broadly accurate. Defining fellow American political opponents as "the enemy" weakens us and divides us against our real enemies in China, Russia, Iran and elsewhere.
You missed the difference between Leftism and Liberalism. Liberals can be reasoned with. Leftists view everything in terms of power politics, and see themselves as struggling against those they label as oppressors in society. Everything good and constructive in the West is cast as oppressive—an existential threat to their way of life. Perhaps they’re right though. After all, if conservatism is allowed the chance to make its appeal, people will naturally turn away from leftism, so long as they’re thinking logically. If Leftists threaten with violence, which is their typical modus operandi, then this author was absolutely correct in his characterization.
The many Democratic party leaders who rightfully denounced Kirk's murder are not the enemy.
However, the thousands (millions?) of normies on Facebook and Tiktok who cheered and mocked Kirk's murder are very much suffering from a mental (and spiritual) illness.
I agree that characterizing Leftism as a mental illness is wrong. Pathologizing it also legitimizes it to the therapeutic class, ironically providing them a potential escape from criminal responsibility. But I am not remotely convinced that doubling down on civility will be effective. Maybe it would work if the Democrats did it. It is their responsibility to police the extremists on their side. We can't.
As for our "real enemies," many American Leftists have joined them in celebrating Jew-hatred, rape, torture, and murder. I never imagined that this could ever be the case, but it is. I'm unsure why we should treat them differently than their Middle East pals.
We should be confronting people that their belief that others are one step away from killing them is a false belief. The Catholic church is not trying to kill people who have gone trans. President Trump is not planning to become president for life.
I hear such claims often. We should channel Charlie Kirk's "prove me wrong" style to tell people that these beliefs are false, and challenge people to substantiate their claims. I do so, but we all need to do so more. That is a good way of honoring the approach to which Charlie Kirk dedicated his life, and the approach for which he was assassinated.
Many people on the Left have claimed that people such as President Trump or Charlie Kirk want to kill people of their identity. That is incorrect, and that is what feeds the drive to shoot people like Trump and Kirk.
We should call out that incitement. Charlie Kirk should be remembered as the one who would reason with anyone. Someone should endow a prize for civil engagement in his name.
The left wing media tells them that in their demonization of conservatives.
People get the belief that others are trying to kill them; I don't know to what degree it is from the media or social network sites.
People who have gone trans tend to claim that President Trump, the Catholic church or others are trying to actually kill them. It is not difficult to draw a line from such a false belief to a person who has gone trans shooting up the chapel at a Catholic school.
We don't just need to stop demonization. We also need to stop the false belief that authority figures are trying to kill people who have gone trans.
The belief is that any criticism, any argument that trans isn't good for the individual or for society and anything other than complete, total acceptance of trans as just a normal choice on a spectrum of normal choices, will result in the death of trans individuals not only by physical violence but by the fact that they will kill themselves as a result of being thought of as "other", not normal, not accepted for who they think and feel they are.
This argument puts the responsibility for a happy, pain free life for these individuals in the hands of society as a whole. One side argues that we should celebrate all differences and choices and that will make everyone happy and free from judgement. The other side argues that the human person needs to understand himself as made in the image of God, rightly order himself as God made him, male or female, recognize that as good, and he will find peace in both joy and suffering.
How does one who believes in a loving God, whose creation has a natural order in which we are happiest and who thrive when we don't rebel against it, argue against those who don't believe in God or believes in a God who loves all choices and only judges people as unloving when they don't also accept the all choices made by humanity? Where is the common ground to be found?
Where does the desire to be trans come from in the first place?
I don't know. Do you? I can think of many factors that influence it-the demonic, rebellion against God, mental illness, self-hatred, sexual abuse, psychiatric medications at a young age, attention-seeking, online communities that gave people who once would have been community oddballs a place to feel accepted and indulge their deviant ideas, capture of our higher education institutions by leftists who encourage victimhood to name a few.
This found my way to my feed. Unaffiliated with Harvard and, frankly, didn’t even know there are conservatives somehow alive there. Thank you for this thoughtful piece. Keep up the good work. I’m sure it’s not easy to be conservative there (or most universities these days.) I truly believe this is a moral battle. The difference between right and wrong is what it boils down to. And there is much work to be done to restore institutions to a reasonable baseline of measured thinking. I believe the first place all of this begins is in the home with moms and dads and families.
It begins with Christ, followed by the family, which should reflect the love of Christ. After that, country, which should as well reflect the values of Christianity. God bless you.
Yes! Amen!
Well said, men. I'm proud to have met you.
The time and heart-felt sentiments behind this article are appreciated.
I live in Provo, UT - just a few miles from the campus of UVU, where Charlie Kirk lost his life so violently. And, during a school year in which my beloved daughter is applying early decision to Harvard in an effort to extend our family's 3-generation Harvard legacy, I am particularly interested to read thoughts, opinions, and sentiments from my college alma mater.
After reading this piece, I turned to the website of the Harvard Crimson to seek out other points of view on this week's events. Not finding a single Crimson article on the Charlie Kirk assassination is somewhat disturbing. That the Crimson has not published a piece on Charlie Kirk feels to me like a great insult. The event has shaken me to my core, like an earthquake, and yet the Crimson does not even mention it.
Is this the cold, dark heart of crimson communism turning a blind eye to the suffering of its opponents? Is this a deliberate effort by leftists to downplay the impact of the assassination on the modern body politic in an effort to prevent migration of liberals to the conservative camp? Or, is this an artifact of the careless planning of a liberal student-author who is simply running late in submitting their contribution to the Crimson?
I'm not sure, but from what I have been reading, there are more than a few Americans who are actually celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. So, the absence of an article from the Crimson is certainly eyebrow raising.
The best revenge that we can get for Charlie Kirk and his family is to turn this week's tragic events into a big win for the Republican Party in next year's mid-terms. A mass migration of liberal students to the conservative ballot next year is the grand triumph that Charlie Kirk would want. This kind of shift in student voting patterns is often noted as one of Ronald Reagan's greatest victories in the 1980s, and I think it would be counted as a great conservative victory in 2026 as well, both for Donald Trump and for Charlie Kirk.
But, if there is to be such a migration, it will be founded on a desire for peaceful political discourse, not on a desire for violent revenge. It will be the students' repudiation, en bloc, of left wing violence that propels such a shift in student voting patterns next year.
If they don't repudiate it. If they embrace it. Then all bets are off, and the second amendment will take on a much greater role than the first.
Opinion articles in the Crimson take a few days to appear. I had an opinion article in the Crimson today; it was submitted 5 days ago.
There have been feelers from the Crimson that it is interested in having a wider set of views than previously, and I think you'll agree that my article is progress in that direction. It even has a hyperlink to a Harvard Salient article. My article is at: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/9/12/segal-harvard-trump-trust/
The Crimson already has a story based on a Friday meeting. The statement by Dean Deming is very good: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/9/13/deming-charlie-kirk/
Also the WSJ has a good op-ed: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/why-do-so-many-young-americans-justify-political-violence-ee8d2e2d?st=cYbgNV&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
News articles in the Crimson tend to focus on specific events that occur at Harvard. I would expect a Crimson article covering Saturday night's vigil in memory of Charlie Kirk.
The assassination is also being discussed in non-public forums such as the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, with attitudes that show the best of Harvard.
The significance of the assassination of Charlie Kirk will not be lost on the Harvard community. In evolutionary biology one refers to a "punctuated equilibrium" in which things move slowly until something happens, followed by major change. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is one such punctuation.
Brilliant. I have grown so weary of the "let's just all getlong" dribble. Onward, Christian soldiers.
Brilliant, brilliant. Brilliant. The Radical Left’s hold on us is formidable and insidious. I became all too aware of this on the day Charlie was assassinated.
https://open.substack.com/pub/pomalom/p/it-stops-here-and-now
Amen.
Charlie Kirk, should not have died. Political violence like this is senseless and horrific. Let's be clear though, while intense aggressive rhetoric and politically violent acts have risen on both the Left and the Right data from non-partisan sources (ADL, Global Terrorism Database, U.S. Extremist Crime Database) shows that right-wing extremism is responsible for the majority of political violence fatalities. Calling the Left the "enemy", saying we are "at war", and that Leftism is a "mental illness" is exactly the kind-of rhetoric that puts people down the path of thinking about violent actions as a viable solution to deal with people who disagree with them. It does NOT make us a better nation.
ADL is far left. USECD is far left. Global TD includes Muslim terror. Your far left side is showing and you give no examples. Here are some : 1 attempted assassination of Trump 2 second attempted assassination of Trump 3 assassination of Charlie Kirk 4 conspired assassination of Judge Cavanaugh. Where have you been the past year? The trend is obvious. Marxism advocates violent change and I unfortunately met several Marxist morons at Harvard
Okay, then how about a couple of sources from the Right that affirm the same point.
1. In this article (link below) from Fox News, the outlet reports data from DHS and GAO showing right-wing attacks as the most common and deadliest form of domest terrorism from 2010 to 2021, accounting for ~73% of violent extremist fatalities since 9/11. The framing of this article was meant to push back against the “hype” of right-wing violence by also bringing attention to left-wing violence, but it does NOT challenge the figures from the DHS and GAO thereby implicitly affirming that there is more right-wing extremism than left-wing extremism. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/government-private-think-tanks-hype-right-wing-threat-ignore-left-wing-violence-experts
2. In a 2023 Military Times article, Heritage Foundation scholar Thomas Spoehr acknowledged that right-wing extremism is more prevalent than other ideologies in U.S. domestic threats and fatatlies and cites fedearl data from DHS and FBI showing right-wing actors are behind the majority of post-2020 plots and deaths. https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/extremism-disinformation/2023/08/24/a-lethal-threat-why-the-far-right-sees-more-scrutiny-than-the-left/
You left out violent attacks or attempted violent attacks on Dem. politicians.
1. Drive-by Shooting Attempt on Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg (Louisville, Kentucky) – February 2025
2. Arson Attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's Residence (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) – April, 2025
3. Murder of Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman and Shooting of State Sen. John Hoffman (Champlin and Champlin, Minnesota) – June, 2025
4. Shootings at Kamala Harris Campaign Office (Tempe, Arizona) – Fall 2024
5. Home Invasions and Shootings Orchestrated by Republican Solomon Peña (Albuquerque, New Mexico) – Early 2023
Also, I’m a Conservative just not a Trump supporter.
BLOOD AND SOIL!! GERMANY FOR THE GERMANS!!
DEATH TO ALL JEWS!!!!!
David Army is a pedophile
Was the killer of Kirk left? What is that based on? Just asking.
Who here believes that external communists - China, perhaps, or Russia - are stoking hatred both ways in American politics, in an effort to weaken America by internal division or even civil war?
Governor Cox of Utah says this is happening via some kind of online bots.
Where does the desire to be trans come from in the first place?