Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is part of a growing pattern of left-wing violence. Condemning violence in general isn’t enough. We need to confront the false beliefs that inspire it.

Since Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10, the United States has experienced a spate of left-wing violence. Among the more prominent headlines:

• Two anti-Trump protesters planted a bomb under a Fox News van in Utah
• Another Trump critic opened fire on an ABC affiliate station in Sacramento in protest over Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension
• A gunman shouting “Free Palestine” attacked a New Hampshire wedding, killing one guest
• A pro-mass immigration shooter targeted ICE officers at a Dallas facility and accidentally shot three detainees, killing two

We’ve also seen widespread celebration and mockery of Charlie Kirk’s murder — even in far-flung Australia — as well as memorials set up in Kirk’s honour vandalised in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, New York, and Arkansas.

Several recent studies shed light on this alarming phenomenon.

YouGov asked Americans whether it’s acceptable for a person to be happy about the death of a public figure they oppose. Democrats were almost twice as likely as Republicans to say that it’s always or usually acceptable to celebrate such a death. Conversely, Republicans were more than twice as likely to condemn such celebrations as always unacceptable.

YouGov also found that the more “liberal” someone is, the more likely they are to justify political violence.

Earlier this year, the Network Contagion Research Institute made an even more alarming discovery: over half of Americans identifying as “left of centre” consider the murder of Elon Musk and Donald Trump to be at least somewhat justified.

Scavengers and Lions

The safe response to Charlie Kirk’s assassination and other recent attacks has been to offer general, vague condemnations of political violence — and to warn about the dangers of social media in amplifying violent rhetoric.

These are necessary responses, of course, but given the available data, they are also woefully insufficient.

What’s required is a condemnation of the particular beliefs that create a “permission structure” for the violence we are seeing.

It’s true that right-wing violence remains a serious concern. However, left-wing violence clearly benefits from far more mainstream tolerance and cultural legitimacy. And it’s time we were honest about it.

To that end, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro has warned against what he calls the “scavenger mentality” — an outlook that “seeks to build nothing” and “tear down everything”. He contrasts this with the lion mentality:

Society, it turns out, is constructed on success. It is founded on achievement. It is reliant on those who actually believe that they are called to act in accordance with moral duty, that they are responsible for creating and innovating and building up the societies in which they live. These are the Lions.

And then there are the Scavengers, those who seek to tear down, who believe that their own failures are the fault of the society in which they live and that the only cure for inequality of outcome is evisceration of that society.

The Scavenger worldview, Shapiro argues, is one built on grievances, conspiracy thinking, and the belief that power must be seized to end perceived oppression and reset the political order.

Four Phantom Conspiracies

Ben Shapiro identifies at least four phantom conspiracies that contribute to the philosophy of Scavengers:

• The Racialist Conspiracy Theory: The idea that there’s a dominant white supremacist superstructure in Western nations like the United States — a pervasive, system-wide conspiracy to maintain and enforce white dominance.
• The Marxist Conspiracy Theory: The view that an economic elite has rigged the system to the detriment of the working class — that powerful actors are intentionally manipulating the economy and political institutions to maintain inequality.
• The Transgressive Conspiracy Theory: The belief that traditional social mores about gender, sex and sexuality are oppressive, and that anyone who speaks out against them risks suppression or violence.
• The International Conspiracy Theory: The idea that Western “settler-colonial” nations use their influence to coerce and colonise the rest of the world with Western culture, norms and institutions at the expense of other cultures.

Not all Scavengers affirm every one of these conspiracy theories, Shapiro explains. Some might emphasise just one or two. But they share the essentials in common: identity politics, victimhood narratives, and grievance against systems that are viewed as malevolent and oppressive.

The other common thread we must not overlook is that each of these phantom conspiracies implicitly treats violence as morally justified. They depict certain views and speech as inherently harmful — even violent — which necessitates a violent response.

For example, it’s common for radical transgender activists to claim that those who insist men are men and women are women are guilty of “trans erasure” — that voicing basic biology threatens the very existence of trans people and contributes to a “trans genocide”.

This is how a “permission structure” is created in which Charlie Kirk’s assassination is no longer a tragedy but a triumph.

When speech is recast as violence, then violence becomes a legitimate way to silence the speech of your political opponents.

No Parallel on the Right

In summarising the Scavenger worldview, Ben Shapiro says:

The philosophy of the scavenger says your grievances are justified. You’re the centre around which the rest of the universe turns. If you suffer, you suffer unjustly. If you suffer unjustly, that must be the result of systems designed purposefully by a cadre of others. The only way to fight the great conspiracy against you, say the scavengers, is to seize power. Once you have power, you can destroy the great conspiracy and free yourself and those who fight alongside you. All you require is power. And power requires violence. Violence is the corrective.

Yes — people of any political persuasion can commit violence and engage in  violent rhetoric. But there is no denying that the phantom conspiracies outlined above enjoy widespread acceptance on the political left, and are championed by prominent left-leaning figures in major left-of-centre political parties.

The left’s mainstream acceptance of conspiratorial thinking has created a “permission structure” for violence that simply has no parallel on the political right.

White supremacy, the QAnon conspiracy theory, and hatred for specific minority groups are among the more common motivations for right-wing violence (note that these also indulge in their own forms of grievance, identity politics and victimhood). But these are marginalised viewpoints that enjoy scant support from mainstream conservatives.

As I’ve noted elsewhere, conservatism and Christianity are natural allies, while left-wing politics have a tendency to undermine faith and moral stability.

When considering the issue of political violence in particular, the same pattern appears to hold true. When grievance-driven narratives are normalised, as they have been on the political left, they create a framework in which violence can easily be justified.

That’s why condemning violence in general terms isn’t enough. Confronting the false beliefs driving left-wing violence is not just a political necessity — it’s a moral one, essential to preserving civil society and the values that sustain it.

As James 3:16-17 declares, “For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.”

___

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.