J.R. Dunn writes for the American Thinker about an underreported piece of political history.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a horrific reminder that the left is based on nothing other than terror, violence, and aggression.
This has been true since Karl howled to Friedrich that the bourgeois would someday pay for his plague of skin boils. The history of the Left is a history of violence. Scarcely a single leftist government has gained power without violence or the threat of violence. No leftist government has ever remained in power without violence.
Violence is built into the very foundations of leftist ideology. Marx himself fantasized in print over the apocalyptic events that would accompany the revolution of the proletariat. Mikhail Bakunin preached the “propaganda of the deed” – political activism by means of bombing and assassination. Sergei Nechaev was so eager for blood that he began killing his own followers (he was also crazy enough to terrify even Bakunin). Pyotr Tkachev calmly asserted that 10% of the bourgeoisie would have to die following the revolution, a sentiment echoed by none other than Obama’s bestie, Bill Ayers. All this rhetoric came to a head in the next century thanks to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mengistu, and a legion of others, at the cost of 100 million dead or more. The Age of Massacre could not have occurred without the Left.
Leftists simply cannot attain their goals without bloodshed. They can’t so much as win an argument or prevail in a debate without threats and menacing behavior. They not only settle for it – they revel in it. Anyone doubting this can take a look at all the dancing and laughing memes and emojis that greeted Kirk’s murder or the victim-blaming from MSNBC and CNN. It was all Charlie Kirk’s fault, you see. He didn’t have to show up on campus. He could have hidden in his basement. He could have ducked.
