assassination patterns, political violence history, labeling opponents evil, excusing violence, cultural implications 2025

Charlie Kirk’s assassination is not random. History shows the pattern:

• Check out these discounted items on Amazon

1.Label your opponents “evil”. For example “Nazis” and “Fascists”.
2.This implies normal rules don’t apply to them
3.Excuse or celebrate the violence

It has happened before in Germany, Rwanda, and even here… pic.twitter.com/Rdga2WNDHG

• YOU MAY ALSO LIKE TO WATCH THIS TRENDING STORY ON YOUTUBE.  Waverly Hills Hospital's Horror Story: The Most Haunted Room 502

— Jeffery Mead (@the_jefferymead) September 22, 2025

Summary of Jeffery Mead’s Commentary on Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

In a provocative tweet, Jeffery Mead asserts that the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk is not a random act of violence, but rather a reflection of a historical pattern observed in various instances of political violence. Mead outlines a three-step framework that he believes characterizes such events, drawing parallels to past atrocities in history, particularly in Germany and Rwanda. This summary will delve into each step of Mead’s argument, exploring the implications of labeling opponents as "evil" and the normalization of violence against them.

The Pattern of Dehumanization

Mead begins by emphasizing the first step in his outlined pattern: the labeling of opponents as “evil”. He cites examples such as "Nazis" and "Fascists" to illustrate how political adversaries are often demonized in public discourse. This labeling serves a dual purpose: it not only vilifies the opponent but also creates a moral justification for actions taken against them. By framing political opponents as embodiments of evil, proponents of violence can easily dismiss the moral implications of their actions.

This phenomenon is not new; history is replete with instances where political factions have dehumanized their enemies in order to rationalize extreme measures against them. By invoking historically loaded terms like "Nazis", one elicits strong emotional responses that can galvanize support for violence. The implication is clear: when an individual or group is branded as evil, the normal rules of engagement—rules that typically govern civil discourse and conflict resolution—no longer apply.

The Erosion of Moral Boundaries

The second step in Mead’s framework involves the implication that normal rules do not apply to those labeled as evil. This dehumanization leads to a dangerous erosion of moral boundaries. When opponents are depicted as fundamentally different—almost subhuman—violence against them is often excused or even celebrated. The narrative shifts from one of conflict resolution to one of extermination, where the annihilation of the "evil" becomes not just acceptable but heroic in the eyes of those perpetuating the violence.

Historical examples abound, with Mead referencing the rise of the Nazi regime and the genocide in Rwanda as cautionary tales. In both cases, propaganda played a crucial role in framing targeted groups as threats to society, thus justifying horrific acts of violence. This historical context serves as a sobering reminder of the consequences of unchecked rhetoric and the ease with which societies can slip into cycles of violence.

Justification of Violence

Finally, Mead points to the third step: the excusing or celebration of violence against those labeled as evil. This step is a natural extension of the previous two, as the moral justification for violence becomes entrenched in the collective psyche. When society collectively agrees that a certain group poses an existential threat, the violence directed at that group is often framed as a necessary act of self-defense or even a patriotic duty.

Mead’s observations suggest that this normalization of violence is not confined to historical examples; it is also evident in contemporary political rhetoric. The polarization of political discourse, particularly in the United States, has led to an environment where extreme measures are increasingly seen as justified responses to perceived threats. This shift poses a significant risk to civil society, as it blurs the lines between acceptable political behavior and outright violence.

Conclusion: A Call for Reflection

In summary, Jeffery Mead’s commentary on the assassination of Charlie Kirk serves as a stark warning about the dangers of dehumanizing political opponents and the historical patterns that can emerge from such rhetoric. By labeling opponents as "evil", normalizing violence against them, and ultimately celebrating that violence, societies risk repeating the darkest chapters of history.

Mead’s insights encourage a critical reflection on the language used in political discourse and the potential consequences of framing disagreements in terms of moral absolutes. As we navigate an increasingly polarized political landscape, it is crucial to remember the lessons of the past and strive for a more civil and constructive dialogue that respects the humanity of all individuals, regardless of their political beliefs.

In the context of contemporary society, Mead’s observations remind us that the stakes are high. The rhetoric we choose to employ can have profound implications, not just for individuals like Charlie Kirk but for the fabric of society as a whole. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that our political discourse fosters understanding rather than division, and to resist the temptation to label those with whom we disagree as "evil".

By doing so, we can avoid the path that history has shown can lead to violence and tragedy, ultimately working toward a more peaceful and cohesive society.