Martyrdom of Charlie Kirk

Both US parties once tended toward the centre; that is no longer the case. Alarmingly, disputes have taken on absolute moral tones, with means defined as good or evil. In Kirk's world sin was real, but you are supposed to love the sinner and hate the sin. Yet Rutgers University research shows that 38% of respondents thought it would be somewhat justified to murder President Trump (31.6% for Elon Musk). That's summary capital punishment - something only justifiable for the most heinous crimes or an enemy combatant.

Dissected by voting intention, 56% of left-of-centre voters supported the proposition. The left-wing response is not surprising: left-wingers tend to be collectivists and fantasists, and to keep a collective in line with fantasy you ultimately need coercion, if not force. Not that the right is free from political violence - 20.1% supported the proposition as well - but historically, in the last century, left-wing violence has outstripped right-wing violence when you count Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others. Hitler is complicated to place on the left–right axis, but even if you place him on the right, the left would still be well ahead historically.

In the US today the violence tends to come from the left. After Kirk's murder there was no rioting, no shops boarded-up or burned down, unlike after George Floyd's death. That's because the Floyd unrest was organised; there are substantial violent organisations on the left - Antifa and parts of BLM - but barely any comparable organisations on the right aside from the Proud Boys. Moreover, Antifa and BLM operate as de facto paramilitaries of the Democratic party in a loose networked way - common branding and shared intelligence, decisions made chapter by chapter.

The response to Kirk's death was instructive. On the right it culminated in a memorial service where his wife spectacularly forgave his killer. On the left there was a lot of whataboutism and appeals to karma: yes, it was wrong that Kirk was killed, but he was "divisive," and argued for gun ownership, which kills people, so perhaps this was ironic justice. If being divisive makes you a fair target, then I need to buy a bullet-proof vest today. I'm pro-car - would it be reasonable for someone to run me over?

When a motion of condolence, celebration of Kirk's legacy, and condemnation of violence was brought to the House, 58 Democrats voted against it. Their excuse was disagreement with the part of the motion honouring Kirk. Who would speak ill of the dead? Even during the Civil War Congress passed motions expressing sympathy for fallen members of the other side. By abandoning the usual civilities those 58 Democrats were tacitly justifying the violence.

Beyond institutional politics, private actors are subverting the political order through extra-institutional means. We used to have private armies until it was decided they were too dangerous to central governments. The age of the billionaire has created a modern variant. Instead of outfitting troops, the fabulously wealthy now fund campaigns to elect district attorneys who will ignore laws they dislike, effectively repealing them without winning a general election. Or they fund disinformation campaigns by green lobbyists to close down reliable energy sources.

To this one should also add the media companies, whether legacy or new, who largely lean left (but who are countered on the functional or ideologically right by privateers like Joe Rogan, or Megan Kelly).

The "Deep State" also deserves to be in the spotlight. There is no doubt that the Secret Service was weaponised against Republicans during the Obama and Biden administrations. The Inland Revenue Service targeted conservative organisations, for example. And then there is the completely fake Russiagate hoax, or the Hunter Biden laptop.

This civilisational struggle is compounded by ethnic enclaves in the USA - particularly some Islamic communities - where large percentages do not accept Western heritage. Their alliance with parts of the left is the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" variety; it makes politics more explosive, even if combinations like "Gays for Palestine" sound paradoxical.

Then there are more traditional interstate wars. Globalisation and the internet do not make the nation-state irrelevant, but they make it more porous and the long-tail effect allows niche minorities to organise. Countries have long deployed subversion: financing activists, sponsoring cells, or buying off politicians to influence opinion and obtain intelligence. Today this happens alongside commercial subversion. The CCP is widely acknowledged as the greatest strategic threat to the USA, yet business interests lobby for engagement because of China's massive market. Ironically, many modern war sinews rely on materials China dominates, like rare earths.

There is a more sinister angle: the prevalence of Chinese-made goods in the USA. If Mossad can attack Hezbollah with explosive pagers they made and sold to them, imagine what the CCP could do via EVs or solar panels. Reuters has reported "rogue modules" in some Chinese inverters and batteries. The CCP also operates through Chinese communities and through platforms like TikTok; ByteDance is being pressured to divest because of surveillance, algorithmic shaping of views, and addictive low-grade content. I'll leave fentanyl aside for the moment, but perversely the precursors for that drug - devastating the US - come from China.

China challenges the USA worldwide in soft power while building conventional forces at a peacetime rate few can match. It flexes power in the South China Sea. Vladimir Putin flies drones and aircraft near former Warsaw Pact airspace, threatening a broader European front and risking escalation if Ukraine obtains long-range missiles.