The Perennial Allure of Political Violence

Following the news from across the Atlantic, I was shocked to learn of the assassination of 31-year-old conservative activist Charlie Kirk, fatally shot during a public debate on a Utah campus on September 10, 2025. What came as no surprise, however, was that many on the Left derided—or even celebrated—his death. 

Having once been part of a radical leftist subculture, I know how often political violence is glorified and free speech reduced to a one-way street in a milieu that prides itself on the credo, “no fascism, no racism, no sexism, no homophobia, no transphobia—no discussion.” Kirk was accused of each of these five modern sins—as defined by his detractors—and, by insisting on debate, embodied the antithesis of that final command.

In answering the question, “Who was Charlie Kirk?” mainstream media in Germany and Austria, too, were quick to label him “hardline right-wing”—a term that, in this cultural context, carries particular historical connotations. On September 12th, The Guardian likewise published a list of incendiary statements from Kirk—all fully protected by the First Amendment—in an effort to contextualize his murder. Most mainstream outlets condemned violence against figures like Kirk but almost invariably felt the need to qualify their statements with, “regardless of their political beliefs”—a caveat that should go without saying.

In Austria, a lone small-town mayor raised a black flag outside the town hall to “take a stand for democracy and free speech”—and was promptly castigated for it. Missing the point entirely, critics fixated on Kirk’s “ultra-right-wing” opinions rather than his tireless defense of a fundamental democratic right. On the larger political stage, the European Parliament in Brussels—supposedly the very heart of European democracy—declined a request to observe a minute of silence in his memory. 

Such a feeble commitment to free speech provides fertile ground for radicals who see Kirk’s death as deserved—or, at the very least, as a fitting consequence. Scrolling through my Facebook feed, where I am still “friends” with people from my leftist past, examples abound. “Cause and effect,” posted one, referring to Kirk’s defense of the Second Amendment. “He who sows the wind will reap the storm—sorry, not sorry,” wrote another. 

Someone else shared a post likening Kirk’s assassination to the killing of Horst Wessel, a member of the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party, in 1930. And the satirical “punk news” magazine The Hard Times came out with such headlines as “Anti-Vaxxer Finally Gets Shot” (posted to Facebook on September 10th, over 8,000 likes) and “Incompetent Assassin Misses Largest Head on the Planet” (posted September 10th, over 5,000 likes). 

Then there were the usual suspects. On September 13th, the British punk-rap duo Bob Vylan—who recently made headlines for chanting “death to the IDF” during their performance at Glastonbury—addressed Kirk’s death from the stage: “I want to dedicate this next one to an absolute piece of s— of a human being. The pronouns was/were. ‘Cause if you chat s— you will get banged. Rest in peace Charlie Kirk, you piece of s—.”

Similarly, George Abaraonye, the incoming president of the Oxford Union—an organization that prides itself on being an open forum for debate—gloated over Kirk’s passing, despite having promoted peaceful protest in a speech a few months earlier. The caveat he offered in that same speech is telling: “At times there is simply nothing else required other than violent retaliation—some institutions are too broken, too regressive, too oppressive to be reformed. Like cancers of our society. They must and they should be taken down by any means necessary.”

It is this sentiment that permeates far-left approaches to political violence. However, while it is hardly surprising that the extreme right is prone to violence—German authorities recorded 1,281 such acts in 2024, estimating the pool of violence-oriented right-wing extremists at around 15,300—the Left ostensibly stands for tolerance and anti-fascism. So what accounts for the fascistic intolerance exhibited by so many leftists, past and present? And what explains the perennial allure of political violence?

Founded in 1970, the German left-wing extremist group Red Army Faction (RAF) murdered at least 33 people. It is still revered by many on the Left today, largely because its revolutionary goals are considered noble. What could be more “noble” than fighting fascism disguised as capitalist democracy, whose freedoms— freedom of speech included—are deemed a mere smokescreen? Add to that a sense of urgency—like the threat of an impending fascist takeover—and “by all means necessary” will be taken literally by some. 

As of this writing, little is known about the true motives that allegedly drove 22-year-old Tyler Robinson to assassinate Kirk. There can be no doubt, however, that the inflammatory rhetoric dominating left-wing discourse and politics for years has helped foster an atmosphere of profound hostility. Yet, like Kirk’s, leftist speech is not violence and therefore does not justify a violent response. Free speech and open debate remain critical values to defend—values that Charlie Kirk personified.

Gerfried Ambrosch is a journalist and writer based in Austria.