What ideas guide people who justify killings? How does the view of force in the left and right differ?
I don't truly want to replicate this pattern here, which, kind of, ritually developed after the assassination of Charlie Kirk., as it appears after many little or equally crucial events. So – a pattern of times of discussion that could be written by artificial intelligence, due to the fact that they are so predictable. That is, “this left is open and tolerant – and so happy about the death of another man” confronted with “he fought for the right to own a gun, he was killed by a gun.”
No, I'm not a symmetry. On the 1 hand, the deficiency of openness of the left is simply a fact. From various studies besides carried out by leftist sociologists, it appears that the hatred of PiS opponents to this organization far outweighs the hostility of the party's supporters towards opponents (since even the prof. said so Michał Bilewicz, that may not be doubtful). In reliable sources, how the book by American scientist Jonathan Haidt The right head can read that people with leftist views are not more open to conservatives than the second on them – at most, both sides separate between the knowing of good and evil, that is, according to the left, the boundary of freedom is the freedom of another man, while according to the right, freedom should besides be limited by cultural standards. For anyone looking for another confirmations, I urge reflection of how many right-wing friends have left-wing people we know.
On the another hand, it is not even about the fact that the grave is not about paradoxes, but about silence. To say that Kirk's views favored events specified as Kirk's execution is just as accurate as blaming his own death for the car maker who died in a road accident. He does not shoot a gun, people shoot – and they frequently shoot so that they don't shoot themselves. It will besides not be a substance of saying that it is essential to destruct killings. So possibly we should not make this logic.
What I'm saying is that getting into a discussion involving the exploration of paradoxes does not bring us closer to any diagnosis. The most complete diagnosis of the state of American society, with peculiar emphasis on university campuses and the “Z generation” can be found in the book A Spoiled Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. They are American liberals, and at the same time researchers with accomplishments, which gives their observations a peculiar rank.
The book points to 3 ideas that they believe affect American thinking, but are incorrect and should be eliminated. They describe the many effects of spreading these ideas, with escalation of force and closing to views another than left and far left at universities. The killing done on Kirk, who was riding campuses, trying to convince left-wing youth to their beliefs is as dramatic as it is strengthening its expression post scriptum to the book of these authors.
Three ideas that are destructive to Americans are summarised in 3 sentences. First, “what does not kill you will make you weaker.” Secondly, “always trust your feelings.” Thirdly, "Life is simply a war between Good and Bad people." Charlie Kirk rode American college campuses and tried to convince students to change their views. The hatred he raised in part of the leftist people resembles the 1 that Red Brigade fighters had for the Prime Minister Aldo Moro – an highly comfortable policy of Christian democracy, which they kidnapped and murdered. A fierce ideologist will always hatred a average man most due to the fact that he undermines his perception of the planet as a fight against hostile tribes (which is in harmony with the 3rd thought mentioned above).
After Kirk's death, I met with rather curiosal, though (or possibly that is why) covered with intellectual sauce justifications of crimes by left-wingers. The same people who plan a image of a right-wing individual claiming that the female on whom the rape was carried out is guilty of herself, due to the fact that she had besides short a dress (designed, due to the fact that – to her large anger – they cannot meet specified a individual anywhere), the same people who "second victimization" change through all cases the erystic treatments far from virtuosory, and rather close manipulations were commanded by: hateful word generates hatred, hatred collects its fruits. erstwhile translating “from Polish to Polish” this means of course: “if you have another views, we have the right to kill you” – and due to the fact that it is not right to say it, we will, of course, hotel to morality. “The speech of hatred causes force – it is not a view, it is science” – I read a akin sentence. I don't want to be bullied by the question: what kind of discipline defines what a “speak of hatred” is? I had 2 another thoughts.
Firstly, so popular among the “elite” view of Poles as anti-Semitists and racists, if it already finds any empirical confirmation, is justified by mention to the statements of different people, most frequently from smaller towns and villages. Perhaps, in fact, specified statements can be indicated (although the prof. himself Jan Hartman, most likely inclined to see anti-Semitism in the conviction of a hebrew for murder, claims that anti-Semitism is simply a tiny problem for us compared to the countries of the West of Europe - but with this “anti-Semitism” and “rasism” it is so that it does not translate into any behaviour in relation to another people, its harmfulness is akin to that of the anti-Jewish inscription on the wall. Seeing a hebrew or a Negro, the same resident of the same village will welcome him and greet him with cordiality.
I believe that there is precisely the other among the "elite". That is to say, “round” sentences, which let to keep the environmental prestige of the “appotak”, the 1 loved by all the people who would not harm even flies frequently accompanied by the justification of highly unethical views. This was the case after Kirk's death – we had this full plague, including the lyrics in "Politics" and the OKO Press portal. The praise of crime in the performance of people who are “full of intellectual duties” is expressed in statements full of understatements, cut in half by suggestions, sentences that are incomplete but eloquent. In another words, in the 2 situations described above, we are dealing with reversed ratios of utmost expression to ethicity and its absence.
Secondly, the subtitle of 1 chapter of the Spoiled head is highly meaningful: “words are violence; force is security.” Better than long essays, he exposes this full leftist sophistry, which orders to treat different beliefs as a violation of the "emotional security", attributes to the author of the message the work for the emotions it will bring to the listener, while at the same time viewing aggression as an acceptable "remeditory" against unacceptable views. If "life is simply a war between Good and Evil people" and evil must be fought, then... what harm does it hurt to shoot?
Clearly, the common sense that I mentioned earlier should not be on the right side, but just on the right side. The discussion on right-wing and left-wing force reminds us of the crime of immigrants in Western European countries. The word “truth against the world” could be paraphrased here: “statisticism against speculation” – as alternatively of going into discussions with people who say that “the right is playing with human fear”, it is adequate to mention statistic on crimes committed by immigrants, so alternatively of spending time tracking paradoxes, it is worth simply quoting technological research.
Tomasz Grzaczewski, specialized in the subject substance of the American journalist, in an interview with Piotr Zychowicz in the sub-cast “Real History” cited statistic which show that while in American society 8% of people let the joy of the death of a political opponent, and 77% believe that it is not allowed to enjoy, This statistic has a proportion of 24% to 56% among left-wing people. As far as force is concerned, while it is justified by 11% in society, it is 25% among left-wing representatives. This is knowledge, this is discipline – let us not include them repeated with specified a passion besides about "talk of hate", besides people who love discipline so much that they invent their own.
All those advocates of the “complexity of the world” who like to divide hair into 4 erstwhile they request to be taken in defence of a communist collaborator proved highly small tolerance and open to Kirk's views, and almost all charge he should be charged with should be dismissed after a superficial look at him.
I've already left out the curiosity of seeing racism in Kirk's message that after seeing a black saleswoman, he's wondering if he's capable adequate to get the job, or if it's a affirmative action. For what logic did the creators of the affirmative action follow, but not that without it, those who are to aid themselves cannot succeed?
Milan Kundera in his book The Unbearable Lightness of Being deals with the etymology of the word "feeling." I was reminded of the Czech writer's remarks, reading Kirk's criticism, who said that he did not like the word "empathy" – he exposed himself, of course, to hurricane discredit after his death, erstwhile it was rather hard for him to defy the attack successfully erstwhile again.
Kundera mentioned that while languages from Latin form the word "compassion" from the prefix "co-" (com-) and words that originally meant torture, another languages (including Polish) add the same prefix to the word "feeling". In Latin languages, this word means, therefore, that we cannot look at the suffering of others without emotion. At the same time, he expresses any indulgence for individual who is in a worse situation than us.
These semantic complexities I callback not for the worshipful linguistic fun, but due to the fact that the words of Kirk, who said that alternatively of the word "empathy" prefers the word "sympathy" until they ask for attention to specified nuances, which, as it turns out later, are crucial for assessing what individual said. It is not essential to feel precisely what individual else feels (I already miss out on various left-wing treatments on the language, as a consequence of which the word "empathy" began to be utilized even in relation to animals – as if a individual could feel like an animal) in order to establish a line of agreement, a kind approach is enough.
The Left believes Western culture is patriarchal and violent. To remedy this, the left wants to bring to Europe more Muslims, who, by their mildness and civilization, will put the dam “a culture of rape”. Really? The Levites are happy to show that right -wing views lead to violence. Shooting fathers in the back of their heads in front of their children "Che" Guevar, terrorist organizations like Rote Armee Fraktion or the Red Brigades mentioned, fond of making bloody mush out of Antifa's human face – indeed, right-wing force is frightening. It is besides worth mentioning the Gaza Strip – as far as the Russians kill in Ukraine, not Jews, but "nationalists" kill in Palestine. Really?
Each right-wing or "right-wing" perpetrator of the crime which the left-wingers mention acted alone or with a tiny group of partners and was not praised by any wider ellipse of people with right-wing views. From Andreas Breivika Even the most utmost sections of Polish nationalists are cut off. Eligius the Unknown He sympathized with the national movement, only he had nothing to do with it. Timothy McVeigh He was a frustrated and complicated boy who read little, so since he read Turner's Journals, he went crazy.
The left has the advantage. intellectual advantage, not substantive. This is simply a question of "what if..." – we will never know what would have happened in Spain if the communists had taken over the power, not General Franco, nor will we know how many people would have been shot if the armed individual had not utilized it. Left-wing sensitivity does not justify any sacrifice. Unless she's completely innocent.
Jacek Tomczak
photo of wikipedia
Think Poland, No. 3-4 (18-25.01.2026)
