The Campus Incubator of Radicalism

The assassination of Charlie Kirk has shaken America. But this was not the random act of a deranged loner, nor the sudden snap of a troubled mind. It was the predictable outcome of long-term indoctrination — an ideology cultivated over years, nurtured in classrooms, entrenched on campuses, and amplified across a cultural landscape shaped more by Rules for Radicals than by rules of civility.

How Universities — and Schools — Breed Division and Violence

For years, America’s colleges have abandoned their mission of inquiry and debate in favor of indoctrination and activism. But the process doesn’t begin when students arrive at university; by then, many have already been conditioned. In elementary and middle schools, children are quietly introduced to critical race theory, told to see the world through the lens of oppressor and oppressed. In high schools, “equity” workshops often carry a not-so-subtle undercurrent of anti-white rhetoric. And increasingly, conservatism itself is equated with Nazism — a moral smear designed to shut down debate before it even begins.

By the time these students reach the university level, the framework is set. The works of Saul Alinsky, particularly Rules for Radicals, serve as the unspoken handbook: never engage on ideas, always attack the person; never concede good faith to your opponent, always demonize them. Professors and activists simply reinforce what has already been planted.

This strategy creates a mindset where conservatives are not fellow citizens with different ideas, but enemies of progress who must be silenced — or destroyed. Charlie Kirk understood this, which is why he made campuses his battlefield. He believed dialogue could pierce indoctrination. His willingness to engage, to invite opposing voices, and to debate head-on was not weakness; it was strength. And that is precisely why he was hated.

In addition to race-based indoctrination, children are also being exposed to radical gender ideology at increasingly younger ages. Instead of learning the basics of reading, math, and history, many are told that their very identity is fluid, that biological reality is irrelevant, and that questioning this dogma is hateful. Teachers encourage students to adopt new pronouns, sometimes even hiding these changes from parents.

This confusion is not accidental. It breaks down a child’s sense of truth and stability, replacing it with ideology. And when truth itself becomes subjective, when even the meaning of male and female can be rewritten at will, it creates fertile ground for further manipulation. A generation is being trained to believe that feelings override facts, and that disagreement equals violence.

The echoes of this radical ideology were present in the case of Charlie Kirk’s assassin. Blending anarchist slogans, communist chants, and internet meme culture with a hatred of so-called “fascists,” the killer embodied the chaos that comes from a worldview unmoored from truth.

The Weaponization of Labels

Central to this culture is the reckless use of labels. “Fascist.” “Bigot.” “Threat to democracy.” Once, these words had precise meanings. Today, they are catch-all slurs, applied to anyone who dares to challenge progressive orthodoxy.

But labels have consequences. Brand someone a fascist often enough, and violence against them begins to feel righteous. Dehumanize your opponents, and you absolve yourself of the moral responsibility to treat them as neighbors. That slippery slope is how rhetoric evolves into radicalization — and radicalization erupts into bloodshed.

Actress Gina Carano famously warned about this very dynamic when she compared political demonization to the way ordinary Germans were conditioned to hate their Jewish neighbors before World War II. For that single observation, she was fired by Disney. In other words, she wasn’t punished for lying — she was punished for telling an uncomfortable truth. The cultural establishment would rather cancel the messenger than grapple with the message.

Her warning now looks tragically prophetic. What Carano described in a tweet has played out in real life: a man was so radicalized by propaganda and labels that he justified assassinating Charlie Kirk.

Deflection Instead of Reflection

What’s worse is the reaction. In the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, instead of reflecting on the culture that radicalized the killer, many on the left have chosen to deflect. Some point to the shooter’s conservative family background, or a long-past Trump donation, as if these erase the radical ideology that drove his act.

This is gaslighting. The same movement that branded Charlie a fascist now insists his assassin was “MAGA” — anything to avoid accountability for the poisonous climate their rhetoric has created. It is a transparent attempt to shift blame, and it insults the intelligence of every American who sees through it.

This tactic is not new. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals spelled it out clearly: “Accuse your opponent of what you yourself are doing.” By projecting their own culture of dehumanization onto conservatives, they not only dodge responsibility but deepen division. Instead of reckoning with how the language of “fascist” and “Nazi” primes unstable minds for violence, they spin a story that conveniently absolves their own side.

But Americans are not blind. They can see that the shooter’s path of radicalization looks far more like the fruit of a progressive academic and media environment than of a conservative household. They can see the glee with which parts of the left celebrated Kirk’s murder online. And they can see the cynical sleight of hand in blaming “MAGA” while ignoring the very cultural forces that made this atrocity possible.

Deflection may be politically expedient, but it comes at the cost of honesty — and of healing. Without truth, there can be no reconciliation, and without accountability, there can be no prevention.

A Nation at the Crossroads

A viral cartoon updated for 2025 shows the left sprinting further left while branding anyone who resists as a “bigot” — even from the center. What was once satire now feels like prophecy. The center has collapsed. Civility has collapsed. And now, tragically, human life has collapsed under the weight of ideology.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination was not an isolated event. It was the logical consequence of a culture that tells students that debate is oppressive, disagreement is violence, and silencing your opponent is justice. Until we confront that culture — starting in our schools and universities — we will see more division, more hatred, and more violence.

The Second Amendment Under Fire

The same people who have spent years dehumanizing conservatives are the same ones insisting that we should surrender our firearms. They cloak it in soft language — “common sense reform,” “no one wants to take your guns” — but their actions tell a different story. Every tragedy is seized as an excuse for more restrictions. Every crisis becomes another pretext to chip away at the rights of law-abiding citizens.

And yet, look at the reality: the very movement that painted Charlie Kirk as a fascist, the very culture that fueled the hatred which led to his murder, is the one telling Americans to disarm. They want us to believe that the state will protect us — even as they celebrate when conservatives are killed.

This is not about safety. It is about control. Speech and arms are the twin pillars of liberty. The First Amendment gives you the right to speak the truth, and the Second ensures you cannot be silenced by force. That is why both are under attack from the same ideological machine.

The Founders understood something that too many in today’s ruling class would rather we forget: the right to bear arms is not primarily about hunting or even self-defense against criminals. It is about defending liberty against tyranny — including the tyranny of those who would dehumanize their political opponents and use violence to silence them.

Charlie Kirk’s murder is a stark reminder. If they can silence speech by calling it fascism, and if they can strip away the means of self-defense by calling it “sensible regulation,” then the experiment of American liberty is over.