The problem is the normalization of hate, not cancel culture Firing those who dissent is troubling. But progressive hate cheering for Hamas and the murder of Charlie Kirk, along with right-wing conspiracy theories, shouldn’t be platformed. Jonathan Tobin

https://www.jns.org/the-problem-is-the-normalization-of-hate-not-cancel-culture/?utm_campaign=

For many readers of The Washington Post who care about the normalization of antisemitism, it was a case of good riddance. Karen Attiah was named the newspaper’s first Global Opinions editor in 2016 and has been a columnist since 2021. This week, she claimed that she was fired over what the newspaper said was a series of posts about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, which the paper said were “unacceptable,” and constituted “gross misconduct” and “endangering the physical safety of colleagues.”

Are her posts about Kirk’s murder reason enough to lose her job?

Corrupted institutions

Her publishers’ excuses and disingenuous “safety” language notwithstanding, the real issue with Attiah or any other similar situation isn’t really about cancel culture.

It’s what it says about the Post, The New York Times and other corporate media institutions that employ many people like her. That they thought placing radical hate-mongers like Attiah in charge of influential platforms was a good idea in the first place is the problem.

We should be extremely wary of engaging in a culture war in which the goal is to silence, shame and even hound out of the public square people with whom we disagree. The question we should be asking in the wake of this latest example of political violence is not about how best to punish those who use their social-media accounts to say terrible things. It’s why we have allowed institutions that should be the bulwark of democracy, like journalism, to be so corrupted as to normalize the sort of public discourse from people like Attiah, whose goal is to tear down the foundations of the American republic and Western civilization.

Attiah has every right to say what she likes. And the same goes for anyone else who unfairly and insensitively defamed Kirk after his death. The same applies to those extremists on the far right who sought to exploit the assassination to promote their own brand of conspiracy theories, whether it was the libelous claim that Israel was responsible or other antisemitic insinuations about the crime.

No one should interfere with the ability of those who behave in this fashion to post on social media (so long as they are not directly advocating violence), stand on street corners or march in the streets while spouting their lies, whether about Kirk, other conservatives, or Israel and the Jews. Still, that doesn’t entitle them to a job at the top newspapers in the country, a tenured professorship at an Ivy League university or a position at a private company whose owners want no part of such madness. And it ought not to grant immunity from criticism or legal action when they violate the law or help fund radical groups like Antifa or Students for Justice in Palestine, both of which promote violence and hate.

Why the Oxford Union’s Charlie Kirk scandal matters The president-elect’s crass comments offer an alarming insight into Britain’s next generation of rulers. Lisa McKensie

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/09/18/why-the-oxford-unions-charlie-kirk-scandal-matters/

The president-elect of the Oxford Union, George Abaraonye, has prompted outrage after making comments that appeared to celebrate the murder of American conservative activist Charlie Kirk. On WhatsApp, Abaraonye said, ‘Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s fucking go’. On his Instagram account, another post read: ‘Charlie Kirk got shot loool.’

These posts were widely condemned. And no wonder – Abaraonye had actually met and debated Kirk at the Oxford Union. To respond so callously to his murder reflects very badly on him. But the controversy hasn’t just shed light on this particular president-elect’s lack of decency and moral judgement – it has also focussed attention on the Oxford Union as an institution.

Indeed, since Abaraonye’s posts came to light, there have been questions asked of how the union is run and how he came to be its president-elect. There have even been public demands in national newspapers for his resignation, for his sacking, for new elections. At first sight, all this focus on a debating society might seem odd. But the Oxford Union is not just any debating society. It is also a key institution in the production of Britain’s ruling elites. Its reputation matters.

Having personally debated at both the Oxford Union and its equally prestigious counterpart at Cambridge, I understand the almost sacred status these institutions hold. They are the oldest debating societies in the world – Cambridge was established in 1815, followed by Oxford in 1823. Above all, they are central to the perpetuation of the British class system. Over the years, influential and famous individuals have graced their floors, from Michelle Obama to Malcolm X to Winston Churchill. An invitation to speak is rarely refused, even by former US presidents.

Tal Fortgang The Dangerous Celebration of Luigi Mangione It’s his admirers’ adulation, not the court’s decision to toss first-degree murder charges, that should concern us most.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/luigi-mangione-murder-terror-charges

Luigi Mangione appeared to get off easy on Tuesday. The judge overseeing his New York State prosecution tossed first-degree murder charges against Mangione, who stands accused of shooting health-care executive Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Outside, scores of adoring onlookers cheered for the apparent murderer.

Enthusiasm for Mangione—not because anyone thinks he is not guilty, but because his fans revel in Thompson’s death—does not seem to have diminished. Meantime, many who rightly want Mangione punished for his heinous crime are perplexed by the judge’s conclusion that Mangione should not be considered a terrorist because he merely wished “to draw attention to what he perceived as the greed of the insurance industry.”

That may seem like splitting hairs. And it’s not clear why the judge should decide the question of Mangione’s motives rather than put the question to a jury. Nonetheless, the law will take care of Mangione. It’s his fans glee, not the court’s decision, that should concern us.

Why the change of charge? In New York, first-degree murder requires proof that the defendant intentionally killed someone else plus an additional factor, such as the victim being a cop or first responder; the homicide occurring in furtherance of other heinous crimes like kidnapping; the killing committed as an act of terrorism; and other possible aggravated circumstances.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg tried to get Mangione charged for terrorism, defined in statute as an attempt to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation.” It’s not obvious that Mangione’s crime fits that bill, though it is arguable.

If Mangione had been convicted of first-degree murder, he would receive life imprisonment. He now instead faces a second-degree murder charge. That crime carries the same penalty, except that life imprisonment is now merely a maximum sentence rather than a mandatory one. D.A. Bragg will surely push for that maximum if and when the time comes.

The UK Will Make Middle East Navigation Harder by Recognizing Palestine as a State Starmer dodged Trump in London but still backed UK recognition of Palestine—moves critics say reward Hamas and endanger Israel’s security. By Fred Fleitz

https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/19/the-uk-will-make-the-middle-east-harder-by-recognizing-palestine-as-a-state/

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer thought he could avoid a public spat with President Trump during his two-day visit to the UK by postponing his government’s controversial decision to recognize Palestine as a state until after Trump left the country. Although Starmer avoided a confrontation with President Trump over this issue, the president expressed his strong disagreement with the prime minister at a press conference before he departed.

A total of 23 European states will have recognized Palestine as a state by the end of September. Most recognitions were before 2015. Five occurred last year: Armenia, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain. This month will see four more: Belgium, France, Italy, and the UK.

France, Italy, Spain, Germany, the UK, and other European states also voted for a non-binding UN General Assembly resolution on September 12 that overwhelmingly passed and endorsed a two-state solution with a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders and East Jerusalem as its capital.

Israel and the U.S. believe that the UK and other states recognizing Palestinian statehood and endorsing the two-state solution are very harmful to the peace process at a time when Hamas is refusing to negotiate in good faith to implement a cease-fire or to end the war.

The decisions by European governments to recognize Palestinian statehood also ignore Israel’s grave security concerns.

It is worth noting that the Palestinians did have their own state in Gaza after Israel withdrew from the territory in 2005 until Israel invaded following the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre. Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in 2007 and used it to attack Israel in the years that followed, with over 20,000 rockets and mortars. Hamas staged the October 7 massacre against Israel from Gaza, involving about 6,000 militants and killing more than 1,100 Israelis, including many children. An additional 251 Israelis were taken hostage.

Israel invaded Gaza after the Hamas massacre to destroy Hamas and free Israeli hostages. The massacre also led Israeli officials to declare that the two-state solution and the idea of a Palestinian state were dead for the foreseeable future until security threats from the Palestinians can be resolved and the Palestinians are deradicalized.

Israeli officials have also been clear that it will never again allow Gaza to be ruled by Hamas or become a terrorist haven to conduct more attacks against Israel.

Many Western leaders initially agreed with the Israeli government’s response to the October 7 massacre and its decision to invade Gaza to destroy Hamas. However, over time, these leaders’ resolve to stand with Israel weakened due to negative press coverage, pressure from the anti-Israel Left, and Hamas propaganda.

Over the last two years, several weak Western leaders sided against Israel and endorsed a Palestinian state as a way to end the war, largely in response to constant media criticism of Israel. They chose to ignore not just Israel’s security concerns but also the Palestinian leadership’s consistent rejection of Israeli offers for a Palestinian state.

Reflections on the Coming Days of Rage There can be only one. by Mark Tapson

https://www.frontpagemag.com/reflections-on-the-coming-days-of-rage/

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was already positively impacting the world with his indefatigable, peaceful, joyful, godly work to change hearts and minds, but in mere days, his assassination by a cowardly sniper’s bullet has already launched a tsunami of change he likely could not have imagined. The world is entering a different epoch now, and as with all shifts into a new age, there will be birthing pains.

I can’t recall whose insight this was, but someone online observed that Charlie’s murder was an “Archduke Ferdinand moment” – referring to the assassination that triggered World War I. I think that captures the sobering magnitude of Charlie’s martyrdom (yes, literal martyrdom; as others have pointed out, Charlie was killed not for his politics but for his Christian faith, which shaped his political positions). But his brutal murder drives home the point that we are already in a hot civil war in this country – not just a culture war, not a figurative civil war, but a hot civil war.

But so far only one side has been waging that war. From the assassination of healthcare CEO Brian Thompson at the hands of a terrorist-turned-Left-wing-folk-hero, to the slaughter of Catholic schoolchildren at the hands of a demonic trans terrorist, to Charlie Kirk at the hands (allegedly) of a Left-radicalized young man (with a trans partner) who declared that “some hate can’t be negotiated out,” the Left has already declared war on the political opponents they deem to be fascist threats to democracy who must be exterminated like vermin (hence their dehumanizing rhetoric over the years since the reign of Barack Obama, intensified under Joe Biden).

I am old enough to remember another time when the Left normalized political violence in America. As Bryan Burroughs notes in his book Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence, “radical violence was so deeply woven into the fabric of 1970s America that many citizens, especially in New York and other hard-hit cities, accepted it as part of daily life.” Burroughs quotes a retired FBI agent who noted, “People have completely forgotten but in 1972 we had over nineteen hundred domestic bombings in the United States. It was every day. Buildings getting bombed, policemen getting killed. It was commonplace.”

My record at predictions is mixed at best, so I hope I’m wrong about this one, but I believe we are about to enter a new Days of Rage. Political violence is about to become even more “commonplace.” The Left’s repugnant response to Charlie’s murder has already demonstrated that they are not going to be shocked into policing themselves and de-escalating the violence, much less their demonizing, vicious rhetoric. Some Democrat leaders, like Barack Obama, have issued obligatory, tepid statements denouncing political violence, but do not expect that any “moderate” elements on the Left will prevail. The Democrat Party is controlled by the radical Left, and has been since well before the calculated, meteoric rise of Barack Obama.

Lies, Damned Lies, And Leftist Media Lies About An Assassin

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/09/19/lies-damned-lies-and-leftist-media-lies-about-an-assassin/

Given the national anguish and pain over the assassination of Charlie Kirk, you might think that the leftist big media would at least be treading softly right now, especially given the overwhelming evidence that’s already been made public about Kirk’s alleged assassin. But you would be wrong.

We’ve already addressed the lies and exaggerations told about Kirk to somehow justify his murder. Now the left is trying to come up with a counter-narrative about his assassin. Kirk wasn’t murdered by an unhinged leftist; he was killed by a MAGA adherent. It’s a lie on stilts.

Let’s start with what we know:

Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old accused assassin, had a deep hatred for Kirk, apparently for his muscular Christian beliefs and his espousal of traditional family values.

We also know that Robinson plotted for a week. Premeditated, cold-blooded.

He inscribed bullets with obscure gamer verbiage and extreme-left shibboleths, like “Hey, fascist, catch!” Sound like a right-winger to you?

His parents, while themselves conservative. told the police that their son had adopted far-left beliefs in the past few years. Would they lie about that?

A relative said the following: “He hates conservatives and Christians,” the relative said. “He hated us. He was not raised that way, but he, over the years, has become really detached (and) been radicalized.”

There are, in fact, no indications whatsoever that Robinson was, as popular leftist substack writer Heather Cox Richardson (hat tip: Dylan on X) falsely described him: “a young white man from a Republican, gun-enthusiast family, who appears to have embraced the far right, disliking Kirk for being insufficiently radical.”

From the KGB to Gaza: How Soviet ‘Active Measures’ Still Manipulate the West by Pierre Rehov

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21908/kgb-russia-soviets-palestinians

What some now call the “pro-Palestine movement” in the West is, in many respects, the residue of decades of KGB-backed manipulation. The cultural self-hatred, moral relativism, and selective outrage that dominate today’s progressive circles were seeded by Soviet strategists who understood that eroding Western confidence from within could be more decisive than any tank battalion.

Between June 2015 and May 2017, Facebook identified roughly $100,000 in advertising spending tied to Russian operators — around 3,000 ads and 470 fake accounts. These “false amplifiers” were not fringe experiments; they were coordinated tools to manipulate American discourse around the most sensitive of issues: race, violence and justice.

Algorithms that reward outrage over truth became Moscow’s best allies. Viral posts spread disinformation with an efficiency no Cold War-era propaganda organ could ever have matched. Silicon Valley unwittingly handed Russia the perfect conduit for digital warfare.

What began with the KGB’s creation and sponsorship of radical Palestinian organizations has evolved into a kaleidoscope of identity-based movements that serve the same destabilizing purpose.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Iran’s revolutionary regime, and the emirate of Qatar eagerly seized onto the momentum of Soviet-inspired subversion.

By turning every regional or global grievance into an indictment of the Jewish state, they perpetuated the Soviet narrative while adding their own religious zealotry.

The moral relativism of progressive elites, the selective outrage of campus radicals, and the obsessive fixation on “Palestine” are not organic: they are the downstream effects of decades of collaboration between Moscow’s active measures and Islamist subversion, turbocharged by Qatari money and Iranian militancy.

In 1984, Yuri Bezmenov, a former Soviet KGB officer turned defector, issued a chilling warning to the West. As a specialist in the USSR’s propaganda and subversion, he revealed how Moscow’s “active measures” were designed not only to mislead but to fundamentally destabilize societies from within. The West, convinced that victory in the Cold War would be purely military or economic, ignored his words. Yet Bezmenov understood what few in Washington or Brussels could grasp: the battlefield was psychological, cultural and moral.

Only a little more than decade later, Russian strategist Alexander Dugin gave these methods a new intellectual scaffolding. In his 1997 book The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia, Dugin argued that the path to weakening the United States and NATO lay in fomenting chaos inside America’s borders — igniting racial and social conflict, seeding distrust of institutions, and nurturing separatist or extremist movements. His program was nothing less than a blueprint for dismantling the West by exploiting its own fractures.

The Soviet–Palestinian Nexus

These ideas did not emerge in a vacuum. Already during the Cold War, the KGB had cultivated deep ties with Palestinian terrorist factions, trained operatives who were providing disinformation, and weaponizing the Arab-Israeli conflict for Soviet purposes. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), along with splinter groups, were not merely perpetrating anti-Israel terrorism: the PLO was a Soviet proxy, deployed both to weaken the Jewish state and inject anti-Israel and anti-Western ideology into Europe and America.

The Murder of Charlie Kirk Was Not a George Floyd Moment Charlie Kirk’s murder sparked peaceful resolve, not riots—sharply contrasting the violence, destruction, and radical agendas unleashed after George Floyd’s death. By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/18/the-murder-of-charlie-kirk-was-not-a-george-floyd-moment/

Just days after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the left is working overtime to hide the truth and create fantasies about his death.

Specifically, leftists alleged that conservatives were going to “pounce” on the death to wage protests and boost radical agendas in the manner of what followed George Floyd’s death.

Here are some of the lies that such a ridiculous narrative entails.

One, Charlie Kirk is not conservatives’ George Floyd. There were no mass riots after his death of the sort that followed Floyd’s demise.

Floyd’s death was used by the left to justify five months of rioting, arson, murder, looting, and attacking police officers.

The postmortem respect for Kirk’s singular life was not characterized by $2 billion in property damage, the torching of a police precinct, a federal courthouse, and an iconic church, 35 deaths, and 1,500 injured law-enforcement officers.

Instead, thousands of people peacefully joined his Turning Point USA organization and promised to redirect their lives toward peaceful political engagement.

Two, after Kirk’s death, no prominent Republican or conservative is encouraging ongoing mass (and often violent) protests in the manner of high-profile leftists like Kamala Harris.

She blurted out on national television in June 2020, “But they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up—and they should not. And we should not.”

No conservatives—like the spouse of Governor Tim Walz—declared of the 2020 arsons, “I could smell the burning tires, and that was a very real thing. I kept the windows open as long as I could because I felt like that was such a touchstone of what was happening.”

Instead, Kirk’s supporters are calling on everyone to express their anger peacefully at the ballot box by registering to vote and showing up for the 2026 midterms.

Three, Charles Kirk was not George Floyd. He was a law-abiding, religiously devout, political organizer, happily married with two children. Kirk was a media figure and head of a huge 501(c)(3) nonprofit whose brand was calmly debating students who disagreed with him.

Floyd should not have died while in police custody. But Floyd’s comorbidities were many. When arrested, he was under the influence of fentanyl and methamphetamine, with a heart condition and recent Covid infection.

He was a career felon, with eight previous criminal convictions, who had in the past staged a violent home-invasion robbery and pointed a knife at the abdomen of one of the female occupants.

Peace and Appeasement Israel now stands accused of genocide for refusing to accept its own annihilation. Yuki Zeman

https://quillette.com/2025/09/17/peace-and-appeasement-hitler-hamas-gaza/

After decades of ruthless militancy and terrorism that culminated in the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October, a Palestinian state will be recognised later this month by the governments of France, the UK, and Canada. These Western leaders are eager to appease those who perpetrate anti-Jewish violence because they believe that by doing so they can end decades of bloodshed and war in the Middle East. But this kind of thinking misreads the causes of hatred and aggression in pursuit of peace at all costs, and history demonstrates how dangerous this is.

On 1 April 1933, the Nazis declared a nationwide boycott of Jewish businesses. Days later, the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was passed, which forbade the employment of non-Aryan teachers, judges, or physicians. In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were enacted, which proscribed intermarriage and stripped Jews of German citizenship. By 1938, Jewish children had been pushed out of schools and Jewish doctors were confined to treating Jews. None of these measures required war. All that was needed was ideology, will, organisation, and the silent complicity of observers.

The tightening of the noose during this period was administrative—a litany of forms, laws, decrees, notices, and slogans that turned ordinary doorways into uncrossable thresholds. The path to genocide began with incremental measures that felt reversible until they were not. And then came Kristallnacht, on the night of 9 November 1938, which ended the pretence that anti-Jewish persecution was only a matter of law. Around ninety Jews were murdered and about 30,000 men were arrested and sent to concentration camps. Synagogues were set on fire and Jewish shops were reduced to glittering wreckage. The next morning, people stepped around the shards of broken glass littering the pavement as they walked to work.

And while all of this horror was unfolding, civilised Europe did nothing.

The Battle of Gaza City: it’s time to take sides Why the army of the Jewish State must be victorious over the Islamist hysterics of Hamas. Brendan O’Neill

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/09/17/the-battle-of-gaza-city-its-time-to-take-sides/

‘I judge a man by one thing’, said the early 20th-century English Liberal MP Isaac Foot: ‘Which side would he have liked his ancestors to fight on at Marston Moor?’ He was referring to the Battle of Marston Moor of 1644, during the English Civil War, in which the Parliamentarian side under the command of the radical Lord Fairfax roundly defeated the Royalist side. It was the military victory that propelled these isles towards democracy. I’m starting to feel similarly about the Battle of Gaza City – that you can judge a person by which side they’re taking in this clash between the army of Israel and the neo-fascists of Hamas.

As the 98th and 162nd divisions of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) roll into Gaza City to confront the 3,000 armed anti-Semites of Hamas, a burning question confronts us all: which side are we on? You can say ‘I just want the war to stop’ until you’re blue in the face. You can carry a handbag saying ‘Cease Fire!’ like one of the turbo-smug celebs at the Emmys did. You can call the IDF ‘reckless and appalling’, as did Britain’s new foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, in an act of snivelling moral perfidy that heaps shame on our nation. None of it will make a blind bit of difference. This battle is as unstoppable as the sunrise tomorrow. Neither the IDF nor Hamas is backing down. So only one question remains: whose victory do you wish for?

The Battle of Gaza City is already one of the most maligned clashes of modern times. Much of the media coverage leaves one with the wholly post-truth impression that the IDF is raiding Gaza City for sport. Or for land. Or in further, feverish pursuit of its curiously unsuccessful ‘genocide’ of the Palestinian people. The other side in the battle – Hamas’s army of apocalyptic Jew-haters – has been virtually invisibilised. We rarely hear of them. It’s as bizarre as if newspapers had reported on the Battle of Raqqa without mentioning ISIS, or the Battle of Berlin without ever saying the word ‘Nazi’.

Anyone who writes, tweets or talks about the Battle of Gaza City without referencing the numerous cells of tooled-up guerrilla fighters lying in wait for the soldiers of the Jewish State is flat-out engaging in misinformation. It’s a kind of wartime censorship to erase one side in a battle – worse, the side that started the war in the first place with its pogrom against the Jews of southern Israel on 7 October 2023. The truth about the Battle of Gaza City is that on one side there are tens of thousands of soldiers from two divisions of the IDF, and on the other an estimated 3,000 Hamas gunmen and their Islamist allies under the command of Izz El-Din al-Haddad.