The Rise Of ‘Assassination Culture’ In America

Normally when a major new law is proposed, it’s given a name that makes it catchy and appealing to as many people as possible. Of course, pretty much every time, the name is an obvious lie. But it’s still an effective lie, because every time someone says the name of the law, they’re giving you a positive soundbite. Obama’s health care plan, of course, was famously called “The Affordable Care Act.” So all of the news articles and cable news segments that talked about the law — even if they were critical of it — ended up reinforcing the message that it would make health care “affordable.” The same principle applies to the so-called “Equal Pay Act,” the “Freedom of Information Act,” the “Fair Housing Act,” and so on.

With that in mind, it’s worth taking a look at the name of a new ballot initiative that was introduced last week in the state of California. This ballot initiative was proposed by a retired lawyer in the state. And it would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for medication or procedures, unless those insurance companies could demonstrate — by “clear and convincing evidence” — that the medication or procedure is completely unnecessary in every way. In other words, they can’t reject a procedure because it’s too expensive. If they do, they’ll face a lawsuit that will almost certainly be successful. In practical terms, this would mean that the cost of health insurance (and medical procedures) would skyrocket. It would have the exact opposite of its intended effect. Insurance companies would probably go bankrupt very quickly, and a lot of people would lose access to health care entirely as a result. So calling this “bad policy” would be an understatement.

But that’s not the point. The point is the name of this ballot initiative. It’s not called the “Better Health Care Insurance Act.” It’s not called the “Save Lives Act” or the “Free Money Act” or anything like that. Instead, this ballot initiative is called the “Luigi Mangione Access to Healthcare Act.” Yes, a law has just been proposed in the state of California that’s named after someone who just (allegedly) shot a health care CEO in the back, on camera, after stalking him for weeks. And as much as I’d like to say that most people in this country have rejected this legislation, that’s not true. It’s actually getting a lot of support and mainstream attention at the moment. Watch:

So evidently, it’s not enough for the ballot initiative to be named after an alleged murderer. On top of that, the text of the ballot initiative also references the words that the assassin wrote on the bullets that he used to murder Brian Thompson. This is about as sociopathic as things can possibly get. But it’s got a fighting chance to pass in California. Already many people are supporting the proposal on social media, as you can probably imagine. They’re particularly fond of the idea on Reddit, which has become a breeding ground for domestic terrorists of late. And the state of California is well-known for passing ballot initiatives like this one.

Reason Magazine reports that: “California has a history of gadflies getting far-reaching policies on the ballot that then end up winning. Liberal California likes to point to Proposition 13, which limited property tax increases, as the canonical example of this. Another example would be Proposition 103, an initiative pushed by consumer advocates that created California’s current regulatory regime for property and auto insurance. Prop. 103 limits insurers’ ability to raise rates on policyholders and creates a laborious system to justify whatever price increases they are still permitted.”

And there’s another reason to think that this initiative will pass. This is a poll that was just conducted by the “Network Contagion Research Institute,” which just surveyed Americans across the political spectrum in order to determine their level of tolerance for political violence. From Fox, which reported on the results: “38% of respondents said it would be at least ‘somewhat justified’ to murder Donald Trump, and 31% said the same about Elon Musk. … When counting only left-leaning respondents, justification for killing Trump rose to 55% and Musk to 48%.”

Yes, more than half of “left-leaning respondents” — which includes anyone who identifies as a liberal in any way — believes that it would be acceptable for an assassin to execute Donald Trump. And nearly half of “left-leaning respondents” believe it would be acceptable if someone murdered Elon Musk. On top of that, nearly 60% of “left-leaning respondents” declared that it would be acceptable to destroy a Tesla dealership. They’re saying it’s fine to commit acts of domestic terrorism, solely because they disagree with the political views of the CEO of the company.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

Yes, polls can be misleading. We talk about the bias that exists in polls all the time. They’re not necessarily a reliable indicator but in this case, based on everything that’s happened in this country in the last few years, everyone knows this poll is accurate. We’ve all seen the outpouring of support for Luigi Mangione — support that continued even after it became very clear that he’s a raging, wealthy narcissist who had no reason to be upset with United HealthCare whatsoever. In fact, a few months ago, many of Luigi Mangione’ supporters dogpiled one of my videos on YouTube, in order to inform me that I should “read the room” and defend first-degree murder.

We’ve also played dozens of clips of random Tesla stores and vehicles being attacked, as mobs cheer on the carnage. People are being terrorized solely on the basis of a vehicle they’ve purchased — which as far as I can tell, has never happened before in the history of this country. At the height of the Bud Light boycott, no one was violently assaulted for drinking a Bud Light. But for Tesla owners, it’s a different story. And these attacks are continuing, by the way. Just yesterday, shortly after midnight in Washington State, an explosion destroyed a Tesla charging station.

Along the same lines, as we discussed earlier this week, there’s been a groundswell of support for Karmelo Anthony, who recently stabbed a white high school student to death in Texas at a track meet. Anthony’s family has now raised more than $250,000 — a quarter of a million dollars — on GiveSendGo, on the theory that the killing was somehow an act of self-defense — even though Karmelo Anthony himself asked officers, as they arrested him, whether self-defense was a viable strategy to pursue. At this rate, he’ll raise a million dollars for killing a white 17-year-old. Yes, there’s essentially a bounty for killing white people in this country. Does it matter to these people that Austin Metcalf didn’t hurt Karmelo Anthony in any way? Does it matter to them that Karmelo Anthony instigated the fight and then threw away the murder weapon as Austin Metcalf died in his brother’s arms? Does it matter that Karmelo Anthony brought a deadly weapon to the opposing team’s tent at a track meet, and then dared someone to touch him? Of course not. None of that matters. All that matters is that Austin Metcalf was white and Karmelo Anthony was black.

Frisco Police Dept//Metcalf family handout

So no, it’s not surprising in the slightest that most self-described liberals in this country are explicitly supporting political violence. We see the evidence everywhere. But at the same time, the diagnosis from the political science experts is obviously lacking in several respects. They aren’t fully grasping the problem. To give you some idea, here’s what they have to say.

This is from CBS: “Stanley Schwartz, a history professor at Cedarville University, tells us, violence has a long history in American democracy, but it was still striking to read through this report. … ‘A lot of folks on the left are probably feeling a sense of hopelessness or despair following the election loss,’ said Schwartz. … [Another expert], Darryl Paulson, who specializes in political parties and elections at the University of South Florida, tells us, there used to be rules in how you conducted politics. But those rules don’t exist anymore. ‘Those rules of the game have been thrown out, and it’s every man for himself,’ Paulson said.”

That’s the explanation that the academics have come up with. They’re saying that something has abruptly changed, and that “a lot of folks” are mad that a Republican won the presidency. But that doesn’t actually capture the magnitude of what’s happening here. So-called “assassination culture” — as these pollsters have referred to this phenomenon — is not merely the result of hyper partisanship and political division. We’ve had a lot of very intense political disagreements in this country’s history, including all-out brawls on the floor of Congress in the 19th century. What we haven’t seen, until now, are coordinated terror campaigns — endorsed by a major political party — that are conducted against American citizens on the basis of their political beliefs. That is new.

When the Weather Underground bombed The Capitol, both Democrats and Republicans had the good sense to condemn it. But when the modern Weather Underground gets to work against Elon Musk and his supporters, Democrats say nothing. Actually, it’s worse than that. They come out and publicly taunt Elon Musk and his company, and they suggest he and Tesla got what they deserved.

We’re seeing this response because, at its core, Leftism is relativistic, fundamentally amoral, and dehumanizing. Leftism has taken over the Democratic Party, and we’re now witnessing the consequences of that takeover. That is why Leftists are celebrating the murder of Brian Thompson, without any pushback from elected Democrats. That’s why they’re happy Austin Metcalf is dead, and it’s why they’re now desperately hoping that they’ll get to kill Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Above all else, Leftism is concerned with advancing the interests of the party. That is their overriding goal. It’s all that interests them. Nothing else matters. They will continue their campaign of violence, at any cost. They don’t even feel the need to hide it anymore, as the “Luigi Mangione Access to Health Care Act” demonstrates. The same people who cheered the killing of Brian Thompson would cheer your death as well, if they felt it would advance their interests in any way.

Countries can survive economic upheaval, political disagreements and even civil war. But they cannot survive an ideology that is fundamentally anti-human — that’s completely uninterested in any form of human progress. That is what Leftism, as endorsed by the Democratic Party, now stands for. A majority of Democrats agree with this sentiment. It’s impossible to overstate this, so I’ll say it again: They will rationalize your murder if you don’t agree with them. They will rationalize your murder, as we’ve seen with Austin Metcalf, if you’re white. It is incumbent on every sane person — anyone with any survival instinct whatsoever — to stay as far away from these people as possible. And if we accomplish nothing else in the next few years, we should do everything we can to eradicate this ideology so that it doesn’t result in any more death and destruction than it already has. Leftism arrived in this country relatively quickly. If there’s one silver lining here, it’s that we can eliminate it just as quickly.