Don’t Become That Which You Hate

In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA we have witnessed two phenomena that should henceforth be burned indelibly into our psyche. First, that disagreement can turn into blind hate with only the slightest of encouragement. And second that both sides of the political spectrum will, in turn, embrace suppression of free speech.

The indicted killer of Charlie Kirk, Tyler Robinson, had undertaken an affair with another man who deemed himself a woman. Robinson’s boyfriend had begun the process of “conversion” which entails the heavy use of both male hormone blockers and the introduction of female hormones and eventually the removal of the male genitalia. There is a substantial evidence that this combination of drug therapy can result in extreme emotional rage and physical violence. Now you might think that the person ingesting the drug therapy would be the one to engage in extreme emotional rage and physical violence but in this instance it was his partner – Mr. Robinson. However, it would not be unusual for someone professing love for another to undertake the rage and violence on behalf of his partner.

I don’t know the technical term for such instances but the concept of “transference” comes to mind. It is not unlike the concept of Munchhausen-by-proxy syndrome where the psychologically disturbed person repeatedly injures another – usually a loved one – to garner the sympathy and attention they desire. It is a form of “factitious disorder.” It can occur when one party imposes his own psychological disorder on another or when a party embraces the psychological disorder of another and acts as the “surrogate” for the person with the actual disorder.

In this instance it is quite possible that Mr. Reynolds embraced the psychological disorder of his boyfriend – perhaps with intentional or unintentional encouragement from his boyfriend – with the result that the initial empathy for his boyfriend became the burning rage that resulted in the assassination of Mr. Kirk.  Mr. Kirk did not condemn “transitioning” in adults – he simply said that as adults that they should be free to do as they wish but not to expect that he (Mr. Kirk) should be required to honor it or pay for it. In contrast, however, he objected to engaging in “transitioning” process on minors in the same way and for the same reason that most of us object to abortions, sterilizations, and other forms of mutilation on minors.

While this psychological exploration* may or may not be applicable to Mr. Reynolds it does not immunize him from the consequences of his actions. Mr. Reynolds is an adult. His actions were not spontaneous. They appeared to have been planned, not only to the commit the crime but to escape detection and capture. In other words he appears to be a rational adult allegedly committing a heinous crime.

.     .     .

Mr. Kirk’s widow, Erika, showed unbelievable strength and a commitment to the teaching of Jesus Christ when she announced that she had forgiven Mr. Reynolds. She acknowledged that Mr. Reynolds remains subject to the laws of the State of Utah and the United States of America and that they will take their due course. I expect that also in due course Ms. Kirk will not encourage the use of the death penalty for Mr. Reynolds. We should all be of such moral and spiritual strength as Ms. Kirk. The most potent way of encouraging your faith is to practice it both publicly and privately – no matter how hard it might be.

In the aftermath of Mr. Kirk’s assassination, the purveyors of racial hatred in Congress – more commonly known as The Squad – went the “full Monty.” It is as if they saw what their encouragement of violence had wrought and were dismayed that the assassin’s bullet created a martyr for truth and civil discourse. There they all were – Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, and joined by Jasmine Crockett – in high dudgeon running out their favorite tropes when there is neither fact nor logic that supports them. They called Mr. Kirk a racist and a fascist and he was neither. They demanded that the public trust them when the clear evidence before the Nation was quite to the contrary. And the more they were criticized for the coarseness of their rhetoric, the more insistent they became.

And in response, Republicans of all stripes demanded that Democrats in general and the Squad and Ms. Crockett in particular be silenced – canceled if you please. Apparently they forgot their own protests when Joe Biden and his allies in Congress attempted to suppress free speech and conflicting opinions on virtually everything. The Republicans have even used the same words – the same rationale: Censorship must proceed in the name of eliminating “hate speech” – meaning any speech if it conflicted with theirs.

And here is where it become difficult for me. Any time I find my views and those of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) converging I have to stop and retest my views against fact and logic – mostly because I suspect ulterior motives for all that he says and does. In this case, it is inescapable that we are in agreement. The New York Times noted:

“Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, on Friday harshly criticized Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, accusing him of mafia-like tactics and saying his threat to retaliate against media companies for speech on their airwaves was ‘dangerous as hell.’

“Mr. Cruz was reacting to Mr. Carr’s threat to revoke ABC’s broadcast license because of remarks by the late-night host Jimmy Kimmel during a Monday night telecast about the assassination of the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

“The remarks from Cruz, who is closely aligned with the president and one of the most conservative members of the Senate, were the latest evidence that some on the right are deeply uncomfortable with their fellow Republicans’ efforts to clamp down on free speech by their political adversaries following Mr. Kirk’s death.

“Mr. Cruz said Mr. Kimmel had been “lying” in the monologue that prompted ABC to pull his show, in which the comedian said that conservatives had been trying to portray Mr. Kirk’s assassin as “anything other than one of them.” But the senator also took Mr. Carr to task for suggesting on a right-wing podcast that if media companies did not shut down such statements, the federal government would step in do so.”

The fact of the matter is that there is no absolute right to “free speech.” The United States Constitution in the First Amendment notes

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The prohibition refers to acts of the government not of individuals.

Thus when ABC suspended the lying late night show host, Jimmy Kimmel, it was acting within in its rights. However, when Mr. Carr suggested that the Federal Communication Commission intervene and review ABC’s license, that constituted the government interfering in the exercise of free speech.

And ABC acted appropriately. It is unfortunate that it subsequently bowed to pressure from progressives and their allies in the Hollywood and the mainstream media. But the remedy initiated by ABC is still the appropriate remedy. ABC should be boycotted by advertisers and viewers alike. The media companies that initially refused to carry Mr. Kimmel’s diatribes against President Donald Trump and his supporters should make their protests permanent. As Hollywood and the mainstream media continue to lose revenue and audiences, the jackals of hate posing as comedians will whither and die – a fitting end to their own excesses.

The trouble with the government attempting to suppress hate speech is that “hate speech” cannot be defined and routinely simply morphs into that with which one side or the other disagree. Joe Biden tried it and Mr. Trump should not fall for it.

___________________________________________

*I am neither a qualified psychologist nor privy to the evidence garnered by law enforcement in pursuit of Mr. Kirk’s assassination. My speculation here is simply an example of how a disagreement can escalate to violence – currently, a too often malady.