George Mason U. Contacts Law Enforcement Over Student’s Essay About Violent Resistance Against Trump
“In short, we must decide when we must kill them.”
It’s amazing how comfortable the left is with invoking violence when they don’t get their way politically.
Fairfax County News reports:
George Mason University contacts law enforcement after student posts essay on political violence
George Mason University said it has referred a student’s essay to state and federal law enforcement after it sparked concern online.
While GMU did not respond to a FFXnow request to specify which essay, a social media post from GMU comes after a student’s Substack post titled ‘When Must We Kill Them?‘ went viral in conservative circles.
The essay questions when resistance to President Donald Trump’s administration should become violent.
“If the present administration chooses this course, then the questions of the day can be settled not with legislation, but with blood and iron,” the essay said. “In short, we must decide when we must kill them.”
The essay does not explicitly call for violence against any administration officials, but argues that Americans should have a threshold at which they turn to violent revolution. It claims that it may be best to “wait for elections, but if it should threaten the ability to remove it, we shall have no choice.”
The essay’s author said on social media that they were contacted by the Secret Service.
George Mason University is aware of a recent essay published online by one of its students that has created concern.
Upon learning of the essay, Mason Police referred the matter to state and federal law enforcement for evaluation of criminal behavior. 1/2
— George Mason University (@GeorgeMasonU) April 18, 2025
George Mason condemns this and all encouragements of violence. This is not the Mason way. 2/2
— George Mason University (@GeorgeMasonU) April 18, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well he is not saying anything different on the left from what many people on the right have been saying although the targets are different. GMU seems to have forgotten that this country was born in revolution. Thomas Jefferson also said “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”,
As long as he doesn’t call for specific deaths or incite violence today I don’t have a problem with his writing this essay as it was explained above. I disagree on the target of his anger though.
No, I have rarely heard people on the right talking like this. It is mainly on the left, and you’re not being honest if you don’t recognize that.
I spent much of last night finishing my re-read of “Unintended Consequences.”
I could go either way.
I was given a copy of that many years ago. Time for me to dive in I guess…
Been at least 20 years since I’d read it. The firearms history and facts stuff is of interest. But the risible “I-spit-on-your-grave” scenes of porn and revenge, as well as the utter lack of any underlying moral / ethical basis for the actions of the “””heroes”””, made me finally decide to throw my copy away about 5 years ago.
Before you read it, ask yourself about the fundamental basis for your understanding of the interaction between the People and the civil magistrate, and keep that in mind as you read.
Unintended Consequences? The wet dream porno-pean of godless anarchy.
I have a section in my book case for bad theology. But UC is probably the only book I simply threw in the garbage.
it doesnt have to be said by the maga crowd
they know its the last resort
Oh please. There are plenty of people on any right wing site in the comments talking about violence of one sort of another. It maybe the usual internet postering nonspecific and without any real intention to do anything but it is there nevertheless. Open up your eyes.
Forget bloviating and posturing — who is actually acting upon violent rhetoric and is persistently turning it into violent deeds and action — Dhimmi-crats, or, conservatives? Which party’s political leaders consistently rhetorically rationalize, whitewash and incite violence against the political opposition?
The answer is obvious. If you can’t acknowledge that salient reality, you have your head stuck in the sand.
We’re talking about an essay here not actions. There is plenty of “talk” from the extremes on both sides. That is obvious and if you don’t recognize it your head is stuck.
As for what I believe I’ve laid out my opinions on this site since I started commenting here. I’m not though going to either deny reality or fail to propose other ideas that occur to me just because they might be unpopular.
What would be the reaction from the left, I wonder, if conservatives began advocating the use of violence in response to the firebombing of car dealerships? Should we gun down the perpetrators of those acts of terrorism?
How about those who block highways and thoroughfares? Should we just run them over?
Or should those who assault passersby on the sidewalk be beaten to death or thrown into traffic?
If the jackboot were on the other foot, the Left would be losing their minds, calling for conservatives to be thrown in prison for life for engaging in the thought crime of just thinking such things.
But it’s okay for them to advocate violence and murder against their political opponents because…well, it just is.
We must kill the man, who won a majority of the vote, to save democracy!
“When Must We Kill Them?” A strange Q from a faction that utterly decries the private use of firearms.
Mike Vanderboegh (1952-2016; ostensible developer of the “three percent” philosophy) answered that Q from a religious-patriotic perspective in his essay, “A Brief Three Percent Catechism — A discipline not for the faint-hearted”:
“As Three Percenters we are bound by an ironclad commitment to no first use of force. We call this, ‘No Fort Sumters.’ … This means exactly and precisely what it says. We must not fire first. …
“We don’t fire first, nor second, nor perhaps even third. This does not mean we can’t defend ourselves. We must.
“What it does mean is that the rest of don’t react until everyone understands that it is collective self-defense. We must not cede the moral high ground.”
https://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-brief-three-percent-catechism.html
When I was a younger man, I met way too many “””patriot militiamen””” who couldn’t seem to wait for the S to HTF.
Let that be the left. It must not be us.