An ideology that cannot be defended by means of evidence and deductive logic, will inevitably be enforced by violence.

You shall know them by their habit: they first redefine words as violence, so that they may justify the use of violence against words.

They did not merely disagree with me over Covid, climate, and human origins. They did not merely concoct lies, hound past colleagues, and stalk my disassociated accounts across the web. They trespassed on my property and threatened my family—spurred on by a mob of trolls weaving hatred into a frenzy—for the simple offense of daring to examine the evidence and dissent. Their rage was never about truth, nor about science; it was about my refusal to kneel before their canon.

A man is tolerated so long as he parrots the narrative; but should he dare to apply true skepticism to its sacred pillars, the enforcers crawl from the woodwork—anxious, cornered, and dangerous. The cost of non-compliance is no longer debate or exclusion, but menace delivered to one’s very doorstep. Such is the fate of ideology in decay: reason is abandoned, and the preservation of its image is valued above the safety of innocent families.

I have had an associate who was assassinated. I myself have been marked by hit squads in the past and shadowed by dark groups. There is a spiritual economy to their violence—they are signaled whom to target, whom to wound, and they carry out the task without fully knowing why. There are no cell phone records. This is the difference between me and the common pundit: (a) I do not seek money or notoriety, and (b) I know, in intimate detail, what these groups are and what they are capable of.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk today was no anomaly—it was the inevitable end of a long decay. Once the Left shed its hollow catechism of “equality and justice” and extremists therein enthroned naked coercion as science and virtue, blood became a foregone conclusion. Violence against the apostate had already been rehearsed in rhetoric; the leap to the bullet was only its final, grotesque punctuation.They silenced a man who gave voice to millions across both sides of critical debates—because their own ideas were so bankrupt, they could not allow him to live. Afterward, they retreated into oafish incantations like “vaccination,” “inclusion,” and “democracy.”

All of this, the fruit of a corrupt entertainment industry, partisan educational system, and captive university academics who have abandoned, and even come to disdain, their fellow citizens.

Wikipedia permitted—and even promoted—a diatribe of hate rhetoric against Charlie Kirk, fomenting the very climate that produced today’s assassination. Wikipedia, you bear culpability. You have chosen sides, and in so doing have become a motivating instrument in the enforcement of opinion through “justified violence.” I call upon Wikipedia to purge its pages of partisan hate against disfavored persons and political opponents.

When they blame you for the weather, they are just one cognitive step away from justifying atrocity against you.

When one cannot persuade or legislate or shame, one kills. This was not about Covid, climate, or human origins in isolation—it was about the collapse of discourse itself. The line has been crossed, and history tells us plainly: once truth is no longer defended, only power is.

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Final Step of the Scientific Method”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 10 Sep 2025; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/2025/09/10/the-final-step-of-the-scientific-method/