MURDEROUS VIOLENCE

At age 18 years, 2 months, during a pitch-black night in early September 1965, two days after arriving in Chu Lai, Vietnam, I was ordered into one of my squadron’s UH-1E  helicopters.  Along with three other Marines, we flew to Da Nang approximately 56 miles north.  On the flight line was a large empty C-130 transport aircraft with open ramp.  Not long afterwards, I saw the headlights of the first medevac helicopter heading toward us and many others arrived later.  We ran to arriving helicopters to offload body bags of dead Marines and litters of grievously wounded Marines onto the C-130. Needless to say, I had never before experienced anything even remotely similar.  During that harrowing night, I thought how fortunate I was to be loading rather than being loaded. So, that was my introduction to Viet Nam and to murderous violence, but that was a war in a foreign land. 

Now, 60 years after my initial Chu Lai experience , I read everyday about murderous actions, especially in Gaza, Israel, Ukraine, and Russia. As sad as that is, I realize that those, too, are the inevitable consequences of war, and I console myself, knowing that there are no foreign troops shooting and bombing in America.  It is particularly troubling, then, that many of our citizens rationalize violence against each other.

Consider a 2025 Network of Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) - Rutgers University’s Social Perception Lab report entitled, Emerging Threats: Normalized Political Violence and the Rise of Assassination Culture that I present for your consideration. The report indicates that 55% of self-identified left-of-center respondents believe that assassinating President Donald Trump could be at least somewhat justified. Similarly, 48% expressed the same sentiment regarding Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX and head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency. 

Overall, 38% of all respondents stated that murdering Trump would be at least somewhat justified, while 31% said the same about Musk. The study suggests the emergence of an "assassination culture" within segments of the extreme left, with political violence becoming increasingly normalized in digital discourse. 

The NCRI report warns that these attitudes pose a threat to political stability and public safety, emphasizing that such perspectives are not fringe but reflect an emergent culture grounded in far-left authoritarianism. The study also highlights the role of social media platforms in amplifying radical ideation, contributing to the normalization of political violence. 

Some people, therefore, mistakenly believe that political violence is justified.  But what about violence against non-politicians? Of course, everyone is acutely aware of the ongoing Luigi Mangione case currently being tried in New York.  To briefly refresh your mind, on December 4, 2024, Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot outside the New York Hilton Midtown in Manhattan. Prosecutors claim that Mangione, the alleged assailant, approached Thompson around 6:44 a.m. and shot him multiple times in the back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. 

Mangione was apprehended five days later at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania. At the time of his arrest, he was found in possession of a 3D-printed pistol consistent with the weapon used in the attack, multiple fake identification documents, and a handwritten letter expressing hostility toward the U.S. healthcare system. 

Authorities charged Mangione with multiple offenses, including first-degree murder in furtherance of terrorism, interstate stalking resulting in death, and using a firearm to commit murder. He has pleaded not guilty to these charges. Federal prosecutors, under the directive of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, have announced their intention to seek the death penalty in this case. 

The Brian Thompson murder has been co-opted for rants against the U.S. healthcare system and income inequality. Some social media users have expressed sympathy for Mangione, viewing his actions as a manifestation of frustration with corporate practices in the healthcare industry. This sentiment has been reflected in graffiti and merchandise glorifying the attack, reviving the "Eat the Rich" mentality.  But the most egregious responses came from those who prioritize their identity bias over morality.  For instance, in my Weaponized Communication book I wrote: “… the fact that the [Thompson] shooter earned undergraduate and graduate degrees at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania was cited by Penn’s Julia Alekseyeva, an assistant professor of English, Cinema, & Media Studies, who posted a video that included the Les Misérables song, ‘Do You Hear the People Sing?’ and captioned, ‘Have never been prouder to be a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.’   The cowardly Alekseyeva, of course, later deleted the post after having reaped the publicity benefits that came from promoting the popular animus felt toward large medical insurance companies.” 

So, public opinion on the matter is divided. While many condemn the act of violence, others rationalize the assassination, claiming that issues of healthcare accessibility and corporate accountability caused the tragedy. Legal experts anticipate a complex trial, given the high-profile nature of the case and the potential for the death penalty. 

The fact of rampant violence is bad enough.  But, it troubles me, too, that those who speak violence do so  with neither social shame nor fear of social consequences.  In fact, many -- such as Penn’s Julia Alekseyeva  --  expect to be lauded for their hate speech. Are they our children's role models?  What do you think?

What is Worth Accepting and/or Repeating?

In Weaponized Communication– my newly released book—I emphasize interactions among certain factors within you and outside you. Three interrelated concepts are particularly relevant.

The first is the psychology concept of Contextualism.  This is the idea that thoughts, feelings, behaviors, actions, and experiences don’t have a single, universal meaning. Instead, their meaning depends on the external situation and your internal situation. Imagine someone frowning. Are they angry? Sad? Deep in thought? The meaning of that frown depends entirely on the situation and person.  In my book, I emphasize context as being comprised of each individual’s history, temperament, thoughts, feelings, environments, and action tendencies.

Second, Idea Disassociation refers to a condition in which an individual’s thoughts, memories, or concepts become fragmented or disconnected within that person’s cognitive framework.  When that occurs, one entertains cognitive inconsistencies—sometimes to their benefit and sometimes to their detriment.  For instance, a person who considers their self as generous fails to donate to what they regard as a very well-deserving charity.  They dissociate their generosity from their failure to donate so as to avoid feeling guilty.  The dissociation is a benefit or a detriment, depending on your point of view.

Siloing is the third of the interrelated concepts.  Loosely speaking, this primarily is the organizational counterpart of  an individual’s Idea Disassociation.  Siloing is located in a group context wherein there is compartmentalization of information, operations, or decision-making within separate units or departments, often limiting communication between their personnel.  Those of you old enough to remember the Challenger explosion and the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001  might also recall that many people pointed to siloing as at least partially responsible for the disasters.

In the aggregate, all three concepts are relevant whether you weaponize or are weaponized.  I think about this by considering what goes on within us and outside us.  Contextualism is in play within us when our values and needs apply.  If an issue is low regarding  our values and needs, we probably will neither weaponize it nor be a victim of its weaponization.  If the issue is important to us as individuals, we might dissociate the idea from other aspects of our cognition, such that we attack with it or allow ourselves to be attacked by it, and still delude ourself sufficiently to maintain an illusion of self-consistency.  If the issue is important to us as a group participant, we might ignore the significance of siloing, and still maintain our basic identity as a fully group-consistent member.  

Regarding the contextualism, dissociation, and siloing factors, my main point, again, pertains to what is internal and external to you.  It would be tempting to conclude that only siloing is relevant to the external. But, in truth, all three factors are both internal and external to some degree. When I say internal and external, I am referring to features of a weaponizer or weaponizer target that consists of their history, temperament, thoughts, feelings, environments, and action tendencies.  These can singularly or compositely determine what is weaponized and one’s reaction to weaponization. 

Controlling weaponization depends on if, how, or when one is conscious of the role of their history, temperament, thoughts, feelings, environments, and action tendencies relevant to what is being weaponized.  At this very moment, you are hyperaware of the importance of those factors. However, only by being ONLINE AWARE can you use your understanding of the factors to avoid being a weaponizer, yourself, or falling prey to others who are weaponizing.  Therefore, when you make a pronouncement about an issue important to you or hear someone else do so, think whether the pronouncement is or is not consistent with other related issues important to you.  If the pronouncement is about something that you value or that is important to you, do not mindlessly accept or reject it. Instead, ask the following question: Am I likely to be automatically and/or irrationally swayed about this issue due to my history, temperament, thoughts, feelings, environments, and action tendencies?  Then, force yourself to find a reason - at least temporarily - to reject your instinctive, automatic acceptance or rejection of the pronouncement.  Having done that, you can rationally decide what, if anything, about it is worthwhile and/or actionable and/or worth promulgating.