2,422 videos 1,389,747,653 views US Joined Aug 30, 2018
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.
Noah Rothman Exposes Century-Long Pattern of Left-Wing Political Violence Mainstream Media Refuses to Acknowledge
Noah Rothman unveils disturbing evidence of systematic left-wing violence spanning over a century in America. From anarchist bombings in the 1910s to Antifa tactics today, Rothman documents how media institutions and academic researchers have actively suppressed data showing left-wing extremism while falsely claiming political violence is exclusively a right-wing phenomenon. His examination reveals coordinated efforts to excuse violence in the streets, from the siege of Portland's federal courthouse to the takeover of Seattle, while major news outlets continue insisting there is "no equivalent on the left." Rothman challenges corrupted databases and exposes how influential figures provide intellectual cover for revolutionary tactics targeting law enforcement and political opponents.
May 26, 2026
The Suppression of Left-Wing Violence in America
Noah Rothman's investigation into political violence in America reveals what he describes as a conspiracy to suppress the reality of left-wing extremism. This isn't a coordinated effort in the traditional sense, but rather an unspoken set of interests among mainstream media professionals and communicators who subordinate everything they know about copycat violence and responsible reporting to an ideologically motivated desire to convince Americans that the right is uniquely violent.
The pattern becomes clear when examining major incidents. Whether discussing the attack on Charlie Kirk, the assassination of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, three separate attacks on ICE facilities in one year including one involving sophisticated ambush tactics, or multiple assassination attempts against a sitting president, the response from left-wing institutions remains consistent: deflect attention away from left-wing violence and redirect focus to alleged right-wing threats.
Rothman's book, "Blood and Progress: A Century of Left-Wing Violence in America," exposes how recent scholarship has only begun to explore waves of left-wing political violence in this country during the 1920s, 1910s, 1970s, 1980s, and today. The similarities across these violent movements are striking, with individuals engaging in deluded thinking that is encouraged by influential people in the orbit of very responsible institutional figures who refuse to look at the problem squarely.
CNN's Narrative and the Statistical Manipulation
The mainstream media narrative was perfectly encapsulated in a CNN segment stating: "While America's roots are soaked in bloodshed, violence in the country today is mostly from right-wing extremism. From Oklahoma City to Charlottesville to January 6th. There is simply no equivalent on the left."
This refrain serves not to explore the issue, but to excuse ignoring it. Rothman argues it's the only logic associated with issuing that reflexive reaction whenever there's an episode of left-wing violence conclusively demonstrated by investigators and law enforcement.
The claim is supported by dubious statistical games played with databases used to justify it. The Anti-Defamation League has one database, the University of Cincinnati has another, and they're cited repeatedly. However, when explored, the statistical breakdowns of right-wing violence include prison violence, gang violence, intrafamily violence, someone who spray paints the side of a church, or a homeless man hurling racial slurs. The data begins to look corrupted the more one examines it.
A 2021 report authored for the Department of Homeland Security alleged that left-wing violence is not well-studied because there are intimidation campaigns marshaled against people who study it, including threats of reputational damage and physical harm. Additionally, participants in these often violent left-wing movements are themselves the authors of studies exploring the phenomenon, creating a fatally subjective enterprise if not hopelessly corrupted.
Common Threads Across Waves of Left-Wing Violence
Rothman identifies several commonalities spanning from the anarchist socialist wave of terror bombings in the 1910s and 1920s through the nationalist movements that attempted to assassinate Harry Truman and shot up Congress in the 1950s, the Marxist terror cells of the 1970s, and contemporary movements.
These common threads include:
What was called "propaganda of the deed" historically, now referred to as "direct action" - spectacular attacks designed to galvanize a broader audience and ignite broader violence that will beget revolution
Revolutionary and Marxian nature with small cell, leaderless organizations
Attacks on law enforcement when these waves begin, as they regard the state as much an enemy and in league with the American right as their right-wing adversaries
The intellectual notion that systemic oppression licenses extralegal violence, however they define it - a permission structure they give themselves
This philosophy manifests in contemporary form through concepts like "social murder," as seen when commentators justified the assassination of Brian Thompson by arguing he was guilty of social murder through his role at United Healthcare. Media-credentialed individuals were literally discussing social murder just two weeks after the assassination, demonstrating an elaborate philosophy baked up to justify murder, violence, and extralegal means.
Charlie Kirk's Understanding of Left-Wing Violence
Charlie Kirk articulated the fundamental nature of left-wing ideology when he stated: "This is all they have is violence at the core of the left, at the core of a liberal is someone that would use the sword if they had it. They are very violent people at their core. They always have been. They can't debate. They can't have conversation. So they'll resort to these tactics."
Rothman argues the left is willing to endure a certain amount of violence for their political goals. As the Democrat party becomes more radical, the comfort level with violence increases. Recent polling from pollster Rich Baris shows 59.4% of those polled identify as democratic socialists, 21% say unsure, 12% say traditional liberal, and 6.2% identify as socialist.
While the vast majority of responsible Democrats do not support violence in the streets, there is an element within the Democratic party attracted to "people power." When they see mobs and vast numbers of protesters, they see a reflection of what they regard as romantic zeal and enthusiasm for their political project. They subordinate all their caution to embrace those groups and harness that energy into what they believe will be positive social change.
The Pattern of Democratic Embrace of Violent Movements
This pattern played out with Occupy Wall Street. Even though members of Occupy Wall Street had no use for Democrats and would tell you to "throw them all into the East River," Democrats embraced the movement. Even when participants engaged in lawless acts of violence, attacking federal facilities, attacking law enforcement, and shielding perpetrators of violence and rape from law enforcement, all that was pushed aside to try to harness the energy.
The exact same thing happened ten years later with the George Floyd protests. Democrats saw political enthusiasm that could help them win elections and to a certain extent succeeded, but traded responsible governance to ingratiate themselves with a movement that was potentially violent and not sympathetic to the broadest number of Americans.
The Double Standard in Action
The double standard becomes obvious when examining real-world patterns. Campus events are never cancelled because of right-wing violence, but regularly shut down due to left-wing violence when activists barricade buildings, set things on fire, and terrorize people. No one worries an entire neighborhood will get torched by right-wing violence, but it has happened with left-wing violence. There has never been an urban takeover by right-wing radicals, but left-wing radicals took over downtown Seattle for a month in what was called the "summer of love" during the CHAZ/CHOP occupation.
The courthouse siege in Portland saw left-wing agitators basically besiege a federal building for weeks on end with politicians defending it. There is no equivalent of this on the right in America. The violence in Portland and Los Angeles descends almost nightly on these cities and is regarded as a quirky feature of the urban scene rather than the decay of modern social life and breakdown of elementary governance.
The threat environment is so pronounced that proactive action like shutting down events has become common currency, with no equivalency on the right. Professional agitators and organizers dress in uniform, somehow have respirators and gas masks delivered to them by shady actors who pop up out of nowhere and get unloaded out of U-Hauls with disturbing frequency.
Breaking Through the Isolation Tactic
Rothman notes there is a valuable element to work with: when the left says the right is uniquely violent, implicit in that is the notion that political violence is bad. They wouldn't be accusing others of it if it was good. This means there's an understanding that the American people at large are not attracted to political violence, abhor it, and regard it as a threat to the social fabric. That social stigma is valuable.
The left gets away with denying their own violence problem by analyzing each event of left-wing political violence in isolation, never drawing the threads that any logical inference would allow them to draw, then telling themselves that the right-wing has a monopoly on political violence by establishing selective timelines.
By establishing a comprehensive timeline with 80 pages of notes in "Blood and Progress," Rothman creates a roadmap for individuals who want to confront the left with their tacit and complicit acceptance of a rising tide of political violence on their side. When put all together, it creates a damning portrait that the left must contend with.
The Stakes of Acknowledging the Truth
The book's title plays on the left's and Southern Poverty Law Center's favorite boogeyman of "blood and soil," turning it into "Blood and Progress" to force the left to own their history and present reality. The Southern Poverty Law Center maintains that left-wing violence is a "myth," a position that becomes untenable when confronted with the comprehensive evidence Rothman presents.
The importance of this thesis statement cannot be overstated. The left is a movement with a long history of resorting to political violence, especially in our current moment. By documenting this pattern across more than a century, Rothman provides the evidence necessary to counter the narrative that has dominated mainstream discourse and shaped public perception while violence in the streets continues to flourish under the protection of media silence and institutional cover.
