When political violence erupts, it often looks random — a lone extremist, a protest that gets out of hand, or a clash between two angry groups. But much of what we’re seeing today, in both the United States and Canada, is not random at all. It is part of a deliberate strategy that activists call dialectical warfare — and it is tearing at the heart of our democratic societies.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk and the furious conservative backlash that followed are not isolated events. They are part of a larger spiral of violence and reaction, one that radicals hope will end with the collapse of our current system. To understand how, we need to unpack an old idea: the dialectic.

What is the Dialectic?

The word “dialectic” comes from philosophy, specifically the German thinker Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the early 1800s. At its simplest, the dialectic is a way of describing how history moves forward through conflict.

  • Thesis: the current system or status quo.
  • Antithesis: the force that challenges it.
  • Synthesis: a new system that emerges after the clash.

For Hegel, this was a way of understanding history as a story of progress. Marx later took this idea and made it the foundation of his revolutionary theory. For him, history was about class struggle: workers against capitalists. Capitalism, he argued, would eventually collapse under its contradictions and give way to communism.

The key point is this: conflict isn’t a bug in the system — it’s the engine of history.

From Philosophy to Political Activism

Fast forward to today. Many left-wing activists, consciously or not, operate with a dialectical mindset. They believe that society advances through conflict and breakdown, not peaceful debate.

That means chaos, division, and even violence can be seen as useful. If enough conflict is stirred up, the system will be forced to reveal its flaws, overreact, and eventually collapse — clearing the way for something new.

This isn’t conspiracy theory. Activist manuals, writings from radical groups, and historical revolutionary movements all share this logic. The goal is not stability. The goal is destabilization.

Dialectical Warfare Today

Dialectical warfare is what happens when activists deliberately create or amplify conflict to destabilize society. Here’s how it works in practice:

  • Provocation: Protests or acts of violence designed to draw a harsh reaction.
  • Overreaction: Authorities or opponents respond too aggressively, confirming the activists’ narrative.
  • Crisis: The clash erodes faith in institutions and convinces people the system doesn’t work.
  • Escalation: Each cycle of conflict moves society further up the spiral toward collapse.

It’s not about winning the argument. It’s about breaking the system so that something “better” (usually some form of socialist utopia) can be built on the ruins.

The Charlie Kirk Case

The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk shows this dynamic clearly. For the radical Left, the act of violence itself was a shock designed to destabilize. But what mattered more was the reaction.

Conservatives in power, outraged and furious, began employing the same tools that had once been used against them: censorship, cancel culture, and efforts to silence left-wing voices. In their anger, they began shredding the same democratic norms — free speech, due process, respect for law — that they had once fought to defend.

From the perspective of dialectical warfare, this is a victory for the radicals. The point was never just to kill one man. The point was to provoke an overreaction that would weaken the credibility of conservative leaders, make democratic institutions look fragile, and drive polarization even deeper.

Why This is Dangerous

Every time conservatives react by copying the authoritarian tactics of the Left, they confirm the radicals’ worldview. They prove that democracy is a sham, that free speech is a lie, and that the system is doomed.

This is exactly what the activist Left wants. They welcome conservative overreach, because it accelerates the collapse of the old order. The tragedy is that in fighting back, the right risks becoming what it hates: reactionary, authoritarian, and destructive of the very freedoms it claims to defend.

Lessons from History

We have seen this before. In the 20th century, totalitarian movements from Communism in Russia to fascism in Germany thrived on dialectical conflict. They used street violence, political assassinations, and manufactured crises to polarize society. Each overreaction by their opponents brought them closer to power.

The idea is seductive: “This system is broken. Only radical action can save us.” But the results are always catastrophic. Millions died under regimes that promised utopia and delivered tyranny.

A Simple Analogy

Think of democracy like a family car. It’s not perfect — sometimes it breaks down, sometimes it needs repairs. Activists practicing dialectical warfare are not trying to fix the car. They are trying to crash it on purpose, believing that after the wreck, they’ll be able to build a perfect new vehicle.

But history shows that after the crash, what you usually get is not a better car — it’s a dictatorship.

The Dialectical Spiral at Work

To make this crystal clear, here’s how activists see the spiral — and what really happens:

Stage Activist Left’s View What Actually Happens
Provocation Stir conflict (riots, violence, incendiary rhetoric) to expose “systemic oppression.” Communities destabilize; trust erodes.
Reaction Force conservatives into authoritarian overreach. Free speech and rule of law weaken; institutions lose credibility.
Crisis Show that democracy and capitalism can’t solve the conflict. Cynicism deepens; polarization hardens.
Escalation Push society up the spiral toward “revolution and utopia.” Cycle repeats, leading not to utopia but greater instability.

Why We Must Resist

The activists’ dream of a communist utopia is a fantasy that has failed every time it’s been tried. But their strategy of dialectical warfare is very real — and very effective at breaking societies apart.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk and the conservative overreaction it triggered are a warning. If we allow ourselves to be baited into authoritarian responses, we are not saving democracy — we are digging its grave.

The only way forward is to resist the spiral: to defend free speech, uphold the rule of law, and refuse to play into the radicals’ hands. Otherwise, we will all be dragged into the chaos they long for, and the freedoms that make Western society unique will vanish in the wreckage.

References

  1. Hegel, G.W.F. The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807).
  2. Marx, K. & Engels, F. The Communist Manifesto (1848).
  3. Arendt, H. On Violence (1970).
  4. Popper, K. The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945).
  5. Contemporary coverage: Reuters, Associated Press, Fox News (Sept. 2025) – reporting on the assassination of Charlie Kirk and ensuing political fallout.