Educated to Kill
How Academia, MSM, and the Left are Radicalizing Minds and Excusing Violence
In the wake of the recent assassination of a healthcare CEO, a man working within the very system that Obama set up, we are faced with a chilling reality. The man responsible for this cowardly act was not some fringe lunatic but a highly educated, affluent individual who, until that moment, likely enjoyed respect in elite social circles. Even more shocking, this act was not universally condemned. Instead, many on the left, including some academics, have celebrated or excused it. This is where we are now.
It has left me asking: what the hell is happening in our institutions of higher education? Are elite colleges now producing smart murderers? And if this is the state of discourse on healthcare, what does it mean for something like climate change, where radical rhetoric has run amok?
The Academic Shift: A Personal Perspective
I’ve been fortunate to experience some of the top educational institutions in this country. I studied biochemistry as an undergraduate at UC San Diego, earned my Ph.D. in geochemistry at UCLA, and later joined the University of Alabama as a tenure-track professor. Throughout my journey, I held onto the belief that higher education, at its best, could be a bastion of critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and open dialogue. I wanted to be a part of that. I wanted to contribute to it.
But something has changed. A rot has set in, particularly in elite circles, where once-great universities have abandoned intellectual rigor and moral clarity. In its place, we find radicalization masquerading as education, and activism replacing inquiry.
When a highly educated individual can justify (or carry out) murder, and when their intellectual peers excuse or celebrate it, we’re in dangerous territory.
The Reaction to the Assassination: Excusing the Inexcusable
After the assassination of the healthcare CEO, who was killed simply for existing within a system, many voices on the left offered thinly veiled justifications for this atrocity.
High-profile academics, influencers, and media elites didn’t explicitly endorse the killing, but their reactions spoke volumes. Some celebrated the act as a blow against the “murderous system” of healthcare inequality. Others described it as a “consequence of unchecked corporate greed,” as if systemic flaws somehow transfer guilt onto a single man’s shoulders.
For instance, Michael Moore, a filmmaker known for his critiques of the healthcare system, condemned the murder but stated that public outrage toward medical insurers was "long overdue" and justified. He provocatively remarked that he wanted to "pour gasoline on that anger," implying that the industry's actions have led to such extreme responses.
Even more disturbingly, influencer and journalist Taylor Lorenz posted on social media: "And people wonder why we want these executives dead" in response to an article about Blue Cross Blue Shield's new anesthesia policy. While the comment may have been rhetorical, it dangerously normalizes violent rhetoric against individuals operating within flawed systems.
These excuses sound eerily familiar. The rhetoric used to justify this murder echoes the very same talking points I’ve seen used in the climate debate.
From Rhetoric to Violence: Climate Extremism in Academia
In recent years, academic institutions have become breeding grounds for radicalized rhetoric around climate change. Some of the most extreme calls to action have emerged not from fringe groups but from respected scholars and institutions.
Take, for example, the words of Andreas Malm, a professor at Lund University in Sweden, who argued in his book How to Blow Up a Pipeline that property destruction, including attacks on energy infrastructure, is a justifiable response to climate change. Malm’s work, which straddles the line between scholarship and incitement, has been lauded in many academic circles. Some universities have even welcomed him to speak on campuses, where his ideas are presented as a legitimate part of the climate conversation.
Then there’s Peter Kalmus, a NASA climate scientist, who has openly advocated for civil disobedience and described climate inaction as a moral failure on par with crimes against humanity. While Kalmus himself stops short of endorsing violence, his hyperbolic framing of the issue—equating CEOs of oil companies to war criminals—plants dangerous seeds.
If you’re constantly told that fossil fuel executives are “murdering the planet,” what does that imply? Should they be stopped by any means necessary? Should they, too, be assassinated? After all, if a healthcare CEO can be painted as a murderer for simply existing in a flawed system, what happens when you apply that same logic to energy executives, policymakers, or even scientists like me?
The Consequences of Radicalization
I’ve spent years pushing back against the rhetoric surrounding climate change, not because I deny the reality of environmental challenges, but because I refuse to participate in the bastardization of science for political or economic gain. The data simply does not support the doomsday narratives we’re constantly fed, and yet those narratives persist because they serve a purpose: fear drives compliance.
But fear also drives extremism.
When you tell an entire generation of students that the world is ending, that they are victims of systemic injustice, and that the people in charge are committing crimes against humanity, you are playing with fire. You are creating a generation of extremists who believe violence is not only justified but necessary.
Is it any wonder that we now have academics justifying murder? Is it any wonder that there have been multiple assassination attempts against Donald Trump, a man vilified by these same institutions?
Do I Deserve to Be Murdered?
As someone who speaks out against the radicalization of climate rhetoric, I’ve often been labeled a “climate denier”, a term designed to shut down debate and paint people like me as morally reprehensible. If you follow the logic of the radical left, am I, too, a criminal? A murderer? Do I deserve to be attacked for speaking the truth?
The dangerous rhetoric we’re seeing today, whether it’s around healthcare, climate, or politics, isn’t just intellectually broken. It’s morally bankrupt. It’s driving people away from the radical left in droves. And rightfully so.
Conclusion: Time for a Reckoning
Academia needs a reckoning. Universities must return to their original purpose, the pursuit of truth, and abandon their role as incubators for radical activism. Educators must rediscover their responsibility to challenge ideas, not indoctrinate minds. And as a society, we must draw a clear line between rhetoric and violence.
If we fail to do so, we will continue to see acts of extremism like the assassination of the healthcare CEO… and worse.
It’s time to purge government institutions and academia of woke activist scientists who push ideology over truth. The radicalization must end.
This is where we are now. If you find this disturbing, you’re not alone. It’s time to push back.
We are seeing the consequences of the "March through the Institutions" conducted by the radical Left that began in the last quarter of the 20th century. The rot from it has reached critical mass. Reversing it will take 1-2 generations, so hold tight. It's going to be a rough ride.
Among other causes, there is a profound lack of humility. What I mean by this is the inability to realize our opinions may not be superior to the opinions of others. Or the belief that our opinions represent some absolute truth that may not be questioned, and therefore settled, no further debate shall be tolerated. Ironically, many of the most adamant voices are the least qualified to render such a judgment. It is a co-joining of arrogance and ignorance. The scientific method is supposed to be humble, always pursuing truth, never able to finally reach it.