As the fall outs from the Charlie Kirk assassination metabolised into a mass movement a few voices raised a very unfortunate parallel – the assassination of Horst Wessel.

Like Wessel Kirk had a massive funeral and nationwide morning – with flags at half-mast nationally. Trump as Hitler did with Wessel, deemed Kirk a martyr.

Wessel was a young Nazi activist whose 1930 murder turned him into a martyr for Hitler’s movement and the Horst Wessel Song became the official anthem of the Nazi Party and later the German co-anthem.

Forward – the progressive US Jewish newspaper – said “comparison between Kirk and Wessel came from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Some on the left warned that Trump could use the death as a club to attack progressives – or anyone he deemed ‘Left’ – while the other side treated Kirk as a saint. One rabbi called him a “modern day Martin Luther King” and an Orthodox rabbi called him “the Abraham of our times.”

Donald Trump said: “He [Charlie Kirk] did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry” – yet again furthering his image as ‘class act’.

He said liberal rhetoric was “directly responsible for the terrorism we are seeing in our country today” and vowed to target the groups that fund or support such attacks.

Whether this Trump passion will continue depends a lot on when Trump gets sick of the dead Kirk getting more media coverage than himself.

Forward’s Benjamin Cohen wrote: “The rush to invoke Horst Wessel’s name reflects two realities. On the right there, there’s a dangerous willingness among some extremists to valorise Nazi symbols. On the left, a fear that Kirk’s death will be used to erode civil liberties.”

A Newcastle University academic, Daniel Siemens, who wrote a book about the murder and myth of Wessel, commented on Kirk’s death suggesting that there was a difference between the two – Wessel was comfortable with violence while Kirk was combative rather than violent.  However, he said “It’s a slippery slope….the people you choose as your heroes should engage in civil discussion and dialogue, and not this mixture of political radicalism that activates violence.”

Of course, the key factor in what happens next is Donald Trump. How long will he use the Kirk death as a means of attacking opponents?

When will he begin to worry that Kirk is getting more attention than him and is this already manifesting itself?

By the standards of most developed countries the US is a very violent country and there have been few, if any, Presidents who have used the sort of language about opponents that Trump has.  The US has also been extremely violent in its attacks on other countries – from Vietnam to Iran – over its entire history. Indeed, there have been very few decades when the US was not waging war – overt or covert – on other countries.

But as G. Elliott Morris explains in Strength in Numbers, “most Americans reject political violence in all circumstances, especially when you measure it carefully.” Morris notes that only a small fraction of Americans genuinely support political violence: about 9% approve of threats against political opponents, 8% approve of harassment, 6% support nonviolent felonies, and about 4% support using violence. Morris notes that both Democrats and Republicans significantly overestimate their political opponents’ willingness to use violence and that social media elevates extremists, making them appear more numerous than they are.

Morris explains that violent acts associated with politics happen because members of that small minority respond to rhetoric coming from political leaders. Violent metaphors polarize audiences and attract “high-aggression followers.” Reducing violence requires political elites to tone down their rhetoric.

Sadly, when so many of them have guns violence is an ever-present threat and the 4% supporting violence are among the four in 10 of households who have a gun and the third of households who own multiple weapons.

The impact of Christian Nationalism is also significant. Pew search has shown that 38% of Christian Nationalists agree that “because things have gotten so far off track true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country.”

There is, however, one area where US attitudes to violence are changing – their support for Israel and its wars.

The Economist (18/9) published polling in America which is startling in some respects but unsurprising when you pause to think about it.

Israel has always been able to rely on US support through thick and thin. But now polling shows the share of Americans who back Israel over the Palestinians is at a 25-year low.

In 2022, 42% of American adults held an unfavourable view of Israel (and new historic high in polling over the years) but in 2025 53% do.

In the past three years unfavourable views of Israel among Democrats over 50 increased by 23%. Among Republicans under 50, support is evenly divided, compared with 63% for Israel in 2022. Between 2018 and 2021 the share of evangelicals under the age of 30 who backed Israelis over Palestinians plunged from 69% to 34%. Pollsters think that shift has endured.

A recent YouGov/Economist poll found that 43% of Americans believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. It is perhaps even more significant that You/Gov/Economist would even think of including a genocide question in polls. There is little doubt that anyone who tried something similar in Australia would be silenced and suffer massive vilification and accusations of antisemitism.