Emotions are the only thing we truly control—yet we often let them control us. I used to vent to a mentor about interpersonal conflicts. Her advice was always the same: “Sleep on it—give it 24 hours.”
That pause created space. It allowed me to respond with clarity rather than react from ego or instinct. It helped me override my biological fight-or-flight response and reflect who I am, not just what I felt. Pearl Jam captured this perfectly in React, Respond:
“As the light gets brighter as it grows, the darkness, it recedes.
When what you get is what you don’t want—don’t react, respond.”
Reaction vs. Response in a Culture of Violence
Giving society the benefit of the doubt, I want to believe the online vitriol—cheering a man’s death or demanding vengeance—is a temporary reaction. One that will fade. But history, and the American narrative, suggest otherwise.
On each anniversary of 9/11, we’re reminded that many Americans continue to blame all Muslims, ignoring the vast diversity within Islam and the geopolitical context behind the attacks. It’s easier to chant “USA! USA!” and reduce entire populations to cartoon villains jealous of “freedom.” This kind of blind nationalism is exactly what power structures—and the war industry—depend on.
Consider the recent push to ban TikTok. Much of the urgency centers around the fact that young Americans discovered Bin Laden’s “Letter to the American People” and began asking uncomfortable questions. Most Americans have never read it, much less acknowledged its argument: that 9/11 was a violent and tragic response to decades of U.S. foreign policy—policies that have toppled governments, installed dictators, and collectively punished entire nations. Often with little provocation, other than protecting American business interests.
In this context, the letter serves not as justification, but as a disturbing mirror. It reflects the same logic behind America’s legacy of retributive violence— part of Eisenhower’s warning about the extent of power in the war machine.
If American foreign policy is driven by violence and the use of the American public’s emotion instead of reason, then it’s no surprise that political disputes increasingly escalate to violence rather than debate. Most American students today believe opposing views shouldn’t even be allowed on campus with 1/3 believing violence is legitimate to stop abhorrent words.. And so, we find ourselves bracing for the next tit-for-tat—walking on eggshells in a cycle that feels almost impossible to escape.
Tucker Carlson & Nick Fuentes: The Calmness That Breaks the Storm?
Just hours after the assassination, far-right influencer Nick Fuentes postponed his show, urging his followers to “sleep on it” and return the next day for his full response. Known for openly antisemitic, homophobic, and extremist views, Fuentes is banned from nearly all major platforms—Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, YouTube, Twitch, PayPal, Airbnb—and was a speaker during the January 6th Capitol riot. Yet, he remains one of the most streamed political commentators in America through Rumble and Truth Social. Fuentes and Kirk were foes in the conservative movement. Kirk was considered a moderate in the MAGA movement. Fuentes a white supremacist.
As the country braced for reactions, Fuentes’ Thursday night stream drew over 1.4 million viewers. I was among nearly 140,000 waiting well before the stream even began.
The unexpected twist? A message of restraint.
Fuentes, visibly shaken, opened by calling Charlie Kirk—longtime adversary—“the most influential and respected voice of the MAGA movement.” Then he delivered a rare, direct warning to his followers:
“To all of my followers, if you take up arms, I disavow you. I disown you. In the strongest possible terms.”
Acknowledging his own volatility, he encouraged calm, not rage:
“Don’t be angry, wrathful, vengeful, or judgmental. Show kindness, compassion, and understanding.”
Reacting to liberal influencer Dean Withers—who tearfully pleaded for nonviolence while watching the assassination video—Fuentes said:
“Good on him. That’s a good kid… a kid with a conscience.”
He criticized progressives who attacked Withers:
“He said we shouldn’t kill people for disagreeing with each other. But that’s divisive now!?”
Fuentes grounded his appeal in Christian belief:
“Vengeance belongs to God who is merciful and just…
We all want our loved ones to survive… Liberal or Conservative—we all want to be around for Christmas.
We all have a place in this. Everyone must condemn this violence.
I will stand shoulder to shoulder with every one of my enemies.
The left, the right, the centre —everybody must say: this needs to stop.
Death is ugly…a bullet rips through your neck and it’s over in an instant…
None of it is promised. We cannot live by the sword, because you also die by the sword.”
Carlson’s Parallel Message
This call for restraint echoed what Tucker Carlson expressed on The Megyn Kelly Show. Carlson described how he had spent hours angry and consumed by hateful posts on X, until a text from his cousin reframed everything:
“I don’t pray for your safety… I pray for your wisdom and your restraint.”
His wife also weighed in, texting their family group chat a passage from Luke 6—a reminder that loving those who love you is easy, but loving your enemies is what defines true Christian grace.
Carlson concluded with a simple truth:
“We need order, as that is always the path to peace.”
Final Thoughts
Whether Fuentes followers are able to give us that guarantee is still unknown. Approximately 60% of comments from his followers are disappointed with him expressing an expectation that he endorse the start of retribution. Additionally, many on the left have already dismissed his comments as insincere contrasting his words to past remarks and doubling down by blaming Kirk’s hate speech instead of the shooter and his gun.
The shooter is in custody. Commentators are left wondering – will history remember Tyler Robinson as the man who started a new level of domestic strife and violence or will the nation start to heal?
Short Solo 
Leave a comment