Davis Ellison is a strategic analyst at HCSS specializing in security and defense affairs

Demonstrations turning violent meer often, and political violence is increasingly seen as an acceptable tool. Why is this, and what can governments do to counter this worrying trend?

At the recent mass anti-immigration demonstrations in London and the far-right riots in The Hague, one could find English and Dutch supporters of the right hoisting placards with the face of the recently murdered American far-right podcaster Charlie Kirk. The death of this divisive figure was felt not only in the American right-wing, but amongst an internationalised viewership that has similarly mobilised around Kirk’s culture war topics.

There is something in the air over the Atlantic that feels like a new wave of political violence as an acceptable tool. Tensions feel incredibly high. Police and think-tanks alike have reported on creeping fears of violence. The mourning of such violence is noticeably divisive as well, with partisan leanings shaping perceptions of what violence is systemic or even directed, and which are simply “random acts”. For example, few politicians in Europe made any mention of the assassination of Democratic state lawmakers in Minnesota, while Kirk became an overnight symbol.

But is the violence we have seen unique? For Dutch readers, such murders bring to mind the killings of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn in the 2000s. British readers will recall the 2016 and 2021 murders of parliamentarians Jo Cox and David Amess while visiting their constituencies. Germans may think of the National Socialist Underground murders between 2002 and 2007. This is all to say nothing of the decades-long periods of violence during the Troubles in Northern Ireland or the Years of Lead in Italy. Suffice to say, Europeans have seen assassinations in their midst.

Is there something different about the United States? While in the European cases above, these were seen as brazen, atypical events, violence has long been part and parcel of American political life. Presidential assassinations (both successful and attempted), organised mob violence (e.g. lynchings, the January 6^th insurrection) and police violence are part of the fabric of American political culture. Punctuated by more extreme events such as assassinations and mass shootings, the U.S. is seeing the most sustained increase in political violence since the 1970s.

Across the pond

Though the violent undercurrents within American political culture are perhaps unique to the country, due mainly to its gun culture, these divisions have increasingly spread across the Atlantic to fuel divisiveness in Europe. Politically motivated crimes have been on the uptick in Germany, polarisation and right-wing threats have become stark enough for the Dutch National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security to make specific warnings, and in Slovakia there was even an assassination attempt on the prime minister Robert Fico. Clearly, Europe is not immune to the challenges facing the U.S. Importantly, the perpetrators of this violence have increasingly referenced movements on the other side of the pond, with right-wing extremists in the U.S. citing immigration issues in Europe and right-wing Europeans parroting the language of American culture war podcasts and TV shows.

This article considers how the internationalisation of political polarisation, particularly on so-called “culture war” topics, is contributing to an interconnected wave of political violence that is continuing to spiral. Enemy imaging used by politicians and influencers and a political culture that has frozen in the face of violence, are only further fuelling this spiral.

The internationalisation of culture war violence

This present spiral cannot be understood without a summary grasp of the internationalisation of so-called “culture war” issues. In both North America and Europe, political debate has increasingly centred on highly divisive “morality” issues that are near impossible to find compromise over. Tadeas Cely at Masaryk University in the Czech Republic has argued that this type of divisiveness stems from much older divisions over traditionalism versus change in society, often divided on issues connected to church and state separation. The present moment is arguably analogous to these old debates, at least in the highly motivating spirit that the divide inspires. Today, the international culture war has largely centred on the following:

• LGBTQ+ rights, with a particular focus on the rights of transgender individuals;
• Immigration, especially from outside of Europe and North America;
• Historical memory, especially in connection to empire, slavery, and genocide;
• Race, often couched in terms of defending a “way of life”;
• The role of women, with a turn towards putting women “back in the home”

Social media has been an important driver of culture war content and divisiveness, both nationally and internationally. Like the Gulf Stream, the likes of Charlie Kirk, Andrew Tate, and Ben Shapiro drift across to fuel debates in Europe. This coincides with the efforts of far-right parties in Europe to build a kind of “radical right internationale”, led by the likes of Viktor Orban, Geert Wilders, and Marine le Pen. This mixture of issues ranging from hyper-masculine responses to the MeToo movement, racist responses to non-white immigration, and a Manichean demonisation of political opponents, has created a nasty mixture from which violence continues to spring.

Political opponents as imminent threats

The danger of the culture wars, especially as the right practises it, is that it turns political opponents into primordial enemies. Put by scholars Kristian Steiner and Andreas Jahrehorn Önnerfors, such enemy images “construct the collective other as an imminent, real, serious (but not invincible), and possibly growing threat to ‘our’ most vital interests.” If you genuinely perceive your opponent is not just a fellow citizen with a difference of opinion, but an inherently immoral and imminent threat to your and your community’s safety, is violence not only the most likely outcome, but from your perspective, the most justified?

These so-called ‘culture war’ issues are so thorny because they are effectively non-negotiable, rightfully so in nearly all cases. They engender debates not over policy or politics, but over identity and worldview. When issues centre on political identity, particularly when there are fundamentalist interpretations involved, deliberative democracy does not function. Disagreement is not over matters of opinion or interpretation from a shared base, rather they are personal assaults on identity.  On the example of immigration, when the topic becomes reduced to the idea of “defending Dutch-ness,” “preserving European culture,” or “America for Americans”, there is no room for negotiation. When debates are weaponised by political actors to become civilisational conflicts, for both political and financial reasons, the room for non-violence shrinks.

Demonic and dangerous

This then brings in the role of political parties and leaders in this violence. If it is to be labelled political violence, then there must be an underlying political motivation and actor. Dehumanising, enemy image rhetoric has been rampant from the most prominent political voices on both sides of the Atlantic. From Donald Trump’s statement that “I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them,” to Geert Wilders parliamentary remarks that “We are losing our country. To criminals and foreigners – once again, not all of them – who couldn’t care less about our norms and values. And make life unsafe for our daughters, homosexuals, Christians and others.” Even statements by the late Charlie Kirk such as “Haiti is legitimately infested with demonic voodoo,” are all clear-cut examples of signals to supporters that those different to them are not just of a differing opinion, but demonic and dangerous,  to be hated.

Of course, a violent reaction to this kind of speech is illegitimate and illegal. Freedom of speech as a principle defends even the most extreme of views. It is, however, sinisterly unsurprising that some individuals respond to enemy imagery with violence. It is simply the unfortunate, darker side of our humanity. Put by American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, “violence merely increases hate.” This imaging and violence spiral is precisely what is dangerous and makes violence counterproductive.

Political moderates are finding themselves lost while facing a politics that deliberately foments enemy images and violence. When your entire domestic political structure is founded on a shared effort to find consensus and build coalitions, culture war topics that demand confrontation and extremism are almost impossible to contend with. This has left moderate and left politicians with little in the way of response. Rightfully unwilling to motivate violence amongst their supporters and faced with a wave of sentiment to the contrary, the stage is set for a yet deeper spiral into sensational political violence.

Final thoughts

After the September 2025 riots in The Hague, the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (NCTV) explicitly warned politicians, indirectly of  the right and far-right parties, that it was their rhetoric that had driven the attacks. AIVD chief Erik Akerboom was pointed, noting that “We must all look in the mirror, including the politicians.”

Unfortunately, contrary to Akerboom’s advice, political leadership continues to demonise and scaremonger. Two days before the Malieveld riots, a slim majority in the Tweede Kamer passed a motion to designate “antifa” a terrorist organisation (though it is not actually designated as of this writing). This has been mirrored by an initiative in Washington which is much further reaching, both designating anti-fascist groups as terrorists (something that no body of the government can actually do), and authorising sweeping authorities to the Joint Terrorism Task Force to target such individuals and groups, people who in the vast majority, are simply left-wing opposition to the administration.

Governments are failing to respond to this moment of political violence, and some are indeed helping to fuel it by engaging in culture war-driven enemy imaging. By engaging with the same extremist messaging of online activists, political leaders give a veneer of acceptability to violent political rhetoric. Given that there appears to be little political or social incentive to disengage from this, that leaves the rest simply wondering, “where do we go from here?” This is a question our political culture is unprepared to answer.”