Show Notes
In the chaotic month that was September 2025, much has been said about the role of rhetoric and violence in the United States; namely how the former causes the latter, or at least how the former and the latter cannot be separated. This came up on the previous episode of History Impossible, in which I discussed this concept with my friends Daniele Bolelli and Kristaps Andrejsons as we tried to clarify the real horror of what political violence entails. In the time since that episode aired, more acts of political violence have unfolded, including the assault on an ICE facility in Texas and the attack on the Mormon church in Michigan. Whether these represent part of the broader trend that those of us like myself, Daniele, and Kristaps have been worried about, or are simply being spotlighted by the media because of how political violence has now become a topic du jour remains to be seen.
But also in the time since that conversation, I thought it would be appropriate—probably now more than ever—to revisit an essay I wrote for the History Impossible Substack and Patreon subscribers that delved deep into the question of whether or not rhetoric causes violence, both from a deeper psychological level and from a broader, more legal level, and finally, addressing whether or not this question even matters all that much. It was a difficult thing to write, and a difficult argument to make, but I think I mostly have my ducks in a row with this one and, if anything, it might prompt a helpful conversation to be had. Perhaps I will be seen as naïve or reckless or simply flat out wrong for the stance I took with this one, but I do believe psychological research and legal history are on my side here.
But nevertheless, in this world of ratcheting tension regarding political violence, let’s take a closer look at whether this is something we properly understand or something over which we have a long history of needlessly panicking.
...
History Impossible has been made possible by the following generous supporters on Patreon, Substack, and PayPal. Please consider donating today if you want to show some love for what I do and make and what to help keep the show and all my written content going:
David Adamcik David Alsbach Gregg Anderson Rajan Athul Robert Babeon Michael Beach Zazu Benben Benjamin Greg Bosai Johannes Breitsameter Carol ABC Charles C Curtis Christiansen Jason Coleman Clayton Connell Cliffydeuce CR B.Cyr daddygorgon Danny Lynda Davis Paul DeCoster Regina Dick-Endrizzi Neil Dickens Nathan Diehl Bob Downing Dramicas J Dub Martin E. Eastone Gavin Edwards Howie Feltersnatch Pierre Ghazarian Josh Goedert Sam Graham Jayson Griesmeyer Nathan Grote Benjamin Hamilton Peter Hauck Jack Henneman Eric Hodges Mike Jarulic Joe6245 Lionel Joseph Thomas Justesen Mike Kalnins Bryn Kaufman Leah Kodner Benjamin Lee Constance Loucks Maddy Mounty of Madness Jose Martinez Mike Mayleben Judy McCoid Kyle Mohney Kostas Moros Ryan Mortenson Cameron Needham Shiran Skip Pacheco David Page Molly Pan Sr. Powell Brian Pritzl AnaR737 PJ Rader Gleb Radutsky Aleksandr Rakitin Reptilycus Matthew M. Rice Phillip Rice Terry Rosen Dan S Jon Andre Saether Jake Scalia Emily Schmidt Julian Schmidt Andrew Seeber Joshua Simpson Cameron Smith Jerry Spangler timetosuccedd1995 Thomas Squeo Athal Krishna Sundarrajan Jared Cole Temple Ward Van Roy Pierre Vorupuni Robert VS Jonny Wilkie Christian Wilson Janora Winsor F. You
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/history-impossible--5634566/support.
More from History Impossible
Hey everyone. No preamble here. Just a nice bonus as a thank you for your continued support. As the title suggests, this is an audio adaptation of an essay I wrote about the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and how it led me to reflect on my generation, that is millennials, seems to believe about itself regarding trauma, adversity, and the future.
We often hear about how the Second World War was more morally nuanced and complex than we have been led to believe. This is, to a certain extent, very true. The Axis powers meted out a level of genocidal destruction and suffering upon tens of millions of people across the world, decimating generations in places as far flung as Poland and the Philippines, and Croatia and China. To call their actions existential by their very nature is to arguably undersell the threat they posed. The Allies realized these were the stakes and were eventually faced with a very real question: what would it take to stop such a threat? It required what many have come to believe was the unthinkable: meeting destruction with destruction. And in meeting the Axis violence with more violence did indeed bring the war to its ultimate end.
In this newest episode of History Impossible we’re joined a second time by Richard Lim, host of the This American President podcast, who last appeared on this program a couple years ago to discuss the insane, contentious election of 1876. He is also the author of a new book, Refusing a Crown: How George Washington Changed the World, which releases on October 13, 2026, and covers the most significant aspect of America’s first president: his restraint from seizing power that almost certainly would have remained his.
“Because remember: Russia is a religious experience.” Those are the oft-repeated and well-said words by the host of The Eastern Border podcast, my good friend Kristaps Andrejsons. They are well-said because there are very few alternatives for explaining Russian actions, rhetoric, and political culture over the past near half-decade in its World War I-style conflict with Ukraine. The Russian religious experience, made emblematic by Kristaps’ and my favorite shared punching bag Aleksandr Dugin, is a phenomenon best understood as a more formalized and colossal version of what ISIS was ten years ago, and it helps explain why Kristaps believes the spiral of the Russian state as we currently know it is beginning in 2026.
Antizionism, as it has become, has been having a bit of a moment for going on three years. It is a tough nut to crack, given its various claims of varying legitimacy and, as we have covered more than once on History Impossible, its increasing tendency to veer into outright antisemitism, especially by those looking for a supposedly intellectual and moral veneer for their racial and geopolitical fixations. Part of the reason for this confusion is the complex intellectual history of the position, which, after 1948, became more complicated than the relatively straightforward debate over Jewish statehood before, during, and after the Holocaust.