The Daily Callers' editor note to the story: "Enough Is Enough … I Choose VIOLENCE!"

So, a couple of days ago Geoffrey Ingersoll put an opinion piece out for the Daily Caller called: "Enough Is Enough … I Choose VIOLENCE!". (Violence, in caps with exclamation mark... off to a good start right? This might make a segment of the population wonder how transsexual this person is in 2025.)

The piece was pretty vile, so a lot of centrist and left-wing newssources picked up on it and put it on display for everyone to see. So the Daily Caller, felt the need to put an "Editor's note" on it, washing their hands of the content and making sure that the author doesn't want to incite violence. The note reads:

Editor’s Note: We’ve received a lot of feedback about this newsletter. At the Daily Caller, we publish a wide range of strongly-worded opinions. Robust debate matters, and the values of free expression require that we host voices with which readers may strongly disagree. That said, the Daily Caller does not condone violence in any form, especially political violence. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not represent the position of the Daily Caller. The examples outlined in the piece refer to hypothetical instances of self-defense, not political violence or extrajudicial mob action. We’ve spoken with the author, who reiterated that is his position, and explicitly rejects any incitement to violence.

... So, the author is really explicit in his reiteration of his position... he doesn't incite violence what so ever.

So what did the article say?

Greetings, Dear Reader,

Today, I choose violence. Literally.

I know calls for violence are generally frowned upon. The issue is … I simply don’t care.

[...]

Thus, the title of today’s newsletter …

A CALL FOR VIOLENCE

[...]

Is this a call for violence? Yes. Explicitly it is.

[...]

How do we fix this? In corrupt legal scenarios, where the judges, prosecutors and even police are all a part of a rigged system, what do we do?

Choose violence.

[...]

So some activist takes the sign next to your table at a public debate, like what happened here? She gets instantly clotheslined. I don’t care if police are present. Do it anyway. In fact, be wildly disproportionate.

A fat black lady assaults your on-camera talent? Book the kind of security that has no qualms hospitalizing her and people like her.

Dudes rope up your car and start vandalizing it? Bros dismounting with cudgels will fix that real quick. Turn it into an instant brawl. Break bones.

Force corrupt police to intervene. I want blood in the streets.

[...]

We must stop clutching our principles and shouting “stop.” They own the legal system. That will achieve nothing. We need action. Disproportionate. Violent. Action.

Pain and suffering.

We need to raise the cost of obviating the social contract. Measure it in blood if necessary. Change requires pain, and you’re either taking it or inflicting it.

I know which side I’m on, and I’m more than ready to start putting people in the shed.

SOURCE: https://dailycaller.com/2025/09/26/ingersoll-enough-choose-violence-police-crime-crackdown/

I'm just glad that the Daily Callers' editors have explained to their readers, that this guy doesn't want to incite violence. It's just "self-defense"... Extreme self-defense... I guess. What is he defending himself against? Well... a world constructed through conservative fan fiction... These people are fighting against delusions, lies and hyperboles that they internalised as part of their wordview... and everytime one of them snaps their surroundings will have to suffer for their insanity.

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

Obviously I have only your edited extracts to react to, but in that context I find the 'disclaimer' weak and somewhat laughable. Ingersoll clearly wants violence:

I know which side I’m on, and I’m more than ready to start putting people in the shed.

That is not a defencive statement - it's aggressive.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@FreddieUK Feel free to read the entire thing... there are a lot of grievances here.

This person has a binairy view of the world. It's a homgenous "us" and an homogenous "them". If any individual in the "them" bracket, does something... ALL are in collaboration on opressing "us".

Also the "us" group, can't do anything wrong. And if there is a judicial process looking into any of "us", it's an attack on all of "us".

It's all pretty simplistic and radical... and in his interpretation of what is going on, violence is the logical next step.

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

@Kwek00 I trust your integrity in your editing. 😀

Although there are probably few people that will go as far as the original writer, there are many who seem to take the 'us' and 'them' approach to life. Tribalism is deeply ingrained in some parts of the population. In the UK, we have a political party working very hard to persuade the population that 'they' are responsible for all the problems that we experience and 'we' need to be frightened and take action against 'them'. It's nasty.