Bloodlust & the New Christian Right

A deleted post by the movement's idea and money man speaks volumes

By Brad Isbell

Most American Christians, whatever their views on Big Healthcare and corporate ethics, were stunned and disturbed by news that a health insurance CEO was gunned down on a Manhattan street yesterday. Why would Christians be indifferent to—let alone support—such a thing? Certainly, the Sixth Commandment comes to mind, as well as Jesus’ Great Commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves, which was foreshadowed in the prophet Jeremiah’s exhortation to seek the peace of the cities or places in which God’s people find themselves. Christians read their Bibles and (the Bible says) have the Law of God written on their hearts.

The Bible also speaks of justice, but that justice is not individual, extrajudicial vengeance. Rather, it is justice carried out by God-ordained civil government, which the Reformed standards generically call the magistrate. This is why the reaction of a thought leader and major funder of a Christian movement for civic renewal to the assassination-style killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson is so notable…and disturbing.

Over images (from a video) of the killing, Charles Haywood posted these words:

I don’t generally approve of murdering people on the street. Nor do I know anything about the dead guy. But it’s good and salutary if the very many guilty among our elites start to live in fear of expedited, unanswerable, and unexpected punishment for their sins.

Nearly every word of this ill-conceived, malignant X post is telling. He does not generally approve of murdering people on the street. Wonderful. He does not know anything about the dead guy. The deceased man was a married Iowa native with two sons who presumably will be gratified that their father’s violent death was the occasion for deep, political thoughts by a Christian Nationalist thinker. Fear of extrajudicial street assassination is good and salutary—this part is helps us understand the “good” that is extolled (and promised) on Haywood’s creepy Society for American Civic Renewal website:

We foresee a nation building great projects of civic and cultural renaissance. A society with strong leadership committed to family and culture. A society that nurtures, rather than rejects, virtue. A society that seeks the good and the beautiful, and abjures ideology.

We are raising accountable leaders to help build thriving communities of free citizens, who will reclaim a humane vision of society while rebuilding the frontier-conquering spirit of America. A new thing for a new day, informed by the wisdom of the past but facing the future.

The irony is rich. It is good if the very many guilty among our elites start to live in fear of expedited, unanswerable, and unexpected punishment for their sins. Haywood’s renewed America would seem to have little need of courts. Savage, frontier justice would suffice until an unbound executive (the Christian Prince) takes power and sets all things right. Of course, prospective Christian Princes might need to watch their backs if the (Christian?) populace develops a love for Haywood Justice.

Perhaps his post was just an example of the transgressive edgelordery that typifies New Right, Dissident Right, and Christian Nationalist figures’ online output. One thing is certain—it comports with the self-description on his personal website:

He desires comity but realizes, despite being a practicing and believing Christian, that ultimately no final question can be solved without conflict, usually involving violence. Thus, his style tends to be megalomaniacal and apocalyptic. He likes to fight.

Violent fantasies are nothing new for Haywood, and they are tied to his (and others) idea that their ilk will arise to save the day after the inevitable collapse of American society: “I sometimes believe that I am fated to become a warlord myself, by which I do not mean some kind of predator, but rather the head of an armed patronage network.”

Haywood’s words call into question all the movements and organizations he has inspired and funded (this investigation by an admittedly left-wing newspaper sheds some light). His words also question the wisdom of his individual followers. He, as much as anyone, is responsible for popularizing Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt’s “friend-enemy distinction” (also known as NETTR or NEOTR - no enemies to/own the right), which has helped turn the online political and religious discussion into a fascist-friendly hellscape.

Maybe he doesn’t really mean it, and maybe his followers realize that. After all, he deleted the offending post after about 20 minutes—but not before it received over 900 likes on X. Maybe he regrets it. No, he does not:

This very not-deleted post tells us that Haywood regrets nothing about his “perfectly good and excellently insightful post about the United Health guy.” But it also tells us that this would-be warlord is not as tough as he might have us believe, given that “trolls” overwhelmed him. This is ironic, too, since the only actual army Haywood controls is made up of mostly anonymous online trolls who “brigade” nearly anyone who dares to speak against the Dissident Right-Christian Nationalist project. The author of this post has experienced this many times. In Haywood’s America, what is good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander.

But what’s the big deal? Isn’t this just online hijinks? Sure, in the last several years, if we have learned anything, it’s that the internet doesn’t matter, doesn’t affect behavior or rock the church, and is not something that wealthy persons, organizations, or governments would spend billions of dollars, rubles, or yuan upon. It will be fine…and if not, warlords (and war) wait in the wings.

Late-breaking news on the killing - link may not work for long.