The Myth of Equivalence: The American Left is a Criminal Organization13 min read

In contemporary political discourse, one of the most persistent rhetorical strategies is the invocation of moral equivalence—asserting that both major political factions are equally guilty of corruption, violence, and rhetorical excess. While this claim may appear balanced on the surface, it often functions as a deflection from deeper asymmetries in behavior, institutional capture, and ideological aggression.

This article examines the structural and rhetorical disparities between leftist and conservative political actors, focusing on corruption, lawfare, judicial activism, and political violence. The aim is not to exonerate one side but to challenge the flattening effect of false equivalence and to restore analytical clarity to public debate. I argue that the American left is primarily a criminally corrupt institution.

1.0 Structural Corruption and Institutional Capture

1.1 Beyond Routine Corruption

While corruption exists across the political spectrum, the scale and coordination of leftist institutional capture far exceed what can be considered routine. From the strategic manipulation of NGOs to the laundering of presidential finances, the left has demonstrated a capacity for embedding partisan agendas within ostensibly neutral institutions. This includes leveraging nonprofit networks to influence elections and policy under the guise of civic engagement. ¹

1.2 Lawfare and the Distortion of Legal Advocacy

A critical distinction must be made between legitimate legal advocacy and the strategic abuse of legal systems known as lawfare. Organizations such as the ACLU and ACLJ represent opposing ideological commitments, yet both operate within the bounds of constitutional litigation. Their work typically focuses on defending civil liberties, religious freedom, or constitutional interpretation through transparent legal channels and policy-oriented litigation. ^{2 3}

Lawfare, by contrast, is not policy-driven but personally weaponized. It involves the deliberate misapplication of legal tools—indictments, subpoenas, civil suits, and regulatory actions—not to resolve legal questions but to punish, bankrupt, or silence political opponents. These tactics often lack substantive legal merit and are designed to drain resources, generate negative media coverage, and intimidate dissent. Unlike legitimate advocacy, lawfare is characterized by bad faith litigation, selective prosecution, and procedural manipulation.

This phenomenon is frequently underwritten by billionaire donors, most notably George Soros, whose funding of district attorneys and activist legal networks has enabled ideologically charged prosecutions in jurisdictions with sympathetic judges. The goal is not legal reform but political suppression through judicial attrition. ⁴

1.3 Judge Shopping and Judicial Activism

Leftist legal operatives have increasingly relied on judge shopping—steering cases toward ideologically sympathetic courts, particularly in regions like Northern California and the Southern District of New York. These courts have become hubs of judicial activism, issuing nationwide injunctions that override legislative intent and executive authority. ⁵

1.4 Coordinated Malfeasance: Shell Companies, Election Tampering, and Government Weaponization

Beyond institutional capture and lawfare, mounting evidence suggests a deeper infrastructure of corruption operating through financial, electoral, and bureaucratic channels. The House Oversight Committee has documented a network of over 20 shell companies linked to the Biden family, allegedly used to obscure the origin of foreign payments totaling over $20 million. These funds, routed through associates and layered accounts, came from entities in China, Romania, and other nations with strategic interests in U.S. policy. Critics argue this system reflects not just personal enrichment but a broader scheme of influence peddling cloaked in corporate opacity. ⁶

Concerns over election integrity in 2020 have also intensified. While mainstream narratives dismissed allegations of tampering, independent audits, whistleblower testimony, and statistical anomalies have led many to question the legitimacy of certain procedural changes—particularly those involving mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting, and NGO-funded voter mobilization efforts. Groups such as the Center for Tech and Civic Life received hundreds of millions in private funding, which was disproportionately funneled into Democrat-heavy districts under the guise of “safe election administration.” These efforts, critics argue, blurred the line between civic support and partisan engineering. ⁷

Additionally, the use of taxpayer-funded NGOs to advance ideological agendas has come under scrutiny. Organizations branded as charities or civic initiatives have quietly redirected federal grants into litigation, lobbying, and electoral mobilization—often with little oversight. This tactic allows partisan actors to launder public funds through nonprofit intermediaries, shielding political operations behind philanthropic facades. The interested parties in the image to the right pay themselves and their fellow board members first, or funnel money to a series of related NGOs that send money back to the Democrat party.

“Basically, every time we overturned a rock, we found something under it that was either filled with self-dealing and conflicts of interest, unqualified recipients or reduced agency oversight” — EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin referring to roughly $20 billion in climate funding channeled through pass-through NGOs linked to former Obama and Biden officials or Democratic donors ⁸

Consider a particularly egregious example: The Archewell Foundation, the NGO founded by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, reportedly received over $12 million from the U.S. government. The purpose? To redistribute funds to other NGOs. The notion that the United States government requires the assistance of two foreign royals to allocate taxpayer dollars is absurd. Worse, by injecting itself into the NGO-to-NGO grantmaking model, Archewell became yet another unnecessary middleman in an already convoluted process. This is precisely the kind of pass-through funding that erodes accountability and ensures that taxpayer dollars become untraceable. ⁹

The American, and perhaps global left, including in the UK, are now infamous for institutional corruption, funneling money to themselves through NGOs.

“We are seeing systematic misappropriation of EU funds through NGO networks that operate as ideological fronts. This is not civic engagement—it’s laundering taxpayer money for political warfare.” — Monika Hohlmeier, Chair of the European Parliament Budgetary Control Committee, speaking in Strasbourg, February 2025

Finally, the weaponization of federal agencies against Donald Trump—through selective leaks, politicized investigations, and coordinated media narratives—has revealed a troubling convergence of bureaucratic power and partisan intent. From the FBI’s handling of the Russia probe to the DOJ’s posture toward Trump’s legal cases, the pattern suggests not isolated misjudgments but a sustained effort to neutralize a political rival through institutional force.

2.0 Rhetorical Asymmetry and Dehumanization

2.1 Nazi Comparisons and Fabricated Scandals

The left has normalized the use of Nazi analogies and fascist labels to describe conservative figures and policies, often without historical or ideological justification. This rhetorical inflation dehumanizes opponents and poisons public discourse. Moreover, the proliferation of fabricated scandals—ranging from manipulated dossiers to media-driven hoaxes—has further distorted the political landscape. ¹⁰

2.2 How Media Shapes the Narrative—and Silences the Other Side

Mainstream media outlets frequently act as amplifiers for progressive narratives, often reinforcing exaggerated claims while sidelining dissenting perspectives. This creates a feedback loop in which partisan messaging is repeated, legitimized, and elevated through journalistic framing. Instead of functioning as neutral watchdogs, many media institutions selectively highlight stories that align with ideological goals, shaping public perception through omission, emphasis, and editorial tone. ¹¹

For example, the attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2022 received minimal coverage compared to threats against liberal figures. Violent attacks on pro-life centers after the Dobbs decision were largely ignored, while isolated threats to abortion clinics were widely amplified. During the 2020 BLM riots, the murders of David Dorn, Italia Kelly, and Chris Beaty were underreported or stripped of ideological context, whereas confrontations involving right-wing protestors were framed as emblematic of systemic extremism. These disparities reveal how media framing can distort public understanding and reinforce selective outrage.

3.0 Justified Patterns vs. Condemned Outliers

Political violence in the United States has escalated dramatically since 2017. While both left- and right-aligned actors have committed violent acts, the pattern, targeting, and institutional response reveal a profound asymmetry. Left-wing violence increasingly targets individuals—judges, lawmakers, activists, and religious institutions—often in direct response to conservative rulings or cultural norms. These attacks are not isolated; they form a discernible pattern, particularly in the wake of decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson and the rise of progressive identity politics.

The pattern is:

• Left-wing violence: Repeated, ideologically driven attacks on conservative figures and religious institutions—often ignored or downplayed by media and prosecutors.
• Right-wing violence: Infrequent, often isolated incidents—swiftly condemned, prosecuted, and used to indict broader conservative movements.
• Media and institutional response: Uneven and politicized—leftist violence is reframed as activism or mental illness, while right-wing violence is amplified as systemic extremism.

This asymmetry is not merely rhetorical—it reflects a deeper imbalance in how institutions, media, and legal frameworks respond to violence depending on its ideological origin. Right-wing actors are swiftly prosecuted, broadly condemned, and often used to justify surveillance or censorship of entire movements. Left-wing actors, by contrast, are frequently shielded by narrative reframing, selective coverage, and prosecutorial discretion. The result is a distorted public understanding of political violence and a dangerous erosion of equal accountability.

For details on the events I am considering that show the predominance and pattern of contemporary left-wing violence, see the appendix.

4.0 Further Reading

• The Politics of False Equivalence (First Things, 2023) ¹²
• The Left’s Legal Warfare (National Review, 2022) ¹³
• The Rise of Judicial Politics (Law & Liberty, 2021) ¹⁴

5.0 Closing Note

The invocation of moral equivalence in political discourse may offer rhetorical convenience, but it obscures real asymmetries in behavior, institutional control, and ideological aggression. A rigorous analysis demands that we confront these disparities directly, not flatten them into false parity.

Appendix: Major Politically Motivated Violent Incidents (2017–2025)

This appendix catalogs key incidents of political violence in the United States over the past eight years, organized by date and ideological affiliation. These events were excluded from the main article for brevity but are included here to provide a fuller empirical record.

• Steve Scalise Shooting (Left-wing) — June 2017
  A Bernie Sanders supporter opened fire on Republican lawmakers during a congressional baseball practice, critically injuring Rep. Steve Scalise.
• Pipe Bomb Campaign (Right-wing) — October 2018
  Cesar Sayoc mailed explosive devices to prominent Democrats and media outlets; none detonated, but the incident was widely condemned.
• BLM Riot Deaths (Left-wing unrest) — May–June 2020
  David Dorn, Italia Kelly, and Chris Beaty were killed during violent protests linked to BLM demonstrations; ideological context largely ignored.
• Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (Left-wing) — June 2022
  A man armed with weapons and zip ties attempted to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh over his role in overturning Roe v. Wade.
• Covenant School Shooting (Left-wing) — March 2023
  Audrey Hale, a transgender-identifying shooter, killed six at a Christian elementary school in Nashville, targeting religious symbolism.
• Trump Rally Shooting (Left-wing) — July 2024
  Thomas Matthew Crooks fired multiple rounds at Donald Trump during a Pennsylvania rally, grazing his ear and killing one attendee.
• Trump Golf Course Sniper Attempt (Left-wing) — September 2024
  Ryan Routh was arrested with a scoped rifle at Trump’s Florida golf course, allegedly planning a sniper attack.
• Minnesota Political Assassinations (Right-wing) — June 2025
  Vance Boelter murdered Democratic Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband, and shot Senator John Hoffman and his wife.
• Annunciation School Shooting (Left-wing) — August 2025
  Robin Westman, a transgender-identifying shooter, killed two children and injured 21 others at a Catholic school during mass.
• Charlie Kirk Assassination (Left-wing) — September 2025
  Tyler Robinson shot conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University; ammunition bore antifascist slogans.

Note on Excluded Events:
Some high-profile incidents were intentionally left out of the main chart due to their contested nature or lack of ideological clarity:

• Governor Gretchen Whitmer Kidnapping Plot (2020): Excluded because substantial evidence suggests it was largely orchestrated by federal agents, with more government participants than civilian conspirators—raising concerns of entrapment rather than genuine right-wing extremism.
• Paul Pelosi Attack (2022): Omitted due to unresolved questions surrounding the attacker’s relationship with Pelosi. Emerging reports suggest the assailant may have been a known acquaintance, possibly a former romantic partner, complicating the narrative of ideological violence.
• January 6 Capitol Riot (2021): Not listed because its classification as right-wing violence remains deeply contested. The event involved a mix of actors, motives, and law enforcement dynamics, making it too complex to categorize alongside targeted political assassinations or ideologically driven shootings.