This essay is also available as a podcast on anchor.fm, Spotify, and other platforms
On the evening of April 6, 1994, in the skies over Kigali, the capital of the small African nation of Rwanda, the plane carrying Rwanda’s president Juvénal Habyarimana was shot down by an unknown party, killing him. President Habyarimana was a Hutu, Rwanda’s largest ethnic group. A minority ethnic group, the Tutsis, were blamed for the assassination, and in the hundred days that followed, an estimated one million people, most of them Tutsis, were slaughtered in a brutal genocide.
For anyone paying attention to Rwandan politics and media, the genocide would not have come as a surprise. According to the official documentation of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, in the late 19th century, European colonists had reified a complex system of lineage into the distinct ethnic groups of Hutu and Tutsi, and favored the Tutsis out of a belief that they came from Ethiopian stock and were thus racially superior, thus fomenting racial resentment among the Hutus (The Prosecutor versus Jean-Paul Akayesu, 1998). The Hutus had used violence against the Tutsis in the past, and public figures had dehumanized the Tutsis and called for their extermination decades prior to 1994, but in the prior year, public expressions of Tutsi-directed racial hatred became particularly virulent with the advent of Radio Télévision Libre de Mille Collines—RTLM—a Hutu-led radio station created for the express purpose of carrying “incendiary anti-Tutsi propaganda” which “plant[ed] a seed of discord among the moderate Hutus who were slowly drawn into the extremist fold” (Ndahiro, 2019). This radio station was instrumental in the propogation of the genocide; Hutus are, at least by reputation, shorter on average than Tutsis, and Hutu broadcasters urged their listeners to “cut down the tall trees” (ibid.).
On October 25th of this year, during the question-and-answer portion of an event—part of conservative nonprofit organization Turning Point USA’s Exposing Critical Racism Tour—at Boise State University in Boise, Idaho led by Charlie Kirk (one of Turning Point USA’s co-founders), an attendent asked Kirk, “When do we get to use the guns?” This was met with cheers from the rest of the audience. He continued, “That’s not a joke… I mean, literally, where’s the line? How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” More cheers followed. Kirk immediately stated that he would denounce the question, and began to do so, but then gave it a direct answer: “We must exhaust every single peaceful mean[s] possible” (’When Do We Get to Use the Guns?, n.d.). In other words, “Not ‘never,’ but not yet.”
My intent here is not to be alarmist: I do not believe that this country is on the immediate brink of anything like a civil war or genocide. However, I’m concerned that there’s a trend in that direction, and if it does ever get to that point at some time in the future, historians will look to the discourse of our own time to see how the groundwork was laid, and so I think that certain groups, my audience among them, should exercise caution and should pay very close attention to what’s being said on the radio, at political events, and in popular books. By way of doing exactly this, I’ll be looking at a recent book by popular Christian pastor John Mark Comer entitled Live No Lies: Recognize and Resist the Three Enemies that Sabotage Your Peace.
I first heard of John Mark Comer and his book Live No Lies from my Lutheran pastor friend. He had heard Comer interviewed about his book on a podcast about Christian leadership, the Carey Nieuwhof Leadership Podcast (Nieuwhof, 2021). In the podcast episode, Nieuwhof commented on the erudition and scholarship of Comer’s book, mentioning its extensive reference list, and that piqued my interest, as most contemporary Christian literature I’ve read has been somewhat less than scholarly and erudite. The book currently enjoys a 4.8 star review on Amazon, with 215 out of 235 reviewers rating it 5-stars. Reviewers describe the author in glowing terms, such as “one of the foremost voices for followers of Jesus in today’s world.” It is currently the #1 best seller on Amazon in the categories of Religious Faith and Christian Faith.
Comer states the thesis of his book in clear terms: “[T]he devil’s primary strategem to drive the soul and society into ruin is deceptive ideas that play to disordered desires, which are normalized in a sinful society” (p. 57). He associates these concepts with a kind of anti-trinity that has appeared in historical Christian writing: sinful society is the world, disordered desires are the flesh, and deceptive ideas are the devil. Comer’s book instructs in how to recognize and counter these deceptive ideas so as to live a happier and more holy life in Jesus Christ.
I’m always looking for a good challenge, and was disappointed to find after I purchased the book that it was nothing of the sort. There are 265 pages of content not including the introduction, notes, and end matter, but I’d estimate the word count as being a scant 60,000, less than the first Harry Potter book. The paragraphs are one- to two-sentence blocks with spaces in between them, giving the book the effect of reading more like a blog post. There are indeed a large number of references, but most of them are to a single source—the Bible—and the character of the rest will be described presently. The style is simultaneously conversational, condescending, and pandering. Imagine a youth pastor trying to buddy up to his audience while simultaneously talking down to them, and you’ll have a good sense of Comer’s writing voice.
Before I get into the content, though, I want to be clear about what it is I’m going to say about it. My objective is to accomplish three things. The first is to demonstrate that this book presents only a thin veneer of scholarly erudition by way of promulgating misleading and outright false information, information which constitutes part of a wider narrative—a dangerous one—promulgated by American evangelicals which paints them as righteous, embattled outsiders and those others whom they are battling as demonic and evil. Next is to demonstrate that at least some of this misinformation is in fact disinformation, as it was known to be false by the author; that Comer is himself, in his book entitled Live No Lies, lying quite extensively. Indeed, in documenting how lies manifest in the world, Comer becomes quite self-descriptive. But any YouTube atheist who picked up his first copy of Sam Harris a week ago could accomplish all of this with little difficulty. This is A Satanist Reads the Bible, and I’ll need to go a step further to make this endeavor worth my time and yours. So the third thing I intend to accomplish is to demonstrate that, even if I were to put aside the misinformation and lies in Comer’s book and take his arguments in their best possible form, I should refuse the morality, worldview, lifestyle, and religion that he promotes therein.
For all this, Comer actually has a fair amount to say that I agree with, and I want to be clear about what it is that I agree with and how it is that I agree with it. By way of facilitating this, as I proceed through the book in this essay, I’ll be using four utility phrases to quickly identify my opinion on everything said:
- Authentic agreement: I agree exactly with what Comer says in terms of what I believe he actually means.
- Qualified agreement: I agree with Comer at least in the sense of his literal word usage but disagree with his interpretation in some way.
- Disagreement: Comer is making a bad argument; one that is fallacious and invalid, predicated on false premises, or both.
- Factual dispute: Comer has said something that is factually untrue.
I don’t fact-check every reference in every book that I read; that’s simply not feasible, and typically unnecessary, as many of the books I read are classics which have been combed through repeatedly by scholars. But when I start a new book about whose reliability I am uncertain, I’ll often check the first several references. If those hold up under scrutiny, then I’ll proceed with a measure of confidence that the author or authors are presenting their evidence in good faith. From that point, I’ll investigate only those references that seem dubious, or which are particularly central to any argument that I myself am making. If, however, I find some references of dubious character during my initial check, I’ll be much more cautious going forward and much more hesitant to accept anything the author is saying.
Early in Live No Lies, Comer presents the story of the obscure fourth century church father Evagrius Ponticus. According to Comer, Evagrius had penned a book on the subject of battling demonic forces which served as a major inspiration for Comer’s own writing. Comer presents the title of the book in his text as Talking Back: A Monastic Handbook for Combating Demons, and he draws particular attention to the title with the phrase-length paragraph “Best subtitle ever” (p. 6). I’m sure many of you are having the same reaction that I did: that sounds like a very unlikely title for a 4th century text, even in translation. Indeed, here is one of my factual disputes with Comer: the book Evagrius penned was titled Antirrhetikos—roughly, “refutations” or “arguments against”—and lacked any sort of subtitle. “Talking Back: A Monastic Handbook for Combating Demons” is the title of a 2010 translation by David Brakke.
We might easily write this off as an honest mistake: Comer mistook the title of the translation as being a literal translation of the title of the work translated, rather than an artful spin on the title likely employed for marketing purposes. But there are two problems with that. The first is that Comer has a Master’s degree in Biblical and Theological Studies from Western Seminary. Anyone with that level of theological education would either know ancient Greek or at least be very familiar with it—indeed, several points in his book focus on the nuances of certain ancient Greek words—and would recognize the translated title for the creative interpretation that it is. But even if that weren’t the case, I know that Comer read the book’s introduction, written by the translator, which clearly states the book’s original title and discusses his choice to translate it as he did. And how do I know that Comer read the introduction? Because his description of the book is nearly a sentence-by-sentence rewording of several of the introduction’s first paragraphs.
But why would Comer lie about something so inconsequential?
Those of you who have been following the show for a while know that I was once a propagandist and propaganda analyst for the U.S. Army, and the first step in analyzing propaganda is understanding the target audience. Comer’s writing style gives a substantial hint to who his target audience is, as do the numerous references to recent pop culture. Consider as well that, in the introduction, he quotes William Faulkner, adding that Faulkner is “widely considered one of the greatest novelists” (p. xxx). He also spends little time explicating Christian theology; he seems to have presumed that his audience possesses a basic understanding of this. So his audience is young Christian and Christian-leaning Americans lacking an education sufficiently broad to know who William Faulkner is. Comer knows that his success with this audience depends on his appearing approachable and relatable, and that a discussion of an obscure 4th-century Greek text will be much more appealing if it has a neat title.
But Comer’s misrepresentation of the text doesn’t stop at the title. In describing his first impressions of the book, Comer says
I expected a list of Christian-style magic incantations, the incoherent ramblings of a premodern introvert who spent too much time under the North African sun. Instead, I found an erudite mind who was able to articulate mental processes in ways that neuroscientists and leading psychologists are just now catching up to.
p. 6
Another factual dispute. In fact, the book is much closer to Comer’s alleged expectations than what he claims to have found in reading it. He says as well that Evagrius is, after Jesus, “the most brilliant tactician we have in the fight to overcome demonic temptation” (pp. 6-7), but Antirrhetikos is not a treatise of any sort at all. Rather, it is a list of intrusive mental thoughts and suggested Bible verses for combating them.
Included in Brakke’s translation is a letter that Evagrius wrote to the monk Loukios when he sent the monk a copy of Antirrhetikos. In the letter, Evagrius describes his purpose in writing it: “Reading the divine Scriptures is very useful for purification because it removes the intellect from this visible world’s anxieties, from which stems the perversity of unclean thoughts, which through their passions bind the intellect and attach it to corporeal things” (Evagrius Ponticus, 2010). The reading of Bible verses in this way is intended to interrupt the thought process so as to prevent the manifestation of sinful thoughts. The point, in other words, is to prevent thought.
In the chapter titled “The brutal honesty about normal,” Comer includes a quotation that he attributes directly and explicitly to the Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari. The specific language he uses to introduce the quotation is “Yuval Noah Harari, the popular historian and leading atheist of our time described the crux of the problem quite well.” Harari is indeed an atheist, though he’s not a thought leader in that area and is known primarily for his work as a historian, but putting that aside, I found the quote quite odd and not at all consistent with Harari’s style or ideas. Indeed, as the quote’s citation describes, the words are not Harari’s at all but rather “Gideon Rosenblatt’s summary of Harari’s ideas” (p. 293).
In the chapter “Ideas, weaponized,” Comer makes his case for traditional Christian sexual ethics—or, at least, those that are perceived as traditional by contemporary conservative Christians. He describes the various sex-and-gender related revolutions that have occured over the past century and notes how each of them have separated the act of sex from some other institution or concept (e.g. marriage, the male-female binary, etc.). None of these relations have any natural or transcultural and transhistorical reality, of course—they’re all socially constructed—but Comer makes no mention of this. He then says
Amid the revolution, the questions nobody seems to even be asking are, Is this making us better people? More loving people? Or even happier people? Are we thriving in a way that we weren’t prior to the “liberation”?
pp. 28-29
Well by all means, then, let us answer these questions! Comer seems to think that a “serious attempt to research the data” (p. 29) is needed, and while I’m certainly not opposed to that, I don’t think the questions are really all that difficult. Are queer people (to take one example) happier today in the West, or in those countries or time periods where their love and identities are or were punishable—even capital—crimes? Under which conditions are they more capable of thriving, loving, and being better people? Were women more happier where or when they had no escape from or legal recourse against husbands who beat and raped them? So here is one of my disagreements with Comer, and the root of this disagreement is actually quite well-described by Comer himself a couple pages earlier: “When we believe truth—that is, ideas that correspond to reality—we show up to reality in such a way that we flourish and thrive” (p. 27). So file that under qualified agreement. Comer continues, “[When we believe truth, w]e show up to our bodies, to our sexuality, to our interpersonal relationships, and, above all, to God himself in a way that is congruent with the Creator’s wisdom and good intentions for his creation.” I’m dubious as to whether the intentions Comer ascribes to God can really be described as good, as Comer’s God seems to have created some people so as to lead tormented lives under which their natural sexual desires must be forceably suppressed under threat of eternal separation from God.
I myself am bisexual, but I didn’t know that until a few years ago because I had been raised in an environment of default heterosexuality. My parents were never hateful towards queer people, but certainly took pains to make it clear to me that I was a straight man. Would I have been happier had I explored the breadth of my sexuality more? I really don’t know, but I believe that I was and am entitled to find out the answer to that question myself. Comer would have me deny that part of myself so as to adhere to what he calls “Jesus’s vision of human sexuality” (p. xxv).
This is how Comer labels the sexual viewpoint that he presents, but in the gospels, we find Jesus saying next to nothing on the subject: “Don’t get divorced (Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, with an exception granted if the wife is unfaithful), don’t look on women with lust (Matthew 5:28), and castrate yourselves for the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12).” That last one is probably to be taken as metaphorical, but it’s clear that Comer is ascribing a whole host of modern Christian sexual mores to Jesus absent any scriptural basis for doing so.
As an aside before we move on, in decrying the alleged problems that the sexual revolution has effected in the modern world, Comer points out that “while #metoo was dominating headlines, the Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy—a story about male sexual domination—was becoming the highest selling book series of the decade and one of the highest-grossing film franchises of all time” (p. 30). His next couple sentences mention the widespread problems of sexual abuse, sexual assault, and rape culture. Putting aside that the film franchise doesn’t even crack the top 25 in terms of total worldwide gross, and as well that the #metoo movement started in October of 2017 while the books were released in 2011 and 2012 and the first and second movies in 2015 and 2017, with only the third movie overlapping on the timeline, the fact that Comer, and apparently far too many other men, don’t understand the difference between consensual sexual domination in the context of an established trust relationship and non-consensual sexual domination outside of that context is a huge problem and, I believe, among the core reasons that sexual assault and rape culture are so endemic.
Again, the argument of Comer’s book is that Satan is plotting to spread death and destroy Christian happiness and world order by spreading lies. By way of supporting this, Comer makes frequent references to John 8:44: “[Satan] was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies,” and to the Second Creation Narrative in Genesis. But let’s review the facts on Satan, as given in the very book from which Comer is drawing his own information.
Genesis 2:16-17: “And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’” Genesis 3:45: “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’” And what is it that actually happens when Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge? They do not die, and God says, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:22).
I’ll add Comer to the list of Christians who implicitly instruct their followers to deny the Bible. If Satan was a “murderer from the beginning,” why does the Bible have God killing uncountable millions of people—including, at one point, almost all life on Earth—and Satan killing only ten, and those with God’s permission? If Satan is the “father of lies”, why is there no single chapter or verse in any of the Bible’s books in which he actually does so? And why is lying so manifestly pervasive within the Christian religion? Early in the book, Comer asks, “What if Jesus knew the true nature of reality better than we do?… What if he was the most intelligent teacher to ever live and his insight into the problems (and solutions) of the human condition is the most piercing to date?” (p. 15). Those are some big “what ifs,” but very well; let’s proceed and consider Comer himself when we ascribe the following verses to the most intelligent teacher to ever live: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15-16). Comer himself points to the “upwards of forty” warnings against deception that appear in the New Testament, and here I’m in qualified agreement with him and with Jesus.
It’s worth noting that Comer is open to a fictionalism regarding scripture. When he discusses the second creation narrative, he mentions that different people interpret it as either historical or allegorical. “Whichever interpretation is right,” he says, “the garden story is true” (p. 62), and I’m in authentic agreement with him that sacred texts—indeed, any text—can be true without being historical; I’m even in qualified agreement with him that this particular narrative is true in this sense, and in this light, my broad disagreement with Comer’s book as a whole (factual disputes notwithstanding) becomes a qualified agreement: there are indeed sources of misinformation and disinformation in the world aiming to stupify and control us. Comer is himself one of them, and if his fictionalism sets Jesus as truth and Satan as the father of lies—as Satan the Deceiver—then he is himself of the devil’s party.
Comer describes the “paradigmatic lie behind all lies” as being the temptation “to seize autonomy from God and… to redefine good and evil based on the voice in our heads and the inclination of our hearts, rather than trust in the loving word of God” (p. 64). In order to do so, I would have to deny the Bible and deny the teachings of Jesus which tell us to look to the fruits. Comer elaborates on this paradigmatic lie in the following way:
We ask, “Who is God? What is he like? Can I trust him?” The devil lies: He’s an unloving, jealous tyrant who is holding out on you. You can’t trust him. We ask, “Who are we? What does it mean to be human? Am I just an animal or something more?” He lies yet again: You’re not just a human being with a place in an ordered cosmos over the creation but still under the Creator. No, you can transgress your limitations and become whoever and whatever you want. Identity is self-defined. Morality is self-determined. Take control of your own life. “You will be like God.” And we ask, “How do we live? What is the good life? How do we live it?” Here the devil’s lies are the most salient: You can’t trust God, but you can trust yourself, your own wisdom and desires. Look at this bright, shiny thing—this tree that God said was off-limits. Eat it, take it, seize it, do it, experience it. Follow your heart. Your inner intuition is the most accurate map to the happy life you crave.
pp. 65-66
It is the Bible which tells us that God is jealous (Exodus 20:2-6) and an unloving tyrant (cf. the entire book of Job). It is the Bible which tells us that we can become like God by seeking to understand good and evil for ourselves (Genesis 3:22). It is the Bible which tells us that God cannot be trusted and spreads disinformation (Genesis 2:17; 1 Kings 22:23; 2 Chronicles 18:22; Jeremiah 4:10, 20:7; Ezekial 14:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:11). Comer is correct about one thing: we’re not very good at knowing what will make us happy. But even if I don’t think I’m especially good at knowing what will bring me happiness, I’m still the best person for the job, and it’s my own sole purview and responsibility regardless. I believe that identity is intersubjective rather than being purely self-defined, but it certainly isn’t other-defined, as Comer suggests. No one does or can know me better than I know myself, and that knowledge has arisen in part because of self-determination. Granted, much of who I am—I don’t know how much—has arisen from the dual forces of genetics and social shaping, but, as an example, a few people in my life, people whose opinions I value, have told me that I’m a good man—that, insofar as I am a man, I am a good one, and that’s exactly the kind of man that I want and seek to be. They’re pointing to something about me that is not intrinsic: it’s arisen from years of hard work and wasn’t always the case. In some future episode I’ll have to tell you about the period of my life when I was a borderline incel, and that person, who mistakenly believed that women owed him something, seems more in line with the biblical, patriarchal ideal for which Comer advocates. I am a better person, a happier person, a more loving person, for having taken control of my own life and for having worked to surpass my own limitations.
Comer follows Evagrius Ponticus in his prescription for combating the lies we encounter in the world and live in our lives: “…don’t fight [them] head on… just change the channel” (pp. 89-90). Instead of facing, deconstructing, and correcting the problems and falsehoods in our lives, he suggests, just think about scripture instead. Comer correctly points out that “our strongest desires are not actually our deepest desires” (p. 121)—or, at least, not always or probably even most of the time—but my agreement here is again a qualified one: our task, our struggle, is to sort through the mess of our immediate desires to find out what lies beneath them, not to abdicate this work to some external entity.
While Comer’s text is problematic in itself, the broader problem is how Comer’s rhetoric connects with the broader rhetoric of evangelical Christianity. I don’t know whether Comer would describe himself as an evangelical and actually doubt that he would, but he, either explicitly or by implication, repeats several key evangelical talking points.
A recent book by history professor Kristin Kobes du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne (2020), describes many of the themes central to evangelical Christian discourse in the 20th and 21st centuries, as promulgated by the likes of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell. Primary is patriarchal sexuality: male headship in all areas of life within a strictly heteronormative paradigm modeled—often explicitly—on the actor John Wayne and the characters he portrayed in film (ch. 1). For prominent evangelical leaders like Billy Graham and Phyllis Schlafly, this was a matter of national security (ch. 1, 3). The fetishism of the American military was and remains popular among evangelicals, who have predicated much of their discourse on military metaphors. Jerry Falwell in particular instructed his followers to, “with bayonet in hand, encounter the enemy face-to-face and one-on-one bring them [u]nder submission to the Gospel of Christ, move them into the household of God, put up the flag and call it secured” (FitzGerald, 2007, spelling corrected).
Comer states clearly and repeatedly that the war he’s describing is one of ideas and is to be waged non-violently—despite the very physical risks he describes as being posed to their persons by the “enemy” (p. 11)—but he spends no time countering the violent rhetoric of his fellow Christians and paints contemporary American Christians as threatened and vulnerable outsiders—an entire chapter is devoted to describing the 70% of Americans who are Christian as a literal minority—whose very souls are threatened by secular culture (another entire chapter describes this Christian “minority” as having been “colonized” by secular society), and paints those who do not adhere to his vision of Christianity as immoral, demonic enemies who promulgate and who are themselves enslaved by lies. He describes Christians as “Spartans… born and bred to be soldiers, with no choice in the matter” (p. xxix).
The kingdom of God, as it appears to me every time I examine it, is the kingdom of lies. Comer tells us that we must “follow the truth wherever it leads.” He continues, “If Jesus really is the truth, as he claimed to be, then I’m confident an honest, open pursuit of truth—no matter what circuitous route it takes—will eventually lead you to Jesus” (p. 93). Unstated is the contrapositive of this proposition: if an honest, open pursuit of truth does not eventually lead one to Jesus, then Jesus is not the truth. If I put aside the lies and misinformation in Comer’s book and seek to follow his advice to “live no lies,” I believe I’ll find myself in much the same place I started. His book argues against itself, and only if I follow his advice to forego thought altogether would I ever find it plausible. The morality, worldview, lifestyle, and religion that he promotes arise from a deliberate thoughtlessness, and so even were his arguments regarding sexuality and obedience to what he perceives as the teachings of Jesus not predicated on misinformation, I would have to reject them.
For all that, I actually found myself in qualified agreement with Comer more often than I found myself in complete disagreement. I’ve believed—and lived—lies about myself and about the world for much of my life and probably still continue in this to some degree. I think that this is true of most people, and I’m in qualified agreement with Comer that we should work to expunge those lies so that we can lead happier and better lives.
I hope you’ve found this piece interesting and informative. If you’ve enjoyed it, I encourage you to look at some of my other essays, and if you find my approach to philosophy and religion at all valuable, I hope that you’ll stop in at my Patreon page, which features bonus content for patrons, and that you’ll stop back by to check on my new content.
Works Cited or Referenced
Comer, J. M. (2021). Live no lies: Recognize and resist the three enemies that sabotage your peace (First edition). WaterBrook, an imprint of Random House, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.
Du Mez, K. K. (2020). Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. Liveright.
Evagrius Ponticus. (2010). Talking Back: A Monastic Handbook for Combating Demons (D. Brakke, Trans.). Liturgical Press.
FitzGerald, F. (2007, May 16). How the Christian Right Became a Political Force. The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1981/05/18/a-disciplined-charging-army
Ndahiro, K. (2019, April 13). In Rwanda, We Know All About Dehumanizing Language. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/rwanda-shows-how-hateful-speech-leads-violence/587041/
Nieuwhof, C. (2021, September 7). John Mark Comer on Why We Believe Lies About Freedom, Sex, Truth and Culture. CareyNieuwhof.Com. https://careynieuwhof.com/episode440/
The Prosecutor versus Jean-Paul Akayesu, (The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda September 2, 1998).
“When do we get to use the guns?”: Attendee shut down at right-wing event—CNN Video. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2, 2021, from https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/10/27/charlie-kirk-denounces-violence-mh-orig.cnn