“Sowing seeds of patience, support, and mediation allows a grievant to persevere rather than seek murderous vengeance.” John Johnson II 12/24/25
By John Johnson II
The metaphor “grievant murderers kill to make the nation grieve interprets contemporary mass violence not as a random outburst of pathology, but as a calculated act of psychological warfare. In 2025, this phenomenon evolved into a strategic attempt to force a collective, public trauma upon a society that the perpetrator believes has unjustly marginalized him.
These individuals view themselves as rational actors choosing a specific violent tactic to achieve a social objective: the forced acknowledgment of their perceived suffering. By targeting the innocent public spheres, the goal is to generate national mourning, thereby amplifying the killer’s message and making the nation absorb a pain he feels he can no longer carry alone.
This radicalization often begins with a deep-seated anger rooted in the belief that traditional entitlements are disappearing. Young white men today perceive that opportunities once guaranteed to them are diverted toward women, Black people, and the LGBTQ+ community. They point to a decades-long arc of policies—beginning with affirmative action and evolving into modern DEI initiatives, equity training, and college set-aside admissions—as evidence of a systemic effort to displace them.
Historical milestones, such as the election of the first Black president and the subsequent election of the first woman of color as Vice President, elevated bias sentiments of displacement. Even the acclaim bestowed upon Black athletes symbolize takeover of the cultural landscape.
The government and media play a pivotal role in fermenting this white male grievance. By late 2025, the political landscape succumbed to a “rhetoric of retribution.” When national leaders characterize political rivals as “sinister forces” and use state power to settle personal scores, they provide a blueprint for the grievant murderer. This “mirror behavior” validates the idea that vengeance is a legitimate response to perceived social slights. This fracture even penetrates the family unit; as children grow increasingly resentful, they turn against their own parents, feeling that the older generation is complicit in a system that no longer protects their “birthright.” The Supreme Court’s pending decision regarding the “Birthright Citizenship” case could ignite a Constitutional crisis as well as new grievants.
Instead of addressing these root causes through mental health and drug crisis funding, the government often resorts to performative violence. In 2025, while overdose deaths remain at record highs, the state engages in the “sham” of murdering alleged drug traffickers on the high seas. This allows authorities to blame external “villains” rather than confronting America’s vast domestic market for drugs.
This futility only deepens the sense of abandonment felt by those on the brink. To dismantle this cycle, we must adopt a novel approach toward the instruments of this violence. We must legally elevate the firearm to the status of a “Sacred Weapon of Defense.”
Under a proposed 2025 legislative framework, guns would become enshrined as sacred tools reserved strictly for survival, hunting, military personnel, and law enforcement. Anyone violating this inscription by committing murder with a firearm will receive the maximum punishment.
Hopefully, by stripping the “murder of convenience to guns and reclassifying the gun as an instrument of protection rather than a vehicle for rage, we can force “grievant murderer” to face his pain without making the entire nation suffer alongside him. Only by addressing the root causes of grievant murders is there any chance of reducing this scourge.
We need strong action to shift from government-backed retaliation toward a culture focused on shared responsibility. Yes, we have power, but do we have the will to end this senseless murderous quest for vengeance?
YOU BE THE JUDGE!
