The George Mason PhD Student Who Called for Blood
A revolutionary mask for personal revenge — disguised as a principled stand for liberty.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
— Thomas Jefferson, 1787
America was born from revolution, not polite disagreement. Its Constitution enshrines the right to free speech so that citizens can speak against power, even speak of overthrowing it, without fear of government reprisal. That’s not extremism. That’s the American tradition.
But when revolutionary language is weaponized to serve personal grievance, ideological conquest, or fantasies of a transhumanist utopia, it ceases to be patriotic. It becomes pathological.
That’s the story of Nicholas Decker, an econ PhD student at George Mason University who published a manifesto last month titled “When Must We Kill Them?” on his personal Substack,
.In the early hours of April 17, long before the article had gained any traction, I was the first to find Decker’s essay. It had virtually no views, no replies, and no public reaction. I recognized it instantly for what it was: a sanitized justification for ideological violence disguised as civic duty — so I flagged it, sent it to a few large accounts, posted it myself, then went to bed. When I woke up, his screed had 14,000+ replies and 11 million+ views:
Decker’s essay mimics the tone of a modern-day Declaration of Independence: listing grievances like arbitrary imprisonment, censorship, and state overreach. But beneath the patriotic veneer lies a very different motive: transgender ideology and personal retaliation.
‘‘Evil has come to America,’’ the first paragraph begins:
Evil has come to America. The present administration is engaged in barbarism; it has arbitrarily imprisoned its opponents, revoked the visas of thousands of students, imposed taxes upon us without our consent, and seeks to destroy the institutions which oppose it … If these actions become normal, the government could arrest anyone and deport them to prison in a foreign land.
Next, he refers to MAGA supporters as “beasts” rather than men — a classic rhetorical move to dehumanize political opponents while posturing as their victim.
Our words might sway the hearts of men, but not of beasts.
Then comes the invocation of violence, masked in dramatic language:
the questions of the day can be settled not with legislation, but with blood and iron.
He escalates further, rejecting the idea of targeting specific officials and instead naming an entire demographic as his enemy:
The rot of the present administration runs deeper than one man ... For let us make no mistake; the problem is not one man, but a whole class of people.
Only after the article went viral did Decker revise his screed to clarify that indiscriminate violence wasn’t what he meant:
Edit: Violence must be narrowly targeted, and aimed only at extirpating those who have power.
But the original message was clear. The closing paragraph declared:
This evil will not pass without blood, sweat, toil, and tears. So harden your hearts, and be prepared to die.
Decker’s call to arms generated 1,332 comments — this was the top-voted:
I read each of the 1,332 comments, most are MAGA people calling him an idiot or traitor, or threatening to shoot him before he can shoot them, e.g.:
‘‘Describe precisely your skill and experience with weapons … I'd be interested in his actual access to weapons. I'm an ex infantryman. I'm old now, but still armed and dangerous’’
‘‘80% of the civilian guns are in republican hands. Your war is going to be very short.’’
‘‘[This article is] delusional, traitorous and obscene. I call you out as dangerous, an instigator and fomenter of propaganda, lawlessness, murder and treason.’’
‘‘Your post is an unhinged, pseudo-intellectual tantrum that exposes everything wrong with progressivism and you modern progs … You think your post is revolutionary, but it isn't—it’s cringe.’’
‘‘As a Veteran of combat (six tours), I have actually seen the horror of war, and that was limited war on the enemy’s soil. You, sir, have no clue what you are encouraging here.’’
‘‘I'll fucking stomp your skull in motherfucker. Genuinely I hope you get shot’’
Conversely, many comments are from Democrats agreeing that violence and/or domestic terrorism is justified because they hate Trump:
“It's amazing how the same retarded MAGA losers working to normalize political violence act all shocked and appalled when the same thinking is turned on them.”
‘‘Mr. Decker, your question, of when do we kill, is appropriate for the situation. However, perhaps more importantly, the question is WHOM do we kill?’’
‘‘There might be justifiable wars.’’
‘‘‘2nd Amendment to defend our rights’ people sure get upset when someone discusses defending our rights.’’
‘‘Brave words, i hope more people will be willing to take a stand on the idea that violence should be used’’
‘‘The Republican party is a criminal domestic terrorist organization and the leader of Project 2025 has said that they are planning on breaking the laws to force their agenda on the American people. They have made it clear that they will not stop violating the constitution and breaking the laws until they are violently stopped.’’
‘‘One of the greatest moments of cowardice in the American Civil War was that we should've summarily shot hundreds of hundreds of thousands of more white Southerners at the end of the Civil War, and didn't. Some evil can only be dealt with one way.’’
Many comments call for Decker’s screed to be censored and taken down by Substack staff; while free speech absolutists like
argue that it should be left online as a monument to free speech.
According to Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for free speech to cross into incitement, it must (1) intend to provoke imminent lawless action, (2) be likely to produce such action, and (3) be directed at inciting or producing that action. Legally, Decker didn’t cross the Brandenburg v. Ohio threshold for incitement, since it lacks a clear directive for immediate action. So yes — his speech is protected. That’s the whole point of the First Amendment.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) issued a statement defending his right to publish the article, not the content itself:
GMU’s overreaction has sent a dangerous message: write something controversial, and the feds might show up at your door. That’s chilling and, frankly, un-American. When administrators start acting like King George III, they’ve lost their way. Ironically, GMU’s behavior resembles that of UK speech police, where citizens are arrested for criticizing public officials online.
Thankfully, in America, the First Amendment answers the question of whether robust political debate is “criminal behavior.” Students expressing themselves on public issues is very much “the Mason way.” FIRE calls on GMU to ensure this mistake does not become an accepted practice.
The day after the pseudo-patriotic death threats, GMU put out a statement saying that they had referred the matter to law enforcement:
The Secret Service then paid Decker a visit — not with charges or threats, but with polite questions to confirm whether his essay was performative or literal. According to Decker’s own account, they asked if he had any weapons, confirmed he wasn’t an imminent threat, and left.
Even Decker admits he's not stable.
In previous tweets, he described himself as suffering from crippling depression…
crippling anxiety…
crippling autism…
At one point, he wrote:
“I can’t figure out if I’m autistic or just a psychopath.”
“I legitimately might be a sociopath.”
When I asked him about these claims, he downplayed them as outdated musings.
‘‘Anxiety and depression were transient phenomenon I have not felt for some time … I don’t agree with my self-description of myself as a sociopath. Consider it a musing.’’
In another essay from 6 months ago, he outlined a plan to buy children (with his polyamorous partner) via surrogacy and raise them to explore transgender identities.
“I wish to have kids, but I do not want them to be mine. Instead, I will find someone better than me in relevant ways and have them provide the genetic material… We will select embryos to maximize the quality of life for my child to come.”
That wasn’t a fluke. Decker is fixated on the age of consent, transing children, pedophilia, child porn, and so-called “pedophile rights.” His timeline is littered with dozens of tweets defending these indefensible positions:
I sent these tweets to Decker, who acknowledged that a few were taken out of context but stated, "The rest are accurate, and I stand by them." Given his focus on child consent, I asked him, "Can children consent to getting tattoos?" He replied, "Yes." When I pressed further, asking, "At what age can a child consent to a full arm sleeve?" he responded, "Whenever. It’s not a big deal."
Decker’s fixation on transgender children is relevant as it reveals a hidden motive behind his call for Trump's assassination. My investigation uncovered his CV, where one bullet point states: “April 2025, I raised $101,000 for a longitudinal study on trans youth, which had its funding cut by Trump.”
In April, Trump canceled Decker’s $101,000 grant for a transgender youth study. That same month, Decker called for violence against the Trump administration. The timing is damning. Decker’s rage stems from losing funding for his ideological cause, not a fight for liberty.
Elite Human Capital-Approved Extremism
After standing down the Secret Service, Decker took a victory lap and celebrated his "win" on Richard Hanania’s podcast. Hanania called Decker “the bravest man on the internet,” praised his intellect, and admitted to encouraging him to write provocatively. Decker said he wanted "my fellow liberals to understand" that, in his view, force may become necessary if certain political conditions persist. Again, this proves that his revolution isn’t against tyranny — it’s against the perceived failure of liberalism to move fast enough.
Decker delusionally told Hanania he believes his death threats will actually boost his chances of landing a tenured economics professorship. That may or may not be true. In the current regime, unhinged radicalism is not always punished — if it flatters the right ideology.
This is the same Richard Hanania who wrote an entire essay smearing me publicly as “low human capital” for denouncing a foreign military campaign and encouraging dissidents to speak freely. He accused me of “conspiracism” for defending speech and dissent. Meanwhile, he gave airtime and praise to a man who publicly supports targeted and indiscriminate violence in the name of transing children.
Hanania wrote: “Even if you don’t care about the issue, you should want the elite faction to win.” That’s the game. If you align with power — even if you’re mentally unstable, calling for bloodshed, and attempting to castrate children — you’re protected. But if you criticize that same regime, you’re branded insane, blacklisted, and buried.
In the end, Decker isn’t dangerous because he hates Trump. He’s dangerous because he’s trying to wrap his fetish in the robes of patriotic revolution — and call it virtue. And those who enable him — like Hanania — are not neutral observers. They are partisan actors dressing tribal loyalty up as free speech valor.
The real threat to free speech isn’t anonymous trolls or unhinged students: it’s the elitist Zionist gatekeepers like Hanania who decide which speech gets punished and which gets praised. When violent ideologues are given platforms and critics are labeled liabilities, it becomes clear: extremism is tolerated, even rewarded, as long as it serves ‘‘elite human capital’’ and their goals.
Evicted by Reality
After the Secret Service visited him, Nick Decker tweeted out his home address, directing his enemies to his basement and daring anyone online to come kill him.
Though those tweets were deleted, he repeated them on Substack:
His landlord immediately evicted him for "endangering the peace and quiet enjoyment of the property." He attributed his eviction to "internet lunatics," implying that everyone else was the problem.
His followers then called for the landlord to be murdered:
This eviction is particularly ironic because, as a libertarian obsessed with property rights, he has argued that tenants shouldn’t be granted lawyers during evictions because it ‘‘drags out the process.’’
Following this saga, Decker started a GoFundMe page for himself where he raised $4,192, which he told everyone he would use for rent…
… but then donated it all to effective altruism.
Because nothing says “moral clarity” like fantasizing about revolution, getting evicted for inciting violence, and donating your rent money to a tech-funded cult.
This isn’t the story of a brave dissident. It’s the story of a disturbed ideologue who dressed up his personal vendetta as political virtue and the gatekeeper that rewarded him for it.
If you scream for blood on behalf of the regime, you get a podcast, a GoFundMe, and applause. If you criticize it, you get smeared, deplatformed, or disappeared.
That’s not liberty. That’s not bravery. That’s not America.
And no amount of blood, iron, or grant money will make it so.
Decker is obviously mentally ill, seriously so.
Richard Hanania tying himself into a sack with Douglas Murray and several large heavy stones whilst perched precariously above a great moral river is an exciting set up. I wonder how it will turn out??????