On March 14th, 2002 Pim Fortuyn, a critic of how multiculturalism was being rammed down the throat of Europeans at the hands of our feudal masters, was thrown a urine-laced pie to the face by a radical leftist. On May 6th of the same year, less than 2 months after the pie incident, another radical leftist gunned down Fortuyn using a FireStar M43 loaded with 9 mm cartridges. That is how easy and short the path is between a pie and a bullet.
In recent months, as the European elections become imminent, there has been a trend among radical leftists in which they assault candidates with whose views they disagree and pour milkshakes on them. Now, this is nothing new for the internationalist left (now defined more accurately as a neo-marxist technocratic globalism). What is new is that very mainstream commentators and multinational corporations are enthusiastically supporting the political violence. Burger King, for example, not precisely a beacon of the revolution of the proletariat, famously posted on Twitter that they would happily sell milkshakes in an area soon to be visited by candidates who are critical of the European Union expansionist project --an evident reference to the new trend of assaulting such candidates with the chilled drinkable treat. All over social media, a place where systematically leftists are encouraged to threaten and abuse conservatives who, in turn, are censored, the fanatics of totalitarianism are chirping of joy at the thought of transitioning from milkshakes to bricks and who knows what next.
This is precisely what happened to Pim Fortuyn. Because he was critical of mainstream views and policies, something which should be celebrated in a pluralist, democratic society, somehow the assault on him was not taken seriously and was even seen as "justice". When a society signals strongly that it is permissive of violence, it is only a matter of time for sociopaths to feel emboldened and convert their disagreement with different political ideas into radical action. They are called radicals for a reason, mind you.
Think about the city of New York during the Giuliani years, for example. I am sure you have heard of the broken windows policy. If not, here it goes: there was an empirical study in which two luxury cars were left for the night in a shady part of the city. One of the cars was normal while the other was vandalized. The results was that the vandalized car was more likely to suffer further vandalism, leading to a conclusion that grandmothers have known for centuries: when everybody does something even the saddest fool will feel like he can do it too. New York then implemented, at the core, the commonsense policy that the city had to look in order, clean, well kept, and orderly so people wouldn't feel like "everybody is doing it so why not me?" The results were very positive.
Now, it is easy to see how such a thing works out at every level of society. If an overweight beta virgin with a videogame-themed t-shirt can walk into a politician and pour his drink on him because the meany bad bad man has different opinions than the aforementioned neckbeard, someone with more cojones and even less brains will quickly wonder why he cannot put a bullet in his head. The dehumanization of the adversary is the quickest path towards the acceptability of its extermination.