DwazouppThe Nation, the oldest progressive newspaper in the United States: "Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning"
DominusOfMegadeusThere is no requirement to take part in this whitewashing campaign, and refusing to join in doesn’t make anyone a bad person. It’s a choice to write an obituary that begins “Joseph Goebbels was a gifted marketer and loving father to six children.”
I also enjoyed this perspective, a bit long form as its a substance post, but well written. Authored by Fear and Loathing: Closer to the Edge.
A couple of months ago, Laura Loomer was shrieking into her phone that Charlie Kirk had stabbed Donald Trump in the back. MAGA’s attack dog had him marked as a traitor, an apostate, another soft-boy conservative who wasn’t vicious enough for the blood cult. Then Kirk gets shot, and suddenly Laura is draped in black, clutching pearls, wailing like a widow at a mob funeral. That’s how fast the MAGA spin cycle runs: enemies are canonized, heretics become martyrs, and yesterday’s punching bag is today’s sacred cow. Loyalty isn’t about consistency. It’s about whatever Trump’s mood demands.
PETE HEGSETH, HALL MONITOR OF THE REPUBLIC
Now comes Pete Hegseth, a man who wears the title Secretary of Defense but operates more like the comment-section sheriff. Instead of worrying about actual defense — China, Russia, Iran, cyberwarfare — Pete’s priority is disciplining soldiers for making snide jokes about Charlie Kirk.
Yes, the Pentagon is now a glorified Facebook moderation team. Hegseth isn’t projecting strength; he’s enforcing pity. Soldiers aren’t preparing for war — they’re purging their timelines, terrified Laura Loomer will screech their names into his ear. This isn’t civilian control of the military. It’s civilian coercion, where MAGA influencers call the shots and the brass salutes like nervous interns.
THE BLACKLIST WITH A SEARCH BAR
Enter the grotesque centerpiece: CharliesMurderers(dot)com. A site so dystopian it makes J. Edgar Hoover look subtle. A searchable database of Americans whose “crime” is failing to sufficiently mourn Kirk.
They claim it’s not doxxing, it’s “education.” Bullshit. This is McCarthyism with HTML. It’s a digital scarlet letter, a witch hunt in the cloud. Post the wrong meme, roll your eyes at the wrong martyr, and congratulations: you’re on the list. Employers can search you, neighbors can shame you, trolls can harass you. Your livelihood isn’t safe because Laura Loomer needs another dopamine hit.
CANCEL CULTURE WITH A MAGA LOGO
Remember when these people howled about “cancel culture”? When they cried that a comedian losing a Netflix special was tyranny? Now they’ve built the most efficient cancellation machine in modern America. Only this time it’s not corporations doing it — it’s the government, the Pentagon, and a mob of red-hat lunatics demanding loyalty tests. You don’t just lose a sponsor. You lose your job, your security clearance, maybe your entire career. And it’s not because you committed violence. It’s because you laughed at violence. Thoughtcrime, MAGA edition.
GRIEF AS A WEAPON
This isn’t mourning. It’s weaponized grief. Kirk spent his career spitting on empathy, mocking victims of shootings, and treating compassion like weakness. Now the same movement that rejected empathy is demanding you show it on their terms — mandatory, performative, unquestioning. Don’t mourn? You’re purged. Don’t post a sad-face emoji? You’re dangerous. Cruelty has always been the point, and now grief is just another tool of cruelty. Charlie Kirk didn’t believe in empathy, and his allies are proving they don’t either. What they believe in is obedience.
THE BLUNT EDGE OF FASCISM
Let’s stop pretending this is theater. It’s not play-acting, it’s raw authoritarianism. Trump is the wannabe strongman. Loomer is the megaphone of madness. Hegseth is the hall monitor with a badge he didn’t earn. Together they’ve taken the death of a professional troll and spun it into a loyalty purge. They’ve turned the Pentagon into an instrument of political grievance and a martyr into a weapon. And they want the rest of us to treat this clown show like sacred history.
The only thing sacred here is the grift. The only thing holy is the purge. And the only thing growing is the list of Americans marked as enemies because they refused to cry on command. This isn’t about honor. This isn’t about respect. This is about power — stupid, brutal, authoritarian power clawing for control under the guise of grief.
Yep, fuck these nazis, I don’t really need any more reasons to hate them, but they keep coming up with them
IninewCrowAt this point it’s not just the Nazi leadership … it’s the citizenry that just sits on the sidelines waiting for it all to go away.
The country needs to stand up and shut things down. Not violently or to cause a civil war … strike, stop work, refuse and picket everything and everywhere until things change our ate brought under control.
I think the thing that terrifies them about communism the most is that the people wouldn’t be so beholden to neo slavery via technocracy. It would be communities helping one another, mutual aid. Instead the greediest motherfuckers have sucked so much down that the people are getting wise to it, so they have to grasp at the straws they can. Don’t get me wrong, it’s working very well for them, but I’m seeing the house of cards getting higher every day.
I think you’re right, but they’re wrong. Trying to establish a communistic regime was never any obstacle for the elite when it came to turning it into a slavery - it can be uses as a tool and guise to do exactly that, as we’ve seen many times before.
You’re not wrong, the soviet Union has become the scapegoat of how communism doesn’t work, but I think that they missed the part that it was the authoritarian regime that gave it the bad name
Yes, authoritarian regimes are the problem, and there’s no system that’s really immune from potentially becoming one. It’s terrifying.
VieuxQuebYou are a Master of words and logic !
All too grim but true.
that nazi trash got what he deserved
even more to the point, he got what he wanted.
So I guess he wasn’t proven wrong, good for him, right all the way to the grave
Of course he was proven wrong. He shouldn’t’ve been afraid of the left, when the far right are the extremist terrorists responsible for almost all domestic terror the over 20 years.
He was shouting about you should kill a peaceful gay hippie because they’re so dangerous, when a nazi killed him.
That’s called being very fucking wrong
Exceptionally so. It may even qualify as some of the most divine irony I’ve probably witnessed
otterYou were there? 😱
WraithGearwe all were. i got the feed of his uncensored murder basically live, and from all media all at once.
Wanted it for others, got it for himself. Poetry.
Promoting hate just to get rich.
Conservatives are ugly on the inside & the outside.
Conservatives are ugly on the inside & the outside.
it’s not to just get rich. They hate you, and want you to die. Things like that make them happy. Your suffering, pain, and those of your family. You’re either them, or you deserve to die for not being them. That’s how nazis work. The religion doesn’t matter, but we’ve all seen how catholic nazis work in nazi Italy, and how christian nazis work in nazi Germany. All nazis fully supported by their hate churches, of course.
Except that one guy, who was fine with the hate against communists, labor unions, romani, jews, and disabled people. Until they came for him, and then he was really upset that nobody stood up for him. He was a church person too, but eventually became the wrong type of church person. Many such cases.
Just one of thousands of hate preachers indoctrinating the local population (and children) with the exact same extremist religious propaganda. Only religious extremists do this, and there are only religious extremists of religions that exist. Stop supporting religions. ALL of them.
Not really sure what you are trying to say, but it sounds like you are way too focused on religion being a source for extremism in the world. Yeah there are religious extremists, but every movement has them, or at least has potential for extremists who indoctrinate kids or even advocate for violence against the detractors or enemies of the movement. Always has been and always will be.
I think the reason it looks like religion motivates violent extremism is because the demography of the people most vulnerable to extremist propaganda are also more likely (statistically) to be more religious.
What about the demography makes them more vulnerable? I assume you are referring to a study of some kind.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/…/03071840308446849
There are numerous analyses which show the same link between economic vulnerability, high birth rate, and extremism. Which is why the right wing are always chopping away at support programs, economic development, and birth control.
I was only allowed to read the first page, but it was really focused on poor Islamic countries. But hold on, are you suggesting that the right wing policies are intentional, with the goal of making extremists? Seems really simplistic and narrow in scope.
Oftentimes the simplest answer is the right one
“Too focused” on the original Us vs. Them indoctrination machine? Are you high, naive, or just that stupid? (“All of the above” is also an option, of course.)
Well op said all of the extremists were religious. Since that isn’t true and there are many examples to the contrary throughout history, I think it’s safe to say that he was too focused on religion.
wheezyThe people going “fuck yeah I love that he died from gun violence” are showing their hands. Just liberals with no real moral compass. The same ones that cheer for genocide Joe. Those are apparently the “extreme leftist” right now.
Meanwhile, the real leftist are just responding to people saying how “great” he was by asking one simple question.
Oh? What views of his did you like?
Because for every “free speech” answer there are 20 quotes from him to the contrary.
I feel like liberals get to excited when something like this happens and just turn into blue maga.
It’s really simple. All you have to do is ask simple non-aggressive questions. You don’t need to do anything more than that. Your coworker or normie friend is just repeating what they heard from the media. You can dismantle that calmly without saying he “got what he deserved!”.
The people going “fuck yeah I love that he died from gun violence” are showing their hands.
I mean, there’s also the hilarious irony of someone who argued there shouldn’t be any gun regulations because of school shootings and the cost that is “some deaths” being killed by a school shooting while under a giant banner saying “prove me wrong” while in the middle of blaming minorities for most killings.
It’d be like a huge homophobe dying because he choked on a huge dildo.
There’s inherent schnaudenfreude in someone hateful dying in such incredibly ironic way, and certainly different than a person cheering on the death of someone else who didn’t harm others, didn’t advocate the harm of others, and simply existed, as the right wing usually does.
Damn, troll. Daddy really upped your word quota for the day, eh?
Yeah. Trying to explain to people how to counter the narrative the right wingers are actively using to manufacture concent for state violence against anyone to the left of Reagan.
It shows me that the liberal idiots saying “I’m glad he’s dead. Woohoo! Let’s go!” Aren’t actually in the crosshairs of this fascist administration. The people actually out in the street with risk of getting arrested aren’t putting targets on our backs anymore than they already are.
Like, what is the troll? Saying that it’s better to literally just point to Kirk’s literal racist garbage instead of feeling “powerful” because he’s dead?
Damn, the libs really didnt like getting a correct analysis lmao blue maga is dead on. A lot of yall just want your team to get away with the same stuff republicans do with no structural analysis of the reason things are so shit for everyone.
I wonder, was it blue maga that triggered them or genocide joe? They are still salty they threw away their last chance to win an election over a genocide.
It’s really gotta be those parts of my comment I guess. It’s less about what I said and more about HOW I said it. But I can’t be shocked liberals are all in the aesthetics anyway.
AlmaccaI do not believe anyone should be murdered because of their views, but that is because I don’t believe people should be murdered generally, regardless of who they are or what they’ve done. I am against the death penalty, pro–gun control, and believe war is a failure of humanity, not a necessary byproduct of it. Kirk was fine with murder as long the right people were dying.
Well said.
specifically, pleasure from his death, or pleasure that he is no longer alive?
the angry right wingers on the internet seem unable to understand the difference between the two
More that I won’t have to hear any of his nonsense any more. Even the people eulogising him don’t seem to be actually quoting him because they can’t find anything he ever said that wasn’t stupid.
see that’s perfectly valid. how he died is irrelevant to that feeling.
Charlie Kirk is dead. Oh well.
Not as strong as it should be. Some speech should be exterminated. Divisive lies for hatred and anticonstitutional genocide makes democracy dysfunctional. Trump having been jailed during last Presidency was both deserved and more democratic. Reaction to the shooting that is criticism of Kirk has an extermination movement ranging from cancel/firings to calls for civil war and genocide of everyone threatened by Kirk. There will be no political retributions for Americans cheering Putin’s death, and establishment would get ultra aggressive if in Hitler’s death someone pointed out his love of dogs. Discussion of a person’s political views should never be exterminated.
2 specific areas of speech that need extermination:
Replacement theory. If you have/are allowed to have children, then you will challenge the “ultimate deserved ethnic supremacist” power to control democracy. Structural or individual violent repression of undesirables is validated. GOP establishment must go along with this, as voter suppression has always been a requirement of their corruption.
Christofascist justification of ZIonazi first rule over America. Zionazi supremacist speech is establishment speech. DNC (Zionazi) “donor pressure” is against criticizing Christofascism because it is subservient ally to Zionism. Kirk was always granted establishment cred because Israel supremacy was the actual centeral purpose of his platform. Just as Chuck Schumer views his job as to “gaslight the left into being pro Israel” Kirk was gaslighting the right into doing the same. Nick Fuentes, whose speech is said to have inspired the murder, gaslights the right into thinking “Trump is not the most Zionazi supporting US demon in history”. Christofascism’s demonization of Islam, and “godless abomination freedom”, in addition to bribing pastors to emphasize bible passages/revelations, both support genocide, and demonize those most likely to dislike genocide.
Opposing Zionist supremacist rule over America is the actual speech that establishment exterminates from America. It is fundamentally treasonous and inhuman to protect and normalize genocide, and supremacy of another nation. Another 9/11 would only strenghten our loyalty/committment to Israel’s blame for the next 9/11. They will once again “only hate us for our freedom”.
When establishment speech is the one that should be exterminated, it obviously complicates exterminating anti-constitutional and demonic evil speech.
Some speech should be exterminated. Divisive lies for hatred and anticonstitutional genocide makes democracy dysfunctional.
Ok, but who defines what these divisive lies are? Allowing for any sort of speech to be systematically exterminated is allowing every sort of speech to be systematically exterminated.
Divisive lies for hatred and anticonstitutional genocide
who defines what these divisive lies are?
its one of those “I don’t know where the line is but I know it when I see it” things, but with some easy math. Given our rights should stop only when it can risk someone else’s life or liberty, does the speech in question go past that?
How do we adjust our thinking for hundreds of million people; for resources and concerns that go beyond personal obligations under the social contract; for protecting things we need 3 generations from now?
It falls apart without handoff to some kind of ethical framework and a team of elders to review cases against it and evolve that framework – and look how easy it was to subvert America’s legal elders in just a decade.
But will even that decide whether there’s a difference between a zygote and a tumour? Will it prioritize the person or what may one day become one? Will it take responsibility for dying in a controlled fashion when there is no future due to terminal illness, a non-viable body or an unredeemable crime?
This is crazy. It’s like when people say “let’s eliminate a whole swath of the population because they are impure” and “please don’t murder us” are phrases that carry equal weight.
It can’t be establishment that decides. Current establishment requires disinformation to be protected speech. We have always had to say Eurasia is evil.
There needs to be a layer independent of establishment, and/or a much stronger constitution that protects truth/values from supremacist lies and direct abuses of constitution.
“It is rude of me to say all of this, because we live in a culture where manners are often valued more than truth.” This is a really good quote actually
Except that it’s not entirely accurate. The right in particular only believes in manners on the left. They are perfectly comfortable saying truly vile shit, then feigning moral outrage if they get a tenth of the same energy back. The Alt-Right Playbook sums it up neatly: “You Go High, We Go Low.”
Except that this generally applies to life and not just politics. Another thing is that a lot of times it is the left that imposes this on their own and not even the right.
Every civilized country on earth has figured out that there needs to be acceptable limits to free speech and that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of saying something.
freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of saying something.
Exactly.
I’ve seen it summed it up thusly: “If your speech incites violence, don’t be surprised when people use violence in response.”
So I guess fights at professional sports games are justified violence, since someone probably incited it by insulting an opposing player.
You’re confusing incitement and provocation.
Incitement involves actively encouraging action.
“you’re bad at hockey and your mother is large” might be provocation
“It is time for us to take up arms against the enemy” is incitement
I think a lot of people are confused about what constitutes incitement.
Yeah would be clearer to say “advocating for violence”.
This is unironically true for hockey lol
freedom from the consequences of saying something.
Freedom of speech in the US protects you from consequences from the government, not anyone or anything else. You can still get fired, or at, for your free speech.
No because that would be murder.
Murder isn’t a violation of the US definition of free speech, unless the government does the murdering.
Still a crime, but not a constitutional free speech violation.