Friday, September 12, 2025

MAGAts



The nature of Kirk’s death does not change the fact that this was an incredibly dangerous and destructive person. I know people like Ezra Klein or the moderates at The New York Times or in our media or particular members of the Democratic Party feel a need to revise who he was and what he did in order to make themselves feel better. Because Kirk was murdered, it is difficult for some to be honest about how he spent his life. Kirk radicalized young people, which is grotesque. He whitewashed slavery, spread racial hatred, vilified vulnerable people, attacked the rights and protections of people of color, women, and the LGBTQ community. To use your platform or voice to normalize or aggrandize any of that is despicable.

Whitewashing Charlie Kirk Promotes Political Violence

 

Whitewashing Charlie Kirk Promotes Political Violence

The murder of Kirk was evil. Lying about him is also wrong.

Noah Berlatsky

Sep 12

 

 

 

 

 

insurrectionists fighting police during the January 6 attack.

 

Following Charlie Kirk’s assassination, most Democratic politicians and journalists have denounced political violence in general and the attack on Kirk in particular. That is as it should be; Kirk’s murder was horrific. We don’t know anything about the shooter or their motivations, but we do know that whatever the motivations, murder is wrong and evil. As Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley said, “He was someone’s son. He was someone’s husband. He was a father to two young children.”

A screenshot of a social media post

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Wed, 10 Sep 2025 21:33:08 GMT

Some people, however, have gone beyond the denunciation of the violent attack on Kirk, and have argued that Kirk’s cause, and his political life, were virtuous. Most notably, Ezra Klein at the New York Times published an op-ed declaring that “Charlie Kirk was Practicing Politics the Right Way.” Klein in the piece argues that Kirk forswore political violence and extremism and championed rational nonviolent debate on college campuses.

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.

The main problem with this is that it is a lie. Kirk was not especially interested in persuasion. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the January 6 insurrection; his organization, Turning Points USA, bussed people to the coup—including one man who stormed the capital and beat police with a fire extinguisher. Kirk continued to defend the insurrection and TPUSA’s role in it for years. 

Kirk’s assault on democracy did not start on January 6. TPUSA has been touted (by Klein and others) as some sort of righteous free speech advocacy group promoting debate on campus. But that (again) is a lie. In fact, TPUSA’s main purpose is summed up by its “Professor Watchlist” a website which lists teachers and professors who TPUSA believes “discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”

In short, the Watchlist is intended as, and functions as, a mechanism to stifle academic freedom by targeting those on the left—especially women and BIPOC professors—for stochastic terrorism and harassment. Professors on the list say that they regularly receive hate mail and death threats—and that the threats accelerated after January 6, the insurrection that TPUSA supported. The link to the recent firing of a children’s literature professor reported by a conservative student for talking about “gender” is quite clear. TPUSA was a leader of a conservative moral panic designed to terrorize liberal professors and drive them from the academy—a moral panic which has metastasized into Trump’s unprecedented, openly ideological campaign to defund universities.

Kirk has also just openly called for political violence himself; he praised as Biblical and “perfect” the idea of stoning LGBT people to death, and argued that gun deaths were “worth it” to preserve Second Amendment rights. Klein says it’s not fair to argue that Kirk deserved to die by gun violence because he was opposed to gun control, and that is true. What Klein refuses to grapple with, however, is that, Kirk claimed that the Second Amendment needed to be preserved through violent death. That’s an argument which explicitly says that we should see children killed in school shootings as an inevitable necessary sacrifice to politics. It’s a justification of political violence. 

Kirk was not a proponent of democracy or of free speech. Nor was he an opponent of political violence. To say he was is (one more time) a lie. It’s also an insult to Kirk’s victims—including professors, those who died on January 6, and LGBT people who he threatened with violent death, just for starters.

Worse, though, by cosigning Kirk’s political approach, Klein cosigns Kirk’s contempt for democracy and his embrace of political violence. Klein thinks that by reaching across the aisle and praising Kirk’s free speech while ignoring the content of the speech, he is doing good work to ratchet down political animosity and political violence. But he is not. Instead, what he is doing is giving the far-right cover to terrorize, harass, target, and even (in the case of January 6) murder opponents. Klein is saying that political violence against the right is wrong, but that political violence perpetrated by the right is “practicing politics the right way.”

Is Klein unaware of Kirk’s actual views? Does he not know of Kirk’s involvement in January 6? Is he deliberately obscuring Kirk’s violent rhetoric and actions because he thinks it’s politically expedient, or because he thinks it will advance his own career?

I have no idea. But I do know this: praising Charlie Kirk’s politics, erasing his efforts to destroy democracy, will not help democracy and is not a way to reduce political violence. You cannot solve our current fascist nightmare with lies, and certainly not by pretending that the fascists aren’t fascist, or that they forswear violence.

Yes, we should oppose political violence. That means opposing the kind of vicious assassination that targeted Charlie Kirk. It also means opposing the harassment, the insurrection, and the assaults on marginalized people which Kirk promoted throughout his life. Violence against Charlie Kirk is wrong. But Klein and those like him seem to have embraced the idea that the only violence that matters is violence against Charlie Kirk and those like him. If we memory hole and ignore the violence that Kirk spent his life promoting, we end up with fascism. And fascism is not, to put it mildly, a route to peace or democracy.

Did Trump Just Declare War on the American Left?

 

Cartoon of a cartoon of a person with many objects

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

 

Did Trump Just Declare War on the American Left?

After Charlie Kirk’s tragic killing, the President speaks not of ending political violence but of seeking political vengeance.

 

By Susan B. Glasser

September 11, 2025

 

In the hours immediately after the conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed in front of a large crowd of students at a Utah university on Wednesday, there was no word on who had actually done it and no explanation for why it had happened. But, in Washington, those who profess certainty no longer need much in the way of facts: partisans come equipped with preëxisting truths, and events are slotted into narratives that existed long before the events occurred. Even before Kirk’s death had been confirmed, Nancy Mace, a Republican congresswoman from South Carolina, spoke to reporters outside the Capitol. “Democrats own what happened today,” she told them. When Ryan Nobles, the chief Capitol Hill correspondent for NBC News, asked her if, by that logic, Republicans would own the shooting this summer of two Minnesota Democratic lawmakers, she replied, “Are you kidding me? . . . Some raging leftist lunatic put a bullet through his neck and you want to talk about Republicans right now? No. . . . Democrats own this a hundred per cent.”

In a different time, it might have been easier to dismiss Mace as just playing to the cameras, and to take heart instead from the many statements rejecting political violence and expressing shock, horror, and solidarity that were already rolling in from Democrats and Republicans alike. Vice-President J.D. Vance offered a heartfelt eulogy on X, calling the thirty-one-year-old political provocateur, who had been his close friend, an exemplar of “a foundational virtue of our Republic: the willingness to speak openly and debate ideas.” But the visceral rage channelled by Mace was not an outlier. On the House floor, when Speaker Mike Johnson called for a moment of silent prayer for Kirk, members from both parties rose from their seats and the brief hush suggested that at least some of the old habits of ritual bipartisanship in a crisis might still be intact. Then a shouting match erupted, with Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican, loudly demanding more than a silent prayer and various Democrats objecting that there had been no prayer offered for students in a mass shooting that same day in Colorado. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, shouted back at the Democrats, “You all caused this.”

A few hours later, Donald Trump reacted to Kirk’s death, in a four-minute Oval Office video that he posted on his social-media feed. There would be no Joe Biden-esque lectures about “the need for us to lower the temperature in our politics,” or about how, while “we may disagree, we are not enemies.” (Which was what Biden actually said when Trump was grazed by a would-be assassin’s bullet in the summer of 2024.) Instead, Trump explicitly laid blame for what he called a “heinous assassination” on his and Kirk’s political opponents. He neither cited any evidence nor seemed to think that any was necessary. He made no mention of any of the political attacks in recent years that have claimed Democratic victims, including, earlier this summer, the shooting of two Minnesota state legislators, one of whom died.

“For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we are seeing in the country today, and it must stop right now,” Trump said, before offering a list of other victims of “radical-left political violence,” including himself. He promised swift action to take down the perpetrators of such violence as well as “organizations” that fund and promote it. Trump’s remarkable threat somehow did not get much attention. It should have. Not only was the President not even trying to unite the country but he seemed to be blaming the large chunk of the nation that reviles his racially divisive policies and those promoted by Kirk as surely as if they had pulled the trigger.

Some of Trump’s most influential allies and advisers were clarifying what this could mean by explicitly calling for a crackdown on the American left—hardly consistent with the spirit of free expression that Kirk used as his rallying cry for recruiting a new generation of young conservatives. “It’s time for the Trump administration to shut down, defund, & prosecute every single Leftist organization,” Laura Loomer, a far-right conspiracy theorist who has successfully pushed Trump to fire a number of senior national-security officials, wrote on X. “We must shut these lunatic leftists down. Once and for all. The Left is a national security threat.” Christopher Rufo, another influential Trumpist, who led the move against diversity initiatives that eventually became a core tenet of the second Trump Administration, invoked the political convulsions of the nineteen-sixties. “The last time the radical Left orchestrated a wave of violence and terror, J. Edgar Hoover shut it all down within a few years,” he wrote. “It is time, within the confines of the law, to infiltrate, disrupt, arrest, and incarcerate all of those who are responsible for this chaos.”

And in case there was any mistaking the official view of such pronouncements, Trump’s deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Thursday joined in from the West Wing, promising in a lengthy post on X to wage war on the “wicked ideology” that had killed Kirk and the proponents of it who, he claimed, were online cheering Kirk’s death. “The fate of our children, our society, our civilization hinges on it,” Miller added. Dialing it down, they were not.

It was purely a sad coincidence that Kirk’s killing happened to fall just a day before September 11th, when Trump would be marking the twenty-fourth anniversary of the attacks on the United States. The destruction of the Twin Towers in New York by Osama bin Laden and his band of Islamic extremists brought forth the George W. Bush Administration’s “global war on terror”—another war against an ism that first motivated Miller and many other young conservatives to become politically active in the early two-thousands. Back in his student days, Miller launched a project to warn against the threat of “Islamofascism,” and portrayed the United States as having been forced into a worldwide conflict with radical Islamic jihadist ideology.

How striking it is, then, to read Miller’s manifesto about what he considers to be today’s chief threat, which, like much of Trump and his MAGA movement’s current rhetoric, is focussed not against external adversaries such as Russia and China but on the scary prospect of a violent enemy within, “an ideology that has been steadily growing in this country which hates everything that is good, righteous and beautiful and celebrates everything that is warped, twisted and depraved,” as Miller called it.

Although it’s fair to point out that much of what Miller wrote about today’s leftists in response to Kirk’s death is similar to what he might have said about Islamic terrorists a couple of decades ago, it’s not Miller’s lack of creativity that stands out, so much as the speed and explicitness with which he—and Trump—chose to exploit the shooting of one of their most important allies in service of a sweeping attack on the American political left.

While others were praying for a sane conversation around how to end the rapidly escalating problem of violence across the political spectrum, the President and his close adviser defined the crisis differently: it was about the American right under siege—and what Trump was going to do about it. The point here was clear for those who chose to listen: the President doesn’t care one bit about all those sanctimonious calls for healing. It is not a dialogue about the crisis of political violence in America that he wants right now but an aggressive new policy of political vengeance. ♦

Thursday, September 11, 2025

What Happened Yesterday Was NOT About "Freedom."

 

What Happened Yesterday Was NOT About "Freedom."

Tragedy no longer binds us. It tears us further apart.

JoJoFromJerz

Sep 11, 2025

 

Every morning, when I drop my children off at school, I do something I wish no parent had to do. I memorize what they are wearing. The shade of a shirt, the scrape on a sneaker, the way a backpack strap slips off a small shoulder. I press it into memory like a photograph I pray will never be needed. And I don’t do this out of sentiment. I do it because too many parents have said the only way they recognized their children after a shooting was by the clothes they had on.

That truth sits inside me like glass. It slices into every goodbye. It turns the simple act of watching them walk away into a quiet kind of mourning. And this — this constant fear — is not the ritual of a free country.

I do not want this reality for my children. I do not want it for anyone’s children.

Yesterday was a sorrowful day for America. Not because Charlie Kirk was a saint — he most certainly was not — but because he was a man, and his life was ended violently, abruptly, without mercy. He had a life he was living. He had people who loved him. He was someone’s son. Someone’s husband. Someone’s father. Someone whose absence will leave an empty chair and an unfillable silence at the table. And that matters — even to me, even though I could not stand the words he made a living on or the worldview he championed. I did not admire him. I did not agree with him. But he was alive yesterday, and today he is not. And that truth, in and of itself, is profoundly sad.

His words cut deep. His rhetoric was poison poured into open mouths. It hardened hearts that were still tender, licensed cruelty where compassion should have taken root, dressed prejudice up as patriotism and falsehood as truth. His legacy was damage, and I won’t pretend otherwise. For years I’ve battled his opinions, dismantled his arguments, railed against the harm he caused. He was an adversary I met again and again in the arena of ideas. But this? This is not how I ever wanted him to meet his end. Debate is not death. Disagreement is not execution.

When I first learned he was dead, I cried. Senator Alex Padilla told me in real time as we were recording a podcast. I didn’t cry because I loved Charlie Kirk — I didn’t. I cried because this is not what I want for my country. I cried because this is not what I want for anyone, anywhere. The tears came from grief, not for him, but for us — because this is not who we should be.

I’m not asking anyone to mourn Charlie Kirk. I’m asking us not to lose ourselves. To stop for a moment. To breathe. To hold our children closer. Because every time violence wins, another piece of our shared humanity dies with it.

We don’t yet know the shooter’s motive. Maybe it was political. Maybe it was personal. Maybe it was chaos for its own sake. But in some ways, the motive is beside the point, because the ending is always the same. Always a gun. Always a trigger. Always a life gone in a flash. That is the rhythm of America now — the unbroken drumbeat of violence, so steady we have taught ourselves not to flinch.

Even if yesterday had never happened, grief would still be spreading through another home today. Because in this country, grief is the one thing we manufacture endlessly. Yesterday, while the nation argued over Kirk’s death, a gun was fired inside Evergreen High in Colorado. A student pulled out a weapon, shot two classmates, then turned it on himself. One child is fighting to live. Another will carry scars. And because it happened on the same day as an assassination, it is already fading from the news, disappearing into the pile of forgotten tragedies that should never have been ordinary.

That is what terrifies me most: how quickly the extraordinary becomes routine. How numb we are forced to be just to keep breathing.

And today, that grief is sharpened by memory. Today is September 11. Twenty-four years since the sky itself broke open, twenty-four years since towers turned to ash, since sirens and silence filled the air. I had just left New York a few months before. My now ex-husband had just left his job at Windows on the World. That day was meant to bring our country to its knees — and it did. But it also bound us, if only briefly. Strangers held each other in the streets. Flags bloomed on porches. We wept together. For one fragile moment, we remembered what it meant to belong to each other.

How far away that feels now.

Today, tragedy doesn’t bind us. It tears us further apart. Violence doesn’t humble us; it is spun into propaganda before the blood has dried.

When Donald Trump was grazed by a bullet last year in Butler, Pennsylvania, Joe Biden did what leaders are supposed to do. He steadied the nation. He said, “We resolve our differences at the ballot box, not with bullets.” He cooled the temperature. He reminded us of our common humanity. That is leadership. That is democracy, holding on by its fingertips.

Last night, Trump chose the opposite. He offered no pause, no grace, no truth. He lunged straight for blame. He wrapped Charlie Kirk in martyrdom and flung accusations at Democrats before the facts could even breathe. He poured gasoline onto a country already on fire because he cannot survive without flames.

And the chorus followed. Politicians. Influencers. Fox News anchors. A choir of rage repeating the same refrains: Democrats are guilty. Critics share the blame. People like me — people who spent years calling out Kirk’s cruelty — have blood on our hands. And then they said I should be next.

Think about that. They want me guilty of another person’s bullet. And they want me punished with my own.

That is particularly grotesque, because we know who built this tinderbox. We remember.

We remember the chants of “Lock her up!” echoing like ritual.

We remember the smirks and winks that turned violence into an inside joke.

We remember January 6 — the mob in tactical gear, the gallows against a winter sky, fists and flagpoles slamming into police shields.

We remember the blood smeared across marble while a president watched it unfold like reality TV.

We remember the pardons handed out like confetti afterward.

We remember the laughter when Paul Pelosi’s skull was nearly crushed, his suffering played for laughs.

We remember Minnesota — Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, murdered. Senator John Hoffman and his wife, riddled with bullets. And we remember what followed: Senator Mike Lee pointing fingers at “Marxists” while families bled. Trump refusing even to call Governor Tim Walz. Refusing to attend the funerals. Calling it all a waste of his time. In the face of grief, they chose spite.

This did not fall out of the sky. It was cultivated. It was stoked. It was rewarded. And now the fire is devouring us all.

And while they fanned the flames, they locked every window that could have let in air. Universal background checks? Blocked. Red flag laws? Blocked. Safe storage? Blocked. Limits on weapons of war? Blocked. Again and again. Children murdered in schools, families gunned down in churches, shoppers slain in aisles — and they shrugged. They told us this was the “price of freedom.”

Charlie Kirk himself once said some deaths from gun violence were that price — the toll liberty demanded. But tell me: does Evergreen High feel like freedom? Did yesterday feel like freedom? No. It felt like fear. It felt like tyranny. It felt like a country unraveling under the weight of cruelty, a place where ballots have been traded for bullets. And still, even knowing he once excused such deaths, I say it again: Charlie Kirk did not deserve this end. None of us do.

I can hold two truths. I can say Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric was destructive, and I can say his murder is a tragedy. I can despise what he spread and still mourn the violence that took him. What I will not do is let anyone tell me that my words — my refusal to stay silent — are violence, while their incitement is patriotism.

How I wish we had a leader who could turn the temperature down. Someone capable of compassion. Someone who would stand before us and say: political violence has no place here. Ever. Oh how I wish.

Instead, we have a man who thrives on chaos, who breathes rage the way the rest of us breathe air. And behind him, a movement addicted to division because without it they are nothing. No vision. No policies. No solutions. Just grievance. Just fury. Just hunger for power at any cost.

Yesterday was a dark day for America. Not because Charlie Kirk was noble — he wasn’t — but because his violent death revealed, yet again, the sickness eating us alive: a nation where rage is currency, where violence is strategy, where every tomorrow threatens to look like yesterday.

And I am terrified of what comes next.

Because it is not just our safety on the line — it is our decency. I am afraid we are losing our capacity for compassion, our instinct for empathy, our basic humanity. I am afraid we are letting cruelty become our default setting. And if we let that happen, if we allow ourselves to become as callous as the people who celebrate this violence, then the experiment of democracy is already over.

I do not want to memorize my children’s clothes every morning, whispering a silent prayer they come home alive. I do not want their inheritance to be fear. I do not want to live in a country where every goodbye could be forever.

So hear me when I say this:

We will not be ruled by terror.

We will not be quieted by bloodshed.

We will not let democracy be dismantled by cowards who kill from the shadows.

We will not be gaslit into believing we have blood on our hands for daring to call out dangerous rhetoric. And we will not accept threats of retribution — threats that glorify cruelty and demand silence, that thirst for more violence and more war.

We will not hand our children a future where fear is the air they breathe.

We will stand in the open. We will pause. We will breathe. We will hold our children closer. Because our humanity is the one thing they cannot take unless we surrender it to them.

Because democracy is not inherited like an heirloom. It is hammered into existence by exhausted, terrified, furious people who refuse to quit.

And that is who we are.

Not the mobs. Not the executioners. Not the cowards who hide behind guns and call it strength.

We are the ones who stitch the fabric back together, thread by trembling thread. The ones who carry lanterns into rooms that reek of smoke. The ones who cradle each other when the weight of grief would crush us. The ones who insist — against every bullet, every lie, every coward’s threat — that mercy, not violence, will have the last word.

Because if Charlie Kirk’s murder teaches us anything, it is that violence is never an answer — it does not resolve a single argument, it only carves deeper scars into a nation already bleeding. And if September 11 still teaches us anything, twenty-four years later, it is that grief is a crossroads: it can harden us into cruelty, or it can soften us into kinship. I remember how, for one trembling instant, that day bound us together — strangers clutching strangers, a wounded country remembering it still had a heart. The question now is whether we will let bullets keep shredding what is left of that heart, or whether we will summon the strength to hold on to our decency, our empathy, our capacity to feel for one another before it slips away forever.

Because this is not freedom.

This is not justice.

And this is not the America we promised our children — the ones walking into classrooms with backpacks too heavy for their small shoulders, the ones who deserve a future built on safety and decency, not on blood and fear.

And I, for one, will not let violence write their future. Not now. Not ever.

 

NEVER FORGET - NEVER FORGIVE THE ROTTEN SAUDIS WHO FUNDED THESE ATTACKS

 NEVER FORGET - NEVER FORGIVE THE ROTTEN SAUDIS WHO FUNDED THESE ATTACKS

MY OFFICE IN NYC ON 9/11

Be careful not to inadvertently help sainthood Charlie Kirk

 

In the quest for nuance, empathy, and understanding, be careful not to inadvertently help sainthood Charlie Kirk

Father Nathan Monk

Sep 11, 2025

 

Very rarely do I narrow the scope so tightly on whom I am speaking to in my essays, but this is going to be one of those cases. I am writing this quite specifically to those who were not frequent targets of the words of Charlie Kirk. This is for those of you who might have never heard of him before today. Even if you align yourself with words like “progressive” or “left-leaning,” he might be a new figure in your world, though he wasn’t for a lot of people. Perhaps you are new to this fight for social justice, and you can’t wrap your head around why someone, anyone, would have a reaction any less than immediately saying, “There is no place in a civil society for this…”

If you can not understand why someone would have a visceral reaction to the loss of someone so vile, then you are one of the lucky ones.

Perhaps you weren’t someone who lost family members to his rhetoric. But so many others were. I have seen his vile words slither into the minds of people I was once close to. Even now, I am seeing folks that I had no idea held his views as valuable mourning him and quoting him. So many of us are having to realize that people we thought were safe are not. This is being piled on after nearly a decade of already losing so many people to his malignant despotism.

So, you might be sitting here watching folks shrug off the death of another and saying, “How can you lack empathy? How can you lack understanding?” And I am asking you the very same question. How can you lack empathy and understanding for those whom he harmed?

I recently wrote about an experience I had when my cousin died, and my instant guttural reaction was to laugh, “Just a few years after leaving the priesthood, on a not-so-eventful day, I received a call from my mother letting me know that my cousin had died. Moreover, he had been murdered. A sense of relief flushed over my body, knowing that I would never have to see his face again. That he could no longer lurk in dark corners or harm anyone else. At the news, I laughed instead of cried. I had been released from my own personal Hell, whose flames nipped at my heels anytime the specter of possibly seeing him would rise. Immediately upon his death, he was sainted in the media. I have visited his grave once, only to ensure that it existed. I said no words, I did not piss upon it (as I often joked I would), and I prayed no prayers. His being dead was enough.”

The context of these words was that I didn’t need there to be a Hell for him to suffer in for all eternity, but I was also not obligated to mourn an evil man meeting a demise of his own creation. My cousin lived a violent life, causing immense harm and destruction anywhere that he went. As a result, he met a violent end.

Some of the reactions I have seen toward those who can not muster alligator tears in this moment would be like Dorthy turning around to the Munchkins, saying, “How dare you sing that song! She was a sister, a friend, and she went to school once.”

Charlie Kirk spent his life vilifying people. Most specifically, he went after the most vulnerable amongst us. He turned their parents and siblings against them. He made using the restroom a battleground. He called Black people less than human. In the wake of school shootings, he told parents that their children dying in the hallways was a necessary casualty of protecting the Second Amendment. With his words and actions, he dehumanized anyone who was different than him and actively fought for a world in which those folks were erased. After the attempted assassination of Paul Pelosi, he said that folks should bail him out. He made heroes out of the worst people imaginable and wished harm on those with whom he disagreed. He fomented young people to become violent so that he could hide behind his words and demand nuance, only to serve himself, and never gave grace to those he saw as other.

Now, the very people that he has spent his life demonizing are being blamed for his death without cause or merit.

But because a trans teenager who is living in their car, rejected by parents over the words of Charlie Kirk, made a Tweet that said, “Ding dong, the witch is dead,” you are responding from the safety of your home, demanding a nuance that you aren’t willing to give them.

Top of Form

Subscribe

Bottom of Form

If you have never been on the receiving end of being a target of Charlie Kirk, and you are only seeing passive things he said that are being quoted by his allies, then you aren’t seeing the full picture. I am aware that the video of what happened to him is shocking, and the guttural reaction is to have empathy for his family. I would even go so far as to say that having such empathy is good in a sense, it means you aren’t as vile as he, a man who couldn’t find empathy at all for anyone, and actually demeaned empathy as weakness. Yet, if you can not also find empathy for those whom he and his followers have perpetually victimized, then you are missing a major component in all of this. Every despot alive had a mother, but you will not find me crying at the graves of evil men who had their regimes toppled by those they subjugated.

It is good that you are able to find empathy in this moment; it means you aren’t like him. However, it does not mean that those who do not mourn him are. That is an important distinction.

Countless people have lost their lives to the violent rhetoric of Charlie Kirk; those lives also mattered. Is it possible that he would have changed if given a longer life? Perhaps, but playing an experimental game of “what if” is also dangerous in this moment.

In the aftermath of his death, the Christian Nationalists were quick, without any proof, to lay blame at the feet of the trans community. This is the very same thing that Charlie Kirk was so well known for. He did this countless times, and by doing so, he put their lives in danger. Those who followed him are quickly taking up the mantle. Even today, Donald Trump eulogized Charlie Kirk by stating that he died because folks called him a Nazi, while at the same time lumping everyone who disagreed with him as “the radical left.”

The writing is on the wall that this moment will be used to justify rounding up more immigrants into concentration camps. They are setting the stage to make it illegal to call a fascist what they are. And, I promise you, that a time is coming soon when anyone who criticizes this administration will be considered a terrorist. It is already happening now in other parts of the world. The mere attempt to protest is landing folks in handcuffs. We are watching our fundamental rights being stripped away from us.

Yes, we are all unsafe in this moment, but we must take a beat to realize who will suffer first: immigrants, refugees, activists, Black folks, Muslims, the queen community, and our trans siblings. They are profoundly in more danger today than they were yesterday. They are being saddled with the blame for what happened long before someone has even been arrested or a motive announced.

I am fully aware that somewhere in the world, a woman is crying because her husband is dead. She had to sit down and explain to her young children that their father isn’t coming home. That reality is not lost on me. Inasmuch as I am able, I can see that scene play out in my mind's eye, and I know that they are feeling pain today. It is this idea, this true thing, that you are demanding that people also take a moment to acknowledge. I hear that. The counter to this narrative is that so many folks who this very man has harmed are asking you, “How can you hear her cries over the children dying in the streets from these endless wars, above the tears of the trans person sobbing in their car about to lose their life, and beyond the children hiding under their desks at school?”

I need you to understand that what I have written here today will likely be read at my own sentencing someday, when they justify ripping me away from my children simply because I wrote words, asked questions, and openly challenged the narrative of my government. That is the nuance you are asking to understand.

Most of us have lived with the privilege of this type of violence happening on shores far away from us, and so seeing it playing out in our own streets and universities is jarring. But, make no mistake, this is not new. These politicians who are demanding civility now watched videos far more horrific than you saw in the last 24 hours happening to elementary school children and looked the other way to justify their political ends. They have lacked empathy at every moment from Columbine to Sandy Hook, but are now feigning shock that no one can mourn the wicked.

So, before you write words condemning those who cannot find it within themselves to shed a tear for the man who tore them apart, I am begging you to have empathy and understanding for THEM in this moment. Take a beat to read his words, to fall down a night-long rabbit hole, actually investigating the final solution that they hoped would come from things like Project 2025. Listen to the hurt and pain and reality from those whom Charlie Kirk wished to see deported, arrested, and executed.

I am begging you to do this now, because very soon, those voices will be silenced, and the only thing that you will be able to hear is propaganda being pumped by the mechanisms created and endorsed by the man you are demanding that they mourn.

You should be shocked by political violence. I desperately hope and fight for a world where no one has to see what we all saw this week. That is a noble cause and a beautiful hope. But, at this time, we must also live in reality. The real world that we are all tethered to is that Charlie Kirk was a White Christian Nationalist who promoted hate and violence. He diminished countless people. Those politicians who have spent decades saying we can not politicize the death of school children who died are now using the death of this man, who championed these tragedies, as a political tool. They said there was nothing that could be done, that nothing could stop these horrors. That there would always be a good guy with a gun. That we should trust the process. Yet, make no mistake, they will suddenly find the motivation to stop violence. But they will use violence to do so. It is only a matter of time before they start rounding up people who were never involved in his death, purely based on their identity and ideology. I need you to hear their cries.

It is good that you are repulsed by political violence. I am too. I am just begging you to cast a wider net on that outrage.

Total Pageviews

GOOGLE ANALYTICS

Blog Archive