Written By:
- Date published:
10:35 am, September 14th, 2025 - 102 comments
Categories: Donald Trump, politicans, us politics -
Tags:
No doubt like the rest of you I have been watching the events in America with intense interest.
Charlie Kirk’s murder has attracted an incredible amount of attention given he had no formal position or role in American politics.
He is someone who always frustrated me. He was hailed as an intellectual on the right and praised for his willingness to debate issues with left wing opponents on University Campuses.
From what I could see he used a variety of cheap tricks to create the impression that he knew what he was talking about.
The tricks included changing the subject regularly, shifting the goal posts, and not properly engaging in the matter being discussed. This was wrapped up in uber confidence and to a casual observer he would have appeared impressive. Think Nicola Willis or Chris Bishop on steroids. Your average Phd student would have been able to destroy Kirk in a properly moderated debate.
This recent video of a debate between Kirk and a Cambridge student reinforced my impression.
The maker of this film had this wonderful description of what the debate should be, and that is the pursuit of truth and not victory.
Fast forward to now and news from the United States reinforces the strong perception that the country is broken. The Republican Party immediately issued a full blitzkrieg against the Democrats and the left in general and essentially blamed them for what happened.
An increasingly frail Donald Trump refused to call for unity and instead chose to go all culture war on it.
This Guardian article quotes him as saying this:
The radicals on the right are radical because they don’t want to see crime … The radicals on the left are the problem – and they are vicious and horrible and politically savvy. They want men in women’s sports, they want transgender for everyone, they want open borders. The worst thing that happened to this country.”
Senior Republicans and right wing media chimed in with similar allegations and also blamed the left.
Senior democrats were careful in their language. The odd lefty who said disparaging things about Kirk were doxxed and ambushed which makes you wonder about the right’s commitment to freedom of speech given some of the rather extreme things that Kirk said during his life.
More responsible progressive commentators such as the crew at Pod Save America have denounced the violent end to Kirk’s life and at the same time distanced themselves from his views and decried what violence was doing to the US.
The problem for the right is that their narrative is unravelling.
It does not appear that the killer was a far left trans cross dresser immigrant.
Instead it appears to have been a young engineering student who was a gun nut and who lived in a staunch Republican family.
Russell Brown has pointed out that the messages inscribed onto bullet casings found at the scene appear to be groyper memes.
This is a subculture that looks to Nick Fuentes, a far-right figure who thought that Kirk was too moderate. There are possible links between the shooter and the movement and there is also an allegation that he told police that police that he admired Nick Fuentes and did not like Kirk.
The right used claims following Kirk’s death to try and stake political advantage. The left has held back wanting to know what the truth was.
Politics should not be like this. It should be a proper debate about the issues and the attempt to reach consensus, or if consensus is not possible then an informed electorate should decide what happens. And there should not be a rush to judgment.
Clearly America is not there right now.
The current meme is: America is f****d. Everything happening there was unimaginable less than a year ago. It beggars belief that the most powerful country in the world is apparently impotent when it comes to the madness and dire incompetency of the current administration.
I had never heard of Charlie Kirk, but it sounds as though he matched their president when it came to his psychopathy and narcissism.
And in NZ we have a bunch of wannabes in government wanting NZ to pander to a bunch of liars and criminal thugs who have been allowed to take over ownership of what was once an admired global democracy.
Their complete downfall is imminent imo, and they have nobody but themselves to blame. Lets hope they don't bring the rest of us down with them.
Bits I've seen of kirk us he was like seymour, slippery little weasel full of arrogance who tangles people up and winning the argument is more important than truth .
It appears that Kirk liked to bully undergraduates because (bless them!) they have strong instincts about what is just and what is unjust, but can lack the knowledge and experience to make coherent arguments. He also appeared to favour quickfire 'debates' where complexity is impossible and where rhetorical tricks and pre-prepared statements are effective. You need to be someone like Mehdi Hasan to counter this stuff under pressure in public – Hasan wrote his book 'Win Every Argument' with this sort of confrontation in mind.
Kirk similarly appears to have been a conscious creation of the far right who are aware that the young tend to be more liberal across most dimensions. They have to turn the young to the right at some point in their lives (the sooner the better) to maintain a viable voting base. If the far right can't do this, then no amount of gerrymandering, voter suppression or constitutional violations will be able to maintain the facade of a functioning democracy forever.
yep. I would add that the recruitment process also rests heavily on people getting sick of cancel culture and forced beliefs. For every young person who is naturally more liberal, there are those who want to be able to talk about things without being called a nazi bigot. They aren't necessarily RW, but they will be soon. Kirks knew what he was doing in allowing people to speak. Let Women Speak is a similar avenue for recruiting people who want the freedom to explore ideas and their own thinking and aren't finding that on the left.
The number of people on twitter I follow who I would consider liberal centrists (including former centre lefties) who are both supporting Kirk in the past week and pointing in horror at the liberals/left who are celebrating Kirk's death or at least being callous about it, has been one of the more shocking things I've seen recently.
To my knowledge, no young person or anyone else for that matter who wants to talk about things is called a "nazi bigot" by the left. To the contrary political parties to the left of centre are far more welcoming of different points of view than the right. And I can speak from experience of both sides. A story in itself.
Leaving out the extremes at both ends – which granted are a serious problem – the left are far more progressive and open to exploring different points of view, provided they are based on sound and sane principles. However they draw the line when you have people claiming 'the world is flat, black is white and vice versa'. Therein lies the difference between left and right. One draws a line in the sand between sanity and insanity, the other one does not.
this is part of the problem Anne. Too many on the left either don't know what is going on or deny it.
You can't be active in the Greens or Labour and be a left wing gender critical feminist. The Millennials who championed gender identity ideology and other identity politics have gotten older and the generations coming behind are far less enamoured of those politics. My guess is that eventually the excesses of identity politics will fade, but in the meantime we are losing people.
It's part of why the right are going so hard against trans people in the US and NZ. They understand very well that most people think the reality of sex matters. While most people are happy for trans people to be who they are and have the same kind of human rights as other people, they draw teh line at sports and women's toilets and over-medicalisation of children. The right are using this to recruit people to the right, and the left doesn't even understand what is happening.
The reason you are unaware of the accusations of nazi bigot is because No Debate means that it doesn't get talked about in some circles. My understanding is that there are plenty of GC people in Labour, they just don't talk about it.
Holly-Lawford-Smith, ex-pat Kiwi and philosophy senior lecturer at Melbourne Uni, posted on X this arvo about a paper focused on Holly's book, Gender Critical Feminism. It associates the book, and GC feminism with neo-Nazis.
Holly's post includes copies of a couple of pages of the paper.
My observation has been that it's been mixed. But for sure the US right are going hard out to make hay from Kirk's death. It's obscene and scary.
As for Robinson's motives and politics, there's been so much speculation based on little fact (even from the left, which has its own motives and biases around information and analysis) that I think we just don't know yet. My hunch is that it's beyond traditional L/R, and much of it is steeped in online gamer culture. Maybe the bullet casings are shitposting, maybe they're a ruse, maybe they're straight forward. I can't see how we will know until we know what Robinson has said himself (and even then maybe not).
Of note is that I have yet to see a single reference to his mental health.
Definitely making hay – Air Force Two and the Vances were sent to Utah to bring the casket back to Arizona – great photo opportunity shots of Mrs Vance comforting the widow and JD carrying the casket.
They were friends and Mrs Kirk spoke about how much she appreciated it
is that normal for the airforce to be used for civilians who aren't politicians etc?
Probably helps when you're one of the main reasons in helping the president get elected.
But given that no one in the Democrat party and their offshoot the MSM have said anything about it I'll say its probably ok
Yeah but you wouldn't turn it into a photo op if you had decency.
You might not but don't the wishes of the widow count for anything?
Another unfortunate cost of protecting the 2nd amendment.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:xv2as7miy7ghje2htfynaqex/post/3lypizffn3s2j?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/symbols-charlie-kirk-killer-scratched-215829819.html
edit:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/charlie-kirk-tyler-robinson-memes-meaning?
Seems like a disturbed young man spent his life on-line sucking up fringe right-wing ideas like a sponge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groypers#Groyper_War
Sounds like this Kirk chap is Trump's Horst Wessel,
the thing about what Kirk was doing with the campus debates is important.
the right are well organised at recruiting at this level, the left are not. Part of that is because we don't like open debate any more. Can you imagine a university in NZ having an event that is streamed or replayed where students can openly talk about ethnicity, the Treaty, the pandemic, gender/sex, without fear of reprisal or ostracisation? Wouldn't the liberals/left be more likely to try and shut such an event down?
it's also important because this event is where Kirk was killed, and the right will use this as martyrdom both around him, but also those events.
We still seem to think that people will come to the left because we are right/righteous. But the evidence suggests otherwise. People want to feel safe and they want to belong, and my current view is that those things now matter more than policies and possibly even values.
Also a shout out to TS, our robust debate ethic, and the moderation. We don't always get it right, but after watching social media for the past week be at its absolute worst (it's been a deluge of evidence-free, gossip driven, people talking past each other, propagandised cluster fuck), I think we should take the time to recognise that The Standard is one of the few places online that actively upholds the necessity of evidence and good argument in debate.
For all the people that are pissed off about having to provide evidence, links and coherent arguments, this is why we do it. If we didn't, we'd be just another part of the information cluster fuck.
I'm having issues posting links on my phone (android) aside from my general uselessness around tech am I missing something obvious as copy and paste isn't happening
As someone who got modded this morning, I couldn’t agree more. You folks do an amazing job creating a sane, safe space for genuine debate.
I might not always agree with your calls (I mean, who wants to let facts get in the way of a good diss
), but I absolutely respect the mahi.
And the honesty you bring to it.
cheers Res.
Debate implies Kirk was some sort of principled conservative who was there to be swayed. He was a populist firebrand who dressed up the racist, misogynist hate and vitriol he spewed as debate.
missing the point. He only has to present as a principled conservative who was there to be swayed.
That missing the point is why we are losing.
every time someone on the left tries to reduce this to 'evildoer rightie and the people who support him are nazis' the people who are trying to make sense of things and see Kirk as reasonable move another step right.
Our strategy of pointing a finger is failing. We have little that is compelling to people not already on the left. That was my point about campus debates and what we could be doing. But sure, let's just keep yelling that all of the right are evil fuckers and see how we get on.
Imho, "shit" "evil fuckers" (left or right) should be called out. But I wouldn't call them "shit", or "evil fuckers" – just critique their (political) positions and the outcomes of their actions, since I don't have an alternative (political) strategy, other than "something to hope for."
But why have we been led to believe this, and by who (whom?) – who benefits?
The fact he was able to turn up and 'Debate' whereas in NZ we had a universty cancel Don Brash kind shows how bad cancel culture is / was here.
People seem more concerned with protecting their feelings rather than their principles and values. They’d rather confront others than seeking truth because that can be uncomfortable and confronting. They ‘belong’ where & when they feel ‘safe’ believing they can go elsewhere at the click of a button. Principles are traded in for fads, integrity for outrage, and cultural-historical roots are shackles that must be removed as/when circumstances call for it. No wonder people feel lost & isolated and unsafe.
Yes, and I think the search for better meaning and connection is part of the shift in values. It's big challenge for the left still wedded to neoliberalism, because we can't offer much better while we endorse the system that is pushing people to the edge.
I would start by making everyone economically safe – that's a way of telling them they belong and (I think) a way of making them feel safe in their opinions or identity or concerning whatever is bothering them enough about the world that they end up giving credence to a charlatan like Kirk.
Time for compassionate socialism – it always has been of course.
it's def the need and the challenge.
The smartest thing anyone can do here is to wait until the dust settles before we decide who or what he is
Personally speaking my guess is that while he was from a Republican family he'll have most likely been influenced online, likely gay or just basically brainwashed into thinking Charlie Kirkbis "literally Hitler" and therefore it's his duty to kill Kirk
But I'm going to come out and say that's definitely what he is because we all know the MSM has their own agenda so best we wait to see the evidence
It's interesting that he, apparently, used a mauser 98 to carry out his evil act
lots of people thinkg other people are nazis and don't shoot them, so there's something else.
What's the relevance of the rifle choice?
No political relevance at all.
Just that the mauser 98 was developed in 1898, a very good bolt action and very accurate for a service rifle but also quite robust and heavy.
Your basic hunting rifle today is more accurate (though at that distance it wouldn't matter), lighter and with more readily available ammunition.
Hoever if it turns out to be a modern varient then disregard everything above 🙂
From NZ herald if true goes some way towards explaining the why.
[link removed]
I removed the link. I’ve been following that rumour for 2 days and still haven’t seen anything to corroborate. The Governor made the claim, a bunch of reckless MSM ran it (Daily Mail, Fox). NZH running it as a one liner looks like rumour mongering to me. I’m sure we will get more actual detail in time.
Oh fer fucks sake this is getting ridiculous (I'm beginning to really hate phones)
Personally speaking my guess is that while he was from a Republican family he'll have most likely been influenced online, is likely gay and was probably brainwashed online into thinking Charlie Kirk is "literally Hitler" and therefore it's his duty to kill Kirk
But I'm not going to come out and say that's definitely what he is because we all know the MSM has their own agenda so best we wait to see the evidence
Wise words on Charlie Kirk from Christopher Hichens:
For people unfamiliar with AI slop, Christopher Hitchens died in 2011 and therefore has no opinions on Charlie Kirk's death.
One powerful antidote to mis- & dis-information and the unbridled spread of ‘AI slop’ (aka bot shit) is people using their own reading ability and critical skills to make sound judgements rather than and instead of relying on other people shooting messengers and using unexplained labels that address nothing substantively.
The YT channel name is “Christopher Hitchens Resurrected”.
Well I never! I didn't realise that.
Still wise words though, however generated!
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C_wRuc6Momr/
There is hope , deGrasse Tyson believes ai will kill the internet, I know I'm already skeptical after embarrassing myself sharing rabbits bouncing on a trampoline!!!!
AI ≠ internet
Well that's embarrassing
Are you embarrassed that you did or did not watch the clip? Nothing about muskets?
?
Yep.
But 'what ifs' are a legitimate rhetorical device – as in: "what if Hitchens was alive, what would he say?" Or, "what if Kirk had been a prominent left-wing influencer?"
But I don't really care what Hitchens might have said. Mostly he was just in love with his own facility with language, which was admittedly pretty impressive and enjoyable if you agreed with his targets. When you didn't agree with his targets, or when you actually knew something about a topic, you got to appreciate that he mostly spouted beautifully phrased bollocks – even when you liked what he said.
"But 'what ifs' are a legitimate rhetorical device…"
I'm now less sure about that, having been told by Incognito below that they're straw men and a contribution to culture wars. But honestly this stuff just gives me the creeps. What would Christopher Hitchens say? Well, we don't know because he's dead, so someone generating some AI bollocks and claiming it's what he'd say is way up there on my shit list.
I consider you smart enough to assume that you’re deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting me and removing crucial context to create a straw man. People who do this give me the creeps.
Given your recent commentary on labels, using ‘AI bollocks’ and ‘AI slop’ is ironic, don’t you think? And nobody ‘claimed’ that as you allege – TV @ 8 may have missed the YT channel disclaimer or was being sarcastic – which is another distortion of facts. People who do that are way up there on my shit list.
fwiw, I don't know what you meant with the straw man and culture wars comment.
It’s a reference to “culture war” in the OP vis-à-vis what the Left might do vs. what the Right is doing.
ok, but I don't really know what micky means either. To me it looks like Trump is running well known RW lines using the left's construction of identity politics as a weapon against the left. Calling that a culture war misses what the right is actually doing, and crucially, how we might respond effectively to that. Calling people on the left who try and point out some of these things as partaking in Trump's culture war, is a way of marginalising people on the left, and that sucks.
Milt made the point that if the situation were reversed (a high profile Dem had been publicly executed) the left and right responses would be reversed too. Is that wrong? How is that point a straw man or part of a culture war?
I mean, the term culture war gets thrown out and I'm not sure if people using it don't realise that other people don't know what you mean.
No, I don't. I also don't fancy writing an essay on AI deep fakes as background to a comment on The Standard and wouldn't comment here if that kind of thing were a requirement. It should be pretty obvious that someone getting an AI to post their personal opinion in Christopher Hitchens' voice is unethical even if they post some disclaimer somewhere for the people who go looking for one. Tony posted himself that he hadn't realised it was fake, and I made no implication that he did know.
True, but consider what the left would be doing right now if it had been a well-known leftist influencer assassinated at a public meeting in front of their family and with multiple live-streaming cameras showing every detail. We wouldn't call it "trying to stake political advantage," but the right would.
Look at the George Floyd situation and what happened after and that was a career criminal, druggie low life thug
If it was someone as beloved on the left as Charlie Kirk was to the right I shudder to think how many people the left mobs would kill
Look up the George Floyd protests on Wikipedia to see if I'm exaggerating
Both Psycho Milt and you are speculating on what-ifs as if [pun] those straw men are strong counter-arguments. By doing so you’re buying into [Trump’s] culture war narrative.
George Floyd death led to 19 deaths, 14000+ arrests and 1 – 2 billion in damages
Charlie Kirk death led to well its early days to be fair but there's been a few prayer circles
The left love any excuse for violence
A number of people here to support Charlie Kirk
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/13/unite-the-kingdom-far-right-rally-london-tommy-robinson-police-assaulted
wtf did I just read?
If that's true of 'the left', then it's true of 'the right'. I hope it's not true of the majority, left and right, but a minority do seem drawn to extreme 'solutions'.
I think it's safe to say that demonising your political opponents in a country where anyone with any personality disorders has easy access to firearms is a recipe for getting people killed. Musk is too smart not to know this, so I can only assume he's deliberately trying to get more people killed.
He also wants the UK government dissolved. They not even trying to hide the authoritarianism now.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/13/elon-musk-calls-for-dissolution-of-parliament-at-far-right-rally-in-london
I read that this morning and wondered how even a hugely wealthy person can get to "This foreign country has a government I dislike, therefore new elections must be held" if they're sane, and can only get to "He isn't stupid but he thinks you (British people) are."
that arrogance is palpable. I also thought about insanity, but settled on too much ketamine in a skewed moral code.
You've been running that line for a few days now. It's idiotic and I expect more from you. Unless you are trolling.
You don't seem to understand the sociopolitical reasons for why so many people reacted to George Floyd's murder, and instead want to paint a caricature of the left as violent.
Just know there is a time limit on you running evidence-free US conservative talking points, and it's about to run out.
If you refuse to address the contents of the OP and insist on parroting Trump tropes then take it to OM, as Mod patience might last a fraction longer over there. FWIW, it’s a stretch of the imagination to argue similarity between the killing of GF and the assassination of CK and their respective aftermaths.
What "straw men" and what "culture war" narrative? It's pretty obvious that if it were a leftist influencer who'd been murdered, we'd be pretty angry about it and the right would call that anger "using X's death to try to stake political advantage." I'd prefer less tribalist culture war, as it happens.
He was barely known outside of youth culture and not that well known inside it.
The word "beloved" is doing some heavy lifting there. The Democrats have had violence perpetrated against them – Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul, was very nearly killed by a man attempting to assisinate Nancy Pelosi (Democrat). In June, Melissa Hortman (Democrat) was murdered in a politically motivated attack along with her husband, Mark. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were shot in the same crime spree but did not die. But the Democrats, at least looking at it from NZ, have pretty much down played it so as not to spur copy cats.
Checked out his YouTube numbers, over 3.5 million subscribers and videos regularly getting over a million views
You might not like him or understand him but to say he wasn't well known shows your ignorance
I still contend he wasn't well known outside of youth culture. And I do understand him – American has a long history of grifters – the showman who go from town to town taking in who they can to their advantage. This is the age of the American grifter.
I am sick of this. The common denominator is gun violence. From what I've seen from Left commentators they have condemned the violence, no matter that Charlie Kirk was an arsewipe. I'm not that interested in going over the entrails of the shooter and speculating further on his motives. He was a sick kid,. He should have had more help and the signs recognised but Utah is strange country. I spoke to my kids yesterday in the US. The thing that upset them most was seeing reports of haka in London at vigils in for Charlie Kirk and the suggestion that Maori were upset. If we need conversations it is about guns. And we need that here too. Sorry if that is too simplistic.
I disagree.
We should know why he chose to do what he did, what caused this to happen so hopefully it stops the next one.
I don't know why your so worried, kirk is resting easy in jesus' arms safe in the knowledge that his death was worth it because 2nd amendment!
I know you think you're making a burn but you are in fact quite correct about his beliefs
No just tired of you running round trying to bait someone into saying kirk got what he deserved so you can crow,
I personally think he was shot be a mentally ill lone wolf who's politics are irrelevant, I feel for his widow and kids,
I think its quite relevant what his politics, thoughts, ideas etc are
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3gw58wv4e9o.amp#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17578419738468&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com
Trumps shooter was a republican, just incase your interested
It's funny but whenever I point out how many assets were sold off by Labour I get told it wasn't Labour because many of the Labour MPs founded Act
The shooter who don't know enough about donated, through Actblue, to the Democratic Party
Odd that a Relublican would donate to the Democratic Party
Crooks was ineligible to register or vote when he made the donation.
Let's try that again…
The shooter who wevquite frankly don't know enough about donated, through Actblue, to the Democratic Party
Odd that a Republican would donate to the Democratic Party
teenager not having become partisan is completely normal.
Wait, what?
There's a widow?
Next you will be telling me there are children too./sarc
It definitely is not simplistic. It was my first reaction to the story. So ironic that the very people who have bought into the gun culture that is America are the ones crying over spilt milk re-the death of one of their number. There's a famous quotation in there but it won't come to me. Maybe someone will remember it for me.
Just connecting one or two dots, this is something horrifically messed up.
Look at this: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwydezxl0xlo and then this https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/13/elon-musk-calls-for-dissolution-of-parliament-at-far-right-rally-in-london – – the size of the rally is hair raising, but so are Musk's words:
'Musk also told the crowd “the left are the party of murder”, referring to the death of Charlie Kirk.
He said: “There’s so much violence on the left, with our friend Charlie Kirk getting murdered in cold blood this week and people on the left celebrating it openly. The left is the party of murder and celebrating murder. I mean, let that sink in for a minute, that’s who we’re dealing with here.”'
As Mountain Tui reported in June, and wrote just now, the assassination of "Democrat Senator Melissa and her husband Mark Hortman, and their golden retriever – all were shot multiple times in their home by a Christian fundamentalist, Trump supporter" hardly raised a headline.
Musk is completely out of control.
Ohhh and I see “Members of the Destiny Church in New Zealand performed a traditional haka dance for the protesters …..’ another pro Carlie Kirk protest that got violent in London today.
Insanity rules the waves. And if I have any quarrel with the left, it is that they seem to be sitting it out and letting it happen.
If you mean in the UK, Anne, seems right, and poor Keir Starmer always looks to me like someone who's just wet his knickers and is struggling to work out what to do.
Meanwhile, as 150,000 racists march in London, and Farage becomes Top Party in Britain by a massive majority, I only recall how 300,000 people in NZ opposed the Treaty Principles Bill. Such folks are by definition left wing IMHO 😊.
Yes, I was certainly thinking of Britain but also in the wider context. It seems to me the world is heading for a crisis of insanity. God forbid, but it could make WW2 look like a Sunday School picnic.
Influencer my arse.
/
https://www.desmog.com/turning-point-usa/
But the left.
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/mass-shooting-survivor-tells-nbc-suspect-was-member-of-pro-trump-group-had-white-supremacist-views/
Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.[1] In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.[2] A recent threat assessment by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concluded that domestic violent extremists are an acute threat and highlighted a probability that COVID-19 pandemic-related stressors, long-standing ideological grievances related to immigration, and narratives surrounding electoral fraud will continue to serve as a justification for violent actions.[3]
https://web.archive.org/web/20240107222227/https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism
And the corpse cuddling begins.
/
@yasharali.bsky.social
1. In her first social media post, Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk’s wife, posts video and photos from the last 48 hours and she adds…
https://bsky.app/profile/yasharali.bsky.social/post/3lyou2ejcps2c
Thom Hartmann on the both sides claptrap.
.
“When pundits blame tone instead of truth, they let one party weaponize threats and lies without consequence…”
As a guy who regularly gets death threats because of my media presence, I shouldn’t have to say that killing people — or even threatening them — for their politics is wrong. But here it is, for the record: nobody in America should die for their politics.
[over long copypasta deleted]
https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-both-sides-scam-how-false-balance-4ac
But the left.
/
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:svoymufgychs3h2mxbf6xydf/post/3lyqbrzamc22y?
( bluesky video)
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/charlie-kirks-allies-firing-people-who-celebrated-his-death-online-mourn-him-or-else-9273383
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/teachers-across-the-u-s-get-suspended-or-fired-over-posts-linked-to-charlie-kirk/2025/09
I want to understand Kirk's supposed claim that some excess gun deaths were 'worth it' if the 2nd amendment rights are protected. If he did claim this, did he get a cost-benefit analysis done?
The costs are pretty clear by looking at the per capita excess gun deaths in the USA over comparable developed countries.
What are the benefits? How many times since the Constitution was formed has an armed citizenry prevented or reversed an extreme constitutional violation by the State over-reaching its own powers? Did an armed citizenry turn up on Jan 6 2021 to stop a mob incited by an existing President from invading the Capitol? Nope – it was the mob who had the guns. It was the cops (the State) that stopped the mob.
There is only one benefit I can see – the contribution to GDP from the arms industry. Nothing to do with the actual intention of the second amendment.
Ironic isn't it.
The gun rights mob claim the second amendment is to remove a totalitarian Government.
July 6th the used those "rights" to try and help keep a fascist in power.
In essence, it just means that people have different opinions about things. To conservative Americans, the constitutional right of the citizenry to bear arms so that the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence is of such importance that it outweighs whatever deaths occur due to the state not having a monopoly on violence. The majority of us in other liberal democracies prefer the state to have a monopoly on violence, because we're confident democratic government won't be overthrown so let's not have everyone lethally armed because the consequences of that are unpleasant. I much prefer that second option, but there's no rule that says people who prefer the first one are wrong, hypocritical, far-right, fascist or whatever.
Sure, people can have theoretical concerns about things that are quite unlikely and have never happened. I am theoretically concerned about being tipped out of my fishing kayak by a shark and eaten. It's quite unlikely, but I take precautions. These are reasonable precautions, like keeping any blood out of the water. It's possible that my precautions could become hysterical and unhinged – like carrying a .308 rifle and firing at anything that looks like a dark shadow under the water or a fin in the vicinity. I might take out a few swimmers because their heads looked ominous from 400m away, and like Charlie I might think that is 'worth it'. Other people might disagree, but that would just be people having different opinions about stuff.
Sure, the idea of an armed citizenry feels bizarre to us, in a country that was established by a constitutional monarchy with democratic governance and rule of law assumed by everyone from the start. It doesn't feel at all bizarre to people in a country that had to fight for democracy via armed revolution against an empire that committed a large military force to destroy that revolution and would have subjected the revolutionaries to the most humiliating public executions it could come up with if it had won.
Americans feel similar to us because they speak English, but the USA is a foreign country with a foreign culture and we should try to understand that culture rather than simply dismissing it.
Remember, this is the man who reckons holding people to account for their calls for asylum-seekers to be burned to death is a breach of their rights to free speech.