political violence

As we are all aware, Charlie Kirk was assassinated a few days ago. Trump immediately, with no proof or evidence at all since the shooter had not been caught much less identified, claimed that it was fanatic leftists, democrats, and was the result of democrat violent rhetoric and the MAGAt spin machine was off and running. Of course. We have learned since that the shooter was a young white Christian male from a Trump supporting republican family big on the gun culture, the kind that poses for pictures with all their semi-automatic weaponry, who was radicalized by social media (big surprise) and a follower of Nick Fuentes and his Groyper movement who thought Kirk wasn’t radical enough. Apparently there is an internecine conflict between the two groups. While the kid was personally unaffiliated politically with no record of recent voting, there is a donation of over $200 to a Trump Make America Great Again Committee in his name made in 2020. Has the right wing corrected their violent rhetoric against the left and Democrats with this new information. Of course not. They have instead whitewashed Kirk into a popular young man with an adoring following who was just exercising his right to free speech frantically removing as much of Kirk's hate speech online as possible.

Do we know which group lashes out with violence? We do.

Charlie Kirk was a dangerous man even more so because he cultivated an image of reasonableness and calm debate. But there was no debate that would sway Kirk from his positions because they came from his religious convictions. It was all just a sham, there were no facts anyone could present that could convince him of the wrongness of his vision for this country and culture. He was a Dominionist and used the debate format for the sole purpose of radicalizing young men in particular to his far right racist misogynist patriarchal view of what America should be refuting facts with religious dogma. 

For all the calmness and reasonableness he tried to project, his words and intent were hateful and cruel. He was just fine with children being killed by an angry person with a gun as the price to pay for their unfettered access and possession of whatever gun you want interpretation of the 2nd amendment. He thought empathy was a made up new age term and does a lot of damage. Empathy, he thought empathy was a bad thing. He thought gay people should be stoned to death. He said women should marry young and have babies, stay in the home and be submissive to their husbands. Any woman or person of color was automatically a DEI hire and unqualified for the job. He specifically said black women did not have the mental capacity to be intelligent. 

So the big debate on SM is did he deserve to die because of his beliefs, for exercising his right to free speech, was his murder justified? I don’t know, maybe. I’m against murder and violence to achieve selfish goals, don’t even own a gun, but I’m unmoved by his murder. The white right wing Christian nationalists don't want a multicultural nation where we all just get along. How do you 'get along' with people who refuse to compromise, whose goal is to rid the country of everyone not like them; to impose through violence, brutality, the law and government, to force adherence to their narrow and extreme religiously based social culture? We've seen the logical conclusion to that in Nazi Germany and the Inquisition in Spain. Eventually you fight or you let them kill you. 

So, did Kirk get what he deserved? Had one of the assassination attempts on Hitler been successful would it have been justified knowing what we know? I’m not exactly equating Kirk and Hitler. We don’t know what the future would have been with Kirk still in it but we do know where that kind of repressive and violent rhetoric leads, we see it unfolding in real time. Whether or not Kirk’s assassination was justified, whether this nation is better off without him, is something each of us will have to decide. And we really don't know what motivated the shooter. I think it’s possible to be morally against murder but at the same time not be upset that someone who was leading a movement based on hatred, violence, and repression was a victim of the very violence and hatred he espoused. 

While the MAGAts are crying foul, blaming liberals even though it was one of their own that was responsible for silencing Kirk, people are losing their jobs for exercising their own right to freedom of speech on SM or in the workplace, for expressing their opposition to Trump and all things MAGA or their refusal to let the whitewashed martyrdom of Charlie Kirk go unchallenged. 

Regardless of Kirk’s influence or lack thereof, he was just one of the many right wing christian nationalists spouting their hate against women, POC, the LGBTQ+ community, immigrants, liberals, the educated, and ‘woke’ on SM and in podcasts marching this country straight into religious authoritarian fascism. Dissent is punished. The bounty hunters formally known as ICE recently shot and killed a man they were trying to apprehend who resisted. Brian Kilmeade on Fox said homeless people should be euthanized, “involuntary lethal injection, or something. Just kill them.” on live TV and was not fired on the spot. How long until they dig a trench with a backhoe, line people up and shoot them in the head and people just shrug?