Before I discuss the Kirk topic, I want to resurrect an old kerfuffle about whether Trump had called Nazis "very fine people" in the aftermath of the Charlottesville march/tragedy, where a young woman was killed by a right-wing driver running his car into a crowd. The motivation is the recent Dumb Bleep of the Week episode by the GML guys in discussing whether Charlie Kirk had been quoted "out of context". I have written about this, and while my position is not seconded by most other commentators, I think my argument is compelling, but it's based on some facts most people have ignored. Leftists had argued that Trump had called Nazis "very fine people". In response, most people. including the GML guys, reference the second or third presser where Trump discussed the incident, and Trump under pressure, paid lip service to rejecting the Nazis which he simply identified as the "bad guys" in the march (which he also equivocated as also true of the counter-protestors). What Nate, Charlie, and others ignore is the context of his other comments, where he tried to argue that the far-right protestors were primarily conventional conservatives opposing the anti-monument forces getting rid of monuments, and he was obsessed with identifying himself on the pro-monument side. He combatted journalists, arguing that coverage of the UVA march that Friday evening had "proven" the peaceful nature of far-right marchers. However, if you look at coverage of that march, you know that the march was not as innocuous as Trump implies: they ended up encircling a group of counter-protestors on campus (and I think some of the torches were thrown at them). Via Google:
More to the point, some of the marchers had chanted the Nazi slogan "blood and soil":So Trump's convenient definition of Nazis as the violent far-right protestors does not earn him an excuse that Nate, Charlie and others think. Maybe some of the protestors shouting "blood and soil" didn't participate in criminal behavior but that doesn't mean they weren't Nazis. As an American conservative, I've never referenced Nazi rhetoric, and I don't know any conservative who would. But the evidence shows that at least some very people Trump uses as proof of very fine people were Nazis And, by the way, I happen to disagree with the monument-abolition, but you couldn't pay me to march with far-right crowds.- his embrace of Christian nationalism. I consider nationalism a heresy to our federalism roots, and the embrace of a specific religion contradicts our heritage of religious tolerance and diversity, a contradiction against the constitutional Establishment Clause.
- his alliance with Trumpism. Trump is no conservative or libertarian. This goes beyond Trump's signature anti-immigration and trade warrior perspectives. Kirk bought into Trump's sore loser "stop the steal" movement after his 2020 election loss, including support at Trump's rally on J6.
- his divisiveness and hyper-partisanship. One example I've frequently encountered on X/Twitter recently is an attempt to link trans people to mass murder incidents. He argued he lost an appointment to a service academy due to reverse discrimination. He promoted negative misinformation about George Floyd, a police killer victim. He called for bailing out David DePape, the violent criminal who viciously attacked Paul Pelosi. He called for Texas gerrymandering Jasmine Crockett's Congressional district, arguing she was a part of an "attempt to eliminate the white population in this country." He argued against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
- his promotion of misinformation and crackpot conspiracy theories. "A February 2023 Brookings Institution study found Kirk's podcast contained the second-highest proportion of false, misleading, and unsubstantiated statements among 36,603 episodes produced by 79 prominent political podcasters." He was fully vested in the "voter fraud" talking points after Trump's failed 2020 reelection campaign. In one case, he claimed French protestors were chanting "We want Trump", retweeted by Trump himself; it turned out the so-called corroboration of this claim was from a British protest months earlier. When it comes to COVID-19, which Kirk called the "China virus" (another Trump retweet), it gets personal. I've been tracking the pandemic in my weekly journal blog post for years and regularly debunking similar anti-vaxxer claims. crackpot cures (e.g., hydroxychloroquine), and other crackpot rubbish.
In summary, I oppose violent actions that violate the natural rights of others, including divisive activists like Charlie Kirk. My thoughts and prayers for his surviving wife and children. I strongly disagree with Trump's political exploitation of his sycophant, a variation of a state-like memorial service, flags at half-mast, and a posthumous medal of freedom. I'm not going to blame the victim here; I'm not arguing that Kirk's divisiveness contributed to the killer's motive. But he is no martyr, a patron saint of Trumpism.






