1,153 words
For much of the last decade, conservatives have endured the onslaught of progressive zealotry in America’s cultural and intellectual life. A stray remark deemed insensitive, a tweet judged offensive, or a speech that challenged fashionable orthodoxy was often enough to bring an individual’s career to a premature and humiliating end. Professors were hounded from universities, journalists were exiled from their platforms, and ordinary workers found themselves suddenly unemployable because of an unguarded opinion. This phenomenon, widely understood as “cancel culture,” was celebrated by the left as a form of accountability, a righteous correction to supposed abuses of speech. Conservatives, meanwhile, were expected to submit to the rules of the game, even when those rules functioned as a weapon of partisan warfare rather than as a neutral mechanism of justice.
The death of Charlie Kirk, however, has changed the terrain. What followed his passing was not the solemn recognition that a prominent political figure had exited the stage, but rather an eruption of celebration from quarters of the left. Academics, teachers, media figures, and even government employees openly gloated, mocking the man and treating his demise as a cause for joy. These were not obscure radicals ranting in dark corners of the internet. They were people who instruct children, influence young adults, and shape the discourse of public life. To the right, the glee with which they greeted Kirk’s death crystallized a truth long suspected: progressives do not regard conservatives as misguided compatriots but as enemies whose destruction, personal and literal, is legitimate.
This realization has spurred a remarkable change. Conservatives, long accused of passivity in cultural conflict, are now retaliating. One of the leading figures in this pushback is activist Scott Pressler. Known for his indefatigable organizing, Pressler has sought tips from the public about teachers and academics who mocked Kirk’s death. When such individuals are identified, he has not hesitated to share their posts, their names, and in some cases, their workplaces. It is the same method progressives perfected: exposure, employer pressure, and reputational destruction, only this time deployed by the right. The results have been dramatic. School districts have investigated teachers who joined in the mockery. Universities have placed professors under review. Government agencies, once quick to discipline conservatives, now find themselves compelled to answer for the actions of employees on the opposite side of the spectrum.
The seriousness of the moment has not been lost on political leaders either. On September 15, J.D. Vance, serving as the host of the Charlie Kirk podcast, declared that the Trump administration would not hesitate to dismantle groups and networks that glorify Kirk’s death or traffic in political violence more broadly. Vance’s remarks underscored a willingness to meet cultural warfare with institutional force. This was not the voice of a movement content to complain about double standards, but of one intent on ensuring that political violence, even in the form of rhetorical celebration, has consequences. Stephen Miller, a close ally of Donald Trump, elaborated further, promising that the government would coordinate with the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to confront and neutralize networks dedicated to such activity. In a striking extension of this posture, the United States government announced that it would cancel visas of foreign nationals who publicly revel in Kirk’s death, signaling that mockery of an American political leader’s passing is grounds for exclusion.
These developments have produced casualties among media figures who once thought themselves immune. Matthew Dowd, a political analyst long associated with establishment commentary, was dismissed by MSNBC after he argued that Kirk’s own rhetoric had contributed to the shooting. To Dowd, the suggestion was a form of analysis. To conservatives, it was indistinguishable from victim-blaming, an attempt to portray Kirk as complicit in his own death. His firing illustrates a reversal of roles, for where conservatives once bore the brunt of career-ending judgments, the arbiters of left-leaning discourse are beginning to pay the costs of their own language.
Karen Attiah, formerly with The Washington Post, faced a similar reckoning. She was dropped by the paper after she reiterated a remark Kirk had once made about black women being incompetent. Kirk’s statement, however controversial in its original context, was distorted by Attiah for the express purpose of ridiculing him. By wrenching it out of context and brandishing it as evidence of misogyny and racism, she attempted to reduce Kirk’s legacy to a caricature. Her dismissal demonstrates that conservatives are no longer willing to permit their opponents to weaponize selective quotations against them while retaining their own privileged positions in the media.
If people are tempted to pity Dowd and Attiah, they should remember the fate of Beni Rae Harmony. Harmony, an anchor at an ABC affiliate, was suspended after posting a tribute to Kirk, a gesture of respect rather than a provocation. She ultimately resigned when it became clear that support for Kirk carried professional risks in an industry hostile to conservative sympathies. The contrast is telling. While Dowd and Attiah mocked or denigrated Kirk and then lost their positions, Harmony was punished for honoring him. That reality undermines any argument that Dowd or Attiah deserve sympathy. If defenders of Kirk are punished in the media while his detractors are only now beginning to face accountability, then the balance has hardly tipped too far in the other direction. The playing field remains uneven, and the consequences borne by Attiah and Dowd are minimal compared to what conservatives have endured for years.
Predictably, these actions have drawn charges of hypocrisy. Critics insist that the right has betrayed its own principles by embracing the very tactics it once condemned. Yet this criticism ignores a central fact. The left never treated cancel culture as a principle of justice but as a strategy of political dominance. By pretending that the suppression of conservative voices was merely accountability, progressives normalized the destruction of livelihoods over ideological differences. For conservatives to abstain from using these same tools would not be noble restraint but unilateral surrender.
The celebration of Charlie Kirk’s death revealed the deep hostility that animates much of the progressive movement. Civility and tolerance are empty slogans when the passing of a political adversary becomes a moment of triumph. What conservatives have grasped is that in such a climate, to insist on purity of method is to accept perpetual defeat. Politics is not a seminar in ethics. It is a contest of power. Those who refuse to recognize this will find themselves silenced, marginalized, and erased.
There should be no pity for the media personalities and academics who are now facing the consequences of their own words. For years they applauded the ruin of conservatives, convinced that the cultural battlefield was theirs to command. Now the ground has shifted. If they find the new rules intolerable, they should reflect on who created them in the first place. Conservatives have simply decided to stop playing by standards that punished only one side.
23 comments
Spot on. When your opponents make it clear they want you dead, merely trying to get them sacked shows restraint.
Excellent article and very well expressed. Like many others, I have grown tired of watching conservatives get their lunch money stolen every day by the school bullies. As exasperating, disappointing, and maddening as Trump can be for us sometimes, this is a quality about him that I value: he displays a willingness to punch the bullies in the face and draw blood. A Bush, a McCain, a Romney would never hit back like that.
It’s gratifying to see the practitioners of cancel culture get a taste of their own medicine, and I hope it continues. If them’s the rules, Leftists…then them’s the rules we’re gonna play by too. As the article points out, we learned the tactics from you guys.
We need to destroy Antifa, BLM, and all other communist fronts. We need to apply the RICO laws against them and their political backers.
The same Jewish big donors who trying to bully Charlie Kirk and Megan Kelly into absolute compliance will try to hijack the backlash and use it for their own purposes.
They will try to shield Antifa as much as possible. After all, Antifa is basically the street enforcers for the ADL. They will also try to make Trump go after White nationalists and peaceful pro-Palestinian protesters.
“Charlie was falsely accused of being a racist. Now lets go after the real racists.”
If Vance is clever he’s got a window to really strike back hard against some very carefully embedded figures in academia and politics. But that window is a small one and there are plenty of people around to redirect the energy to the incorrect targets. Vance has the basic intellect and pov needed to really make it count. Yet…
Go to any elementary school and all you see on the walls and in the classrooms are slogans and sayings to the effect of “Be Nice” and “Be Kind”. Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?
Those signs are also posted all around college campuses, and in downtown urban retail areas. They bark at us: “Be Nice!” and “Be Kind!”, but never say, “please” or “thank you”. They prioritize blind obedience to authority, over civility, graciousness, and humanity.
Who is this Scott Presler? I had to look him up. Wikipedia says … OK. Then I checked some YouTube clips. Whoops! You must be kidding! He looks like Lance Twiggs.
Still, he is doing good work, exposing the psychos and getting some of them fired. They should all be cancelled, in the same way they have used it against us. Of course, lefties now are complaining about a “new wave of McCarthyism”. Hypocrites, as usual.
I am glad ABC fired Jimmy Kimmel. He celebrates murder. He even jokes about it, as part of his act. No more from that creep and many others. I notice Ted Cruz is upset about this. It violates his idea of “free speech”, but only when leftists get fired, even if they support murder. He is sucking up to the Hollywood Left, in the same manner as David Brooks and David Frum. It never works, but they keep trying anyway.
Exactly. How many on the right have been the victims of cancel culture. The left like to act like they are the good guys while engaged in a bloodsport. Thanks to the right finally growing a backbone, the left is finding out that payback is a bitch.
“Mercy is the vice of kings.”
– Liber AL vel Legis, #220
You have morons like Steven Crowder still arguing for some kind of balanced approach. Charlie’s murder proves balance is retarded. Conan, what is the greatest thing in life? “To crush my enemies and laugh at the lamentations of their transwomen.”
I actually want my enemies to eat shit, and die! 🙃
Bloody Oath, Pete!
Then after that; all their assets seized and then made to live in a barracks, work in an agricultural labor camp on bread and water rations whilst wearing an ugly pink prison uniform.
Then after that; all their assets seized and then made to live in a barracks, work in an agricultural labor camp on bread and water rations whilst wearing an ugly pink prison uniform. That’s an undeservingly kind Christmas present for the vilest of enemy vermanthropes. White Man wins. Fatality policy.
Must have been in an unusually good mood that night Unc.
This article is perfect. It is a white pill.
There is a big difference between a fight that may be in favor of one of the parties and a situation without a political fight, one in which our antiwhite enemies formerly enjoyed an uncontested supremacy.
Cancel culture is never justified, no matter who the culprit. The corporate, wage slavery we live in should not be encouraged to fill the space of our personal lives.
Before the cancellation of the public post-2017, when someone did something stupid online, they were mocked in the public square online. No tried to make them homeless. It’s a positive feedback loop of constant fear and chilling of speech.
I understand. In a rational society, with decent people, you would be right. We would tolerate all points of view, even ones we don’t like. But this isn’t America anymore. This is degenerate jew-land. Jews want us dead. We must return fire.
The graphic at the top of the article makes me feel physically sick. It’s just a drawing, but it fills me with rage. I will tell you that I reposted literally every X post I saw to get these weasels found and fired.
They started cancel culture long ago, so I hope they’re happy with themselves. Now they can go reap the whirlwind.
The graphic at the top of the article is the face of the enemy. It looks like Tyler Robinson, an antifa degenerate.
“The left has never played by our rules. Only we play by our rules. Our rules are what keeps our side from winning. We either want to win or we will lose under some delusion that the rules mean anything.”
— Charlie Kirk
In general, unless a person poses a dangerous criminal threat, I don’t think it’s important to get someone who’s a rude jerk fired, if he happens to have a necessary skill, and can act civil with clients/customers. A$$holes do deserve to be able to work for a living too. They might need to be shifted to a position which is not so high-profile.
Would folks prefer to support those who are outright fired with steady unemployment checks financed by tax dollars? Or simply allow someone to be demoted to a different position?
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.