Posted on 09/14/2025 4:27:08 AM PDT by FreedomPoster
Posted in Bloggers because I have the sense that X posts aren't allowed in the main forum. This really should be there.
Pinging some holders of ping lists.
Is my comment on X posts accurate?
I have no idea but thanks for posting it. FWIW, it was already posted once, not to criticize by any means, this needs to be seen, but because you may get some blow back from FR Posting Police FReepers.
Excellent.
Celebrating murder is not free speech.
It is Incitement to violence, which is illegal in virtually every jurisdiction.
p
Excellent. Thanks for posting!
““Normies.” People who scroll through Facebook posts and Instagram...”
God help us if ‘normal’ people get their info from these two landfills.
Politics attracts bitter people. Leftist politics attracts people who blame others for their own unhappiness.
It is so odd to call someone like Charlie Kirk or William Buckley a fascist, since they were both charming, upbeat and positive.
normies need to wake up and realize
that when the celebration of political violence
escalates to democide
they will be on the list
Bookmark
Brilliant message.
Sadly, those on the Left who this is directed towards simply DO NOT CARE!!!
They totally lack any self awareness and are so entrenched in their religion of hate, Rooting out this evil will not be easy or quick. The LEFT has already fully embraced murder as an acceptable political strategy.
This will be a long dirty bloody war. Keep the faith!!!!
Mark for later
What infuriates me is that low-IQ people are quick to spew that “the violence is on both sides”. And I’m not talking about just the left, either. (IIRC, Ainsley Earhart on Fox said something similar this week.) These are weak people who believe that if they sound conciliatory they’ll come across as more credible.
What’s even more maddening is that, when someone tells this blatant lie, those who know the truth DON’T CORRECT THEM! The violence is 99% — maybe 100% — from the left.
A Turning Point? The Death of Charlie Kirk and the Possible Collapse of Progressive Ideology
By The Hermit
History often moves not in steady, predictable steps but in sudden lurches—shaped by moments so symbolic, so emotionally charged, that they become catalysts for greater change. For some, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 marked such a turning point: the end of postwar American innocence, the beginning of deep national mistrust, and the slow unraveling of the consensus that had defined mid-century America.
Now, six decades later, we may be witnessing the other bookend to that era.
The death of Charlie Kirk, a leading voice of youthful conservative activism, has sent shockwaves through American political culture. While history will need time to assign meaning to this event, one must ask: could this be the moment when conservatives finally say, “Enough”? Could it mark the beginning of the end of Progressive ideological dominance in the United States?
The Context of a Fractured Nation
For years, the American political left—broadly represented by progressive ideology—has expanded its influence across nearly all major institutions: education, media, entertainment, corporate HR departments, even certain religious communities. In many of these areas, dissenting views were not just discouraged but aggressively marginalized. Conservatives, for the most part, either adapted quietly or withdrew—sometimes creating their own spaces, sometimes conceding ground entirely.
But there’s a growing sense that something fundamental has shifted. The quiet majority is no longer so quiet. The outrage over cultural upheaval, institutional overreach, and the erosion of national identity has turned into a simmering anger. And now, with the death of Charlie Kirk, that anger may reach a boiling point.
Charlie Kirk as a Symbol
Charlie Kirk was not just a political commentator—he was a symbol of generational pushback. Unlike older conservatives often on the defensive, Kirk represented a new, unapologetic right that refused to cede moral ground to progressivism. He spoke directly to young people, challenged the left’s control of academia, and dared to confront institutional narratives. Whether one agreed with his rhetoric or not, his influence was undeniable.
If JFK’s death accelerated the fragmentation of American unity and opened the door to the cultural revolution of the late ‘60s and ‘70s, Kirk’s death may have the inverse effect: a unifying event for conservative resurgence, a moment of collective realization that passivity is no longer an option.
Is Progressivism Now Overextended?
Every ideology, when pushed too far, begins to falter under the weight of its own contradictions. Progressivism once stood for noble goals: civil rights, equality under the law, and fair opportunity. But in recent years, many believe it has mutated into something far more divisive—redefining language, punishing dissent, and promoting a moral superiority that alienates as much as it persuades.
We see this overreach in policies that prioritize illegal immigrants over citizens, in efforts to rewrite history, and in the erasure of traditional values that once unified communities. The backlash is already visible: increasing political polarization, growing distrust in media, and the rise of grassroots conservative movements across the country.
The death of Charlie Kirk may solidify that backlash into a coherent force.
A New Conservative Awakening?
Unlike the reaction to JFK’s death, which fractured a generation, the reaction to Kirk’s death may consolidate one. This time, it’s not about radical rebellion—but restoration. Not revolution—but return. A return to principles: limited government, free speech, individual responsibility, and national sovereignty.
Could Kirk’s death mark the beginning of a new conservative awakening? That remains to be seen. But the mood is changing. The ground beneath the progressive movement appears less solid. The appeal to institutional power—once seen as a strength—is now seen by many as an abuse. People are waking up, and they are not happy with what they see.
Conclusion: The Bookends of a Cultural Era?
From JFK to Kirk, we may indeed be witnessing the closing of a long and painful chapter in American political life. One that began with hope, spiraled into division, and now may find resolution in renewal.
Whether the death of Charlie Kirk becomes a true turning point in history is something only time will tell. But if it is, it will be because millions of Americans—quiet for too long—decided that the time for silence had ended.
They remembered what it meant to love their country, and they chose to fight for it.
Spot on!
Agree that this piece belongs on the main board. I also agree the author has identified and described the current social reaction correctly.
Ainsley Airhead.
They need to not walk but run away from the Democratic indoctrination plantation NOW! All he states which the “normies” find bad and wrong is only the beginning of liberalism, once the “normies” discover the rest it is over for the Libs! Time for them to leave the “oppressive” USA and find a more progress country. Suggest England, France or Germany. Those countries also find Christians to be offensive…… GOOD LUCK COMMRADE…..
This is pure brilliance.
I was thinking of writing something, an editorial, but why?
Nothing could top what this fellow wrote.
As requested, pinging every one of my ping lists.
Everyone at MSNBC is complicit. I want Trump to extract many pounds of flesh from that rotting corpse of an organization. They think this will just pass in a few days and Nicole Wallace and Chris Hayes can go right back to bashing Trump and MAGA.
It is LONG past time for the right to go on offense. Those subversive “news” organs need to pay the ultimate price. No retreat, no surrender, no forgiveness until MSNBC and CNN are dismantled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.