I am glad that they let us know who they are.
My thought: Sure, the comments are despicable, but they are also protected by our 1st Amendment. (The line of course is inciting more violence.)
But we won’t be happy when the left is back in power and turns mass firings around on conservatives who express views unpopular with the powers that be.
Killing Charlie was meant to quell dissent. That’s exactly why he was killed.
By the way, did he have on a plate over his chest and did the bullet richochet off of that? Haven’t seen actual proof...
Also,
Sounds like the framework for a political force calling themselves “I$l@m”
“If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you’re illiberal. If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you’re a fundamentalist. If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you’re a totalitarian. If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you’re a terrorist.”
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.
Anarchists ran wild in the late 19th century. There back.
Clarice is 100% right to point the finger at Obama as the root cause of the left wing assassination culture. When Obama called us “bitter clingers” he gave permission to the zombie who shot Charlie Kirk. It’s all Obama’s fault.
The civil war is in progress on all the City State sanctuaries and minor sanctuaries like Rochester. All the sanctuaries have resigned from America. They are “formerly” American.
The object of a war is to destroy your enemy. A lesser objective including obtaining a surrender with terms merely prolongs the war until another day. The count of the number of deaths has begun. Counting Kirk and ICE officers, they have killed 4 or 5 of us and only one of theirs is dead.
BTTT
Thanks for posting!!