An Emboldened Right Prepares its Blitzkrieg

We have an answer to the question posed by Edwin Starr in the 1970 hit War. War is good for creating a single-party system of Government. Unlike the President and right-wing media, I was reluctant to post anything about the Charlie Kirk murder before we knew who did it because that would be irresponsible. It appears they have their man in custody, and while his motives remain murky, whether he turns out to be an LGBTQ rights advocate or right-wing Groyper (had to look that one up), it really shouldn’t matter. We have a gun problem and a mental health crisis in this country, exacerbated among young people by internet brain rot. Neither of which Republicans have a serious plan for. The answer to guns, more guns. Need therapy? Fuck you, find Jesus. It’s much easier to explain and simpler to understand that, actually, the problem is violent rhetoric from Democrats/Leftists/Liberals etc.  Simple explanations feel good, but they’re never the whole story. I knew the hypocrisy of the right would be in full swing as soon as this tragic event came across my feed. Conservatives would decry violence against them while calling for it against they. Whoever the fuck they are, and that’s exactly what happened.

The debate about which side breeds more violent rhetoric is academically complicated. Antidotally, not so much. After the assassination and before any knowledge of who was responsible, the right-wing media apparatus and establishment called it an act of war. The left-wing media called it a tragedy. And it is. I weep for our country. I do not doubt that someone on the left celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death because if you’re in the right-wing algorithm, that’s what they were going to show you. Fortunately, I don’t swim in those waters.

I didn’t know much about Charlie Kirk. When I came upon him, it was due to my YouTube algorithm, videos titled, Charlie Kirk owned by college student. No doubt, people were fed the same videos on the right with the opposite framing. That’s how it works. From what I did see, his arguments were regularly backstopped by religion and patriarchy. He was a culture warrior whose ideas held little resonance for me. He was also part of the debate media ecosystem designed to incite anger that I find off-putting, on both sides. But people love a good fight, and his philosophies, archaic to me, were obviously important to many people. Our country should have room for all of these notions, and we should fight them out, peacefully, in the marketplace of ideas, as, to be fair, he did.  

The night of Charlie Kirk’s murder, Trump said, “It's long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree.” I agree, but you go first. Of course, Trump will never stop demonizing his enemies, and after a generation of being fed rhetoric about how Democrats are evil, baby-killing, pedos, neither will his followers. I don’t paint all Republicans with this brush, but a sizable portion of them don’t see Democrats as having a difference of opinion; they see them as the enemy, and for anyone who thinks this is about the “extreme left”, they call Joe Biden a communist. I mean, come on. They don’t, or can’t, differentiate between center-left and Maoism. If Charlie Kirk believed in religion and patriarchy (and apparently hated liberal arts degrees), then I should be able to be an atheist and pluralist (with a liberal arts degree). That is what makes this country great, not close-mindedness.

I suspect the Republican Party, emboldened by an authoritarian dictator, will attack mainstream Democratic groups just as hard, maybe harder, than the far left, because they’re more of a danger. They’ll label all protesters, exercising their First Amendment rights, as a domestic threat, and with the way the Supreme Court has bent over backwards for them, declaring Democrats as a domestic terrorist organization and it being held up in court is not far-fetched. Trump also said, “My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence,” and in the next breath, conflated throwing a sandwich at ICE with murder. They’re hungry for any pretense and, eventually, however flimsy, they will find it. They want a single-party system where anything less than total acquiescence is punishable by law. For anyone who thinks that’s a good thing because you’ll be part of the club, just know, it doesn’t work like that. The United States' strength is in its freedom and diversity.  If you don’t have diversity of thought, you don’t have your precious freedom. For the what about cancel culture crowd, this is not the same. Facing cultural backlash on social media and facing the full power of the federal government because you literally quoted Charlie Kirk, is not the same fuckin’ ballpark, it ain’t the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin’ sport, to quote Jules from Pulp Fiction.

I recently revisited the novel 1984, by George Orwell. It used to be my favorite book. I must have been around 18 years old the first time I read it. I know because it coincided with the Radiohead album OK Computer. I was reading that book and listening to that CD over and over in my lonely bedroom. They go well together. I used to see arguments online. Was 1984 about fascism or communism? It was, after all, loosely based on the Bolsheviks. A Russian communist group that rose to power during WWI, led by Vladimir Lenin. But the answer is neither. It’s about unchecked authoritarianism. It’s about being worried that your neighbor will turn you in to the government because you don’t display the proper amount of patriotism. That is where we are headed; it’s not good, and it’s never ended well. Not in fiction or non-fiction.