I've been looking through X the last couple of days and what I keep seeing is commentary about Kirk's ability to debate with respect and decorum from both people who disagree and agree with him. I can't remember anyone claiming he was some sort of purveyor of truth. Everyone knows he's a political operative. The nature of of the job inherently involves trade-offs and compromises. The story is that he was assassinated for non-violent political speech. A husband, a father, and a person who lived his life with purpose. So to publish an article that focuses on his lack of truth telling in certain situations as a political operative and to pretend that tons of people have been running around elevating him to some some sort of saint for being a purveyor of truth outside the realm of other political operatives is just contrived click bait.
Was looking for this comment. The people saying he’s a truth teller are fellow traveler conservatives who appreciate that he spread conservative values on campuses. Did anyone actually frame him as a journalist or something similar? Tracey took a shot at a strawman.
The people saying he’s a purveyor of truth are meaning it in the values he shared that they enjoy, akin to if a liberal said AOC is a truth teller. Tracey is weirdly asserting that people claim that he was some independent journalist or something because he’s interpreting what they say through his own view set as an independent journalist. The flags are at half mast because one of the largest public politics pundits was murdered for his constitutional right.
Bigface Charlie Kirk was a sickening foreign agent and paid waterboy for an illegitimate regime involved in the brutal dismemberment and starvation of women and children.
The flags are at half mast because Trump is a corrupt fake conservative who wants to honor his personal bag boy for laundering money from donors and foreign countries.
He wasn’t a war hero, a president, or a great figure; he was a dime-a-dozen mediocrity, another in a long line of corrupt political operatives. If we lower the flags for this piece of human garbage, we might as well keep them lowered at all times for every murder victim in this shithole country.
This is ridiculous political theater and utterly shameless pandering, quite frankly poetic considering the way Kirk lived his life.
NOPE., Michael Tracy is 100% correct. Kirk is being high praised as some sort of Christian with strong faith which is ostensibly false, as REAL Christians DON'T allow their wives to wear short skimpy outfits in ridiculous beauty pageants at the Asinine w0e-MEN in the leadership summit, which is contrary to God as he does not allow w0e-MEN in leadership roles.
He's a weird Christian nutjob loser who needs women to be completely subjugated in order to force one to be with him. And worships serial cheating, twice divorced, pedo Donald Trump as a "Christian". Christianity has become a joke under this administration.
What are you talking about? There has been no motive established whatsoever about him being assassinated for non-violent political speech. Charlie only ever punched down on the vulnerable, never up. He never challenged power. He mouthpieced for the corrupt US Empire and got rich in the process. POS.
Why, nothing. But he did punch down, got rich supporting the Establishment and its Imperialist depradations, and got down and crawled before that stupid tub of shit Trump. But he was respectful! I love the use of that word by rightists! You sound like the libs your always badmouthing.
With respect, if he was not assassinated for non violent political speech, what was he assassinated for?
If you characterize debating college students as punching down "on the vulnerable," then what should he have done instead? Are you suggesting that he should have limited himself to only speaking with those his own age or older? Charlie brought a different sort of message to college campuses, which forced students to reconsider much of what they'd previously been taught as fact. In drawing such huge crowds, he was able to expose more students to a reasoned, thoughtful discussion on the issues, rather than the usual juvenile name-calling.
And he had, in fact, begun to question the power of the Israel lobby, the influence of Bibi's government over DC, and the extent of US aid to Israel. In his final interview with Ben Shapiro, he disputed Bibi's statement that it is impossible to be MAGA without also supporting Israel. In an interview with Megyn Kelly, Charlie expressed anger at attempts by the Israel lobby to pull him back into line after he criticized Trump's decision to strike Iran.
So we agree that incessantly discussing the failures and hypocrisy of Barry Obama, and Bill Gates, and Nancy and Kamala and Klan Klinton/Soros is punching down? Nice! We've never agreed on anything before.
Charlie Kirk was a paid mouthpiece for US Empire. Just because he didn’t like one side of the management team doesn’t mean he punched up to power. It means he was a partisan hack.
So, by your criteria, he has to punch up towards everyone, because he is so low? Lower than the politicians who ratcheted up the rhetoric until hundreds of Evil Karens stood in Kirk's audience and chanted "death to Charlie Kirk!" like Stepford Wives?
Kirk loved his friends and family and was always trying to help people. I could give you fifty anecdotes. How many politicians even pretend to have that kind of empathy? Kirk only punched down because his political opponents are a death cult. Who do you feel has your back?
Remember when they tried to cancel Dave Chappelle and JK Rowling?
YES. He didn't deserve to be shot, but Michael Tracy is 100% correct. Kirk is being high praised as some sort of Christian with strong faith which is ostensibly bullshit since REAL CHRISTIANS don't allow their w0e-MEN to wear short skimpy outfits in ridiculous beauty pageants for w0e-MEN'S leadership nonsense, moreover REAL Christians DON'T allow w0e-MEN into leadership roles.
Demanding absolute perfection from flawed humans is a poor argument at best. This is on the same level of using MLK's infidelity to discredit his ministry.
What on Earth are you talking about? No one is demanding "absolute perfection," or just "perfection" from Kirk or anybody. That's a dodge, a way to invalidate criticism. It usually comes from Dems, who get around having to answer for their inaction and hypocritical bullshit by saying, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." No one and nothing is perfect, so imagining someone could be perfect is a sham argument. And, comparing the valid criticisms of Kirk's racism and hypocrisy and generally contemptible behavior with the attempts to discredit MLK by pointing out his marital infidelity is a way to yoke MLK's decency and respect for universal values and principles (and dying for them) with Kirk's ignorance, racism, and fascist outlook, which Kirk was not shy about proclaiming. Tracey's article points to just a few of Kirk's myriad reversals, hypocritical lies, and his endless groveling before Trump. In the coming months, there will be plenty more evidence put forward, so get your own preposterous arguments in favor of Kirk's short and rancid career as a towel boy for Trump ready. Its going to be a tough slog.
Look, I know you're upset, and you're having trouble dealing with the cold hard facts of this unfortunate event. In time--say a month or so, it will get better! You'll see. So you've got that.
Wait, who even tried to prove that Kirk was not close to perfect? Alleged crimes of intent are proof of nothing. What if Kirk was a saint who loved everyone? That would make the haters evil accessories to murder....again. How do you people sleep at night. Is there a bubble trick?
Well, Trump certainly thought Kirk was a "purveyor of truth." So, he's a political "operative," and his, um, "lack of truth-telling (you mean his being a liar--just say it) in certain situations" (like when he got caught out directly telling a bald-faced whopper of a lie to cover his sorry-ass groveling for Trump) is best ignored, or whatever? Its too funny to see Kirk's admirers coming around with torturous and ham-handed excuses for his brief and soon-to-be closely examined utterances and beliefs.
NOPE. Michael Tracy is right. ALL of social media is doing exactly what you claim they weren't. They are portraying him as a Christian which is ostensibly FALSE as he was a MALE FEMINIST who propped up w0e-MEN.
'to pretend that tons of people have been running around elevating him to some some sort of saint for being a purveyor of truth outside the realm of other political operatives'
But that's exactly what tons of people have been doing.
There is a difference between political speech you disagree with or even hate speech and violence. We're talking about a religious person who espoused religious views and said things I disagreed with concerning war in Gaza for instance. He was not violent and never encouraged other people to be violent. He was killed for his political and religious views. It was despicable and this article was designed to get clicks. That is all.
"This" article was designed to get clicks? Like everything Tracey puts out, along with much of the rest of Substack. Especially every one of these "contrarian" truth-revealers, alt-world "journalists," etc.
I am begging y'all to have a SHRED of media literacy. How is speaking about this man's wishy-washiness, his own quotes, his own media, speaking ill of him???
Stay on topic I repeat, Charlie Kirk was free speech political activist and welcomed debate from people he disagreed with. He spoke many truths and also many theories that were not always true or impossible to know if true or not. What is true is that he was a man of faith - that was his truth
He could have been a future conservative president too. What a tragedy he is gone the way he did during free speech debate. I hope his killer is caught . And it’s highly unlikely it is Israel. That is irrational.
Yes he made secret he supported Trump and therefore he was free to speak to put forward his thoughts and his point of view and his faith in the name of free speech and not be assassinated for it by woke left freaks who didn’t agree. ( He was way different to George Floyd so I don’t why there are comparisons to him as George Floyd’s death was horrible and unnecessary yet the left thought he should be eulogised ( I recall there was violence over his death too ) even though he was a criminal and had numerous charges and broke into properties. Kirk was none of those things - so large sections of Americans and his supporters should be able to eulogise him the way they want.
His views are being discussed on the merits, like “war in the middle east bad” and “we should trust Trump to bomb Iran” and “release the epstein files” and “we should trust Trump to bury the epstein files”.
There are no merits on which these can simultaneously be held, that’s the doublespeak of a mouthpiece for the president and people should be aware of these facts. If him and his family didn’t want that as part of his legacy, he could’ve changed his actions or they could’ve advised him to.
SCRIPTURE. "You shall know them by their fruits" Scripture commands w0e-MEN to COVER their bodies and to NOT draw attention to themselves. Also God also forbids and prohibits w0e-MEN from being in leadership roles, they are not even permitted to be teachers/church/school/ as w0e-MEN have more sin than MEN, Charlie allowed his wife to parade her nakedness like a WHORE at that absurd w0e-MEN'S leadership summit and as I've said God does not allow w0e-MEN into leadership roles nor does he allow w0e-MEN to expose their bodies. Charlie was a prototypical FAKE Christian and white nationalist. True Christians have no allegiance to a country.
I recognize the fact that Charlie was a mouthpiece for the Trump Admin. But he did have his moments, and he was beginning to question our undying support for everything Israel wanted.
Don't be absurd. Kirk defended Trump and debated people he knew wouldn't be able to argue with him. If he was a freedom of speech defender he wouldn't be MAGA. People are being fired for harmless comments.
Wrong. Michael Tracy is 100% correct. Charlie Kirk was a FAKE CHRISTIAN IMPOSTER. REAL Christians don't promote w0e-MEN in leadership roles in DUMB beauty pageants
No according to scripture w0e-MEN are to cover their bodies and they are not to draw attention to themselves. Also, w0e-MEN are prohibited from having authority over MEN as MEN are above w0e-MEN and w0e-MEN are more sinful. TRUE Christians know this. Only SIMPS and fools would defend w0e-MEN'S rights which is a form of Marxism.
It is extremely difficult to discern the spark of the divine in you.
Necrophiliac homoerotic allusions in the wake of the assassination of the straightest family man in America? I suggest you slither back into whatever sewer you crawled out of. Your pathetic attempts to shock with crudity are an embarrassment to you and whatever regrettable lifeform coupling is responsible for your miserable existence.
Orphans have no parents, so they are not orphaned. Wife is just as bad as he was. But I guess you just disappeared her. She doesn't count. Kids are orphaned now, according to you.
It is extremely difficult to discern the spark of the divine in you. Have you succumbed to substance abuse? I suggest you revise your comment when you sober up.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Do you do that a lot? I'm thinking you do. Am I right? Why don't you stop that? Or do you just enjoy being an annoying twit?
"It is really low of you to speak ill of the dead before the body is cold.
Do better."
Is it "low" to speak the truth? It is "low" to want to counteract a phony mythology about a person after they have died? Call me crazy, but I have different definition of "low" than you do.
As Pilate said, “What is truth?” Even Jesus couldn't answer that one.
But I’ll tell you one true thing. The hate being spewed from every orifice and every pore by haters like you is turning off an increasing majority of Americans to your homicidal TDS rage.
I think you are the one without divine spark when you are more concerned with the sanctity of inanimate matter than you are with ethics and morality; more than you are with knowledge and truth; more than you are right and wrong; moreover you prefer ignorance over making use of that knowledge of good and evil taken from the Garden that, as the Greek spirit of learning (found most clearly in the original text that is almost certainly pre-Christian) thus imparted by wisdom (σοφία) stated made us "as gods" (ἔσεσθε ὡς θεὸς).
There is nothing more cringeworthy and disgusting than foolish Christians who have never read their Bible nor any other classical texts in their original languages, who know nothing about anything, yet think they know everything; yet think their knowledge of God and morality unquestionable. Who are you to question the divinity of others when you are like a good fool or a puppet, easily spun around by your passions and used by others in power like a tool to serve a purpose obvious to any thinking person?
You readily hurl the most serious and foul insult toward someone else, but I doubt you even understand the gravity of what you said because you probably have never read a thing about anything. "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."
Clearly on the spiritual hierarchy you are among the very lowest, as per John Eriugena's De divisione naturae: those things merely possessing soul and not spirit, not aspiring to the intellect of any of the races of angels, but rather sitting comfortably among what what was created but does not create.
You are thinking in terms of the shadow of what is above that is matter, and it's obvious to any learned person you detest God and spirit and know nothing about either, making a mockery of both. You throw stones at others in a manner absolutely diabolical by definition, per the Ancient Greek. How does it feel, to διαβάλλω others while you make a mockery of God and Spirit in name of both?
I will pray for you, for there is a spark of divinity in you, even though it is very difficult to see. Like, Christ, I forgive those who insult and bear false witness against me, so consider yourself forgiven. You will have to ask God to forgive you for your hubris and utter lack of humility.
The contrarian position isn't enlightening, Tracey. The country is fractured and barreling toward a civil war. People are out for blood. Your hot takes are irrelevant. Enjoy the clicks, while you can.
This isn't a hot take, Tracey dove deep into Kirk's history. Why are we celebrating a guy who took billionaire money to propagandize? It's awful he was murdered and even more awful his wife and kids are deprived of Kirk's companionship, but someone needs to push back against the hagiography.
Okay fair enough. I do disagree with Kirk's politics and one man's propagandist is another man's truth teller.
How about this? What sort of personal struggle did Kirk endure on behalf of his views? Was he arrested? Saw personal relationships damaged? From what I see Turning Points USA was well funded. Kirk seemed to dress well, flew first class, and stayed in nice hotels.
Michael Tracey has narrated 2 instances when Kirk changed his positions to obey Trump and his paymasters. This doesn't make him a grifter, but it doesn't elevate him to the stature of a national hero. He was a good advocate for those who retained his services and he probably sincerely believed a lot of his positions. But like Rush Limbaugh, he has no business collecting the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Yah, I find a lot of his views repulsive, but I respect his willingness to engage in dialogue with people who found his views repulsive, publicly. I think the biggest strike against that respect is his creation of a list of teachers and professors who were woke or something like that, which possibly led to death threats and such toward them. I haven’t looked into much though. But when people essentially make “hit lists” for their fanatic followers, it is disturbing, to say the least.
Crazy to me that you yourself came to the conclusion that the Epstein story was an overblown hoax, and yet you hold it against Charlie that he came to the same conclusion by trusting his friend.
That was my favorite thing in the article – the way MT has no use for Kirk coming over to what MT sees as the rational side on Epstein since it was (in MT’s view) just lickspittle obedience rather than an honest evaluation of the evidence. It’s the opposite of the enervating tribalism on every issue that is so ubiquitous.
Both are appropriate in their own way. Kirk was a friend of Trump and they had a shared vision/mission for the country. Having some trust and faith in your leader is a good thing sometimes. Tracey, much to everyone’s chagrin, but ultimately to his credit, marches to no flag and accepts no leaders. I think Trump is a good leader and Kirk was a good man. But we will always need a Michael Traceys around, as much as he annoys the shit out me sometimes.
Good take. I think Tracey needs to up his grooming game or looksmaxx because I swear that’s why so many people write him off. Sometimes he acts/looks like a goober.
“The incident will probably now be used to justify clampdowns on organic political exchange and debate”
Uhhh dude. Dont you think the assassination itself did exactly this? I’m getting a little tired of the constant “but the right” hysterics. Every time the left does something horrific all anyone seems to care about is the hypothetical overreaction that the right may or may not engage in as a response. It’s all so tiresome.
This journalistic self-immolation is exactly why I follow you. Never change.
Also, nobody really thinks of him as a “truth-teller;” every fawning tribute speaks to his energy, generosity, persuasive talent, bravery, and outspoken cultural and religious (not political) principles. Sort of a mantle bearer of Glenn Beck you might say.
But he knew his role as the youth mouthpiece, nobody’s made any secret of that, and there’s also nothing wrong with it.
What's astounding to me is that a supposed journalist is so focused on demonizing a political opponent one last time that you've completely failed to notice the diametrically opposed reactions to Charlie's death, and especially the reaction to the huge number of people basically singing ding dong the witch is dead while dancing with glee over Charlie's metaphorical grave.
The mainstream right see Charlie as a guy willing to respectfully debate all comers and who routinely did so on often hostile college campuses. And now he's been permanently silenced most likely by a supporter of the left who bought into their rhetoric that speech itself is violence, and that a violent response to words they don't like is completely justified.
Turns out the party of compassion and inclusivity is anything but.
And the last step in the thought process on the mainstream right is that if progressives that thrilled to off Charlie, that means they're also willing to off the very average joes who think much like Charlie.
They now clearly understand that people who claim words they don't like are violence, are a clear and present danger to free speech itself.
By extension, the right now sees the left not as political opponents, but opponents of the first amendment and democracy itself.
Amd no, that conclusion is not the least bit far fetched.
Where's the evidence that a "huge number of people" are gleeful about Kirk's death? You can always go on a nutpicking expedition and find morons online in places like Bluesky, but as far as I can tell, virtually all Democratic Party leaders, as well as the overwhelming majority of liberal pundits and normal Democrats/liberals, have unequivocally condemned Kirk's murder.
Uh, you realize we live in a country of 340 million people, right? And you're citing "social media" as if it represents widely held opinion? By referring to "the left" in such absurdly broad and unsubstantiated fashion, you're slandering your neighbors and members of your own community... because of a persecution fetish. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Personally I think dozens of different people posting videos of themselves celebrating a man's death is an aberration, even combined with all the other videos of students reactions in classrooms across the country.
So I think every democrat shares those views? Of course not.
I'm glad you understand that not every democrat shares those views. But are you still suggesting that the majority of "the left" supports this? So far, you've cited "dozens of different people posting videos of themselves" to support that claim. If you can't see why that's dumb and doesn't support your claim, I'm not sure how to help you.
I spend a lot of time in leftist message boards. I would say that about 1/3 of all posts are gleeful, or at least supportive or excusing of the murder.
According to a poll last year 55% of Democrat voters believed it would be at least somewhat justified to kill president Trump. I don’t think there’s any doubt that millions of people hold these views. That’s a huge number.
I suspect the majority of both parties are reasonably sane individuals who wouldn't wish death on anyone. It is telling, though, that i haven't seen a single report of someone on the right committing any act of political violence in the days after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
I spend a lot of time in leftist message boards. I would say that about 1/3 of all posts are gleeful, or at least supportive or excusing of the murder.
According to a poll last year 55% of Democrat voters believed it would be at least somewhat justified to kill president Trump. I don’t think there’s any doubt that millions of people hold these views. That’s a huge number.
So now your argument is that Democrats are somehow not enthusiastic enough in their denunciations of the murder? What a joke. It's clear you guys just have a preexisting agenda to silence your political opposition, plus a persecution fetish. Did you hold Republican leaders to the same standard of conduct after the assault on Paul Pelosi, or after the killings of Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband?
I'm not a Democrat or a Republican or a liberal or a conservative. My point was that most people say something like "Murder is always terrible" followed by "but…"
As one of "you guys," let me say that I have absolutely no interest in silencing anyone.
It is extremely disturbing to view so many gleeful, grinning people jumping with joy over the assassination of a person whose views they disagreed with.
Your continued disingenuous attempts to downplay this, or act like it is less prevalent than it is, doesn't change the fact.
If AOC or Jasmine Crockett had been assassinated, I would be chastising anyone exulting in her killing as well, not acting like it wasn't happening.
I’m not acting like it’s not happening. Of course some people celebrated Kirk’s murder - unfortunately, crazy and/or stupid people exist, and they always will. But none of this is coming from the institutional Democratic Party or the mainstream left. That’s in contrast to Trump’s Republican Party, which elevates top officials and figures who celebrate violence against their political opponents.
The only violence Trump’s administration openly supports is that against helpless women and children that are being brutally massacred by a genocidal foreign government that seems to co-own his campaign with American billionaires.
Do you agree with Stephen Miller's assertion (which he stated before Kirk's murder) that the Democratic Party is a "domestic extremist organization"? And if Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff had asserted that the Republican Party was a domestic extremist organization, would you have found the acceptable?
I was labeled a "Deplorable" years ago by Hillary.
People with my views were denounced as "white supremacist domestic terrorists" for years by the Biden Admin, because we objected to COVID mandates, the stolen election, and the persecution of J6 participants, among other things.
1) Why are you assuming Hillary intended the “deplorable” label to apply to you? Did she personally insult you or something? (By the way, I didn’t vote for her in 2016.) 2) Of course the 2020 election wasn’t “stolen” - Trump attempted to overturn the election against the will of the electorate, and it’s to your shame and discredit if you supported that. 3) When did Biden call anyone a white supremacist simply for opposing COVID mandates? And are you saying you opposed any NPIs to contain a virus that killed millions of Americans?
"Of course. . . " No, I'm not going into the stolen election here, but there were massive numbers of mail in ballots deposited in ballot boxes primarily placed in Dem areas (and plenty of video showing the same people repeatedly dropping off huge stacks of them, after carefully snapping a pic of each one); millions more votes allegedly cast in that election than in any election before or since; and several states (including my own) taking a week and a half to "finish counting ballots," etc.
And yes, I opposed any Covid mandates, because the entire virus thing was a pysop. It was just another virus, that would have eventually gone away based on herd immunity.
Many writers right here on Substack covered the Covid topic in depth, including Dr. Robert Malone, Jay Battacharya, Naomi Woolf, and others. Do some research.
Hillary intended the “Deplorables” to apply to all her opponents.
Yes, the 2020 election was stolen. I live in AZ, where Establishment Republicans and Dems worked together to do so. I saw it happen.
None of the COVID mandates were reasonable or necessary — especially the poison shots. Good grief, try doing a tiny bit of research into “Covid vaccine injuries.” My own aunt died from the shot, after suffering a massive stroke. There were professional athletes keeling over on the field with myocarditis/pericarditis. Naomi Woolf has covered female issues with the vaccine, ranging from miscarriages and stillbirths, to babies dying soon after birth. How could you possibly have missed all these stories?
There were a number of people at the venue itself, celebrating the assassination.
There are quite a few posts online. I'm not on X, but I heard that Libs of TikTok has many. I've seen several compilations of videos of people exulting in this killing.
If you ever get murdered, which I hope and pray to God you never are, it will absolutely be because you said things that make people uncomfortable, and you would be a martyred truth teller. Not because you were right on everything, or never made any mistakes, just as is true about Charlie Kirk. The fact he was killed proves that he was courageous to speak what he spoke. Even if he wasn’t 100% right all the time, just like you aren’t.
Someone who changes their proposed opinions strictly at the behest of the president should never be considered a truth teller from then on.
Giving a shit about the truth means you can (and as we are all fallible, absolutely will) still be wrong. Choosing to 180 to support those in power several times in a matter of months is proof of a spineless coward with no regard for the truth.
Charlie was team Trump and also a close friend of his. Taking your direction from your leader and even walking back criticism when you think you’ve gone too far, or when it becomes counterproductive to your political mission, isn’t cowardice. Kirk wasn’t a journalist. He didn’t operate in the same way that Tracey or any journalist is expected to. It’s kind of unfair to hold him to that standard. I get criticizing him that he was wishy washy on things or too subservient to Trump, I guess if you want, but his role was to boost Trump. I personally don’t have a problem with those decisions Kirk made.
I have no substantive political or journalistic objections to any attempts to transform MT into a heroic National Icon. He's a pain in the a** in the best journalistic tradition.
Charlie Kirk's views were the kind that frighten me.
I had never heard of Charlie Kirk... Apparently until 2022 he was a secular individual who believed in the separation of church and state who then underwent a reactionary transformation into someone with ideas that more resembled what Chris Hedges describes as dangerous,and warns about In his book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.
This article says these were Kirk's principles..."America will only be put right when it returns to Christian laws or principles. This view of political disagreement is inherently binary. There are those who trust in God and support God’s work to transform society. Then there are those who oppose it. These people are mired in spiritual darkness." ( That would include me)
While deep empathy must be felt for his family and his children, as any human would feel for any other human, murdered... I've heard no one discussing this and that's why I post this article. Charlie Kirk's views were the kind that frighten me.
" Many commentaries on Kirk’s life will focus on his significance as a political activist and the important – some would say decisive – role he played in turning out the youth vote for Trump’s presidential election victory in 2024. But it is important to recognise how significant he had become as a public leader for what a growing number of scholars have referred to as white Christian nationalism.
While there is some variation in political views and theological beliefs among white Christian nationalists, a central, shared conviction is that the US was originally established as a Christian nation. For Christian nationalists, the idea of the separation of church and state is taken to refer only to not having an official state church. The complete separation of Christianity from public institutions is anathema and secular institutions such as public schools and universities are often regarded as hostile ground.
Given their view of America’s original religious calling, many Christian nationalists therefore believe that secular, liberal society is in terminal crisis.
' America will only be put right when it returns to Christian laws or principles.' This view of political disagreement is inherently binary. There are those who trust in God and support God’s work to transform society. Then there are those who oppose it. These people are mired in spiritual darkness."
What are you so afraid of. This nation was founded on Christian principles. Read history man. If it goes so against you. Go join Rosie in Ireland!!! Oh wait there are Christians and Catholics there. Damn man you are lost.
The country was founded as a secular republic, with declared openness to those of other religions than Christianity, or no religion at all.
As President, George Washington wrote to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, on 18 August 1790, as follows:
"May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."
On 9 April 1803 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his friend Joseph Priestley -- himself a freethinker who had emigrated from his native England under charge of atheism -- as follows:
"I had promised some day . . giving my view of the Christian system. . . . I should do justice to the branches of morality they [Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers] have treated well; but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation.
"I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state.
"This view [remember, this is Jefferson's own, considered, view] would purposely omit the question of his divinity & even even his inspiration. . . . "
On 31 October 1819 the Author of the Declaration of Independence wrote to another friend, William Short, with the admission:
"As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian."
He spends a paragraph expanding on the meaning and significance of that assertion.
We then have primary source evidence of the secular nature, by the first President, of the Republic, and of the admiration, by the Third one, of his totally non-Christian appreciation of Jesus Christ, and his self-identification as an atheist.
You are the one, my dear Julie Harris, who is in need of reading the pages of history.
Yes, these super scary Christian nationalists marching through our streets and taking over all of our institutions are really super duper scary and stuff!! Won't someone please stop them!!! It's like 1930s Germany all over again!!!
As my mother’s family was persecuted in Germany. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Stop making up nonsense! You are insulting my dead relatives!
I read it as sarcasm. Trump is not Hitler and there are not Christian Nationalist Brownshirts marching in our streets. I sorry for your family is loss. (Really, I am.)
"This view of political disagreement is inherently binary. There are those who trust in God and support God’s work to transform society. Then there are those who oppose it. These people are mired in spiritual darkness." " Any less binary, self-righteous, or dogmatic than the view of the Woke toward the non-Woke?
Binary, self-righteous, and dogmatic gets a lot worse when it’s combined with violence and hypocrisy and sociopathy. That’s the scary thing about the woke: millions of people willing to slander coworkers, ignore tens of thousands of murders, and celebrate political violence because it makes them feel and look like good people to their friends. Lots of scientists are dogmatic. As long as they’re not spewing hate or mob apologism let dogmatics have their dogmatism. It doesn’t worry me. It’s just a feature of human psychology.
I think you missed the point. I certainly didn't agree with Charlie's position on several issues. Charlie, and I think most mainstream conservatives, always accept each other's differences and actively seek out common ground. Charlie openly and respectfully engaged with people who hated him, and routinely did so without rancor.
At the end of the day, that's the way a functioning society operates.
As much as it's possible for anyone to be martyred in the current year, outside of an Isis camp, Charley Kirk was 100% martyred. Or at least, given that we don't know exactly yet for certain why he was murdered, you are 100% wrong to say with certainty that he was not. That does not mean that he was a saint or that he was without fault or that everything he said was true. It simply means that he was murdered specifically because he spoke dangerous, unacceptable truths, which is exactly what he did every day and why he rose to prominence. Whatever else may be true is beside the point. You've jumped the fucking shark here Michael. Tell me where I'm wrong, please.
Honestly, I feel like I've been rage-baited with this turd you've posted today.
Your Trump hatred is at least as offensive as anything lickspittle Charlie Kirk ever did, and it's getting increasingly tiresome with age. This would have been a good time to give it a break for one brief shining moment. But you're too invested in your disheveled annoying journalist schtick, and you lack the imagination or self-awareness it would take to make the valuable, worthwhile observation you're obviously capable of in this unique moment. And sadly the reason is: you're every bit the anti-lackey that Charlie Kirk is the lackey, but really more so. It's such a damn shame.
Charlie Kirk is not a martyr. Webster's: a person who voluntarily suffers death
1. A person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion.
Kirk is a victim (& a father) but he's not a martyr. He never refused to change his beliefs when threatened with death. If anything he changed beliefs when Trump & his paymasters ordered him to.
If you got shot tomorrow, nobody would even know who you were. Yes, too soon Michael. And, once again, a post that just had to make reference to the Epstein story. This is pathetic. You aren't as smart as you imagine yourself to be. Great stylistic writer, but NOT another penny from this guy for your substack platform. In the words of Matt Walsh, "You are today, CANCELLED!"
Do you think it's also too soon to blame this on "the left" (even though we don't know the identity of the shooter) and screech for "war" because of some morons on Bluesky?
I don’t know enough about Kirk to have any strong opinion of my own about his merits and shortcomings, but this is a completely valid piece on its own terms, and I’m glad to have read it.
I've been looking through X the last couple of days and what I keep seeing is commentary about Kirk's ability to debate with respect and decorum from both people who disagree and agree with him. I can't remember anyone claiming he was some sort of purveyor of truth. Everyone knows he's a political operative. The nature of of the job inherently involves trade-offs and compromises. The story is that he was assassinated for non-violent political speech. A husband, a father, and a person who lived his life with purpose. So to publish an article that focuses on his lack of truth telling in certain situations as a political operative and to pretend that tons of people have been running around elevating him to some some sort of saint for being a purveyor of truth outside the realm of other political operatives is just contrived click bait.
Was looking for this comment. The people saying he’s a truth teller are fellow traveler conservatives who appreciate that he spread conservative values on campuses. Did anyone actually frame him as a journalist or something similar? Tracey took a shot at a strawman.
Beautiful metaphor! Yes Tracy took a close up shot at a straw man. Well done Tracy. You got him.
What are y’all talking about?
Tracey just said Charlie Kirk wasn’t an American hero and provided examples. Charlie Kirk WASN’T an American hero.
Kirk wasn’t some kind of war hero or president; he was an agent of Trump’s donors: billionaires and foreign countries.
Why are the flags at half mast? This is ridiculous.
The people saying he’s a purveyor of truth are meaning it in the values he shared that they enjoy, akin to if a liberal said AOC is a truth teller. Tracey is weirdly asserting that people claim that he was some independent journalist or something because he’s interpreting what they say through his own view set as an independent journalist. The flags are at half mast because one of the largest public politics pundits was murdered for his constitutional right.
Bigface Charlie Kirk was a sickening foreign agent and paid waterboy for an illegitimate regime involved in the brutal dismemberment and starvation of women and children.
The flags are at half mast because Trump is a corrupt fake conservative who wants to honor his personal bag boy for laundering money from donors and foreign countries.
He wasn’t a war hero, a president, or a great figure; he was a dime-a-dozen mediocrity, another in a long line of corrupt political operatives. If we lower the flags for this piece of human garbage, we might as well keep them lowered at all times for every murder victim in this shithole country.
This is ridiculous political theater and utterly shameless pandering, quite frankly poetic considering the way Kirk lived his life.
NOPE., Michael Tracy is 100% correct. Kirk is being high praised as some sort of Christian with strong faith which is ostensibly false, as REAL Christians DON'T allow their wives to wear short skimpy outfits in ridiculous beauty pageants at the Asinine w0e-MEN in the leadership summit, which is contrary to God as he does not allow w0e-MEN in leadership roles.
Huh?
He's a weird Christian nutjob loser who needs women to be completely subjugated in order to force one to be with him. And worships serial cheating, twice divorced, pedo Donald Trump as a "Christian". Christianity has become a joke under this administration.
Can't argue with that.
Something has gone terribly wrong with Tracey.
As I wrote in the opening line of this article, President Donald J. Trump proclaimed him a "martyr for truth."
You mean Trump used hyperbole?! Shocking! That's not an intellectually honest reason to straw man Kirk and do a hit piece. We know who he was.
What are you talking about? There has been no motive established whatsoever about him being assassinated for non-violent political speech. Charlie only ever punched down on the vulnerable, never up. He never challenged power. He mouthpieced for the corrupt US Empire and got rich in the process. POS.
BS.
How was he punching down on anyone, by engaging in respectful debate with those who held dissenting views?
What is wrong with talking to people?
Why, nothing. But he did punch down, got rich supporting the Establishment and its Imperialist depradations, and got down and crawled before that stupid tub of shit Trump. But he was respectful! I love the use of that word by rightists! You sound like the libs your always badmouthing.
So you have no real response, nothing but hatred for Trump.
My, how edgy you are . . .
That was the response. You just don't want to hear it. I do indeed hate Trump, with same pure hatred with which I hate Genocide Joe Biden.
With respect, if he was not assassinated for non violent political speech, what was he assassinated for?
If you characterize debating college students as punching down "on the vulnerable," then what should he have done instead? Are you suggesting that he should have limited himself to only speaking with those his own age or older? Charlie brought a different sort of message to college campuses, which forced students to reconsider much of what they'd previously been taught as fact. In drawing such huge crowds, he was able to expose more students to a reasoned, thoughtful discussion on the issues, rather than the usual juvenile name-calling.
And he had, in fact, begun to question the power of the Israel lobby, the influence of Bibi's government over DC, and the extent of US aid to Israel. In his final interview with Ben Shapiro, he disputed Bibi's statement that it is impossible to be MAGA without also supporting Israel. In an interview with Megyn Kelly, Charlie expressed anger at attempts by the Israel lobby to pull him back into line after he criticized Trump's decision to strike Iran.
So we agree that incessantly discussing the failures and hypocrisy of Barry Obama, and Bill Gates, and Nancy and Kamala and Klan Klinton/Soros is punching down? Nice! We've never agreed on anything before.
Charlie Kirk was a paid mouthpiece for US Empire. Just because he didn’t like one side of the management team doesn’t mean he punched up to power. It means he was a partisan hack.
So, by your criteria, he has to punch up towards everyone, because he is so low? Lower than the politicians who ratcheted up the rhetoric until hundreds of Evil Karens stood in Kirk's audience and chanted "death to Charlie Kirk!" like Stepford Wives?
Kirk loved his friends and family and was always trying to help people. I could give you fifty anecdotes. How many politicians even pretend to have that kind of empathy? Kirk only punched down because his political opponents are a death cult. Who do you feel has your back?
Remember when they tried to cancel Dave Chappelle and JK Rowling?
YES. He didn't deserve to be shot, but Michael Tracy is 100% correct. Kirk is being high praised as some sort of Christian with strong faith which is ostensibly bullshit since REAL CHRISTIANS don't allow their w0e-MEN to wear short skimpy outfits in ridiculous beauty pageants for w0e-MEN'S leadership nonsense, moreover REAL Christians DON'T allow w0e-MEN into leadership roles.
Demanding absolute perfection from flawed humans is a poor argument at best. This is on the same level of using MLK's infidelity to discredit his ministry.
What on Earth are you talking about? No one is demanding "absolute perfection," or just "perfection" from Kirk or anybody. That's a dodge, a way to invalidate criticism. It usually comes from Dems, who get around having to answer for their inaction and hypocritical bullshit by saying, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." No one and nothing is perfect, so imagining someone could be perfect is a sham argument. And, comparing the valid criticisms of Kirk's racism and hypocrisy and generally contemptible behavior with the attempts to discredit MLK by pointing out his marital infidelity is a way to yoke MLK's decency and respect for universal values and principles (and dying for them) with Kirk's ignorance, racism, and fascist outlook, which Kirk was not shy about proclaiming. Tracey's article points to just a few of Kirk's myriad reversals, hypocritical lies, and his endless groveling before Trump. In the coming months, there will be plenty more evidence put forward, so get your own preposterous arguments in favor of Kirk's short and rancid career as a towel boy for Trump ready. Its going to be a tough slog.
You're even worse at constructing straw men than Mike Tracey. Try thinking before letting loose your next stream of subtarded logorrhea.
Look, I know you're upset, and you're having trouble dealing with the cold hard facts of this unfortunate event. In time--say a month or so, it will get better! You'll see. So you've got that.
Wait, who even tried to prove that Kirk was not close to perfect? Alleged crimes of intent are proof of nothing. What if Kirk was a saint who loved everyone? That would make the haters evil accessories to murder....again. How do you people sleep at night. Is there a bubble trick?
What are you talking about? Go back and the posts. Jesus Christ!
MLK was a filthy grifter POS Commie. And likely a rapist.
He wasn't really debating them as much as he was dunk-farming on infantile leftists for clout.
But they are adults, who will be running the world one day.
It's good that they listen to opposing viewpoints, and attempt to argue their own side.
Yep! Absolute knocking down of a straw man, nothing more
What part of the opening sentence of this piece are you struggling with?
Well, Trump certainly thought Kirk was a "purveyor of truth." So, he's a political "operative," and his, um, "lack of truth-telling (you mean his being a liar--just say it) in certain situations" (like when he got caught out directly telling a bald-faced whopper of a lie to cover his sorry-ass groveling for Trump) is best ignored, or whatever? Its too funny to see Kirk's admirers coming around with torturous and ham-handed excuses for his brief and soon-to-be closely examined utterances and beliefs.
NOPE. Michael Tracy is right. ALL of social media is doing exactly what you claim they weren't. They are portraying him as a Christian which is ostensibly FALSE as he was a MALE FEMINIST who propped up w0e-MEN.
'to pretend that tons of people have been running around elevating him to some some sort of saint for being a purveyor of truth outside the realm of other political operatives'
But that's exactly what tons of people have been doing.
This is a good observation is was more or less what I was thinking as I read it.
Clearly a strawman by the author.
That is exactly what he was an operative.
They killed him to show us operatives in the Palantir-Polymarket economy is business.
There is a difference between political speech you disagree with or even hate speech and violence. We're talking about a religious person who espoused religious views and said things I disagreed with concerning war in Gaza for instance. He was not violent and never encouraged other people to be violent. He was killed for his political and religious views. It was despicable and this article was designed to get clicks. That is all.
"This" article was designed to get clicks? Like everything Tracey puts out, along with much of the rest of Substack. Especially every one of these "contrarian" truth-revealers, alt-world "journalists," etc.
Oh please.
Charlie Kirk never advocated violence.
All he did was engage in debate -- in fact, he was eager to speak with anyone who held dissenting views.
I don’t support what happened to him in any way, but Charlie Kirk absolutely promoted and justified violence.
He directly worked for Israeli donors engaged in the brutal dismemberment and starvation of women and children on a genocidal level.
He advocated for a foreign country and its perpetration of vicious war crimes against women and children.
It is really low of you to speak ill of the dead before the body is cold.
Do better.
As it stands it is very difficult to discern the spark of the divine in you.
But hey, at least you kept your progressive credentials in good standing while his widow and orphans cry over his MARTYRED corpse.
I am begging y'all to have a SHRED of media literacy. How is speaking about this man's wishy-washiness, his own quotes, his own media, speaking ill of him???
Stay on topic I repeat, Charlie Kirk was free speech political activist and welcomed debate from people he disagreed with. He spoke many truths and also many theories that were not always true or impossible to know if true or not. What is true is that he was a man of faith - that was his truth
He could have been a future conservative president too. What a tragedy he is gone the way he did during free speech debate. I hope his killer is caught . And it’s highly unlikely it is Israel. That is irrational.
He was a Maga supporter, not a freedom of speech activist.
How was he not a free speech activist?
If he pushed censorship, I wasn't aware of it.
He was MAGA's envoy for young people. Stop acting as if he was a martyr for free speech.
Did Charlie Kirk push censorship, or did he advocate for free speech?
Glenn Greenwald referred to him as a "free speech absolutist" last week.
I don't see any citations from you to prove your point.
Simply repeating yourself isn't good enough.
Yes he made secret he supported Trump and therefore he was free to speak to put forward his thoughts and his point of view and his faith in the name of free speech and not be assassinated for it by woke left freaks who didn’t agree. ( He was way different to George Floyd so I don’t why there are comparisons to him as George Floyd’s death was horrible and unnecessary yet the left thought he should be eulogised ( I recall there was violence over his death too ) even though he was a criminal and had numerous charges and broke into properties. Kirk was none of those things - so large sections of Americans and his supporters should be able to eulogise him the way they want.
Charlie Kirk was a FAKE Christian imposter. Michael Tracy is spot on.
It’s hard to discern the spark of the divine in the likes of you.
Do better.
Start by refraining from ad hominem attacks. You dishonor Charlie’s memory by degenerating to that level. But then, that's what haters do.
So let go of the hate and debate the policies on their merits.
His views are being discussed on the merits, like “war in the middle east bad” and “we should trust Trump to bomb Iran” and “release the epstein files” and “we should trust Trump to bury the epstein files”.
There are no merits on which these can simultaneously be held, that’s the doublespeak of a mouthpiece for the president and people should be aware of these facts. If him and his family didn’t want that as part of his legacy, he could’ve changed his actions or they could’ve advised him to.
BINGO! YOU GET IT. Charlei Kirk was a SHILL and FAKE Christian
What is your basis for labeling Charlie a "FAKE Christian"?
SCRIPTURE. "You shall know them by their fruits" Scripture commands w0e-MEN to COVER their bodies and to NOT draw attention to themselves. Also God also forbids and prohibits w0e-MEN from being in leadership roles, they are not even permitted to be teachers/church/school/ as w0e-MEN have more sin than MEN, Charlie allowed his wife to parade her nakedness like a WHORE at that absurd w0e-MEN'S leadership summit and as I've said God does not allow w0e-MEN into leadership roles nor does he allow w0e-MEN to expose their bodies. Charlie was a prototypical FAKE Christian and white nationalist. True Christians have no allegiance to a country.
Although, according to Tucker Carlson, Charlie lobbied against the US strike on Iran: https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1966678218733158463
Pretty much agree that Charlie was a mouthpiece for the Trump Admin, though.
He did! Until he didn’t!
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202509114758
Once trump did it he immediately praised trump for doing so.
He did! Until he didn’t!
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202509114758
Once trump did it he immediately praised trump for doing so.
He did! Until he didn’t!
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202509114758
Once trump did it he immediately praised trump for doing so.
Unfortunately. . .
At least he tried ahead of time.
I recognize the fact that Charlie was a mouthpiece for the Trump Admin. But he did have his moments, and he was beginning to question our undying support for everything Israel wanted.
Dude, what? What policies? Is this AI? Are we getting Punk'd?
I generally enjoy substack because I can talk to people and we can have a friendly back and forth. But it's just getting really weird right now.
It is extremely difficult to. Discern the spark of the divine in you.
They are are no stupid questions, but “What policies?” proves them wrong.
Jesus holds up a mirror to us all. Some turn away from him though.
Don't be absurd. Kirk defended Trump and debated people he knew wouldn't be able to argue with him. If he was a freedom of speech defender he wouldn't be MAGA. People are being fired for harmless comments.
You are a personification of the hate that killed him. I’ll pray for you.
I'm an atheist:).
Kirk dishonored life. And his own memory.
Wrong. Michael Tracy is 100% correct. Charlie Kirk was a FAKE CHRISTIAN IMPOSTER. REAL Christians don't promote w0e-MEN in leadership roles in DUMB beauty pageants
Well aren't you quite the misogynist? Divorce PTSD?
No according to scripture w0e-MEN are to cover their bodies and they are not to draw attention to themselves. Also, w0e-MEN are prohibited from having authority over MEN as MEN are above w0e-MEN and w0e-MEN are more sinful. TRUE Christians know this. Only SIMPS and fools would defend w0e-MEN'S rights which is a form of Marxism.
What denomination of Christianity do you belong to?
What are you on about?
Insufficient adulation and kirk-fellation does not equate to "speaking ill of the dead."
"How dare you tell the truth (for a change), Michael Tracey!!??"
It is extremely difficult to discern the spark of the divine in you.
Necrophiliac homoerotic allusions in the wake of the assassination of the straightest family man in America? I suggest you slither back into whatever sewer you crawled out of. Your pathetic attempts to shock with crudity are an embarrassment to you and whatever regrettable lifeform coupling is responsible for your miserable existence.
I sincerely hope you get the psychiatric help you need, dude.
Orphans have no parents, so they are not orphaned. Wife is just as bad as he was. But I guess you just disappeared her. She doesn't count. Kids are orphaned now, according to you.
It is extremely difficult to discern the spark of the divine in you. Have you succumbed to substance abuse? I suggest you revise your comment when you sober up.
You must have a macro for that phrase.
No but given the number of people who elicit that reply it’s not a bad idea. Consider yourself among them btw.
Since I don't believe in a devine, no big deal.
You don't believe in Andy Devine?
You obviously didn’t read the post.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Do you do that a lot? I'm thinking you do. Am I right? Why don't you stop that? Or do you just enjoy being an annoying twit?
False prophet.^^^^^^^
Don’t be surprised that the same far-
left radicals who have blood on their own hands for this assassination are still shilling the big lie that America is horrible.
https://vtforeignpolicy.com/2025/09/charlie-kirk-tragic-zio-idiot-zio-prostitute-or-zio-sycophant/
"It is really low of you to speak ill of the dead before the body is cold.
Do better."
Is it "low" to speak the truth? It is "low" to want to counteract a phony mythology about a person after they have died? Call me crazy, but I have different definition of "low" than you do.
As Pilate said, “What is truth?” Even Jesus couldn't answer that one.
But I’ll tell you one true thing. The hate being spewed from every orifice and every pore by haters like you is turning off an increasing majority of Americans to your homicidal TDS rage.
We see you.
And we do not like what we see.
Charlie did not die in vain.
I think you are the one without divine spark when you are more concerned with the sanctity of inanimate matter than you are with ethics and morality; more than you are with knowledge and truth; more than you are right and wrong; moreover you prefer ignorance over making use of that knowledge of good and evil taken from the Garden that, as the Greek spirit of learning (found most clearly in the original text that is almost certainly pre-Christian) thus imparted by wisdom (σοφία) stated made us "as gods" (ἔσεσθε ὡς θεὸς).
There is nothing more cringeworthy and disgusting than foolish Christians who have never read their Bible nor any other classical texts in their original languages, who know nothing about anything, yet think they know everything; yet think their knowledge of God and morality unquestionable. Who are you to question the divinity of others when you are like a good fool or a puppet, easily spun around by your passions and used by others in power like a tool to serve a purpose obvious to any thinking person?
You readily hurl the most serious and foul insult toward someone else, but I doubt you even understand the gravity of what you said because you probably have never read a thing about anything. "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."
Clearly on the spiritual hierarchy you are among the very lowest, as per John Eriugena's De divisione naturae: those things merely possessing soul and not spirit, not aspiring to the intellect of any of the races of angels, but rather sitting comfortably among what what was created but does not create.
It especially hard to see in you. A microscope may be indicated, as well as an exorcism.
Why do you hate God as well as man?
Has it occurred to you that the two may be related, as they were in the assassin who martyred Charlie?
You are thinking in terms of the shadow of what is above that is matter, and it's obvious to any learned person you detest God and spirit and know nothing about either, making a mockery of both. You throw stones at others in a manner absolutely diabolical by definition, per the Ancient Greek. How does it feel, to διαβάλλω others while you make a mockery of God and Spirit in name of both?
I will pray for you, for there is a spark of divinity in you, even though it is very difficult to see. Like, Christ, I forgive those who insult and bear false witness against me, so consider yourself forgiven. You will have to ask God to forgive you for your hubris and utter lack of humility.
The contrarian position isn't enlightening, Tracey. The country is fractured and barreling toward a civil war. People are out for blood. Your hot takes are irrelevant. Enjoy the clicks, while you can.
This isn't a hot take, Tracey dove deep into Kirk's history. Why are we celebrating a guy who took billionaire money to propagandize? It's awful he was murdered and even more awful his wife and kids are deprived of Kirk's companionship, but someone needs to push back against the hagiography.
Propaganda. Truth. Who decides? You? Tracey?
What is there to "push back" against? Find me a public figure that isn't a propagandist, and I'll tell you what your politics are.
Okay fair enough. I do disagree with Kirk's politics and one man's propagandist is another man's truth teller.
How about this? What sort of personal struggle did Kirk endure on behalf of his views? Was he arrested? Saw personal relationships damaged? From what I see Turning Points USA was well funded. Kirk seemed to dress well, flew first class, and stayed in nice hotels.
Michael Tracey has narrated 2 instances when Kirk changed his positions to obey Trump and his paymasters. This doesn't make him a grifter, but it doesn't elevate him to the stature of a national hero. He was a good advocate for those who retained his services and he probably sincerely believed a lot of his positions. But like Rush Limbaugh, he has no business collecting the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
“How about this? What sort of personal struggle did Kirk endure on behalf of his views?”
Dude, he was just murdered because of his views. And I’d wager he had received quite a lot of death threats before that.
That makes him brave, it doesn't make him a martyr.
I don't recall using that word. I was just answering a question the guy asked.
"Find me a public figure that isn't a propagandist" Michael Tracey. As far as I can tell, he has no agenda other than trying to figure things out.
Tracey has no agenda, true. He doesn't actually believe anything.
We are celebrating his desire to engage in dialogue with those who held dissenting views.
Yah, I find a lot of his views repulsive, but I respect his willingness to engage in dialogue with people who found his views repulsive, publicly. I think the biggest strike against that respect is his creation of a list of teachers and professors who were woke or something like that, which possibly led to death threats and such toward them. I haven’t looked into much though. But when people essentially make “hit lists” for their fanatic followers, it is disturbing, to say the least.
I don’t think you went far enough. It discredits him as a free speech advocate.
Maybe maybe.... been looking into the details...
This.
BINGO!
Crazy to me that you yourself came to the conclusion that the Epstein story was an overblown hoax, and yet you hold it against Charlie that he came to the same conclusion by trusting his friend.
I think Tracey would argue that he came to that conclusion by doing actual journalistic work, while Kirk just took Trump’s word.
That was my favorite thing in the article – the way MT has no use for Kirk coming over to what MT sees as the rational side on Epstein since it was (in MT’s view) just lickspittle obedience rather than an honest evaluation of the evidence. It’s the opposite of the enervating tribalism on every issue that is so ubiquitous.
Both are appropriate in their own way. Kirk was a friend of Trump and they had a shared vision/mission for the country. Having some trust and faith in your leader is a good thing sometimes. Tracey, much to everyone’s chagrin, but ultimately to his credit, marches to no flag and accepts no leaders. I think Trump is a good leader and Kirk was a good man. But we will always need a Michael Traceys around, as much as he annoys the shit out me sometimes.
Good take. I think Tracey needs to up his grooming game or looksmaxx because I swear that’s why so many people write him off. Sometimes he acts/looks like a goober.
Tracey is a (small time) professional contrarian and amateur provocateur. That's this schtick.
Also, he often makes very good points.
I was just thinking the same thing!!
“The incident will probably now be used to justify clampdowns on organic political exchange and debate”
Uhhh dude. Dont you think the assassination itself did exactly this? I’m getting a little tired of the constant “but the right” hysterics. Every time the left does something horrific all anyone seems to care about is the hypothetical overreaction that the right may or may not engage in as a response. It’s all so tiresome.
This journalistic self-immolation is exactly why I follow you. Never change.
Also, nobody really thinks of him as a “truth-teller;” every fawning tribute speaks to his energy, generosity, persuasive talent, bravery, and outspoken cultural and religious (not political) principles. Sort of a mantle bearer of Glenn Beck you might say.
But he knew his role as the youth mouthpiece, nobody’s made any secret of that, and there’s also nothing wrong with it.
I think it's the conferrence of sainthood that rubs Tracey the wrong way. This is what usually happens when someone is killed.
What's astounding to me is that a supposed journalist is so focused on demonizing a political opponent one last time that you've completely failed to notice the diametrically opposed reactions to Charlie's death, and especially the reaction to the huge number of people basically singing ding dong the witch is dead while dancing with glee over Charlie's metaphorical grave.
The mainstream right see Charlie as a guy willing to respectfully debate all comers and who routinely did so on often hostile college campuses. And now he's been permanently silenced most likely by a supporter of the left who bought into their rhetoric that speech itself is violence, and that a violent response to words they don't like is completely justified.
Turns out the party of compassion and inclusivity is anything but.
And the last step in the thought process on the mainstream right is that if progressives that thrilled to off Charlie, that means they're also willing to off the very average joes who think much like Charlie.
They now clearly understand that people who claim words they don't like are violence, are a clear and present danger to free speech itself.
By extension, the right now sees the left not as political opponents, but opponents of the first amendment and democracy itself.
Amd no, that conclusion is not the least bit far fetched.
Where's the evidence that a "huge number of people" are gleeful about Kirk's death? You can always go on a nutpicking expedition and find morons online in places like Bluesky, but as far as I can tell, virtually all Democratic Party leaders, as well as the overwhelming majority of liberal pundits and normal Democrats/liberals, have unequivocally condemned Kirk's murder.
Uh, social media is full of posts and videos. So many some are compiling lists of thrm and sharing the original videos and comments.
A few dozen people have already been fired.
Look it up.
Uh, you realize we live in a country of 340 million people, right? And you're citing "social media" as if it represents widely held opinion? By referring to "the left" in such absurdly broad and unsubstantiated fashion, you're slandering your neighbors and members of your own community... because of a persecution fetish. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Personally I think dozens of different people posting videos of themselves celebrating a man's death is an aberration, even combined with all the other videos of students reactions in classrooms across the country.
So I think every democrat shares those views? Of course not.
Their behavior however, is pretty indefensible.
I'm glad you understand that not every democrat shares those views. But are you still suggesting that the majority of "the left" supports this? So far, you've cited "dozens of different people posting videos of themselves" to support that claim. If you can't see why that's dumb and doesn't support your claim, I'm not sure how to help you.
I spend a lot of time in leftist message boards. I would say that about 1/3 of all posts are gleeful, or at least supportive or excusing of the murder.
According to a poll last year 55% of Democrat voters believed it would be at least somewhat justified to kill president Trump. I don’t think there’s any doubt that millions of people hold these views. That’s a huge number.
See for yourself.
I suspect the majority of both parties are reasonably sane individuals who wouldn't wish death on anyone. It is telling, though, that i haven't seen a single report of someone on the right committing any act of political violence in the days after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Agreed -- and I also think they should be made famous.
Repost their statements reveling in the death of a man who was killed for his words. Let everyone see their hate.
I spend a lot of time in leftist message boards. I would say that about 1/3 of all posts are gleeful, or at least supportive or excusing of the murder.
According to a poll last year 55% of Democrat voters believed it would be at least somewhat justified to kill president Trump. I don’t think there’s any doubt that millions of people hold these views. That’s a huge number.
See for yourself.
"the overwhelming majority of liberal pundits and normal Democrats/liberals, have unequivocally condemned Kirk's murder."
You left out "perfunctorily".
So now your argument is that Democrats are somehow not enthusiastic enough in their denunciations of the murder? What a joke. It's clear you guys just have a preexisting agenda to silence your political opposition, plus a persecution fetish. Did you hold Republican leaders to the same standard of conduct after the assault on Paul Pelosi, or after the killings of Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband?
I'm not a Democrat or a Republican or a liberal or a conservative. My point was that most people say something like "Murder is always terrible" followed by "but…"
Both sides do this.
As one of "you guys," let me say that I have absolutely no interest in silencing anyone.
It is extremely disturbing to view so many gleeful, grinning people jumping with joy over the assassination of a person whose views they disagreed with.
Your continued disingenuous attempts to downplay this, or act like it is less prevalent than it is, doesn't change the fact.
If AOC or Jasmine Crockett had been assassinated, I would be chastising anyone exulting in her killing as well, not acting like it wasn't happening.
I’m not acting like it’s not happening. Of course some people celebrated Kirk’s murder - unfortunately, crazy and/or stupid people exist, and they always will. But none of this is coming from the institutional Democratic Party or the mainstream left. That’s in contrast to Trump’s Republican Party, which elevates top officials and figures who celebrate violence against their political opponents.
Ok that’s a lie.
The only violence Trump’s administration openly supports is that against helpless women and children that are being brutally massacred by a genocidal foreign government that seems to co-own his campaign with American billionaires.
Important omission.
Just go look on Xwitter.
Do you agree with Stephen Miller's assertion (which he stated before Kirk's murder) that the Democratic Party is a "domestic extremist organization"? And if Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff had asserted that the Republican Party was a domestic extremist organization, would you have found the acceptable?
You seem to be assuming my comments are partisan just because I don't agree with you.
Give me a break, dude.
I was labeled a "Deplorable" years ago by Hillary.
People with my views were denounced as "white supremacist domestic terrorists" for years by the Biden Admin, because we objected to COVID mandates, the stolen election, and the persecution of J6 participants, among other things.
1) Why are you assuming Hillary intended the “deplorable” label to apply to you? Did she personally insult you or something? (By the way, I didn’t vote for her in 2016.) 2) Of course the 2020 election wasn’t “stolen” - Trump attempted to overturn the election against the will of the electorate, and it’s to your shame and discredit if you supported that. 3) When did Biden call anyone a white supremacist simply for opposing COVID mandates? And are you saying you opposed any NPIs to contain a virus that killed millions of Americans?
"Of course. . . " No, I'm not going into the stolen election here, but there were massive numbers of mail in ballots deposited in ballot boxes primarily placed in Dem areas (and plenty of video showing the same people repeatedly dropping off huge stacks of them, after carefully snapping a pic of each one); millions more votes allegedly cast in that election than in any election before or since; and several states (including my own) taking a week and a half to "finish counting ballots," etc.
And yes, I opposed any Covid mandates, because the entire virus thing was a pysop. It was just another virus, that would have eventually gone away based on herd immunity.
Many writers right here on Substack covered the Covid topic in depth, including Dr. Robert Malone, Jay Battacharya, Naomi Woolf, and others. Do some research.
Hillary intended the “Deplorables” to apply to all her opponents.
Yes, the 2020 election was stolen. I live in AZ, where Establishment Republicans and Dems worked together to do so. I saw it happen.
None of the COVID mandates were reasonable or necessary — especially the poison shots. Good grief, try doing a tiny bit of research into “Covid vaccine injuries.” My own aunt died from the shot, after suffering a massive stroke. There were professional athletes keeling over on the field with myocarditis/pericarditis. Naomi Woolf has covered female issues with the vaccine, ranging from miscarriages and stillbirths, to babies dying soon after birth. How could you possibly have missed all these stories?
There were a number of people at the venue itself, celebrating the assassination.
There are quite a few posts online. I'm not on X, but I heard that Libs of TikTok has many. I've seen several compilations of videos of people exulting in this killing.
They're not really all that hard to find.
If you ever get murdered, which I hope and pray to God you never are, it will absolutely be because you said things that make people uncomfortable, and you would be a martyred truth teller. Not because you were right on everything, or never made any mistakes, just as is true about Charlie Kirk. The fact he was killed proves that he was courageous to speak what he spoke. Even if he wasn’t 100% right all the time, just like you aren’t.
Someone who changes their proposed opinions strictly at the behest of the president should never be considered a truth teller from then on.
Giving a shit about the truth means you can (and as we are all fallible, absolutely will) still be wrong. Choosing to 180 to support those in power several times in a matter of months is proof of a spineless coward with no regard for the truth.
Charlie was team Trump and also a close friend of his. Taking your direction from your leader and even walking back criticism when you think you’ve gone too far, or when it becomes counterproductive to your political mission, isn’t cowardice. Kirk wasn’t a journalist. He didn’t operate in the same way that Tracey or any journalist is expected to. It’s kind of unfair to hold him to that standard. I get criticizing him that he was wishy washy on things or too subservient to Trump, I guess if you want, but his role was to boost Trump. I personally don’t have a problem with those decisions Kirk made.
I have no substantive political or journalistic objections to any attempts to transform MT into a heroic National Icon. He's a pain in the a** in the best journalistic tradition.
Charlie Kirk's views were the kind that frighten me.
I had never heard of Charlie Kirk... Apparently until 2022 he was a secular individual who believed in the separation of church and state who then underwent a reactionary transformation into someone with ideas that more resembled what Chris Hedges describes as dangerous,and warns about In his book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.
This article says these were Kirk's principles..."America will only be put right when it returns to Christian laws or principles. This view of political disagreement is inherently binary. There are those who trust in God and support God’s work to transform society. Then there are those who oppose it. These people are mired in spiritual darkness." ( That would include me)
While deep empathy must be felt for his family and his children, as any human would feel for any other human, murdered... I've heard no one discussing this and that's why I post this article. Charlie Kirk's views were the kind that frighten me.
" Many commentaries on Kirk’s life will focus on his significance as a political activist and the important – some would say decisive – role he played in turning out the youth vote for Trump’s presidential election victory in 2024. But it is important to recognise how significant he had become as a public leader for what a growing number of scholars have referred to as white Christian nationalism.
While there is some variation in political views and theological beliefs among white Christian nationalists, a central, shared conviction is that the US was originally established as a Christian nation. For Christian nationalists, the idea of the separation of church and state is taken to refer only to not having an official state church. The complete separation of Christianity from public institutions is anathema and secular institutions such as public schools and universities are often regarded as hostile ground.
Given their view of America’s original religious calling, many Christian nationalists therefore believe that secular, liberal society is in terminal crisis.
' America will only be put right when it returns to Christian laws or principles.' This view of political disagreement is inherently binary. There are those who trust in God and support God’s work to transform society. Then there are those who oppose it. These people are mired in spiritual darkness."
What are you so afraid of. This nation was founded on Christian principles. Read history man. If it goes so against you. Go join Rosie in Ireland!!! Oh wait there are Christians and Catholics there. Damn man you are lost.
The country was founded as a secular republic, with declared openness to those of other religions than Christianity, or no religion at all.
As President, George Washington wrote to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, on 18 August 1790, as follows:
"May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."
On 9 April 1803 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his friend Joseph Priestley -- himself a freethinker who had emigrated from his native England under charge of atheism -- as follows:
"I had promised some day . . giving my view of the Christian system. . . . I should do justice to the branches of morality they [Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers] have treated well; but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation.
"I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state.
"This view [remember, this is Jefferson's own, considered, view] would purposely omit the question of his divinity & even even his inspiration. . . . "
On 31 October 1819 the Author of the Declaration of Independence wrote to another friend, William Short, with the admission:
"As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian."
He spends a paragraph expanding on the meaning and significance of that assertion.
We then have primary source evidence of the secular nature, by the first President, of the Republic, and of the admiration, by the Third one, of his totally non-Christian appreciation of Jesus Christ, and his self-identification as an atheist.
You are the one, my dear Julie Harris, who is in need of reading the pages of history.
"The country was founded as a secular republic"
Yea, no.
Brilliant argument.
What official state church existed that we have since gotten rid of?
Read the comment I was responding to. Then read your comment.
Strawman harder.
What defines a secular republic vs a religious republic? You literally made no argument so quite literally any response is a strawman.
'This nation was founded on Christian principles'
I believe the founding fathers were deists rather than Christians.
Deists only in the sense that the church did not rule. But FOUNDED AS I SAID ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES!
Yes, these super scary Christian nationalists marching through our streets and taking over all of our institutions are really super duper scary and stuff!! Won't someone please stop them!!! It's like 1930s Germany all over again!!!
As my mother’s family was persecuted in Germany. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Stop making up nonsense! You are insulting my dead relatives!
Sarcasm, Julie.
Seriously where are Christians marching in the streets. Stop lying!!
I read it as sarcasm. Trump is not Hitler and there are not Christian Nationalist Brownshirts marching in our streets. I sorry for your family is loss. (Really, I am.)
Not at all what I said.
"This view of political disagreement is inherently binary. There are those who trust in God and support God’s work to transform society. Then there are those who oppose it. These people are mired in spiritual darkness." " Any less binary, self-righteous, or dogmatic than the view of the Woke toward the non-Woke?
Binary, self-righteous, and dogmatic gets a lot worse when it’s combined with violence and hypocrisy and sociopathy. That’s the scary thing about the woke: millions of people willing to slander coworkers, ignore tens of thousands of murders, and celebrate political violence because it makes them feel and look like good people to their friends. Lots of scientists are dogmatic. As long as they’re not spewing hate or mob apologism let dogmatics have their dogmatism. It doesn’t worry me. It’s just a feature of human psychology.
Fuck off, atheist.
I think you missed the point. I certainly didn't agree with Charlie's position on several issues. Charlie, and I think most mainstream conservatives, always accept each other's differences and actively seek out common ground. Charlie openly and respectfully engaged with people who hated him, and routinely did so without rancor.
At the end of the day, that's the way a functioning society operates.
Oh shut up
As much as it's possible for anyone to be martyred in the current year, outside of an Isis camp, Charley Kirk was 100% martyred. Or at least, given that we don't know exactly yet for certain why he was murdered, you are 100% wrong to say with certainty that he was not. That does not mean that he was a saint or that he was without fault or that everything he said was true. It simply means that he was murdered specifically because he spoke dangerous, unacceptable truths, which is exactly what he did every day and why he rose to prominence. Whatever else may be true is beside the point. You've jumped the fucking shark here Michael. Tell me where I'm wrong, please.
Honestly, I feel like I've been rage-baited with this turd you've posted today.
Your Trump hatred is at least as offensive as anything lickspittle Charlie Kirk ever did, and it's getting increasingly tiresome with age. This would have been a good time to give it a break for one brief shining moment. But you're too invested in your disheveled annoying journalist schtick, and you lack the imagination or self-awareness it would take to make the valuable, worthwhile observation you're obviously capable of in this unique moment. And sadly the reason is: you're every bit the anti-lackey that Charlie Kirk is the lackey, but really more so. It's such a damn shame.
Charlie Kirk is not a martyr. Webster's: a person who voluntarily suffers death
1. A person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion.
Kirk is a victim (& a father) but he's not a martyr. He never refused to change his beliefs when threatened with death. If anything he changed beliefs when Trump & his paymasters ordered him to.
In current usage it's anyone who dies as part of some political struggle. E.g. Palestinians call civilians that die in war martyrs.
American Heritage Dictionary:
2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle
If you got shot tomorrow, nobody would even know who you were. Yes, too soon Michael. And, once again, a post that just had to make reference to the Epstein story. This is pathetic. You aren't as smart as you imagine yourself to be. Great stylistic writer, but NOT another penny from this guy for your substack platform. In the words of Matt Walsh, "You are today, CANCELLED!"
Do you think it's also too soon to blame this on "the left" (even though we don't know the identity of the shooter) and screech for "war" because of some morons on Bluesky?
Nobody should be screeching for war.
I think I’m done with you now.
I don’t know enough about Kirk to have any strong opinion of my own about his merits and shortcomings, but this is a completely valid piece on its own terms, and I’m glad to have read it.