Leftism is the enemy of the good, the true and the beautiful.

This may seem harsh, and it is, but it is a just harshness. The assassination of Charlie Kirk — founder of Conservative activism group Turning Point USA, close personal friend of President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance, and a key architect of the successful 2024 Trump campaign — occurred on Wednesday, September 10, 2025. The fallout of this made it very, very clear that millions of even “moderate” Democrats felt completely comfortable in sharing with the world, under their own names and faces, their belief that the killing was justified.

I have seen the posts with my own eyes — from Facebook, to TikTok, to Twitter and every social media site in between — of “normal” Democrats and deranged freaks joining in saying that Kirk had it coming, and that his wife has it coming, and that his three-year-old daughter and infant son have it coming. We saw, on the video of Kirk getting shot, a young man pump his fists up in celebration a half second after the bullet impacted, and we saw so much more. I have seen them. There is no unseeing them. There is no media gaslighting that will make them go away; the left collectively owns them.

The rightward shift

I am to the right of where Kirk was; I have always been to the right of where Kirk was. If you were a normal, center-right fan of Kirk last Tuesday, you are almost certainly further to the right than you were last Wednesday morning.

The person who shot him, and the people who justified, apologized or excused it, would do worse to me and you. We can know this with as much certainty as we need to know. We do not need expert approval to know this. Just as the people, including myself and many mutuals that I am proud of, who instantly knew that the killer was a leftist, were sure of it, and only became vindicated later when we discovered that the shooter was indeed a leftist. From the notes he left on the bullet (“Hey fascist, catch”), we can infer that he is not even a Bernie bro Socialist — which doesn’t even really exist anymore — but a Bioleninist.

I believe that Tyler Robinson is a disgusting, degenerate, deviant who grew up normal but fell so hard and so fast into a belief framework where it makes sense to them that killing someone for not validating their life with words is right and morally acceptable. We know these things because the left does not hide what they are and what they think. And what they think is that if you support the right, you deserve to die.

We will spend months, years, hearing about the unraveling of how Tyler Robinson became the man who killed Kirk on a Wednesday afternoon. I am not here to waste space psychoanalyzing him. I don’t even care; I don’t think he’s a tragic figure. He should be understood only insomuch as it takes to identify his co-conspirators, who certainly do exist, and probably in much larger numbers than you are comfortable with, given the number of clues that exist which show many people knew what was going to happen last Wednesday. Round them up and destroy, utterly and completely, the patronage and client network that created them and that relies on them and their extreme mental illness to create loyal janissaries for the left’s causes. They should be “understood” in the same way virologists seek to understand disease, and not further.

And I certainly won’t “both sides” this nonsense because there is no “both sides” of blame, and I will not call for any “lowering of the temperature.” Kirk was good, and Robinson evil, and that is that. People who support or defend or apologize or make excuses for what Robinson did are cupbearers of evil; perhaps they can repent of that, and perhaps not. But I will not “both sides” this. I do not want peace and unity with anyone who thinks Kirk even contributed, even a little bit, to his assassination. Peace and unity with the left is submission to the left, and I don’t want it. I already think that if the left attains power, ever again, they will make the Bolsheviks (radical faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) look restrained.

Cancel culture and power

Since Wednesday, and the brazen glee many on the moderate left openly took in Kirk’s killing, we found out that the right is much more adept at “cancel culture” than the left is. What a surprise. And of course, the squawking about how hypocritical it is for the right to engage in cancel culture followed too, as if there’s no difference between good things and bad things.

Cancelling a bad person for doing a bad thing is not the same as cancelling a good person for doing a good thing. And the left would, of course, even agree with that; we disagree on what is good and what is bad, however, and it is not a disagreement that objective, neutral debate proceduralism can arbitrate either.

I want to remind you that they just shot the guy on my side who was fond of debate. One side will win, and one side will lose, and the winner will reshape America and the world for generations, and the loser will be reviled by generations unborn. Aiat.

No, we’re not doing this anymore. They killed the guy who liked to debate; what profit is there left in debating more? And things are definitely going to be done. If you watched or listened to JD Vance host the episode of the Charlie Kirk show that aired on Monday, September 15, 2025, you know this. You should watch or listen to it. If you are friend or foe, you should. A friend to know what’s coming, and a foe to also know what’s coming, and flee the wrath to come. They killed the guy who liked to debate; his friends are not so keen. And his friends have the full power of the United States Government, able to come down on everyone involved in his murder.

Does that frighten you? Charlie Kirk’s daughter will grow up without a father in a world where she will know that many, many people gloried in her father’s death and want her own. I’m sure she’ll be very frightened anytime her father isn’t there to comfort her. I don’t care if the left is frightened. That is a nice change of events for me.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.