2,422 videos 1,389,747,653 views US Joined Aug 30, 2018
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.
Dana White and Joe Rogan Miss the Big Picture on Assassination Celebration Cancel Culture
A fierce debate erupts over Dana White and Joe Rogan's recent statements about cancel culture and the public celebration of political assassination. While White argues against firing people who celebrated violence and Rogan expresses surprise at the widespread support, critics argue they're missing a fundamental threat to American society. The conversation examines whether expressing shock at assassination glorification represents genuine concern or strategic fear, and whether society must draw a hard line when citizens celebrate political murder. This marks a turning point in the cancel culture debate, where the question shifts from protecting controversial speech to protecting the foundations of civil society itself.
Jimmy Kimmel's Ratings Collapse Reveals the Propaganda Model
An article from Zero Hedge reveals that Jimmy Kimmel's audience numbers have imploded after a brief spike. While he drew 6.5 million viewers for his night back, he now averages just 1.77 million total viewers, significantly down from 2015 highs. In the critical 25 to 54 demographic, Thursday's episode hemorrhaged 73% of viewers from its peak.
However, the analysis suggests that Jimmy Kimmel's show doesn't exist to get ratings. The show exists to spread propaganda, operating as what some call the "liberal anti-church" where liberal boomers gather for their demonic sermon from fake high priests. The fact that it loses money for Disney, once one of America's most beloved institutions, doesn't matter to those who run it because they can never create, only corrupt and destroy. This includes what they did to Jimmy Kimmel himself, who used to be great.
Dana White's Misguided Defense Against Cancel Culture
Dana White recently came out saying that cancel culture over the assassination celebration is wrong and that people shouldn't lose their jobs. In a clip, White stated: "I'm a big believer in free speech and unfortunately probably the most important speech to protect is hate speech. I hate cancel culture on both sides. All the stuff that's going on right now, you're seeing people getting fired or kicked out of school. I think you're a disgusting human being if you're celebrating the death of another human being. But people make mistakes and people are going to do dumb things. I don't like trying to destroy people's lives over doing something dumb."
Critics argue this position fundamentally misses the big picture. This isn't traditional cancel culture where someone's old statements are dug up to destroy them. Cancel culture historically meant people lost jobs for saying things like "I don't think there should be riots" or "riots might hurt Democrats in elections." This is completely different. When people celebrate assassination, they're not making a political statement that disagrees with progressive orthodoxy. They're advocating for the destruction of political systems through murder.
Joe Rogan's Surprising Surprise at Assassination Celebration
Joe Rogan released a viral clip expressing shock at how many people celebrated assassination. In the clip, Rogan stated: "I never expected so many people would celebrate that man's murder. That is evil. That's bizarre. Just bizarre. Like normal people that I think think they're good people and they genuinely think that guy was a bad guy. And I don't think they're right. And I think they were indoctrinated. And I don't agree with everything that was said or did. I don't care if he was a bad guy or not. I don't want to see anybody die."
The response to Rogan's statement questions how someone could spend so many years in the cultural space and find themselves surprised by this development. However, some slack is offered with the acknowledgment that middle-of-the-road liberals who are relatively apolitical were celebrating on Facebook, which was genuinely shocking even to cultural observers.
The deeper concern is whether Rogan and White are not actively paying attention or are deeply scared about what is happening to the country. The suggestion is made that Rogan might be saying these things because he's scared of what the left will do to him and his family, causing him to walk things back and act like he had no idea this was coming.
The Fundamental Difference Between Cancel Cultures
There's a critical distinction to be made between liberal cancel culture and what's being called for now. Liberal cancel culture operated on the principle: did you offend our non-theistic religion? If yes, you are banned. The line was whether you said something that disagreed with their pseudo-religious worldview.
The new line being drawn is different: when you advocate for the destruction of political systems through murder, you should be excised from polite society. This isn't about disagreeing with someone's politics. This is about whether society will tolerate the veneration of assassins and assassinations. A society that tolerates such glorification is a society that has opened the door to civil war.
As one voice in the discussion noted, we are at a point where liberals celebrated the assassination of Brian Thompson and venerated the alleged assassin. The pattern continued and escalated. The question becomes: what happens to our society when influential figures like Dana White say it is okay for half the population to celebrate assassins?
Consequence Culture Versus Cancel Culture
The framework being proposed isn't traditional cancel culture but rather consequence culture. It's not a matter of canceling people for their words in the abstract. It's a matter of them suffering the consequences of their words when those words glorify political violence.
The reality is that conservatives have always had lines they wouldn't cross. Everyone knows that even now, there are things that if said would destroy personal careers. Conservatives tend to be honest and have always been honest about what can and can't be talked about. The difference is that conservatives have a wide range of tolerance for ideas, as shown in all the data.
If someone at a company said something racist, a conservative employer wouldn't immediately fire them. They would say, "Let's have a conversation about it and figure out why you're saying this." Often people would then reconsider their position. Tolerance was greater for the right. The left said no tolerance even for jokes.
Now a hard line has been found: no one should be allowed to work in polite society when they're calling for the death of other people. Period.
The Radicalizing Reality of Mainstream Assassination Support
What proved most radicalizing wasn't just that political figures were smearing and celebrating death. It was regular people. Nurses, HR directors, people you work with, people in the military, people who fly airplanes. This represents serious danger. When people who have the power of life and death literally in their hands every day hold these beliefs, it reveals how bad the brain rot has gotten in this country.
The philosophical reality is this: when the right was talking about free speech, it was presented as a very binary choice for the average person, but there was always depth to it. The question was always: at what point would a conservative fire someone from their company for something they said? That line always existed.
If someone at a company went on a serious racist tirade and was posting things disparaging people of a certain race, they would be told, "Listen, you don't reflect our values. I don't know why you'd want to work with us. It doesn't represent what this company is doing." The issue is that conservatives have a wide range of tolerance for ideas, while the left demanded absolute conformity.
Using Counter Cancel Culture to End All Cancel Culture
The strategy being proposed is to use counter cancel culture to end all of it. This isn't celebrating cancel culture as a permanent feature of society. This is recognizing that when one side has weaponized cancellation for ideological conformity and has now escalated to celebrating political murder, the only way to stop it is to establish a clear, bright line that society will not tolerate.
Robert Jones, a liberal SJW type, said back in 2015: "We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression, denial of my humanity, and right to exist." That philosophy created the original cancel culture, where any disagreement could be reframed as existential threat.
The counter position is simpler and more defensible: you are just not allowed to glorify political violence. Period. This is essentially a singular exception to free speech absolutism. Speech has consequences, and when that speech advocates for murder and the destruction of the political system, those consequences should include removal from positions of trust and influence in society.
Forgiveness is always available for those who give an act of contrition. Speech isn't the most important thing when weighed against the survival of civil society. But if tens of millions of liberals can go online and make money, get followers, and build media businesses off of celebrating assassins, the comparison to Radio Rwanda becomes apt. That's the road to genocide and civil war.
The Stakes Could Not Be Higher
The fundamental question is whether America will draw a line at assassination glorification or whether it will continue down a path where political violence becomes normalized and celebrated. When nurses who care for patients, HR directors who control people's livelihoods, military personnel, and pilots all feel comfortable publicly celebrating political murder, society faces an existential crisis.
This isn't about free speech in the abstract. Everyone acknowledges there are things that cannot be said without consequences. The debate is about where that line should be. The argument being made is that the line must be drawn at the glorification of political assassination, or there will be no peaceful political system left to protect.
