Kim Iversen Exposes Hypocrisy as Both Parties Embrace Cancel Culture After Charlie Kirk Assassination
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
A Former Liberal Natalie Beisner Reflects on Political Violence, Free Speech, and Why America Changed Forever
16:48
Tucker Carlson Exposes Congressional Resolution Targeting Candace Owens and Online Critics of Israel Policy
10:49
Brandon Tatum Condemns Tucker Carlson for Platforming Nick Fuentes and Failing to Defend Charlie Kirk's Legacy
34:31
Kim Iversen Exposes Hypocrisy as Both Parties Embrace Cancel Culture After Charlie Kirk Assassination
Kim Iversen dissects the dangerous spiral of cancel culture hypocrisy following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Jimmy Kimmel gets fired by ABC for mocking the tragedy, Trump designates Antifa a terrorist organization, and politicians on both sides abandon free speech principles they once claimed to defend. Iversen warns that vague anti-terrorism laws starting with Antifa will eventually target conservative voices critical of Israel, creating a censorship cycle that threatens everyone. The left weaponized cancel culture for years, and now the right is doing the same, proving both sides care more about power than principles.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk has triggered a full-scale cancel culture war that exposes the profound hypocrisy on both sides of the political spectrum. Jimmy Kimmel became one of the first casualties after ABC Disney pulled him off the air following comments he made about the tragedy. On his show, Kimmel criticized those attempting to characterize Kirk's murderer as anything other than aligned with MAGA ideology, and mocked President Trump's response to losing someone he called a friend.
Kimmel played a clip showing Trump discussing construction projects when asked about how he was handling Kirk's death, leading Kimmel to quip that Trump had reached "the fourth stage of grief: construction." He compared Trump's response to "how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish." ABC swiftly removed Kimmel from the air, though speculation suggests the network may have had other motives, as his contract was already up for renewal.
Trump Threatens Media Licenses
When asked about networks criticizing him and whether their licenses should be revoked, Trump responded that networks are "97% against" him and provide "wholly bad publicity." He questioned whether their licenses should be taken away, stating, "When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, they're not allowed to do that."
This rhetoric represents a complete reversal from conservative principles about free speech and opposition to cancel culture. For years, the right campaigned against censorship and defended the marketplace of ideas. Now many on the right justify these same tactics, claiming "this is different" and "if you can't see the difference, something's wrong with you"—the exact rhetoric the left used for years.
The Left's Hypocritical Outrage
Kimmel himself exemplified this hypocrisy when Tucker Carlson was removed from Fox News. On his show, Kimmel celebrated the news with glee, calling it "an absolutely delightful shock" and referring to Carlson as "one of the most despicable Mother Tuckers ever to appear on American television." He mocked Carlson's departure and speculated about whether he would "crawl back up Satan's fiery beehole from once he came."
The left engaged in coordinated censorship for years, targeting anyone who supported Donald Trump starting in 2016. They labeled MAGA supporters as terrorists, particularly after January 6th. During COVID, they pressured social media companies to silence dissenting voices. The Twitter Files revealed extensive government pressure on platforms to censor content the administration deemed problematic.
Barack Obama recently claimed that "after years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn't like." Roseanne Barr quickly pointed out the irony, responding, "Remember when you and your wife called Bob Iger to have me fired?"
Gavin Newsom and Liberal Amnesia
California Governor Gavin Newsom joined the chorus, tweeting that "buying and controlling media platforms, firing commentators, cancelling shows—these aren't coincidences. It's coordinated and it's dangerous. The GOP does not believe in free speech. They are censoring you in real time."
This coming from the governor who locked down his state while dining at the French Laundry demonstrates remarkable selective memory about his own administration's censorship activities. Chris Pavlovski from Rumble cut through the performative outrage, pointing out that "if anyone on the left actually cared about free speech they would have been on Rumble years ago." Instead, the left dismissed Rumble as a far-right platform when it was simply a platform without the censorship that characterized YouTube for years.
The Dangerous Escalation
The concern isn't just about hypocrisy—it's about escalation. When the left regains power, and they inevitably will at some point, they will remember this moment. They will use it to justify even harsher crackdowns on conservative voices. This tit-for-tat approach doesn't lead anywhere productive. It creates a spiral where each side, when in power, goes further than the last administration in silencing opposition.
Many people voted for the right specifically because they promised to protect free speech and oppose cancel culture. Instead, they're now experiencing "wait, it's our turn" governance—which isn't what voters asked for.
Trump Designates Antifa a Terrorist Organization
Trump escalated the situation significantly by designating Antifa as "a major terrorist organization." In a tweet that was retweeted by the White House and numerous politicians including Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Trump announced: "I'm pleased to inform our many USA patriots, that I am designating Antifa, a sick, dangerous, radical left disaster, as a major terrorist organization. I will also be strongly recommending that those funding Antifa be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standard and practices."
This parallels exactly what the left did with MAGA. For years, the left labeled MAGA a terrorist organization, calling supporters brainwashed cult members, alt-right Nazis, and fascists. Many on the right correctly pointed out that you cannot target an ideology this way—it's a way of thinking, not a formal organization.
The same applies to Antifa. While Antifa has been associated with violence and represents a fringe ideology that many find reprehensible, it is not an actual organization with membership rolls and formal structure. It's a loose collection of people who share certain ideological positions. Labeling an ideology as terrorism is dangerous regardless of which ideology is being targeted.
The Slippery Slope of Thought Crimes
The phrase "those funding Antifa" reveals the danger. If Antifa isn't an actual organization, who counts as funding it? Someone who donates to AOC could theoretically be labeled as funding Antifa if the government decides AOC represents Antifa ideology. This mirrors anti-semitism accusations—any idea the government dislikes could be labeled Antifa, making the donor a terrorist supporter.
When the left went after MAGA and tried to shut it down, the movement only grew larger. The same will likely happen with Antifa. People who never associated with Antifa are now saying "we're all Antifa now" in response to government overreach. Attacking an idea rather than specific criminal acts creates martyrs and expands the movement you're trying to suppress.
Tucker Carlson's Warning
Even Tucker Carlson warned about this trajectory, expressing hope that Kirk's death won't be "leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country." He stated emphatically: "If that does happen, there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that ever. Because if they can tell you what to say, they're telling you what to think. There is nothing they can't do to you because they don't consider you human. They don't believe you have a soul. A human being with a soul, a free man, has a right to say what he believes."
JD Vance: Stop Both Siding This
JD Vance pushed back against those pointing out the hypocrisy, insisting people should "stop both siding this." He argued that Kirk's killer "grew up in a pretty normal family, actually had a pretty good home life, who was radicalized by the far left, by the social networks of the far left, by the ideas of the far left." Vance concluded: "That is not a both sides problem. My friend is dead because of left-wing political radicalization."
This is identical to what the left said after Charlottesville and other incidents—blaming MAGA ideology for deaths and insisting "we have to stop MAGA at all costs." Vance himself said something quite different just months earlier in February, when he stated: "Our own government encouraged private companies to silence people who dared to utter what turned out to be an obvious truth. Just as the Biden administration seemed desperate to silence people for speaking their minds, so the Trump administration will do precisely the opposite. We may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square."
That commitment lasted mere weeks.
Greg Abbott and State Action
Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced that the state must take action against those who celebrate assassination. While his initial premise sounds reasonable—society shouldn't accept violence or celebrating violence—his conclusion takes a troubling turn: "We as a state must send a signal that behavior like that celebrating an assassination is wrong in a civil society."
This sounds exactly like left-wing rhetoric about needing government intervention to control thought and expression. It moves beyond cultural correction into state-enforced ideological compliance.
RICO Expansion and the Real Target
Ted Cruz introduced the "Stop Funders Act," which would add rioting to the list of predicate offenses under RICO. He wants to track money behind Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots, noting that "many of the tents all matched" at anti-semitic protests on college campuses, suggesting coordinated funding.
The problem with these vaguely written laws is that they won't stop with Antifa. House Speaker Mike Johnson recently met privately with AIPAC and Jewish leaders, where he reportedly pledged to screen out isolationist GOP candidates to prevent that wing of the party from growing in the House. This reveals the real endgame.
The Israel Exception
They start with Antifa because it's low-hanging fruit that most people agree is bad. Once those laws and precedents are established, they'll be applied to anyone critical of Israel. The government and establishment Republicans are already labeling pro-Palestine sentiment as Hamas support, and Hamas is designated a terrorist organization. Those same RICO laws intended for Antifa will be used against Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and anyone questioning unconditional support for Israel.
Johnson meeting with AIPAC to pledge action against fellow Republicans demonstrates how this will unfold. It starts with primarying dissidents, but with new terrorism and RICO laws in place, it will escalate to legal prosecution of anyone deemed "anti-Israel" or "anti-semitic"—labels that can be applied to virtually any criticism of Israeli policy.
The Pattern Repeats
This follows the famous poem about incrementalism: they came for one group and I did nothing, they came for another and I did nothing, then they came for me and no one was left to defend me. People might hate Antifa and think targeting them is justified, but the precedents and laws created will be used against them next.
Mike Johnson waging war on fellow Republicans for having "wrong thoughts" starts with primarying but grows into using terrorism laws against political dissidents. The supposed good intentions behind anti-Antifa legislation will become tools for crushing any voice that challenges the establishment.
What the Left Did Was Wrong
The left's censorship campaign was wrong. People voted against it. Trump received his largest vote total ever in the most recent election because people were fed up with left-wing cancel culture and censorship. The right doing the exact same things won't help.
When people point this out, they're told "the left did it, so what are you going to do, vote for them?" But that misses the point. Independents who left the Democratic Party and voted Republican because of free speech principles aren't going to flip back to Democrats. They're simply going to sit out elections.
When independents and disillusioned voters sit out midterms because both sides have abandoned principles, leftist voters will turn out in larger numbers. The right, thinking they have it in the bag, will lose to a motivated left-wing base. Independents will sit it out because both sides are equally corrupt on the fundamental issue of free speech.
The Path Forward
Two wrongs don't make a right. While there's an understanding that the left might not realize how egregious their censorship was until it happens to them, this approach has two possible outcomes. Either the left experiences this and recognizes how destructive cancel culture is, leading to a mutual detente, or—more likely—when they regain power, they'll use this period to justify even harsher crackdowns.
The cycle of escalation serves no one except those in power who benefit from controlling speech and thought. Voters asked for protection of free speech, not a reversal of who gets censored. Until both sides commit to actual principles rather than situational ethics, the spiral will continue, and freedom will be the ultimate casualty.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.