As Trump Weaves Dark Fairy Tales, Sleep Is No Option
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The murder of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University last Wednesday was guaranteed to become a flashpoint in America’s tinder-dry political landscape. Once upon a time, this would have been the moment for a president of the United States to step up with a message of calm, urging people not to overreact.
“Once upon a time,” of course, is the usual signal that one is about to hear a fairy tale. These days a magisterial, reassuring president is a fantasy to rival the most far-fetched space opera or dragon epic. Dark fairy tales have replaced the shining myth of American nationhood.
A year ago, the Atlantic magazine tallied “40 instances in which [Trump] incited or praised violence against his fellow citizens.”
On Wednesday, with no suspect yet in custody, Trump delivered a statement from the Oval Office in which he railed against “radical-left political violence” and listed some of its victims, naturally starting with himself.
“My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence,” Trump said.
He was just getting started. Appearing on Fox & Friends on Friday, Trump was asked by co-host Ainsley Earhardt: “How do we come back together?”
Trump’s answer : “I couldn’t care less.”
Once upon a time, Melania Trump wore that sentiment on her back, and it caused a scandal. It’s a different story now, and the current narrative makes the Brothers Grimm sound like The Friendly Giant . The president went on to Trump-splain his worldview to the fawning Fox crew. Right-wing radicals, he suggested, are really just concerned citizens, perhaps a little rambunctious, but well-intentioned.
“The radicals on the left are the problem,” he said. “They’re vicious and they’re horrible.”
On Monday vice president JD Vance followed up by saying the Trump administration would crack down on leftist organizations, adding there was “no unity” with those who criticize Kirk.
Once upon a time in a century long, long ago, an American president, facing the greatest division the country had ever seen, said this: “We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
Better angels? Trump eats their wings with hot sauce. Eight-score-and-four years later, the Anti-Lincoln sings a very different chorus to an angry nation.
Trump’s Wednesday evening statement cherry-picked the list of political violence targets. He name-checked Louisiana Republican Steve Scalise, whose wounding happened eight years ago. Conspicuously missing from the list however was the only American legislator to be murdered by a political assassin this year, Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman, who was killed in June along with her husband. The assassin also seriously injured another Minnesota state senator, John Hoffman, and his wife Yvette. No mention was made of the violent attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband or the arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s home. But those victims were Democrats. In the Trump narrative, their attackers were merely concerned citizens.
With the president playing the role of storyteller-in-chief, the Kirk narrative was established early — the activist’s death was the result of leftist ideology run amok. The Wall Street Journal co-operated with misinformation about “transgender” messages printed on bullets left behind by suspect Tyler Robinson, a claim they later walked back . As facts emerged it was legitimately difficult to sort through the misinformation, not just from social but also mainstream media.
But then, the nuances of 21st-century American extremism do not always lend themselves to the simple answers preferred by major media organizations. Robinson’s messages include references apparently drawn from the world of gamers, where in-jokes and ironic statements blur the meaning to those not immersed in group lore. Charlie Warzel, writing recently in the Atlantic, describes an online culture in which mass shooters are in effect performing for each other, not necessarily acting out of any defined ideology but only a nihilistic and unhinged urge to join the fraternity of killers.
It’s a phenomenon that predates the internet. Although Kirk was not an elected official, his shooting echoes that of Alabama governor George Wallace, another American radical who managed to take his racist message mainstream. In 1972 Wallace was shot and left permanently paralyzed by Arthur Bremer, a Milwaukee man who had quit or been fired from a series of menial jobs. Bremer, it later emerged, had initially stalked President Richard Nixon on the campaign trail but found security too tight. Wallace, then a Democratic presidential primary candidate, was a target of opportunity.
Bremer was motivated not so much by ideology as by a desire to join the dark pantheon of American assassins like Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray and Sirhan Sirhan. Like later killers, Bremer had prepared a catchy message — he intended to shout “a penny for your thoughts,” but in the heat of the moment forgot to do so.
Fifty-three years ago there was also an attempt by a lawless president to craft a post-shooting narrative. It was reported by Seymour Hersh that Nixon’s people intended to plant campaign literature from leading Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern in Bremer’s apartment, but failed because the FBI had sealed it off.
These days thanks to online partisans and media outlets like Fox, planted evidence is no longer necessary — just a coordinated message, delivered from the top down.
Then again, where Trump is concerned a coordinated message is rarely possible.
Thursday, in a truly bizarre moment on the White House lawn, Trump was asked by a sympathetic reporter how he was holding up personally following the murder of his good friend Kirk. “I think very good,” Trump replied . “And by the way, right there, you see all the trucks? They’ve just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they’ve been trying to get, as you know, for about 150 years. And it’s gonna be a beauty.”
Grief and narcissism are like oil and water. If Trump delivers Kirk’s eulogy, they’d better make sure the victim’s name is in the teleprompter. Otherwise, it’ll all be monologues about windmills and golf.
Bad-faith fairy tales drive hatred and violence from the political far right. But progressive voters are not above some morbid fantasies themselves. A couple of weeks ago the internet was abruptly awash in rumours that Donald Trump was dead. The whispers were inspired by the fact that the notorious publicity hound had not been on camera in days. The tone of these social media reports was not one of concern. Rather, the mood seemed to alternate between Christmas Eve-type excitement and warnings that Santa was unlikely to get that wished-for pony down the chimney. Many suggested that the rumours were overblown, and thus it proved.
But ponder for a moment the reality that, for millions of Americans and Canadians too, wishful thinking took the form of imagining the president’s demise — not via political violence but due to natural causes. Trump’s divisive run had come to its end, and now the old man had shuffled off this mortal coil.
That so many felt this turn of events might offer a path back to civility is not simply an indictment of Trump — it’s a testament to the helpless rage of observers who have been waiting for America’s political leaders to mount meaningful opposition as Trump, with the help of his Supreme Court lickspittles, obliterates democracy and the rule of law. Such is their frustration that they are reduced to concocting fantasies about a death that might, perhaps, deliver America from a crisis moment it is so clearly failing to meet.
But Kirk’s assassination, and Donald Trump’s determination to make full political use of the passions it enflames, show how dangerous it would be to retreat from reality, from reason, from naming things as they are rather than being put to sleep by gaslight.
This story is almost certain to have a fairy-tale ending — but whether Disney or Grimm remains to be seen.
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
What's left but to choose a mock Saint Irene to save America's mock Saint Sebastian?
Charlie Kirk's assassination wasn't left wing political violence? Antifa is definitely left-wing and definitely endorses use of political violence.
You have no proof that is was a left wing thing.
"Anti fascist" rhetoric engraved on rifle rounds
Family and friends stated he became far more left leaning over time.
Has a boyfriend pretending to be a girl.
Admits he is the one that assassinated Kirk on a LGBTQ site
Yea...none of that is left wing s/
They have no proof this was a Democrat thing, which is of course what they mean when they say "leftwing". But as we know, not all rightwing extremists are Republican's, and not all leftwing extremists are Democrats. There has been NO Democratic leadership calling for the killing of rightwing leaders or activists. Have there been Democrats calling MAGA and their proponents "evil" and that sort of thing? Yes. Have there been Republicans calling Democrats and their proponents "evil" and that sort of thing? Absolutely, in fact the Republican President has directly called Democrats evil and a threat to our nation. That is his opinion, and he's welcome to it, but it didn't rise to the level of calling for violent action against that supposed "evil" just like there has been no call from democrat leadership for violent action against what they believe to be "evil".
Didn't say it was but he followed the exact some rhetoric democrats have been using for many years, ie, republicans are fascists, Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, fascist, fascist, fascist.
Difference between republicans calling democrats evil and vice versa is it is a reality that some left wingers act on the words of democrats, whether they themselves are democrat or not, and try to and succeed at killing those they don't like because of words democrats use.
I guess you don't know any gay republicans. And I remember republicans being virulently anti-fascist. Hell the whole goddamned country was 80 years ago! Forget about that, too?
And republicans never do.....am I right?
Yes, there are quite a few.
"And I remember republicans being virulently anti-fascist."
There is a difference between actual fascists and made up calling people fascists because you don't like them.
"Forget about that, too?"
No but what has been forgotten is left wingers knowing the TRUE definition of fascist (hint....it isn't someone that you don't like)
So what words were used by republicans that caused this person to kill?
After a decade of antifa becoming it's own radical strain of leftism and trying to conflate that with merely opposing fascism is something..
No I think YOU've forgotten the true definition. I don't throw that word around indiscriminately. My grampap and his brothers risked their lives fighting the Nazi menace and we were taught what a true fascist is.
Can you point me to thousands of republicans going on line and publicly celebrating those murders by a lunatic who thought he was following orders from Tim Walz? Or Republicans mangling her quotes to attack her character immediately after she died? Or Republicans protesting their memorials like Westboro Church shitheads?
Good for you and them. Now, maybe you can teach that definition to some of your leftist friends here.
They seem to not now what it is.
Who knows? CK must have said something that set him off. Right? CK was a republican, right? They haven't even come up with a real motive of why this guy shot and killed him and here you are speculating (again!) on why he did what he did when you don't even know the killer and you certainly can't read his mind.
So stop with the bullshit. I'm done with you
Also done with you
[✘]
good luck
[deleted][✘]
Antifa is a decentralized left wing political movement that endorses use of political violence. Antifa left wing ideology arises from consensus by those associated with the movement through social media groups, such as found on Discord.
Tyler Robinson is known to have been active on Discord. Details of Robinson's activities on Discord have not been released. But information that has been made available is suggestive that Robinson was known to a Discord group that used the platform to discuss left wing political views.
Robinson was wearing a black "land of the free, home of the brave" shirt which has increasingly become a symbol for left-wing groups to counter right-wing exclusive claims of patriotism.
The logo on Robinson's cap could be a symbol for an all gender restroom or an obscure symbol for Anarchists. An inverted triangle in a circle is a symbol associated with transgender political activism.
The available 'evidence', so far, does suggest that Tyler Robinson was familiar with left wing ideology and very likely participated in groups espousing left wing political views.
So, yes, the currently available evidence suggests that the assassination of Charlie Kirk really was left-wing political violence.
I see a lot of speculation and no real facts.
we're done
This is not speculation. Tyler Robinson is not wearing these symbols by accident or coincidence. It has been reported that Robinson brought these clothes to the UVU campus and changed into them before the shooting. These symbols have meaning for Robinson. These aren't just clothes; they're a uniform.
And there are rightwing extremists that act on some rhetoric Republicans have been using for many years. There is ZERO difference between Democrat political rhetoric and Republican political rhetoric and ZERO difference between what the extremists on either side are willing to do. Some shoot doctors or blow-up clinics for daring to perform legal abortions, and of course some shoot those they believe have proved themselves fascists. I see no difference between the two, why do you?
That's a link to a long list of rightwing extremists' killings over the last 20 years in America (have to scroll down a bit). If you actually believe there isn't any rightwing extremist murders, then I highly recommend taking a look because I'm sure you're not going to hear about them on Fox News which may be why you mistakenly believe they don't happen.
nerm...when I tell you I'm done, please do me a favor and don't reply to me
which is why I didn't bother answering either one of them. They don't read what you post
Ah yes the ANTIFA boogeyman rears. Would these be the same cohort characters like Ted Cruz tried to blame Jan. 6 on?
Antifa is real. Antifa is a political movement but not a political organization. Those associated with Antifa political views are autonomous groups and individuals who utilize the anonymity of social media to develop a consensus on political views and political actions. The Antifa movement does endorse the use of political violence including physical violence and psychological violence.
Antifa is not a bogeyman. Antifa is a real political movement with radical left wing political views that advocates for and uses political violence.[✘]
That's akin to saying right wing political beliefs are not conservative, they are radical.
That is correct to a large extent. Right wing political beliefs are radical and not conservative.
Communists are left wing but are not liberals. Fascists are right wing but are not conservatives.
Needless to say the Google Gemini LLM outed itself as biased which happens quite often.
Me: Is left wing considered liberal?
Gemini 2.5 Flash: In modern political discourse, especially in the United States, "left-wing" and "liberal" are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing.
Me: Is right wing considered conservative?
Gemini 2.5 Flash: Yes, "right-wing" is generally considered to be synonymous with conservative in modern political contexts, particularly in the United States. While the terms have distinct origins and can describe a broader range of ideologies, they largely overlap.
Me: Fascists are considered right wing but are Fascists considered to be conservative?
Gemini 2.5 Flash: This is an excellent and nuanced question that gets to the heart of how political ideologies are categorized.
While fascism is a far-right ideology, it is not considered conservative in a traditional sense. In fact, many scholars and historians point out that fascism is fundamentally anti-conservative .
If so, what does that make you, the radical untouchable glibertarian?
I'm still a registered Democrat. Can you say the same?
The reason you're confused is because you're graphing it on one axis when it should be on two. If you leave the liberal/conservative on the x axis and then put libertarian/authoritarian on the y-axis, you can separate out the seemingly bizarre aspects. Fascism is not really the opposite of communism, it fits more on the authoritarian side of the y-axis. Capitalism/communism might be the z-axis....
Check out the political compass website if it is still there.
I have always been an unregistered Libertarian Monarchist. Our anthem is some Leonard Cohen ditty 'aboot' Manhattan and Berlin.
And has displayed that violence several times now.
Everyday for months in Portland
Ask the ICE agents there about it.
Even the residents are getting tired of the assholes making noises every night outside their apartments.
What exactly does that mean? Even if this guy was motivated by an ideology that aligns in some way with a left-leaning political group, so what? Are you suggesting that everyone else who shares that view is responsible for a murder?
Here is the Google Search AI Overview. The source links did not copy over. (NOTE the focus is on physical violence. However, with the advent of social media political violence now includes psychological and non-physical abuse and violence.)
Me: What does left wing political violence mean?
Google AI overview:
I didn't ask you what AI says. I asked you what you mean by "left wing political violence" and what the ramification of that is. Please reread my comment and respond to that from your own mind.
What I mean by "left wing political violence" is political violence motivated by left wing political views. But that would be too obvious so I provided the AI overview.
Those who spread left wing views that motivate and encourage political violence are complicit in that violence. That is the standard applied to Trump in claiming he was complicit in the J6 riot. So, those who spread left wing political speech characterizing Charlie Kirk as Fascist are complicit in the political violence of Kirk's assassination.
Give me a few examples of left wing views that motivate and encourage political violence.
No, that's not it at all. Trump lied to people when he told them that the election was rigged. He convinced people that their votes had not been counted and that therefore something illegal was happening at the Capitol. None of that is a "right wing political view." It's just a lie.
He spent two months spreading that lie, and it culminated in his speech to the already hostile crowd, which had been made so by him. He then told those people to march on the Capital, and while he did inject the word "peacefully," he also told them to fight, and the point of their march was to stop the legal process that was happening.
The fact that anyone in that crowd was motivated to do violence on that day, at that time, was entirely the doing of Donald Trump and the lies he had been feeding them. And again, none of that is political ideology. It was just the machinations of a professional liar trying to seize power illegally.
If that were true, we would be hip-deep in dead politicians because there is always someone on the Left or the Right accusing their opposition of being fascist in some way. Sometimes there is some validity to it and sometimes there isn't.
Whatever you label it, though, Kirk's speech judged and attacked groups of people in ways that I would guess felt very personal to a lot of people. What's more, he advocated government action against those groups. That can feel very threatening. If he was shot because of the things he said, I am not surprised.
Truer words were never spoken.
I can remember a President doing just that and his opposition edited the video to fit some retarded narrative.
Here's a time capsule of what really gets left wing media angry... A kid wearing a red hat who smiles.
this is arguably the craziest person in congress
What was it that Omar did this time?
I think Mace freaks out when she sees the
Good grief
talk about hysteria