Greetings, Dear Reader,
Here we are yet again, State of the Day, where I strip the euphemism and misdirection off that day’s politics.
I read something interesting yesterday.
Let’s open up The New York Times, eh?
CHARLIE KIRK. ‘EXTREMIST’
Nestled parenthetically near the top of a New York Times news report was this absolute gem about the late Charlie Kirk.
Mr. Kirk, they said, was more than a leader and organizer of a sprawling, well-funded conservative youth organization. He also helped build, define and unite Mr. Trump’s movement, all while selling a right-wing Christian vision to a new generation. Despite Mr. Kirk’s attacks on the Civil Rights Act, feminism, Islam and transgender people — and the fact that he helped pull formerly extremist views into the mainstream — his tone in his speeches and debates was less angry than that of other leading figures on the right.
The reporter, again in the news section of the Times, not opinion, made no attempt to support the charge that Kirk was an “extremist.” Beyond citing “attacks” on the CRA, feminism, Islam, and “transgender people,” we are left to simply accept the designation as if it were self-evident, like the color of the sky, our own mortality, or the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.
Therefore the New York Times would like you to assume that criticism of any of those things, even in the moderate tones Charlie was known for, would be an example of “extremism.”
Without litigating too much, the “extremist views” Kirk had on the Civil Rights Act were largely lifted from famed black conservative intellectual Thomas Sowell. It’s hard to think of the soft-spoken, ever-coiffed Sowell as an “extremist.”
Sowell, for what it’s worth, was considerably more hawkish than Charlie on the CRA. It was his contention that it did “comparatively little,” and that the black community writ large would have been better off without it. He wrote an entire book on the subject. Where their criticism actually met was the decidedly more moderate conclusion that the CRA has since been used as a Trojan horse to demand equal outcomes for other, once-more-fringe identities more recently foisted upon the public.
Sowell is well to the right of Kirk on the CRA and is still considered mainstream. So why is Kirk an at-face-value extremist and Sowell isn’t? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that Kirk was orders of magnitude more potent a convincer of the public than Sowell.
Sowell wasn’t organizing armies of conservative young people. Kirk was, and something needed to be done about him. It’s that simple.
Like many terms that have grown in popularity on the establishment left, use of the term “extremist” isn’t a matter of accuracy; it’s a matter of persuasion. To be clear, the difference between convincing someone — which is what Charlie Kirk routinely attempted to do on college campuses — and persuading someone is tangible. The former is about influencing thought and the latter is about influencing action.
In persuading the public that Charlie is an “extremist,” organizations like the New York Times, the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League are essentially encouraging the public to act.
And a member of the public did, as we all saw Sept. 10.
From 1970 to 2009, wider establishment use of the term “extremist” — from the FBI to the NYT et al. — was reserved pretty much solely for fringe militant groups who posed a near-immediate threat to the public. Islamic extremists. Environmental extremists. Anti-government extremists. So on.
When Obama took office, there was a deliberate semantic shift. Obama instituted the “Countering Violent Extremism” framework. It expanded the definition of extremism, expanded surveillance and suppression tactics, and widened the scope of federal options for “countering” said “extremism.”
I encourage you to do your own reading on how the CVE altered our understanding of extremism. It was the initial step to how we got to where Kirk’s belief in traditional marriage — a position Obama himself once held — can be characterized in the likes of the Times as “pull[ing] formerly extremist views into the mainstream.”
The most important element of extremism that has been reallocated by a long shot is the compulsion to act extremely. To partake in acts of political violence.
Prior to the CVE, most establishment organizations and figures used this general definition of extremism: “An individual or group that advocates or engages in the use of unlawful violence or seeks to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives through undemocratic, coercive, or violent means.”
Now the violence part is no longer required in order for you to be labelled an extremist by mainstream left-wing establishments. In fact, it’s preferred if you are not. Peaceful people are easier to surveil, suppress, arrest, assault and kill, if necessary.
In direct terms: They’re not calling us extremists because it’s true — they’re calling us extremists so they can justify acts of violence. So they can assault, menace, and even murder us.
It’s therefore no surprise the ADL characterized “Anti-ANTIFA symbols” as indicators of “hate” in its hate glossary, just as it’s no surprise the ADL left TPUSA and Charlie himself on its list of “extremists.”
Left-wing organizations that employ violence as a political strategy must be inoculated from carrying the “extremist” moniker. Right-wing organizations that are simply engaging in their First Amendment right to convince the public must be labeled extremist.
It justifies not just summary acts of violence from the public, but it also compels authorities. It compels them to take it a bit easier on the antifa types when they misbehave — see also the “lenient” sentence a Biden appointee just gave a transgender assassin — just like it compels them to keep a close eye on the Charlie Kirks of the world.
Kash Patel made headlines when he revealed the FBI would no longer partner with the ADL on disruption of extremism. If you ask me, that seems like such an obvious move. Patel should have done it on day one.
Trump, for his part, triggered spastic squeals everywhere from CNN and the Democratic Party to that inert garden gnome Adam Kinzinger when he designated Antifa a terrorist organization.
They are one. It’s obvious. Like your buddy Ed putting on a dress and yet remaining a man, it’s self-evident Antifa is an extremist group.
Little by little, the left’s word games are losing their grip on the public. The more insane and absurd they get, the quicker the public rethinks their authority. Castrating kids is good but nuclear families are bad? Aggravated assault is legal but misgendering someone isn’t? I’m an “extremist” if I believe race-based policies are bad?
The unreality is crumbling and it’s long overdue.
Reality, as a result, is coming back into focus. Marriage is good. Obviously. Feminists are annoying. Obviously. Islamism is incompatible with Western civilization. Men cannot be women. Antifa is a terrorist organization. And Charlie Kirk is not an extremist.
These truths are self-evident.
WHAT I’M READING
As if on cue: The Democrat running for the top law enforcement officer of Virginia hates police and thinks political opponents should watch their children die.
New Alleged Violent Rhetoric Unearthed From Democrat AG Candidate Jay Jones, This Time About Cops
—
Crazy to think this guy will likely be out of prison in time for JD Vance’s presidency.
Jonathan Turley Flabbergasted By ‘Very Light’ Sentence For Brett Kavanaugh’s Would-Be Assassin
—
Nobody is surprised. It’s high time we bring the hammer down.
Antifa Forcing Homeless Elderly Into Helping Anti-ICE Protesters, Police Say
Like what you’re reading? If so, please consider subscribing to State of the Day or sharing this with a friend. You’d be supporting this newsletter and help keep independent journalism alive.