Free speech isn’t just about speaking. It is also about listening.

In a moment of moral clarity, Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, spoke these words before he saw a sign from the Gods of profit and bent the knee to a homophobic convicted felon and adjudicated rapist

As Winston Churchill said:

"Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage."

Never have these words been truer than since the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Societal tyranny has seen the steady growth of a cancer that has been eating away at the soul of America since the day Donald Trump re-entered the White House. Nobody wanted Kamala Harris to win more than me in November last year. While she would not have been my personal choice for president, she impressed me with the way she grasped the baton that had been passed to her far too late and did her best in the 100 days she was given.

I want to address this free speech debate from two angles, which I hope you will give me the latitude to do, because in the case of Charlie Kirk, the debate has been distorted by the highly charged emotion of the moment. Murder is a heinous crime regardless of who the victim might be. His wife, his very young children and his family and friends deserve no less than our deepest sympathy for their loss, and there is no question that he did not deserve to be murdered for the beliefs he extolled.

If we are to address the dangers that this moment presents, Democrats must be honest with themselves and admit that they failed the people who felt compelled, some unwittingly, to join Trump’s march to autocracy. Dems lost black and Hispanic men, and too many young voters. Above all, they lost a large segment of working-class voters who were screaming about the cost of living, only to be told by Democrats that the economy was booming.

The only thing that was on fire for those voters was their economic survival. Their cost of living was on fire, and Democrats drove past them while they burned. They were in search of middle-class and ‘right-leaning’ voters who they thought would win the day for them. We all know what thought did, it delivered a humiliating defeat to a sexual predator and convicted felon. A man who had stolen money from his own charity and thought that paying taxes was optional. It was like Carlos Alcaraz losing a tennis match to the ball boy.

Following the defeat, there was no introspection, just scorn for the voters who voted for Trump, who would now get what they voted for. Oh, and those who felt Trump cheated, which, of course, cannot be entirely ruled out. The critical point here is that Dem activists should be incandescent with rage at the failure to respond to this defeat with an open admission of failure and an apology at the very least to the millions of people that were left in the hands of a monster, and I use that term deliberately because that is what he is.

I have one straightforward question. It was always the intention of House Republicans to pass a bill to formally beatify Charlie Kirk in the eyes of Trump’s base. He was, after all, their martyr. House Resolution 719 was the political poison chalice offered to Democrats to vote against the condemnation of political violence. For convenience, you can read the text of the resolution here. Putting aside the effusive sugar rush of expected embellished reverence in the top section of the text, I only had one observation:

Whereas such acts of politically motivated violence are antithetical to the principles of a free republic, in which differences of opinion are to be debated—not silenced—with civility, reason, and mutual respect;

The hypocrisy of this statement in the light of calls to dismantle the ‘radical left’ and cancel comedians under threat of government retribution is, in itself, antithetical to this very statement. You can’t have your cake and eat it, although this seems to be the default position of the MAGA movement.

Now let’s analyse the bottom section of the bill:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination of Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, and all forms of political violence;

(2) commends and honours the dedicated law enforcement and emergency personnel for their tireless efforts in finding the suspect responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and urges the administration of swift justice to the suspect;

(3) extends its deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk’s family, including his wife, Erika, and their two young children, and prays for comfort, peace, and healing in this time of unspeakable loss;

(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty; and

(5) calls upon all Americans—regardless of race, party affiliation, or creed—to reject political violence, recommit to respectful debate, uphold American values, and respect one another as fellow Americans.

There is no reason, as far as I can see, to object to any point except item (4). America is a secular society; that’s a simple fact not up for debate, and it is certainly NOT a white Christian nationalist state. I would fervently disagree that Charlie Kirk was a national leader; he was an evangelist for the white Christian right. It would be grossly disingenuous to honour the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, specifically for those who believed as I do that Kirk was a propagandist who unapologetically peddled racial division and misogyny, while accepting that the murder of children in classrooms was a price worth paying to protect the 2nd amendment.

Before I move on to some important, wider points, I need someone to explain to me why 95 Democrats supported a bill amounting to the beatification of Charlie Kirk? Really, I mean it, WHY would you support this if you were a principled Democrat? If you believe, as I do, that Charlie Kirk was a propagandist who ran a tax-exempt charity to spread the MAGA ideology of white Christian Nationalism to young people, you cannot, in good conscience, identify as a Democrat? This makes you part of the problem, not the solution. It represents an abdication of responsibility to the American people, and that is beyond my comprehension. You can find the roll call for the vote here.

I am a big fan of Jamie Raskin, but he urged Democrats to avoid the 'trap’ vote for the bill. I am astounded by his position, which I believe was a fundamental mistake. As for Democratic leadership, I was absolutely not surprised to note they voted with Republicans in yet another example of capitulation at a time when nothing but strength of purpose is demanded. They vote to support the legacy of Charlie Kirk while finding themselves unable to endorse their own selected candidate for New York Mayor. The leadership of the party is simply failing to lead. They remain paralysed with fear at not appearing right-wing enough, and it drives me insane. They voted in support of a Stochastic terrorist. Just for clarification, let me give you the definition:

[A person who engages in the] repeated use of hostile, dehumanizing, or vilifying language by an influential figure or public figure against a person or group, which statistically increases the likelihood of unpredictable acts of violence by followers, though no explicit instruction to commit a violent act is given

Charlie Kirk was unquestionably the textbook definition, yet the leadership of the Democratic Party provided 95 votes to celebrate the legacy of a man they dare not speak out against. Just 58 Democrats voted against, with 38 voting present, while 22 did not vote. I really don’t have to say anything other than to use the alleged words of Jesus on the cross :

Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν (Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do).

Benjamin Franklin wrote under his likely pseudonym, Silence Dogood,

"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."

The sentiment was echoed by Fredrick Douglass, who made his plea for freedom of speech at an 1860 abolition meeting in Boston shortly before the Civil War began. In it, he said:

"No right was deemed by the fathers of the government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government."

Many thanks to freedomforum.org for the quotes

In a twist of irony, Charlie Kirk is as much a victim of those who will now weaponise his name, as he was a victim of Tyler Robinson. It is interesting that in death, MAGA claim more people are rallying to their cause through Turning Point USA. There is little doubt that Charlie will be a cash cow for a few months yet. This is not unique to Charlie Kirk; when a pop star dies, back catalogue sales go through the roof. It’s a predictable human response.

I would ask you to ask yourself if today’s memorial is about Charlie Kirk, or about selling merchandise adorned with his image and raising tax-free funds to spread toxic MAGA ideology. It’s not, of course, illegal in the land of profit to monetise the dead, so I can only wish the fundraising teams the best of luck as they cash in on his memory. God bless America.

Vincent van Gogh and Johannes Vermeer died penniless, but their work now sells for millions. They left behind classic works of art to be admired and sold for fortunes. Great orators leave behind great speeches that become the timestamps of pivotal moments in history. Likewise, great athletes leave legacies of sporting achievement, while great musicians leave musical legacies that transcend generations. Sadly, there is no hall of fame for white supremacists, misogynists, and Stochastic terrorists.

At this moment, Kirk leaves behind a collection of niche books that will no doubt sell in large numbers for a short period. I’m sure there will likely be a straight-to-streaming movie. Unfortunately, in a few years from now, people will say, “Charlie who?” as his books are confined to the bargain bucket, if you can even find them. This is the harsh reality of social media celebrity.

His family can take some comfort that a fondness for him in the hearts of the MAGA movement will remain for the immediate future. Certainly more than in the mind of the President, who loved him so much, when asked how he was doing after the loss of his friend, he shifted on to the fourth stage of grieving, as he immediately proceeded to ignore the question and point to the construction of the new White House ballroom. Perhaps Charlie’s picture will have pride of place in it? It will, though, need to be a smaller picture than that of Trump, of course. They may even name an FBI shooting range after him.

All commentary aside, it is inescapable that Trump and Stephen Miller still see Kirk’s death as an opportunity to silence his enemies. So many media companies and law firms have capitulated that Trump has been emboldened to silence critics, to the point of forcing TV networks to fire late-night comedy hosts, using an installed loyalist. FCC chair, Brendan Carr, openly admitted on Benny Johnson’s podcast:

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Trump is simply weaponising every lever of government to silence opposition, as evidenced by the additional move by Pete Hegseth at the DOD to restrict press freedom at the Pentagon. As reported by Malek Fouda in Euronews:

The Pentagon says it will require journalists credentialed to sign a pledge to refrain from reporting on information that has not been authorised for release, including unclassified information.

The report goes on:

A 17-page memo released by the US Department of War, recently renamed by the Trump administration from the Department of Defence, detailed that journalists who do not abide by the policy risk losing their credentials that provide access to the Pentagon.

“Information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorising official before it is released, even if it is unclassified,” the directive states.

All these actions are directly out of the authoritarian playbook, and it appears everyone is powerless to resist. Or at least they thought that until the firing of Jimmy Kimmel lit the blue touchpaper under a wave of resistance that has seen a tsunami of customers cancelling subscriptions to Disney Plus, Hulu, etc. But it hasn’t stopped there; people are cancelling trips to Disney and timeshare contracts. The blowback for Disney has been described as a ‘Don’t say gay’ campaign on steroids, as they are being attacked from all sides by subscribers and those planning vacations.

Disney are starting to feel the pain as the pressure is being ramped up by ordinary Americans who are saying enough is enough, and have decided to fight back in the best way possible, economic disengagement. Disney will now have to determine who they fear most—Trump or their customers, and I know which horse I would back. Those who have read my work for some time will recall the article below:

This is the moment; the Disney protest is precisely the model that needs to be adopted and expanded to other streaming services before being further widened. Despite the bravado, this is a government on the ropes. It’s drowning in debt, and tariffs are probably about to deliver stagflation. A concerted effort by the American people can, I believe, bring this government to its knees. Scott Galloway is also on board with this. I would add that the video below is before the massive campaign now in progress against Disney, which picked up the momentum we are seeing today.

People ask me all the time what we can do. Well, this is it, my friends, the more people join in this campaign of economic disengagement, the more it will make those it is hurting sit up and take notice. Nobody can prosecute you for pressing the cancel button or force you to press the ‘Buy Now’ button. It’s time to wake up to the power you have in your hands.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read my thoughts and observations. I hope you feel it was worth the investment of your time. I deliver a post to my community most days. If you appreciate my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help offset some of the associated costs. It really does make a big difference.