We’ve reached the level of absurdity where a man can be gunned down in front of thousands of witnesses, video of the killing goes viral online, and yet the self-appointed censors of language insist we say he was “unalived.” (Try saying what really happened on platforms like Instagram and Facebook and see how quickly your content is flagged and removed.)

Charlie Kirk wasn’t “unalived.” He was shot dead. He was murdered. He was assassinated. To pretend otherwise is to infantilize the American public, sanitize a political execution, and capitulate to the very violence we’re supposed to oppose.

This isn’t a matter of “civility.” This is about power. The same elites who lecture us on gender pronouns now demand we sanitize words like “murder” and “assassination” because clean language dulls outrage. They don’t want us to see the truth of political violence—they want us to treat it like a less-messy theatrical mishap. Watch the video and tell me the blood was subtle.

When a sniper opened fire at Utah Valley University during Charlie Kirk’s “American Comeback Tour,” and Kirk collapsed, bleeding from a wound to the neck, this wasn’t just a “tragedy.” It was a political assassination. Authorities later arrested 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, who, according to public statements, had allegedly confessed or implied his involvement to a family member. Utah Governor Spencer Cox called it a “political assassination.”

But instead of naming the crime, too many media outlets and online moderators insist on euphemisms: Kirk “lost his life,” because there had been a “tragic shooting.” Bulls–t. When you scrub the truth from your vocabulary, you scrub it from your politics. You teach people it doesn’t really matter if someone is killed for their beliefs—because death is now just a soft factoid, a “loss,” a thing that “happened.”

America has stormed Normandy, buried its sons at Gettysburg, watched the Twin Towers fall live on television—and survived. Yet in 2025, when a man is gunned down while speaking on a stage, the response from too many is not moral clarity but a plea for “less graphic language.” Spare me. The violence was graphic. The motive was political. The message was murder. And the people demanding we treat it like a sneeze are either collaborators or cowards.

Charlie Kirk wasn’t “unalived.” He was killed. Assassinated. Shot dead. And they want to pretend otherwise so they can avoid facing consequences. Don’t allow it. Say the word murder. Say the word assassination. The next time someone tells you to soften your language, remember: real blood doesn’t come with a disclaimer, and real killers don’t deserve a polite euphemism.

Image from Grok.