>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
According to its creators, the site has already received nearly 20,000 submissions, which will soon become a searchable database organized by industry and location. Predictably, left-wing media outlets are rushing to defend the exposed individuals rather than addressing the depravity of their comments.
Wired, for example, ran a piece warning that “Charlie’s Murderers” is “posting identifying details about people they view as celebrating or glorifying the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.” The article admits the campaign has already cost at least one individual their job and notes others have received threats.
The outlet pinned the effort on “far-right influencers and violent extremists,” naming Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok, conservative firebrand Laura Loomer, and former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio. Wired smeared Raichik’s massively popular account as “hate-filled,” ignoring that her posts usually consist of unedited content created by progressives themselves.
The article also highlighted Canadian journalist Rachel Gilmore, who complained about being included on the site. “This website has me genuinely afraid for my safety,” she told Wired. Gilmore added, “I feel awful for anyone whose name is on it. It’s clear that the purpose of the website is to do exactly what the post that landed me on there warned Kirk’s supporters might do: retaliate.”
Gilmore’s complaint conveniently sidestepped her own inflammatory reaction to Kirk’s death. She wrote on X: “Terrified to think of how far-right fans of Kirk, aching for more violence, could very well turn this into an even more radicalizing moment. Will they now believe their fears have been proven right and feel they have a right to ‘retaliate,’ regardless of who actually was behind the initial shooting?”
Meanwhile, the site’s database shows educators, professors, and even first responders joining in on the mockery of Kirk’s death. A Pennsylvania teacher wrote that conservatives “will reap what they sow.” A DePaul University professor sneered that Kirk “died, as he lived: a throbbing hemorrhoid in the rectum of civil society.” A New Orleans firefighter declared: “I think he should be forced to carry that bullet in his body. That bullet has a right to be there because it’s a gift from god.”
Even as Wired tried to downplay the ugliness, it quoted posts that revealed the truth: “Today’s a good day y’all” and “And the world kept spinning.” Imagine the outrage if similar comments had been made after George Floyd’s death. Those individuals would have been unmasked, unemployed, and permanently shunned by society. But when the target is a conservative leader, the left demands a free pass.
This is the hypocrisy conservatives are calling out. For years, progressives justified doxing as a righteous tool. That’s how the world even discovered Chaya Raichik’s identity. But now that the same tactic is being used against those openly celebrating murder, suddenly it’s “dangerous” and “extremist.”
No one condones threats or violence. But accountability is fair game—especially when people use their real names to publicly justify the killing of a 31-year-old husband and father of two. If you don’t want to face consequences for your words, don’t post them for the world to see.
The lesson here is simple: conservatives cannot afford to play by a double standard. The left has long wielded doxing, mob pressure, and public shaming as weapons against their enemies. If they want those rules dismantled, fine. But until then, conservatives have every right to hold the left accountable—on their own terms.
