MAGA Called 'Mentally Ill' After Claims 'God' Sent Charlie Kirk's Shooter And Holocaust Was 'Good'

Claims that "God sent the shooter" and praise for historical atrocities circulated within fringe corners of the MAGA movement and allied networks following the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.

In the months after the assassination of Kirk at a live event in Utah, a mix of extremist fringe protesters and online commentators made inflammatory statements, including that a divine force 'sent the shooter' and that the Holocaust was somehow positive, while known debater Dean Withers interview them.

The fallout underlined deep fractures within right-wing politics and has prompted some analysts to label the rhetoric as detached from reality.

Fringe Demonstrators At Memorial Spark Outrage

Claims that Kirk's shooter was sent by 'God' has been a narrative MAGA has claimed since the incident. At a large public memorial for Charlie Kirk held at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, a tiny but vocal contingent of protesters, almost exclusively members of the extremist Westboro Baptist Church, carried signs declaring that 'God sent the shooter in fury.'

Westboro Baptist Church has a long and documented history of inflammatory protests at funerals and memorials, often claiming that divine judgement is behind violent events.

Video footage and social-media posts from the event showed these demonstrators standing apart from the thousands gathered to commemorate Kirk, a prominent MAGA figurehead.

One member of the group told a person filming a short clip that 'God has sent us', framing their presence in religious terms.

Despite claims circulating online that large crowds of left-wing activists had 'invaded' the memorial, independent fact-checkers noted that only a small number of Westboro Baptist Church members were present, and they represented an infamous fringe element rather than any mainstream political bloc.

These demonstrations prompted widespread condemnation from across the political spectrum, even as some social-media users on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) amplified snippets and exaggerated their scale.

Online Extremism and the Holocaust Claims

While the memorial itself was overshadowed by mainstream expressions of grief and political unity, discussions on fringe social-media channels revealed even more alarming statements.

Across platforms frequented by some MAGA supporters and far-right commentators, there were posts either praising violent outcomes or diminishing the severity of historical atrocities.

According to independent analysis of public figures with known extremist views, individuals like Nick Fuentes, who has previously denied the Holocaust and praised Adolf Hitler, maintain audiences that blend nationalist politics with antisemitic rhetoric.

Fuentes, a far-right commentator, has openly stated 'Hitler was awesome,' and rejected the historical reality of the Holocaust, describing it as something that 'didn't happen,' statements that historians categorise as Holocaust denial and dangerous hate speech.

Although Fuentes is not representative of all MAGA supporters, his continued visibility and engagement in online circles have normalised Holocaust-distorting statements to some extent, according to analysts of extremist online ecosystems.

These statements include downplaying Nazi crimes and suggesting that removing legal protections for groups targeted under Nazism (such as Jewish communities) would be beneficial; rhetoric that has no basis in established historical fact and has been widely rejected by mainstream scholars.

Rising Extremist Sentiments

Researchers studying political radicalisation warn that extremist rhetoric increasingly thrives within online ecosystems that reward outrage, absolutism and conspiratorial thinking.

According to a comprehensive report by the US Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice, sustained exposure to extremist communities and ideologies online can reinforce radical norms and deepen ideological isolation from wider society. The report notes that individuals embedded in such environments are more likely to adopt extreme interpretations of political events and frame them as existential conflicts.

Scholars have identified this phenomenon as a form of siege mentality, in which adherents perceive themselves as under constant attack from perceived enemies, legitimising increasingly extreme responses. This mindset, researchers argue, can distort factual understanding and amplify conspiratorial narratives during moments of political crisis.

Academic studies on hate speech and political communication further show that dehumanising language and historical revisionism play a significant role in radicalisation processes. Peer-reviewed research published in Crime, Law and Social Change demonstrates that repeated exposure to rhetoric minimising or glorifying mass violence reduces empathy for targeted groups and increases tolerance for extremist beliefs

As the national conversation over political violence continues, the presence and amplification of extremist rhetoric will remain a flashpoint for commentators, civil-rights advocates and policymakers alike.