Kirsche Verstahl: Shooting migrant women and children is okay
Kirsche Verstahl has spend the last few days getting one guy'd by reddit, and continues to push false narratives by accusing anyone daring to criticize her as equating to wishing harm or fomenting hate mobs against her for her own words and actions. She claims her detractors make lies about her and deal in deceit, so rather than me telling you what Kirsche believes, let Kirsche tell you for herself in her own words. Not only will this post cover her recent comments unequivocally greenlighting and advocating support for harm against migrant women and children, even going as far as to defend the claims that got Asmongold banned (and it's my belief that anyone that champions his dangerous ideas should also be banned as he was because it breaks TOS), it will also cover several of the OTHER instances of violent rhetoric and disproven/evidence-lacking narratives she has pushed onto her audience. I am fascinated to see what kind of deflections or excuses Kirsche makes for her comments to avoid taking accountability, and it is my hope that this post can give better context to help you draw your own conclusions about her character. I want this to be the last post I make of her, and to that extent I made sure to give it the proper effort and primary sourcing it deserves. Ultimately it is my personal belief that Kirsche and her actions, comments, and rhetoric should be viewed as the canary in the coalmine: an early warning of what can happen when tolerance of intolerance becomes the norm and political violence/violent rhetoric becomes an acceptable school of thought.
Claim 1: Kirsche Verstahl accuses the left of constantly fomenting violence, yet regularly engages in violent rhetoric that she tries to subvert as extreme hyperbole to avoid accountability.
This image is a post from Kirsche Verstahl's twitter, where she defends the actions of Kenneth Darlington, a man in Panama that was arrested and found guilty of murder for shooting two climate activists that were part of a larger protest taking place on one of the country's highways. The government was well aware of the protests and had a hands off approach with it in order to minimize the chance for violence to occur. Kenneth Darlington is unquestionably the aggressor, which was also later confirmed by the footage of the incident and served as key evidence for his conviction. Kirsche will attempt to handwave this post and claim she never explicitly called for calls for violence nor did she celebrate it, however as you will soon see this kind of behavior from her is a pattern, using deflections to subvert the violent rhetoric she champions.
This is another post from Kirsche's twitter, celebrating Otoya Yamaguchi and reminding her audience to "remove commies before they subvert your nation". What kind of removal did Otoya Yamaguchi partake in that earned the praise and a day of celebration from Kirsche? He murdered the chair of the Socialist Party Inejiro Asanuma, quite literally celebrating the death of people she disagrees with politically. To give some more context as to who Otoya Yamaguchi was, he was a far-right, xenophobic, and ultranationalist extremist that believed in the restoration of the Japanese Empire, and furthermore belonged to the Greater Japan Patriotic Party. Bin Akao, Otoya's mentor and the founder of the Greater Japan Patriotic Party was a devout idolizer of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Bin Akao actually went on to say many times that his movement was DIRECTLY inspired by Hitler and Mein Kampf. These teachings would eventually be passed down to Otoya Yamaguchi, who also famously praised Hitler and his work of Mein Kampf during police interrogations. It's all just edgy memes and jokes though!
Kirsche states she wants Marxists removed root and stem. She will attempt to say this is hyperbole or that she did not mean it to come off as violent rhetoric, yet no matter how you spin this, the message itself is violent even if its intention isnt. This is because the metaphor quite literally describes killing a plant by pulling it out entirely, so using this phrase against people, ideas or groups carries the IMPLICIT threat of total destruction. But remember guys, saying this is violent and makes you feel unsafe actually means you are harassing Kirsche and making HER feel unsafe by calling her out on it.
Claim 2: Kirsche Verstahl regularly minimizes, jokes about, and shifts the responsibility of government brutality and the potential deaths that occur because of it onto the victims.
https://arazu.io/t3_1qm3co1/?timeframe=all&category=hot
Despite having little to no information or facts of the case when she made these statements, something she also alludes to in the clip, she instantly labels Alex Pretti as a dangerous revolutionary that was armed, violent, and sought to hurt ICE and police. She also goes as far as to say that he was not a victim and his murder was justified. This is a direct example of Kirsche pandering lies and false narratives, as actual VIDEO FOOTAGE and eyewitness testimony (INCLUDING THE WOMAN KIRSCHE CLAIMS HE WAS STRANGLING) shows that Alex Pretti was violently assaulted and shot for attempting to help Georgia Savageford stand up after she was forcefully thrown onto the ground by ICE for legally observing them. As you can clearly see from this video, Alex Pretti never reached for his gun, never approached the officers with any malicious intent, and was never violent with any of them even during the brutality he went through. She still stands by and defends these comments to this day despite quite literally lying and attempting to convince you not to believe what you see with your own eyes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkLd-6i8u70
Another instance of Kirsche trying to paint Alex Pretti as a dangerous Antifa terrorist looking to harm ICE officers, alluding that he was attempting to reach for something in his pocket when all video evidence suggests otherwise. The second video is one that I found pretty funny and ironic considering the videos and posts in this thread are clear demonstrations of her hypocrisy.
Kirsche and her chat make fun of Alex Pretti's appearance, claiming he has the "physiognomy of a pedophile". While not literally accusing Alex Pretti of being a pedophile, claiming he looks like one carries the same harmful and social stigmas that falsely being labeled as a pedophile carries. Even using physiognomy, which is the idea that character, criminal inclinations, or moral depravity can be read from facial features is a malicious way of framing him as a person. Applying physiognomy in modern social commentary serves as a vehicle to project severe moral failings onto an individual's physical appearance without relying on objective evidence. Furthermore it serves to strip away empathy to make it seem like his extrajudicial killing is palatable or deserved. It's ironic that she engages in this kind of activity when she had VERY different feelings when Charlie Kirk was tragically murdered and people were celebrating, making jokes of, and even cheering for his passing. Kirsche clearly understands and recognizes how dehumanizing it is to make light of someone who passed (regardless of how much you truly disagree with and abhor their political beliefs), yet fails to extend that grace and attitude when it comes to people outside of her worldview. She even dabbles in a little bit of "woke cancel culture", harassing and doxing game devs because of their comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js9O8XPDKd4
Claim 3: Kirsche Verstahl supports shooting immigrant women and children in order to create a deterrence.
Finally, on a more serious note, this leads us to what the original point of this post was about. To paint a clearer picture for context we need to go back to last week, when Asmongold was banned off of twitch for advocating for migrant women and children to be shot at our borders because in his words they are being used for emotional blackmail, and he even goes on to say that migrants are animals and savages. He calls this humanitarian crisis an invasion, and purposely uses this extremist framing in order to create a permission structure for his advocacy of violence against the "others", which in this case is woman and children seeking asylum/migrants. Despite having no empirical evidence for any of his claims, he also suggests that migrants would rather willingly come illegally than through legal processes, despite the fact that every reputable source on the matter tells a polar opposite story. Once again, by framing a humanitarian crisis an invasion of "military aged men" he is trying (and horribly failing) to frame this issue as one that requires force, violence, and death.
In this clip Kirsche reacts to Asmongold's take and pauses to talk about hypothetical circumstances in which military forces use women and children as human shields in order to play into the morality of not wanting to harm innocent civilians. Because of this, she argues that while it's a morally reprehensible thing to do, making the tough choice of using lethality will deter the tactic from continuing. This is fine and all, but comparing a humanitarian immigration crisis to military warfare tactics is a non-starter for several reasons.
1. It dehumanizes civilians: By reframing unarmed migrants as an "invading army," individual human beings, which includes children and families, are stripped of their status as non-combatants. Once a population is categorized as an "enemy force," standard moral and legal obligations to protect civilian life are stripped away in the eyes of the public.
2. It lowers the threshold for lethal violence: In military engagement, collateral damage is often treated as a tragic, inherent reality of neutralizing a military threat. Shifting that logic to border control removes the presumption of innocence. It argues that killing non-combatants or children is an acceptable "necessary evil" to achieve a political or territorial goal, effectively normalizing state-sanctioned violence against civilians.
3. It prepares the public for extreme measures: When a humanitarian or civil issue is framed as an existential military threat or even a "mass invasion", it triggers a wartime survival mindset. Under this mindset, normal democratic processes, legal rights, and human rights standards are treated as luxuries that can be discarded. This rhetoric has historically paved the way for severe human rights abuses and vigilantism.
4. It creates a false dichotomy: This framing presents a false choice: either use catastrophic, lethal force against entire groups (including women and children), or face total destruction. By erasing non-lethal, administrative, and legal options for managing borders, it makes extreme violence appear as the only logical and permissible solution.
Ironically enough, Kirsche also recognizes the situation in Morocco or other humanitarian immigration crises in general are NOT the same as her hypothetical situation, BUT she still frames it as an invading force anyway in order to create the notion that somehow the two situations ARE still comparable and therefore violence IS PERMISSIBLE.
After laying the groundwork, she goes on to further agree with Asmongold that immigrants are using women and children as human shields, despite there being no proof of this. She also goes on to list several other wild claims, of which there are too many for me to debunk. In short however: "illegal immigrants" and asylum seekers that are still waiting for application approval DO NOT qualify for welfare programs in 99% of situations (being extremely rare outlier cases), they do indeed pay taxes, and the idea of America being a welfare magnet is a largely debunked and disproven idea. The only people in America granted welfare after seeking asylum are asylees who have already been approved through the formal process, so it seems like her rhetoric is actually targeting legal immigrants, since there is no basis in any reality for the claim that non approved asylum seekers are granted benefits. More importantly, these ideas are not only dangerous, they also directly attack the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was signed after World War II as a direct response to the Holocaust (though the other horrific atrocities that occurred during the war also played a part). Article 14 officially recognized the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries, which ultimately established international protection as a fundamental human right. More importantly however is Article 3 which establishes the right to life, as well as Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which protects every human beings inherent right to life. It goes on to state that this right must be protected by law and that no person shall be arbitrarily deprived of their life. It is a supreme, non-derogable right that cannot be suspended even during public emergencies. If Kirsche truly believes in what she says, it's something that goes against all established norms for human decency.
Ultimately I hope you found this post informative, and just to cover my bases once again (because I seemingly have to out of respect for Kirsche's fear for her life) please do not take this post as permission or an endorsement of going out of your way to harass or threaten physical harm against her. Making comments that she can potentially twist as being threatening will only detract from the importance of the conversation.