Chuck Norris Trashed After Death As Dangerous And Immoral

By Jennifer Asencio
| Published 17 seconds ago

Chuck Norris’s death was barely announced by his family on March 21, 2026, before Variety, famous for snubbing fashion and movie icon Brigitte Bardot, decided to take a shot at him. The article, written by William Earl, was published just hours after his death was announced in the news.

The article, titled “Chuck Norris Was a Great Action Star – But Politics May Overshadow His Legacy,” questions the actor’s resume as a cinematic and television tough guy. It indicates that his portrayal of characters such as Colonel James Braddock in Missing in Action, Colonel Scott McCoy in The Delta Force, and Cordell Walker in Walker, Texas Ranger might have been too patriotic in their portrayal of American heroism and justice.

“Given our nation’s divisions in morality, information literacy, and overall sense of morality,” Earl posits, “it’s easier to see Norris’s characters as justification for a fringe conspiracy movement rather than a moral standing.” He defends this perspective by explaining that Norris’s characters are all vigilantes, an idea which “seems less fun” these days because of current events, such as nationwide immigration raids, in which law enforcement agents “are acting like one-man militias.” He seems convinced that they were inspired to these actions by Norris’s iconic persona.

This attack on Norris is unwarranted for a lot of reasons, not in the least of which is Norris’s persona off-screen. He was legendary for being a family man and all-around nice guy, giving a lot of time and energy in addition to donations to causes that helped kids, the hungry, and the poor. He also wrote several books, including a few about fitness and martial arts. He was such a prolific martial arts expert that he created his own style, called Chun Kuk Do. Earl handwaves this all as “Was Norris a brilliant athlete and a top-shelf star?”

He then proceeds to attack his portrayals of heroic Americans for being American. Throughout the article, he is critical of portraying cops and soldiers as heroes. He indicates that the United States is a bad country for going to war against Iran and for the aforementioned immigration initiatives. He denounces Norris’s characters for being proud Americans with strong moral values, calling him “the poster boy for American exceptionalism” and wondering if his work is “dangerous propaganda.”

However, the title of the article gives away the true motive behind it: politics. And the problem isn’t the characters Norris played, it’s the fact that he was a lifelong Republican and an outspoken Christian. He lived a lot of the values he portrayed on-screen, ideas which are not as precious in Hollywood these days because they involve nuclear families, positive masculinity, and judging people by their actions rather than identities. Even the idea of patriotism and pride in our country is viewed with disdain, as the very country that invented Hollywood is often decried for its flaws rather than recognized for its merits.

In our fascist, oppressive, speech-stifling country, William Earl attacked a man hours after his death for playing the wrong type of characters in his movies and representing them in a positive light. That makes him the worst villain in a Chuck Norris story in my book.