Where in that quote does it say that "Javascript should die"?

They're just talking about using progressive enhancement, which is a common recommendation for making web applications faster, more reliable, more accessible and less fragile.

If you think not making the entire UI and replicating browser functionality with custom JS code is "holding the web back", sorry to inform you but you might be holding the web back.

It doesn't really matter whether a site uses JavaScript or not, but empirically, sites that insist on being almost all HTML and CSS work infinitely better — faster, smoother, adhering to standard idioms — than sites that rely heavily on JS. There are some exceptions to this, of course, but by and large it's a pretty good heuristic.

Hyperbole much? Nowhere does it say JavaScript should “die”.

Today’s web is overflowing with unnecessary complication from trying to fit absolutely every type of content through a React shaped hole. It leads to a worse experience for everyone except the developer making the site, who gets to marvel at how fast they’re shipping new features.

If the future of the web is a trend towards more and more overcomplicated, buggy JS garbage, I’m quite happy to hold it back.

If you think my opinion wasn’t born out of experience with the supposed future of the web, but rather some unjustified bias against the language or something, I dunno what to tell you.

I'm not sure what other impositions you've had to deal with that made this a hot button issue, but Kagi said nothing about getting rid of JS here. They even call out two use cases where they depend on JS for core features, what makes you think they want to remove JS support all together?