It's been a week since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and a lot has happened since then. It's time to expand on my initial reaction post. This has been cobbled together from several lines of thought, so I offer an apology for the length instead of breaking it up into several shorter posts.
I think I have a more nuanced view of Kirk's ideology and the surrounding events than those who see him in a black-and-white hero or villain perspective. For lack of better terms, I am a libertarian politically, and strive to live as if Christ is the only King in my life theologically. I also try to get more than a layman's grasp of philosophy, economics, and rhetoric. I try not to be consumed by conspiracy theories, but I am intrigued by the tendency of people to fill gaps of information with their preconceptions. While there are sometimes real covert causes behind some events, I reject the assumption that everything is planned by default.
I have seen those on the American political left, including people I know personally, mock and celebrate Kirk's death as if it were some kind of karmic justice. This is accompanied by quotations taken out of context to justify their attitudes. As an advocate of honest debate, and someone frequently frustrated by the poor state of quotations and attribution on the internet, this intellectual dishonesty bothers me more than the politics.
Claims About the Assassination
Social media has also leapt to a wide variety of conspiracy theories by people who want their biases confirmed more than they want the truth. Unfortunately, this happens every time there's a tragedy.
It was a rebellious kid who got swept up by far-left LGBTQ college brainwashing and had a trans boyfriend!
This doesn't explain deciding to murder someone who disagrees with a lot of trans activism. Also, many scapegoats were falsely accused by right-leaning internet sleuths, and pictures of dubious veracity flooded the net. Step back and wait for real evidence, and don't just assume internet strangers found the truth immediately.
A MAGA Republican kid got caught up in groyper army propaganda and wanted to remove a rival of his leader Nick Fuentes!
The evidence here seems to be the alleged engravings on cartridge casings, but widespread internet memes and video game references seen across 4chan and other fringe internet sites hardly prove a connection.
Israel did it.
Sure, Kirk criticized connections between many Jewish communities and progressive politics, which do exist. On the other hand, he's also a Zionist supporter of Israeli claims to the Holy Land who supported Republican crackdowns on protests supporting Gaza. Blaming Mossad is a stretch. If it was that kind of professional hit, I think it would have been more, well, professional.
It was obviously a professional assassin who shot him in the neck!
The updated story is that the rifle was a sporterized bolt-action Mauser chambered in .30-06. That round can reliably kill any game animal in North America with a single shot to the vital organs in the chest. The neck shot was probably more a torso shot that went high and almost missed. It's also an older caliber. A hitman would likely use a modern rifle in an updated cartridge, perhaps .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO.
People near Kirk were making hand signals to coach and coordinate with the assassin!
Humans look for patterns, and confirmation bias tends to be in full swing. However, a spotter is stationed with the sniper, not his target. The spotter keeps an eye on the surroundings and tells the sniper directly about any issues downrange. The spotter does not hope someone focused on a target notices hand-waving and arm-patting somewhere off to the side.
We need to be willing to accept unknowns as unknowns and be comfortable with that, especially in the direct aftermath of any tragic event with limited public information and a high likelihood of unintentional or deliberate false claims. "It is well said in the old Proverb, ‘A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.’" Social media makes that old Charles Spurgeon quote seem almost quaintly optimistic.
Misquoting Kirk
People have forgotten their basic humanity, and this is most clearly revealed by quoting Kirk out of context to demean him. Note that I have deliberately chosen Snopes as my source, because that site tends to be neutral to leftist in its editorial slant, and is definitely not a Republican mouthpiece.
Why should we even care? Charlie Kirk doesn't believe in empathy!
"The new communications strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do, where he would say, "I feel your pain." Instead, it is to say, "You're actually not in pain." So let's just, little, very short clip. Bill Clinton in the 1990s. It was all about empathy and sympathy. I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time." (source)
He was clearly pointing out how politicians exploit our emotions to serve their own ends, not the cocnept of caring about other people. However, the American left is utterly convinced heartlessness is a prerequisite for being on the political right, and thus look for any excerpt which confirms that bias.
Charlie Kirk said gun deaths were "worth it," so why should his supporters complain he was shot?
"Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
"You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe." (source)
Whether you agree or not, it's plain Kirk wasn't celebrating death, but rather acknowledging that risk is part of life. This denial of tradeoffs and opportunity costs is a common issue with many left-wing proposals, actually. Kirk also advocated for armed security in contrast to the failed policy of disarming peaceable people in school zones under federal law since 1990.
A better critique of his position would be his advocacy for state violence against victimless "crimes" like illegal immigration and illegal drugs. The biggest problem in these issues is the law, not the lawbreakers. Gun bans and drug bans both punish people who have not trespassed against others.
He was a sexist and a racist who hated black women!
"If we would have said three weeks ago […] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist. But now they're coming out and they're saying it for us! They're coming out and they're saying, "I'm only here because of affirmative action." (source)
Kirk was specifically critical of four individuals based on his interpretation of what they said. This isn't proof of any deeper misogyny or racism. Additionally, while he has been critical of the Civil Right Act, many other conservative and libertarian-leaning scholars have also criticized it based on its legal presumptions and unintended consequences without any racist undertones. Thomas Sowell is a conservative scholar I would suggest exploring on the topic, for example.
He said kids should watch televised executions!
Kirk did advocate for public executions, he did suggest corporate sponsorships, and he did say he would enjoy watching some specific deaths.
"I think at a certain age it's an initiation. [...] [L]ook at some of these savages like in Indiana, there was this guy that went in and killed a pregnant woman and her three kids. [...] I want to watch that execution, that'll make my day better. I want to see him on a public block and get him be publicly executed, and I think that would be justice."
Then he asks,
At what age should you start to see public executions?" (source)
He doesn't say it should be forced on kids. He does think at some point kids should be confronted by the reality of death itself and the death penalty as a consequence of criminality. 150 years ago, public executions were not uncommon, and children were brought along to enjoy the festivities in some cases, so it's not a brand-new horror, but it is one I think we were right to leave behind.
I don't trust the government "justice" system, especially when it comes to capital punishment. I believe celebration of death rots the soul, even if someone is guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. I was still a mainstream normie when Saddam Hussein was executed, yet I couldn't bring myself to celebrate that even then. However, as always, context is lost in TikTok hot takes and viral internet memes.
I'm not arguing Charlie Kirk was beyond reproach, or that his arguments were flawless. Honest debate goes both ways. Don't build a straw man, commit an ad hominem, or appeal to emotion as a substitute for verifiable evidence and sound reasoning.
Fascism?
The left, at least in American social media, has been shouting for years now that anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton is literally a Nazi. Don't want universal healthcare? "Fascist!" Advocate for traditional Judeo-Christian family structure? "You're basically Hitler!" Want stronger borders? "You just hate brown people, you racist monster!" Here's the weird part: I would agree Kirk had fascistic leanings, just not in the way his critics think.
Nationalistic xenophobia is not inherently racist, but it does reflect someone who prioritizes compliance with government edicts over the Christian command to care for the homeless, the fatherless, and the widow, or to treat the sojourner in our lands as a friend.
The left would see my statement and assume I support government welfare as fulfilling these commandments. Not so. There is no justice in robbing A in order to help B. Charlie Kirk was basically a mainstream conservative with vaguely laissez-faire economic notions polluted by Republican ideas of corporate and regulatory power. Republicans also enjoy pointing out the immigration policies of past Democrats like Obama and Clinton. This does not prove opposition to immigration is wrong now, but it does reveal a lot about the slipperiness of partisan "principles." It's a bit like how Republicans are suddenly in favor of the National Guard being federalized to enforce their agenda now.
Another facet of Kirk's real authoritarian leanings was his desire for police state escalation in the war on drugs despite the simple fact that vices are not crimes. Meanwhile, the devastating effects of drugs are in large part a consequence of the iron law of prohibition. Fentanyl has proliferated as a direct consequence of enforcement on production and transportation incentivizing the most concentrated and potent drugs becoming the most prevalent. This is also why methamphetamine production ballooned a couple decades ago.
If we want to end the drug epidemic, we need to address medical misuse of opioids without depriving people of effective pain relief, and address the root causes in the human soul leading to various forms of chemical dependency. This takes work, personal accountability, and real compassion. Political motivations reward arbitrary laws, civil asset forfeiture, a "tough-on-crime" persona, and condemnation of the addicts instead. Both parties prefer that fascistic option by far.
Benito Mussolini, the leader of Italian fascism, said,
"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people." (source)
Both major parties in the US pay lip service to individual freedom in some aspects of our lives while their legislative actions always presume government supremacy over all. Nothing can exist outside state control. Crypto needs to be regulated. Marriages, businesses, cars, and even pets need licenses. Permits must be sought for everything from home construction to lemonade stands. The secular wing of the left wants to tax churches. The religious wing of the right wants theocratic punishments for heresy. Both parties embrace this fascist notion of all-encompassing politics. So did Charlie Kirk, although he would doubtless protest this characterization. That still doesn't make him basically another Hitler, it just shows the totalitarian underpinnings of all statist ideologies.
Rotting Souls Revealed
The biggest shock is the reactions ranging from smug satisfaction to open celebration by Kirk's critics. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. These are people who mourned the failure of both would-be assassins targeting Trump, who fetishized Luigi Mangione for shooting United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and who ghoulishly applauded the death of any COVID policy critic since 2020. I think they're less upset about Kirk's condemnation of empathy than they are about how he called out the masquerade they play.
Now, a week later, many of those who most loudly mocked and cheered are finding themselves scrutinized, doxxed, and fired. Cancel culture came home to roost, but instead of vague claims of racism or wrongthink aimed at the right, we have open hate on full display from the left. I don't cheer these outcomes, yet there is a perverse justice in people getting fired after advocating that very thing for their political enemies as a "natural consequence" for so many years.
No doubt many are just opportunistic activists looking for any excuse to score partisan points and signal their membership in the "right group." However, the bitterness flowing from these people often reveals trauma they experienced in the past being projected on the target placed in their sights. I know many left-leaning people who were abused in the name of religion and right-wing politics. It's real trauma festering within, and the bile bursts out under the right pressure like a bursting abscess oozing pus. It's ugly, but not the root problem.
One of the differences I see between the left and right at this moment is the right looks more outward for enemies abroad, and depicts immigrants and drugs as foreign invasion; the left looks inward for enemies among us, and calls for any imagined racism, fascism, or reactionary counter-revolutionary activists to be crushed. Both parties need an "other" to justify their demands for power over everyone, and liberty must be sacrificed on the altar to their true god, the State, regardless of their professed religious positions or claims to support freedom.
I fear this essay will come off as more harshly critical of the left, but here's the thing: I don't remember seeing anything close to this level of bloodlust here in a very red part of the Pacific Northwest following the assassination of Minnesota lawmakers earlier this year. Be cautious of everyone trying to shoehorn in their personal agendas and seize power or shift blame. Meanwhile, stand guard as we continue to wait for the story to unfold.
If you're not on Hive yet, I invite you to join through InLeo or PeakD. If you use either of my referral links, I'll even try to delegate some Hive Power to help you get started.