The multi-colored truths about Charlie Kirk

Or do I cast pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6) in a time oblivious of truth?

Disclaimer: It feels a bit iffy to talk about this while he’s not even buried. But the discussion about his morals is out now, and I want to chip in.

I will leave out all the sensational lies and myths that are now circulating. Furthermore, I will focus on Charlie Kirk and less on his alleged killer.

In my conclusion, I included my speculations about the shooter’s motives.

The assassinated Charlie Kirk himself always talked about promoting truth. In general, that’s a red flag. When politicians claim to ‘only’ bring the truth, look closer. Typically, such people are not to be trusted.

Liking Jews

But let’s begin with the positive. There are multiple reports of how Charlie Kirk supported Jews to believe in themselves, to become activists as Jews, to take their religion seriously, to embrace Israel and Zionism, etc.

And this support for Jews was different from Trump. Trump supports Jews (so far) because they work well for him. They profit him. Charlie only invested in Jews to help them, not to gain. That’s unique, moving, and laudable. If anything, Trump used Kirk and not the other way around.

Therefore, to blame the Jews for his assassination is completely ridiculous, which has never stopped any anti-Jewish blood libel from being spread.

It doesn’t mean he never said anything Antisemitic, but no one is perfect. And Antisemites now suddenly are shocked and embrace him as their own.

Role Model

He supported Trump, who lives an immoral life in many aspects; Charlie Kirk did not. He was a true Evangelical, and his widow convincingly speaks very highly of him as a husband and father. An outstanding role model for men. And as far as I know, he quietly did so, not to brag about this.

Though some (very) critical comments can be made on that speech:

There are minority outliers who personally felt supported by Charlie Kirk and speak very highly of him and his ideas. I listened to this person saying that he started thinking for himself because Charlie Kirk advocated that.

One self-identifies as a Black, Gay, formerly extremely left-wing man turned right-wing. My first problem with him is that he cherry-picks his arguments to make the left look bad and looks away from the bad on the right. The second calls himself a fellow moderate right-winger who always debated decently and with empathy. He didn’t see any intimidation. The third, a Muslim, says that Charlie Kirk became very open to hearing him.

But I think the following angry, Black analysis is a better description:

Blame

After his murder, many shared how bigoted Charlie Kirk had been speaking. But, in a lower volume, such protests were nothing new.

His murder was (almost) celebrated by the loony left, but nobody else.

All living US ex-presidents condemned such political violence from any direction, but Trump did not. Instead of lowering the extremist rhetoric and uniting the country, he made it worse, as he always does. While only blaming and condemning ‘the radical left,’ the president confirmed that the politically violent climate he created helped kill his young supporter.

One of Charlie Kirk’s mistakes—and he’s certainly not alone in this—is that he explained it all as black and white, do or die, there is no middle ground.

I think this comes from Dualism, an aberration of Monotheism found in too many Christian circles. There are the forces of Good (God, Jesus), and there are the forces of Evil (the Devil). And on top of that, G^d is so stern and scary that you need to talk via Jesus or Maria, so we can be scary too.

Bigotry

The Dutch were first. Theo van Gogh was an Antisemite. He was murdered by a radicalized Muslim. In the Netherlands, Gay Pim Fortuyn popularized Racism. He was killed by a Vegan. Their bigotry didn’t justify the murders.

Charlie Kirk is known for seeking debate. I’ve seen a few moments of them, and they’re no good. Possibly, he sought out young people because they were easier to fool or corner. He aggressively went toe-to-toe with young women on abortion rights, with transgender people, Blacks, and others. A snobbish WASP calling someone who feels unsafe a snowflake is a bigot.

He didn’t finish school himself but constructed ways to block most talking points and then have a comeback that sounded smart for the uninformed.

Each one seems to say, ‘I hate that he was killed, but I don’t feel for him.’

Condemnation

Yet, some who condemned and regretted his violent end can really deem his populist reasoning as violent without approving of the shooting, still claiming that violent speech is violence and incompatible with innocence.

Evangelists should know from their Bible, copied from the Mishna in Avot, ‘For all who take the sword will perish by the sword’ (Matthew 26:52).

He himself said often that the US Constitutional Right to Bear Arms is a good thing, even if it will cost a couple of lives here and there. Really.

I think that claiming he was a fascist passing as decent is an exaggeration. To call him a White supremacist extremist seems a better fit.

Unhelpful

Charlie Kirk wielded no real power. If I had had a chance to kill Hitler in 1933, I might have done so. But in this case, it won’t give change.

Besides, killing someone because you disagree with him is not going to lift the world’s morality. Be angry, learn to argue back, but don’t hit back.

And assassinations elevate the martyred person beyond what he deserved. That’s not only senseless and immoral but also wholly unhelpful.

Last but not least, Charlie Kirk claimed that transgender people are not the most attacked minority and that their suicide rates aren’t as high as they claim. He called transgender women the most violent US group that should be banned from carrying arms. The alleged shooter is said to be in an intimate relationship with a pre-transitioning transwoman, which will give the Trump government a pretext to continue its persecution of this minority.

Speaking of attacks on gender, I think it’s ironic to say that to be transgender is unnatural (while gender is hardwired in the brain), while actually it is as unnatural as it gets to be young and right-wing. As Churchill famously did not say, ‘If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart, and if you are not a conservative when old, you have no brain.’

It’s a false myth that the right shot Kirk to legitimize a war with the left. But they were so in shock when they found out it was one of their own.

A minute before he was murdered, Charlie Kirk ‘joked’ that Mormons should get their act together—no more LGBT stuff. That wasn’t a trigger for his Mormon-raised murderer living with a transwoman, because he was already lying on that rooftop with a rifle when he may have heard this. Next point was if transpeople are disproportionately doing gun violence!

Yet, Trump & Co. are already trying to figure out how to use this to clamp down on ‘radical left-wing domestic terrorism,’ never mind that most political violence with firearms and hammers comes from the right.

Charlie Kirk, like Donald Trump, didn’t do empathy. And people who died, no matter how heroically, are despicable losers. But the bullet that killed Kirk could’ve killed Trump, and his death weakens him. That means war.

Conclusions

Let me make a somewhat informed total guess about the hot topic of the motives after reading and listening to all of the above. An ultra-right-wing influencer recently accused Kirk of being anti-Trump. On top of that, he was raised Mormon (not unusual in Utah), and his whole family was deep MAGA. Just imagine what it must have been for someone like him to have a man or a transgender person as a lover—in the perception inside his social bubble. So, he shot Charlie Kirk because the latter was accused by his influencers of having turned anti-Trump, and Kirk stood for his crushing MAGA family, upbringing, and social environment that made his own life Hell. Then, the bullet texts were a) to have the left being blamed and b) to energize a dispute about transphobia in the Church, GOP, and MAGA.

After I wrote this analysis, his confession was published, which only states ‘there is too much evil’ and ‘[Kirk] spreads too much hate’—no details.

We live in crazy times, in which progressives threaten Jews, and bigots hate every oppressed group under the sun but protect Jews. Crazy, but not unprecedented. It’s classical Antisemitism, whereby the left rejects the Jews so that the right can keep us hostage and have us work for them.

You may find more controversial writings on Amazon or my own blog.