Charlie Kirk, may he rest in peace
Many people on the right are saying that the murder of Charlie Kirk marks the beginning of a Civil War. They are wrong on two counts. In the big historical picture of civil conflict in America, Mr. Kirk, effective as he was, was not a political leader or a strategist, much less a thinker. He was, for good mostly, an activist. Such men, if they are murdered, are often made martyrs by the parties they belong to. "Dr. King" is adored by civil rights activists, while Neo-Nazis and their friends are still glorifying the less than glorious Horst Wessel.
No, I am not suggesting Charlie Kirk was anything like Horst Weseel. He was a decent married man with children murdered by what now appears to be a self-declared advocate of transssexual anti-fascism. (They are working very hard to make fascism attractive.) May he rest in peace without being turned into someone's cheap cause.
There is a second and more important reason why the murder of Mr. Kirk is not the beginning of a Civil War. It is because we are in the midst of one and have been since the days of Eisenhower and Kennedy. Hardly anyone believes this, because the American mind is dominated by the media that runs the gamut, as Dorothy observed of Katherine Hepburn's acting, from A to B. We watch Fox or CNN, listen to activists and strategists, follow reassuring gurus who promise the peace and prosperity that is just around the corner, and pretend to ourselves that things are not as they seem. We are whistling past our own graveyard.
We are so naive we send our children to daycare in the belief that underpaid uneducated strangers will take care of our children and are surprised when something goes wrong. When our county is flooded with illegal immigrants, many of them violent, we talk about America as a nation of immigrants, and when a poor Ukrainian woman is murdered for being white, we talk about the killer as a troubled man who needs to be understood, needs to he helped.
The reaction of Leftists, which ranges from serves him right for defending the right to bear arms to 'One Nazi Down"--hearkens back to the media chatter a few days ago when someone dared to suggest that it was wrong to describe Kirk as a racist. As I recall, the answer all over the internet was "But if he isn't a racist, there is no such thing." All declared with violent passion and a complete lack of evidence. For these people, simply calling someone a racist, bigot, or homophobe (hilarious word that really means fear of what is like you), makes it so, and someone who is thus branded lives under a sentence of outlawry: Anyone who is not a bigot has the right and duty to kill him. That is what they mean. Always.
Half the country in opinion polls continues to support the evil party that promotes the destruction of the country, while the other half smugly votes for the stupid party that permits it.
Yes, we are in the midst of a civil war, all right, but only one side is fighting.
I confess I had never heard of Charlie Kirk before his assassination. I think I was vaguely aware of his activity, but I just don’t spend time listening to any of the political talking heads (I think in my head I was getting Charlie Kirk mixed up with someone named Crowder – I can at least tell Matt Walsh apart because of the beard). However, from what I’ve seen since yesterday, he seems to have been a decent guy trying hard to do the impossible which is to reach modern college students through the use of reason. That he met with any success is impressive – that he apparently met with a great deal of success must say much for his charisma and his persistence.
Ultimately, his goal was impossible. He wanted to build a peaceful bridge between what little remains of the semi-civilized West and modern Leftists. He was trying to prevent the war that Dr. Fleming points out actually started long, long ago. While I see many conservatives bragging about how the Left just created another 10,000 Charlie Kirks through their violent action, I sure hope not. I hope, instead, that more people are realizing that this is a fight, and that it’s a fight to the death. From what little I see of social media, the reaction does seem different this time, and the typical naïve waifs warning against “being uncharitable” and “wrongfully demonizing all Leftists” are getting shouted down just as harshly as the demonic freaks chortling over Charlie Kirks death. I suppose that’s a good sign.
Where is the fight, and what is it about? I want to be sure I understand.
Mr. Olson asks a good question. In some ways we seem near the last scenes of The Camp of the Saints, but could any of us find enough allies close at hand that share our sense of what constitutes a civilization and to enjoy the last moments of reveling in it together while still getting a few licks in until the inevitable. I would be hard pressed to find any such in my own family.
No offense to Charley Kirk and his fans, but all of this family values stuff is baby-talk, showing what a deep hole we are in. It is a group of nice, well meaning children (maybe I am making assumptions here, I still haven’t listened to a single word spoken by Charlie Kirk) trying to play nice with nice rules while the bullies circle and pick them off one by one. If this is the level at which the fight is to take place, I will continue to lay low and fight my battles on a micro scale rather than fly the Kirk flag. Charlie Kirk was no Alexander Nevsky or Charles Martel. I wonder how many of his disciple still have their kids in public schools.
Unwilling as I am to learn very much about CK, I am content to regard him as a well-intentioned fool. He is not only a Creatonist, never having studied science or even finished the year of community college he started and has come to accept the hilarious short chronology of creation. He claims now to be an Evangelical though only a few years ago he was saying religion should be kept out of politics. If I were forced to bet, my money would be that he is another Gantry, an Olsteen. Without any education, discipline, or work history or skills, he has amassed an estimated net worth of $10-15 million telling other fools to be nice. The coup de grace on his reputation was Jamie Lee Curtis’ declaration that he was another Jesus.
If we have to be frank, here is what I think: The two sides of this conflict are evenly matched in foolish zealotry, completely irrational, and, despite gushing professions, not at all Christian as that faith has been known for two thousand years. People like Charlie have been around since the beginning–Simon Magus, Alexander of Abonoteichos–and America is their natural homeland–William Miller, Joseph Smith the water-witch turned Mormon martyr, John Humphrey Noyes, Mary Baker Eddy, Jim Jones, David Koresh, David Berg. I still have a little affection for the Rev Ike, who is ten times better at preaching success than his current successors like Osteen, was very suave and probably helped the suckers more than he hurt them. It is a real treat to watch him interviewed by other charlatans like Phil Donahue.
Kirk was only rarely on my radar. I never thought it would be worth the trouble of listening to him. Whenever I was looking for something to listen to on the internet while working, on rare occasions I would stumble across Kirk either conducting an interview or being interviewed, and he struck me as being much as Dr Fleming described here. Part of the problem was his Christian Zionist proclivities. It turns out that he had a falling out with the Zionists over Gaza, and you can guess where the speculation goes from there. He was also put on the Ukrainian hit list for some reason. It has been said, though, that towards the end he was leaning towards Catholicism. Just what kind of Catholicism that would have been I have no idea.
One thing I’ve learned, reading various articles in the days since Charlie Kirk’s assassination, is that a magazine Dr Fleming once edited for many years (much to our benefit) now has a Zionist writing pieces for it. An apparently enthusiastic Zionist at that. And a current editor-at-large at Newsweak (sic) to boot. Has said several times that he was a friend of Charlie’s, even talked to him the night before…etc.
Well, it’s a free country (sorta), and you can hire who you want. But I never thought I’d see the day.
Incidentally, this writer’s latest Kirk piece is posted on the mag’s website. It’s well worth checking out the comments it’s generating.