On the Charlie Kirk Assassination

     

Found on Google Images

  Why is the assassination of Charlie Kirk so unnerving?  Because it was in an accumulation of opposing thoughts presented, someone was killed for them.  It has been a growing trend for conservatives to watch how they say something.  If something came across as offensive, it could be labeled as intolerant - or worse - violent.  And when the public is encouraged that words themselves are violent, then the public will soon be encouraged to defend themselves against those who speak it.  That is, self-defense is often a physical matter.  A man was killed for just wanting to talk.
     He never threatened anyone's lives.  He never pointed a gun at somebody's head and demanded 'they should believe like him, or die.'  Rather, the public left called him a fascist; a Nazi.  Probably called him an ally to the Klan (oh wait...that was Trump).  The problem with these accusations is that they are based on the persons who ended up being the first ones to become violent.
    Looking back at history, we can all say Hitler was a bad dude, and the Valkyrie plot was justified, though it failed.  The thing is, however, the plot did not materialize until there was proof of violence on Hitler's end, and there were signs that it wasn't going to slow down.  And when I say violence, I mean the physical aggression or the intent to do physical harm.  While Hitler was propagating that Jews were the enemy, he wasn't being outright violent.  Prejudicial, sure.  Hateful, absolutely.  But did the rhetoric influence the public to take the next step, which was actual violence?  ABSOLUTELY!!  And THAT is the natural progression of fascism.
     Fascism doesn't start with physical violence.  It sows seeds of discourse, factionalizes communities, and when it tears apart cities and kills, it says it has done it in the name of self-defense.  It also removes the arms of law-abiding citizens.  Yeah, all these hints have hit our shores.  
     Now, can words be offensive?  Yes.  Should we create boundaries of how one should treat us, especially in regards to respect?  Absolutely.  But would we ever say someone is justified in taking physical action just because someone said something offensive or disagreeable?  No.  In fact, we teach our children that the only reason to be in a physical altercation is if someone else gave the first blow.  Otherwise, the way to deal with a verbal offender is 1) confront/set a boundary, 2) act like it never hurt you, 3) agree to disagree (and move on), or 4) create a physical distance to keep the peace.
     Kirk's approach was to debate and have conversation.  His death feels like as if Malcolm X decided to shoot Martin Luther King, Jr.  And if we're not free to speak our minds, resentment seethes and seeks an opportunity to bleed out.  Someone took that, literally.  I fear for my freedom to share my opinions.  I fear for our nation.  
     Over the last few years (since COVID), there has been an increase of violence over being hurt or offended.  Now, to be offended is a real thing to deal with.  I have had to deal with that demon and it took two decades of my life to defeat it.  But when you are so overcome with hurt that you become hateful, murder doesn't look so vicious.  Sometimes, it seems vengeful.  And I get it...unfortunately, ANY time there is an opposing point of the view, our instinct is to rise up in outrage.  I come from a generation that held ideas, beliefs or feelings described as lunacy by the former generation.  The dismissal card was often played.  The left had their thoughts, but when they proposed them, there wasn't any hearing out and explanation for why things were the way they were.
     And yet again, we live in human nature, which is prone to sin and rebellion.  Either there wasn't a response or the answer wasn't the one desired.  So 'push came to shove', as the saying goes.  Anger undergirding the desire to have a voice opened a way that when allowed to finally speak, they did so with such velocity, it became indoctrination.
     Sound familiar?  Heck, Hitler's rise to power was initially for the good of Austria and Germany.  After all, these countries were left destitute after World War I.  Nevertheless, the League of Nations didn't become the bad guys in WWII.  Hitler did - because he allowed his personal and public offenses to influence finding scapegoats to justify his violent movement in power.
     Charlie Kirk's death is a huge warning light that we are going down the same path as post-depression Germany.  Thing is, I think we are getting it wrong about who are the true fascists.  Fascism seeks to disintegrate all forms of dialogues,  desires absolute power, and destroys opposition.  Where did Kirk fit on that line?   His whole premise was to CONVERSATE!!  No...His death is a turning point.  
     Either we learn to listen to one another, even with opposing views, or more violence will ensue.  I'm concerned the latter may accumulate.  Will the left stop telling the right that they are violent just because they don't agree with certain things?  Surely there can be a solution to some of the things we disagree.  I fear that won't be the case, however.  I wonder if the left will condemn the violence openly, but still accuse any conservative as remaining the bigoted.  As long as we fail to hold people accountable for actions, I fear violence will breed more violence.  Will we have second civil war on our hands?  For, if a man can be killed for talking, will true self-defense have to be the response?  After all, our country has learned to demonize opposing political views, and one person has just died for them.

(Written on September 13, 2025)