Charlie Kirk Assassinated: They Couldn’t Prove Him Wrong, So They Killed Him.

Is the death of the man who created Turning Point, a tipping point?

Jupplandia Sep 11

READ IN APP

Charlie Kirk was murdered yesterday in Utah. Mathew Dowd at MSNC (pictured above) had some thoughts on that murder, which differ from mine. I’ll start with my thoughts, and end with his.

So what is my view on Charlie Kirk’s horrific murder? It is this:

He was murdered for talking to people. He was murdered doing what radical progressives do not want anyone to do-for thinking, for speaking, for debating, and for having his own ideas and opinions, rather than the ones radical leftist progressives insist everyone should have.

Charlie Kirk had a strong Christian faith, shared with his wife and family. His wife has already referenced that faith in response to the cruel slaughter of her husband, and I hope it gives strength and support to her and, most importantly of all, to the children robbed of their father.

Like early Christian missionaries, Charlie believed in spreading the Word. The method he chose to battle bad ideas and evil ideas was debate. He went on debate tours, discussing politics, faith and freedom. He went to places where he knew his views would be opposed. He asked his opponents to prove him wrong. He spoke for what he thought was right and good. He was a proselytiser.

Prove me wrong,

A characteristic slogan that said a lot about what Charlie Kirk was doing and believed in. Asking someone to prove you wrong shows faith in the power of discussion to reach agreement, and trust in the ability of people of different politics to change when presented with compelling arguments from the other side. It’s a challenge, but an inherently peaceful one that admits the possibility of being wrong.

I didn’t necessarily agree with everything Kirk said or did. There were people on the alleged Right he interacted and associated with that I no longer respect. I didn’t follow Kirk closely, to be honest, but I was aware of his impact and influence and I have watched him debate.

I will say this, regardless of whether or not anyone can find or quote a view of his I strongly disagree with. I never saw him lose a debate. And I never saw him use anything other than rational debate, or advocate anything other than rational debate.

If anyone lived and died by a belief in the transformative power of debate, of simply talking things through and reaching the truth together, where adversarial opinion remain bounded within civilised limits, it was Charlie Kirk. His whole career was built on not just speaking, but letting others, very opposed to him, speak too. Kirk gave some speeches, but he was primarily about the format of letting people challenge his views, before he challenged theirs.

Progressive leftists, who form a large part of campus and university life, who are the loudest and most strident voices in activism and protest movements, and who are also a very large portion of the affluent middle class and very heavily represented in the instirutions and professional classes, could not tolerate Charlie Kirk’s challenge.

Their ideology never beat him in debate, and they knew it.

And then he was murdered.

This reality says everything we need to know about which side of politics is truly filled with hate, which side of politics uses political violence, and which side need to tone down their rhetoric, stop encouraging murder, stop silencing everyone of a different opinion, and stop deploying demonisation and visceral loathing of whole categories of people (white people, men, Christians, Republicans, straight people, conservatives, Jews, blacks who depart from Democrat affiliation, TERFS who oppose Trans activism….the list itself shows that progressive hate extends well beyond the bounds of the traditional Right) simply for them having existing or having non progressive leftist views.

It’s a reality confirmed when we see Democrats on the floor of the House refusing to honour a minutes silence in honour of Charlie Kirk and shouting ‘no’ when asked to respect a prayer for him and his family. And confirmed again by any cursory examination of the raging sewer of Democrat and progressive social media commentary, with thousands of Democrat voters posting their pleasure and joy in response to Kirk’s murder, just as they expressed their disappointment when assassination attempts against Donald Trump failed, or just as they immediately turned the assassin of a CEO into a hero and sees symbol for his cowardly act of poitical violence.

There are a large number of Democrats today, indoctrinated to the level of being effectively sociopaths, who pose a threat to anyone who dares defy their demanded ideas and positions. This is an undeniable fact.

The political murders are coming from their side. Kirk offered debate. Kirk’s only weapon was a quicker mind loaded with relevant facts. The weapon of those who disagreed with him was a sniper rifle loaded with bullets.

The two sides are not the same and there is no equivalence of responsibility for political hate, violence and division.

I’ve argued many times that ‘our’ side needs to be far less polite. I’ve argued consistently for years that we cannot care about the feelings of leftists and progressives. I have written scathing things about their leaders and personalities on many occasions. And I believe that I have the right to hate people who hate me, that my own thoughts and emotions are not subject to any law or restriction imposed by others, and that I have the free speech right to criticise, laugh at, mock or offend people I don’t agree with or people who support and express actually dangerous things.

So am I a hypocrite if I also believe that the rhetoric of the Democrat Party and the attitudes of progressive leftism are directly responsible for Charlie Kirk’s murder, or if I ask for their speech to be policed?

I don’t think I am. Because I’ve never called for their deaths or for violence. Not once. I have never backed known terrorists. Not once. I’ve never taught people to hate all blacks. I’ve never taught people that Hamas are the good guys. I’ve never laughed at a Democrat death.

The gulf between the Left and the Right on this is enormous. The gulf between the things a Charlie Kirk did and the things a Luigi Mangione did is enormous. Nobody shot at Joe Biden. Nobody rounded up and imprisoned hundreds of Democrats for years without trial. The right wing has had a campaign of talking against the demonisation of white people and the silencing of conservative opinions, not a campaign of speaking for the demonisation of black people and the silencing of other opinions. The Right has been fighting FOR free speech, and the Left for its end. The battle against Trans activism has not been advocating that Trans people should be attacked or harmed, but that children should not be genitally mutilated and chemically altered before they know what they are doing. The Right has not banned books, but asked that books with adult sexual content not be promoted to children. It wasn’t the Right who took away basic civil liberties and demanded obscene restrictions of thought, speech, movement and medical choice and consent during COVID.

We have called out things that are wrong, but we haven’t called FOR things that are wrong. And that’s a basic, fundamental, enormous difference. Charlie Kirk represented the methodology the vast majority of the Right uses-debate, logic, reason, sometimes sarcasm and sometimes blunt uncomfortable truth that offends people. The other side killed him.

Whether it was a professional hit, which a single shot to the neck from distance and a rooftop escape would suggest, or something else….it matters that the killer is found and justice done, and it worries me very much that this might not happen.

But it matters too how much Democrats and progressives, collectively, have gone completely psychotic, and prone to endorse and celebrate the political murder of people who argue against them. It is unsustainable that the people who invented the term stochastic terrorism and the phrase “words are violence” get away with encouraging and inspiring people to kill their political opponents. Those who invented ‘hate speech’ as a concept, have engaged in hate speech far more than we have.

Mainstream media really do have blood on their hands. The Democrat Party really does have blood on their hands. And they are damned by their own logic.

This is how MSNC responded to Charlie Kirk’s murder:

“We don’t know the full details of this yet,” MSNBC political analyst Matthew Dowd said. “We don’t know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration, so we have no idea about this. But following up what was just said, he’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to: Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.”

“And I think that’s the environment we’re in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place,” he added.”

MSNBC is supposed to be a professional and moderate outfit. Matthew Dowd is supposed to be a professional and moderate presenter. Of course they aren’t and he isn’t. They are an extreme progressive outfit, and he is an extreme progressive operative. They are the people who have been whipping up hatred and fanaticism in the Democrat base for years.

The first thing they did was try to blame Kirk supporters for the murder of Charlie Kirk, and then to blame Charlie Kirk for the murder of Charlie Kirk. The same logic that a rapist might use when noting that a girl was asking for it by wearing a short skirt. The same thing, if applied to any of their favoured groups, they would instantly call ‘victim blaming’.

And as ever, Dowd couldn’t acually name any of the ‘awful words’ that he thinks justifies killing someone. As ever, Dowd couldn’t see how everything he was saying applied, not to Charlie Kirk, but to himself and to what he was doing. It’s that self blindness on their own extremism and responsibility for violence that exists throughout a mainstream media that has pushed and pushed for at the very least a decade now for people like Charlie Kirk to be hated and for views they don’t like to be answered with violence.

Dowd has been fired, but Dowd style media commentary has already done a hell of a lot of damage. Did Dowd ever once in his career ask someone to prove him wrong? No. Because Dowd always assumed he was absolutely right, and anyone differing was full of awful thoughts that have to be erased. Which is the basic progressive assumption and the reason that Charlie Kirk threatened them so much.