I started writing this essay as soon as I heard about Charlie Kirk’s killing. By the time it is published there will have been many updates to the rapidly unfolding story. I want to preface this essay by stating upfront that I am not a conservative, nor am I on the political right, but I found the shooting of Kirk horrifying and those who celebrate it are ghoulish and grotesque. I also want to note that this is not an obituary, it is an essay that illustrates my thoughts on the event and the immediate aftermath.
“To allow significant political figures to be heralded with purely one-sided requiems — enforced by misguided (even if well-intentioned) notions of private etiquette that bar discussions of their bad acts — is not a matter of politeness; it’s deceitful and propagandistic.”[i] – Glenn Greenwald
Conservative activists and commentator Charlie Kirk was shot dead on September 10th while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University. Although the killer has not been caught yet, many on the right are declaring war on ‘them’, the radical left, the Marxists, the communists, the Democratic party, the demons, the evil doers. This spectral left, spectral because it is an imagined force that is used as the scapegoat for all problems in America by the Trump regime and the right. Trump himself put out a statement from the Oval Office reacting to the killing of Kirk, and he blamed his killing on the radical left, saying that “radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives,”, and he also referred to the attempts on his life and the shooting of then House Majority Leader Steve Scalise at a congressional baseball game.[ii] Trump and his acolytes have promised vengeance on leftists and leftist organizations, and X is awash with calls for civil war and the disavowal of anyone who considers themselves a Democrat, a liberal, or on the political left.
The killing of Kirk is despicable and horrendous, however, until we know the shooters motives, it is impossible to say for sure what was behind what we all witnessed. Any surety at this point is pure speculation at best, and at worst, it is exploitation of a death for political ends. We already see this on the right, despite not knowing the full background, politics or motives of the shooter. Elon Musk declared “The Left is the party of murder”[iii] What does he mean ‘The Left’? Trump and his acolytes believe the mainstream media, outlets like CNN, NBC, and MSNBC, academia, and the Democratic party are ‘The Left’. Such generalizations are the seeds of a new McCarthyism. Kirk’s death will potentially be used as justification for rampant authoritarianism. There are already direct calls from some on the right to do exactly this. Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute said that “The last time the radical Left orchestrated a wave of violence and terror, J. Edgar Hoover shut it all down within a few years. It is time, within the confines of the law, to infiltrate, disrupt, arrest, and incarcerate all of those who are responsible for this chaos.”[iv] the Redheaded Libertarian said that “McCarthy didn’t go far enough. Re-establish the House Un-American Activities Committee. Launch McCarthyism 2. The violence is coming from the same rot and filth it’s always come from and they should be smoked out of the ranks of power and influence.”[v] This idea that the Left is to blame for Kirk’s death, and that anyone associated with the Left is complicit in it is incredibly dangerous. To those replying to statements from Democratic politicians like Barrack Obama and Gavin Newsom, who are cretinous but posted solemn remarks, by saying “You did this.”, and insinuating that somehow all Democrats and the Left are to blame for this is escalatory and nonsensical. Just like it wasn’t the fault of all Republicans when Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed in their home in June, or when Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul Pelosi was attacked. Yet, after the killing of Kirk, countless conservatives are saying that ‘they’, meaning the radical Left, want them dead and that they seek the extermination of them and those who think like them. Prominent conservatives like Sean Davis and Mat Walsh are declaring that the Democratic party is a terrorist organization. This means that anyone who would dare vote for them or support them is advocating terrorism. Thus, the Trump regime and the MAGA movement are engaging in the same nihilistic, destructive, sordid style of politics that they claim to hate and that they blame for the killing of Kirk. The answer to dehumanization is not more dehumanization. It is true that Trump supporters have been consistently demonized as deplorables, dolts, plebs, and extremists who are an existential threat to democracy and all that is good in America, however, reacting to Kirk’s death by dehumanizing those he considered mortal enemies is not moral or just.
Those who are cheering Kirk’s death are also reprehensible and they should be condemned, but it is not accurate or reasonable to say that anyone not on the right is responsible for Kirk’s shooting. This view is Manichean. It is all consuming and destructive, and it will only lead to more violence, not peace. Most on the left, the actual left, not the spectral Left that is attacked by Trump and the conservative elite, are saddened by Kirk’s death and they have put out articles and statements that are somber reflections, not vitriolic or celebratory.[vi] Even those who find Kirk’s politics grotesque and despotic are not elated. I find Kirk’s politics and most of his views odious. He was a Trump sycophant and an unofficial member of Trump’s communications team, flipping his position on bombing Iran after Trump carried out the strike, dropping the Epstein files outrage when he was told to by Trump, and pretending that Trump was worthy of receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for his Iran strike, as well as other peace agreements that he apparently oversaw (including the peace agreement between India and China, and Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, which Trump had very little, if anything, to do with). Kirk was a political operative, however, what separates him from many others on the right is that he frequently went out and debated his ideas. Although he often argued with know nothing college students, he did understand the importance of free speech and the value of debate. His views aside, he leaves behind a wife and children, and it is heartbreaking knowing that they must now go on without him. It does not matter how detestable I find his views or how disgusted I was by his constant worship of the Trump regime; his death is a tragedy and those who are calling for violence in response must understand that violence only begets more violence.
There is an irritating argument being made that anyone referring to Kirk, Trump and his supporters as far right or fascist is a contributor to his shooting. This is absurd. Kirk and the Trump movement are undeniably far right. Kirk may have had a few relatively moderate and popular positions on issues like transgenderism and immigration, but his views on abortion, women, the Civil Rights Act, and foreign policy, especially in the Middle East are illiberal. Many may mean this as a dismissive pejorative. The illiberal liberal class uses terms like far right and they invoke Adolf Hitler to smear populism and figures like Trump and Kirk. This is true and it is incredibly problematic, however, we should not pretend that Kirk and the pro-Trump Christian nationalist movement is something other than what it is. Kirk may not have been anywhere near as despotic or intolerant as others in his circle, like Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth, or even Trump himself, but his politics and the regime he supported are tyrannical. At Spiked Online, Brendan O’Neill writes “for the left to call him ‘far right’ now, in the post-7 October moment, after they’ve spent two years making excuses for the fascistic murder of Jews while Kirk raged against it, is risible. It is a sinister inversion of truth.”[vii] The idea that those who criticize Israel and consider Kirk’s politics noxious is an inversion of truth is risible, as it implies that any who vehemently disagree with Kirk’s views and the platform he advocated for are a menace. I reject and resent this implication. You can be opposed to Trump and his movement while also being opposed to assassination of your political opponents. However much I detest the Trump regime, I do not wish death on anyone in it or affiliated with or supportive of it. Many on the left do not either. Ben Burgis and Meagan Day write in Jacobin, a left wing magazine that is not friendly or receptive to Kirk’s politics, as they note in their introduction, of the various leftists who are cheering the death of Kirk that “Not only is their anti-moral posturing likely to turn off ordinary Americans, who abhor political violence, but it is also politically misguided and strategically naive. There is nothing to celebrate here. Indeed, there is much to fear.”[viii] This not only proves that, despite what people like Musk say, there are many on the Left who oppose political violence and are shocked and horrified by the shooting of Kirk. Of the many reactions and reflections by commentators on the left, this Jacobin article by Burgis and Day stands out because they directly acknowledge the voices on the left who are celebrating the death of Kirk, but they are also correctly pointing out that there is a risk of the Trump regime using Kirk’s death to target and punish anyone associated with what they consider the Left. There is also a risk of sadism and a lust for war manifesting on the right. This is especially dangerous given that we do not know the motives of the shooter. It is irresponsible to presume anything. If you truly want to honor his legacy, then instead of committing acts of violence or refusing to talk to anyone who identifies as a liberal, a Democrat, or a leftist, continue having open debates and discussions, and persuade people based on the strength of your ideas, not on brute force or aggression. There are many whose politics I find despicable, authoritarian, phony, and unprincipled, but I do not wish death upon them. Their ideas should be challenged intellectually, not with bullets, and Kirk repeatedly had his ideas challenged. Shunning this practice and opting to take up arms instead is not wise, nor is it civilized or moral.
A disturbing sentiment from the right that we are seeing is the unsettling hero worship and scolding of those who are not participating in this worship. The New York Post published an article highlighting six football teams who did not pay tribute to Kirk.[ix] Though the article was seemingly indifferent and matter of fact in their reporting on this, just pointing this out implies that tributes to Kirk are mandatory, just like posting black squares was considered a moral litmus test following the death of George Floyd. Further, Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a FOX News appearance and on a podcast that Office Depot employees who had refused to print flyers for Kirk’s vigil because they felt that it was “propaganda” should be investigated and potentially prosecuted.[x] She also said that hate speech will not be tolerated, and fortunately even voices on the right have decried this position. Glenn Beck said on his podcast that Kirk was a ‘civil rights leader’ akin to Martin Luter King Jr., and that there should be a “Charlie Kirk Boulevard”[xi] Mourning for Kirk is one thing, but hero worship and gross adulation make some tributes more North Korean than American. Equally disturbing are the people on X who are on a vengeful crusade to dox and ruin the lives of anybody who cheers or mocks Kirk’s death, and the website that is tracking all the people who have been fired for these gross celebrations.[xii] While some are decrying this as cancel culture, those on the right who support it see it as using the tactics of the spectral left on them, however, there are some who are being punished who simply stated political opinions about Kirk that differ from the right. For example, a Master Sergeant in the US Air Force, Laina Marie Pea, posted on Facebook that she doesn’t condone violence and “his killing was crazy”, she said that Kirk was “clearly racist, homophobic, and sexist.”[xiii] Many reacted with disgust that there are people like this in the US military. There is a difference between cheering an assassination and expressing an opinion about someone who was assassinated. Pea was clearly engaged in the latter, not the former. Kirk himself criticized MLK and the Civil Rights Act, and he said that “MLK was awful. He’s not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn’t believe.”, and he also noted that the deification of MLK is mistaken, and the Civil Rights Act helped usher in the DEI regime.[xiv] MLK was assassinated, so was Kirk engaging in “hate speech”, as Bondi said of those who are mocking or criticizing Kirk after his killing? of course not. People who are arguing that Kirk was a negative influence on US politics, or that he was a racist, a sexist, or a bigot are not criminals. They are voicing their political opinions.
The reality is Kirk supported and ingratiated himself with the Trump regime, whose actions are totally antithetical to the America First mantra, and who is completing the decades long project of the permanent regime to evaporate the US constitution and to convert the US to a fully totalitarian state. Whatever sincere beliefs he had about free speech and debate are overshadowed by his submission and proselytizing on behalf of a regime that seeks to not just undermine, but to obliterate these values.
When a public figure dies or is killed, especially one who was incredibly influential and powerful, even if that power was indirect through his closeness to the Trump White House, they should not get the same grace that private citizens do. Their life and legacy should not be whitewashed. To demand such tributes and eulogizing is dishonest and dangerous, especially if any obituary or statement is not sufficiently laudatory or is interpreted as joyous. As Glenn Greenwald argued when discussing the death of Christopher Hitchens, “demanding in the name of politeness or civility that none of that be balanced or refuted by other facts is to demand a monopoly on how a consequential figure is remembered, to demand a license to propagandize”, and he also points out that Hitchens did not hold back when analyzing the legacies of many beloved figures, like Princess Diana, Mother Teresa, and Reverend Jerry Falwell, who Hitchens, an atheist, said that “it is a pity there is not a hell for him to go to”[xv] The Trump regime and his acolytes on X are demanding a monopoly on how Kirk is remembered. While I understand why they feel this way, it is dangerous and with the power of the government behind them, there is much to fear about how they will crackdown on what they view as “left-wing terrorism”.
Conclusion
Even if it turns out that Robinson was affiliated with the far left or Antifa (which is not an organized group or organization, despite what Trump and conservatives say repeatedly), this does not mean that anyone to the left of Lindsey Graham is to blame and thus must be arrested and locked in a camp, or that anyone in the Democratic party, now being referred to as a terrorist organization by some on the right, is complicit if they at any time in the past called Trump and his associates/supporters Nazis and other horrid epithets.[xvi] Kirk himself would reject much of what is being called for in his name, especially violence, secession, and the dehumanization of political opponents.
I may have been disgusted by Kirk’s politics and his fervent adoration of Trump, but that does not mean his killing makes me happy. I believe that most people, regardless of political leaning, are not rejoicing, and while there are many who are, most people have basic empathy and do not wish death on people over disagreements. I understand why many on the right and those who value free speech are emotional, grieving the loss of Kirk, are enraged and that this is driving calls for civil war. People are declaring themselves “radicalized”, and such radicalization, whatever the reasons or justifications, is the kindling for a real civil war, a fragmentation of society. Instead of allowing themselves to become radicalized, people should realize that the time for debate is not over, if anything, it is more important now then ever, or we can begin a new McCarthyism, but we already know where that leads. It seems that, consumed by rage and desire for revenge, the right is not thinking about the long-term consequences of such a crusade and purge.
Revenge is not healthy for any society or civilization. In constantly seeking out and enacting revenge through extreme sadism and violence, we act on what Sigmund Freud called the death drive, where living things seek death and with it, a return to an inanimate state.[xvii] This is embodied by the calls for civil war, as they are a call to be completely enveloped by revenge and to destroy their enemies at all costs and by any means necessary, even if it means imposing policies that will end up eradicating themselves. A society that is driven by death and sadism is doomed, and that is why the temperature must be cooled, and we should take up microphones and podiums- not guns and swords.
[i] Greenwald, Glenn. “Christopher Hitchens and the Protocol for Public Figure Deaths – Salon.com.” Salon.com, December 17, 2011.
[ii] Allen, Jonathan. “Charlie Kirk’s Death Prompts Outpouring of Shock, Grief and Condemnations of Political Violence.” NBC News, September 10, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/charlie-kirks-death-prompts-outpouring-shock-grief-condemnations-polit-rcna230472.
[iii] Suter, Tara. “Musk: ‘the Left Is the Party of Murder.’” The Hill, September 14, 2025. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5502535-elon-musk-charlie-kirk-death/.
[iv] Rufo, Christopher F. “Tweet.” X (formerly Twitter), 2025. https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1965866248341987579.
[v] The Redheaded Liberatarian. “Tweet.” X (formerly Twitter), 2025. https://x.com/TRHLofficial/status/1965950867871510798.
[vi] Editorial. “The Guardian View on the Killing of Charlie Kirk: A Perilous Moment That May Lead to More.” the Guardian. The Guardian, September 11, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/11/the-guardian-view-on-the-killing-of-charlie-kirk-a-perilous-moment-that-may-lead-to-more., Lawrence, Patrick. “Patrick Lawrence: To Whom Goes the Good?” Scheerpost.com, September 18, 2025. https://scheerpost.com/2025/09/18/patrick-lawrence-to-whom-goes-the-good/., Sullivan, Margaret. “Charlie Kirk’s Killing Is a Tragic Marker of the Indiscriminate Nature of Political Violence.” the Guardian. The Guardian, September 11, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-killing-political-violence., and Wilkins, Brett. “Progressives—Who Reviled Charlie Kirk’s Politics—Repudiate His Murder.” Scheerpost.com, September 11, 2025. https://scheerpost.com/2025/09/11/progressives-who-reviled-charlie-kirks-politics-repudiate-his-murder/.
[vii] O’Neill, Brendan. “Charlie Kirk Was a Better Anti-Fascist than Most of the Left.” Spiked-online.com. spiked, September 11, 2025. https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/09/11/charlie-kirk-was-a-better-anti-fascist-than-most-of-the-left/.
[viii] Burgis, Ben, and Meagan Day. “Charlie Kirk’s Murder Is a Tragedy and a Disaster.” Jacobin.com, 2025. https://jacobin.com/2025/09/charlie-kirk-murder-political-violence.
[ix] Crane, Andrew. “Six NFL Teams Don’t Pay Tribute to Charlie Kirk as Others Hold Moments of Silence.” New York Post, September 14, 2025. https://nypost.com/2025/09/14/sports/four-nfl-teams-dont-pay-tribute-to-charlie-kirk/.
[x] Katie Miller Pod, Katie Miller, and Pam Bondi. “Episode 6 – Attorney General Pam Bondi Reacts to the Death of Charlie Kirk | the Katie Miller Pod.” YouTube, September 15, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LRPHxSrLTE.
[xi] Beck, Glenn. “Glenn Beck Commemorates Charlie Kirk | 9.17.2025.” YouTube, September 17, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyqWgrvcwU.
[xii] Goldstein, Adam. “We Are in the Cancel Culture Part of the Tragedy Cycle.” The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, September 12, 2025. https://www.thefire.org/news/we-are-cancel-culture-part-tragedy-cycle.
[xiii] Military Support. “Tweet.” X (formerly Twitter), 2025. https://x.com/MilitaryCooI/status/1967040991497777486. This is only one example. There are numerous others, but for these initial remarks, I used this one example.
[xiv] Turton, William. “How Charlie Kirk and TPUSA Plan to Discredit Martin Luther King Jr. And the Civil Rights Act.” WIRED, January 12, 2024. https://www.wired.com/story/charlie-kirk-tpusa-mlk-civil-rights-act/.
[xv] Greenwald. “Christopher Hitchens and the Protocol for Public Figure Deaths – Salon.com.”
[xvi] This is a direct reference to this tweet: Forney, Matt. “Tweet.” X (formerly Twitter), 2025. https://x.com/realmattforney/status/1965873644783153240.
[xvii] Freud, Sigmund, John Reddick, and Mark Edmundson. Beyond the Pleasure Principle and Other Writings. London; New York: Penguin Books, 2003.
References
Allen, Jonathan. “Charlie Kirk’s Death Prompts Outpouring of Shock, Grief and Condemnations of Political Violence.” NBC News, September 10, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/charlie-kirks-death-prompts-outpouring-shock-grief-condemnations-polit-rcna230472.
Beck, Glenn. “Glenn Beck Commemorates Charlie Kirk | 9.17.2025.” YouTube, September 17, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyqWgrvcwU.
Burgis, Ben, and Meagan Day. “Charlie Kirk’s Murder Is a Tragedy and a Disaster.” Jacobin.com, 2025. https://jacobin.com/2025/09/charlie-kirk-murder-political-violence.
Crane, Andrew. “Six NFL Teams Don’t Pay Tribute to Charlie Kirk as Others Hold Moments of Silence.” New York Post, September 14, 2025. https://nypost.com/2025/09/14/sports/four-nfl-teams-dont-pay-tribute-to-charlie-kirk/.
Editorial. “The Guardian View on the Killing of Charlie Kirk: A Perilous Moment That May Lead to More.” the Guardian. The Guardian, September 11, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/11/the-guardian-view-on-the-killing-of-charlie-kirk-a-perilous-moment-that-may-lead-to-more.
Forney, Matt. “Tweet.” X (formerly Twitter), 2025. https://x.com/realmattforney/status/1965873644783153240.
Freud, Sigmund, John Reddick, and Mark Edmundson. Beyond the Pleasure Principle and Other Writings. London; New York: Penguin Books, 2003.
Goldstein, Adam. “We Are in the Cancel Culture Part of the Tragedy Cycle.” The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, September 12, 2025. https://www.thefire.org/news/we-are-cancel-culture-part-tragedy-cycle.
Greenwald, Glenn. “Christopher Hitchens and the Protocol for Public Figure Deaths – Salon.com.” Salon.com, December 17, 2011. https://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/christohper_hitchens_and_the_protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/.
Katie Miller Pod, Katie Miller, and Pam Bondi. “Episode 6 – Attorney General Pam Bondi Reacts to the Death of Charlie Kirk | the Katie Miller Pod.” YouTube, September 15, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LRPHxSrLTE.
Lawrence, Patrick. “Patrick Lawrence: To Whom Goes the Good?” Scheerpost.com, September 18, 2025. https://scheerpost.com/2025/09/18/patrick-lawrence-to-whom-goes-the-good/.
Military Support. “Tweet.” X (formerly Twitter), 2025. https://x.com/MilitaryCooI/status/1967040991497777486.
O’Neill, Brendan. “Charlie Kirk Was a Better Anti-Fascist than Most of the Left.” Spiked-online.com. spiked, September 11, 2025. https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/09/11/charlie-kirk-was-a-better-anti-fascist-than-most-of-the-left/.
Rufo, Christopher F. “Tweet.” X (formerly Twitter), 2025. https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1965866248341987579.
Sullivan, Margaret. “Charlie Kirk’s Killing Is a Tragic Marker of the Indiscriminate Nature of Political Violence.” the Guardian. The Guardian, September 11, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-killing-political-violence.
Suter, Tara. “Musk: ‘the Left Is the Party of Murder.’” The Hill, September 14, 2025. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5502535-elon-musk-charlie-kirk-death/.
The Redheaded Liberatarian. “Tweet.” X (formerly Twitter), 2025. https://x.com/TRHLofficial/status/1965950867871510798.
Turton, William. “How Charlie Kirk and TPUSA Plan to Discredit Martin Luther King Jr. And the Civil Rights Act.” WIRED, January 12, 2024. https://www.wired.com/story/charlie-kirk-tpusa-mlk-civil-rights-act/.
Wilkins, Brett. “Progressives—Who Reviled Charlie Kirk’s Politics—Repudiate His Murder.” Scheerpost.com, September 11, 2025. https://scheerpost.com/2025/09/11/progressives-who-reviled-charlie-kirks-politics-repudiate-his-murder/.
Not Without Incident: Questioning Big Brother's Platitudes 
Leave a comment