About Charlie Kirk’s Murder
specifically, about the reaction to his murder, which took place on a college campus in front of his wife and children
Hello readers,
my thanks for the new subscriptions, both paid and unpaid. Your support encourages me and I deeply appreciate that you have many choices and you choose me. Thank you, it’s been a dark week and I hope counterbalance that darkness with some light. You can support my work by clicking on the yellow Buy Me A Coffee button, it’s linked. You can purchase a paid subscription if you haven’t already. You can also support my writing by sharing widely on your favourite social media platforms and by restacking here on Substack.
Thanks for reading and supporting.
Roxanne aka Bad Hijabi
On Wednesday a lone gunman shot 31 year old Charlie Kirk in the left side of the neck, killing him. The suspect in custody, turned in by his retired-from-law-enforcement father, looks like an ordinary 22 year old kid. Charlie Kirk’s wife and children watched their husband and father get shot and die. Now they watch as the be kind—safe spaces progressive sectarians reveal their callousness and cruelty in their reaction to Kirk’s death.
I wonder, reader, to what degree does the be-kind mantra mask or compensate for the insufficiency of kindness in those who promote it? How much projection does the be-kind cult of progressivism embody?
The Manitoba Minister of Families posted this in her Instagram stories, and then erased it. Screenshots last forever, Ms Fontaine. Imagine being a families minister and writing this stuff.
In true its form, CBC couldn’t resist engaging in assholery.
Dr. Michelle Bravo, a neurologist at the University of Miami, shared the following post in her IG stories, later deleting her Instagram account.
Morgane Oger weighed in.
However, it’s Elizabeth Spiers’ reaction, published in The Nation, that spurred me to write this essay. Ms. Spiers has locked her Xwitter profile. And demented angry people who didn’t like what she wrote have posted all manner of things, including insinuations about doxxing her physical home address. Reader, this is not the way forward from this crisis in which we find ourselves.
“He was an unrepentant racist, transphobe, homophobe, and misogynist who often wrapped his bigotry in Bible verses because there was no other way to pretend that it was morally correct. He had children, as do many vile people.” — Elizabeth Spiers
“It is rude of me to say all of this, because we live in a culture where manners are often valued more than truth. That is why a slew of pundits and politicians have raced to portray Kirk’s activities, which harmed many vulnerable people, in a positive light—and to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not grant to anyone who wasn’t white, Christian, straight, and male.” — Elizabeth Spiers
Spiers lies in her piece when she says that Kirk said “black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously.” I tracked down the clip below so you can see for yourself what he actually said, and the context in which he said it.
I’ve included the clip in which Ketanji Brown Jackson told a senator in a hearing that she couldn’t provide a definition of woman, so you can judge that for yourself.
Reader, judge for yourself. If you think race quotas for hiring meet the definition of fair and equitable, that’s your deal, I didn’t write this essay to discuss race hiring quotas. I wrote this essay to discuss the devaluation of human life and the insidiousness of dehumanisation at work in the progressive be kind reaction to the murder of Charlie Kirk.
Spiers compares Charlie Kirk to Joseph Goebbels. Again, we can see the insidious nature of dehumanisation creeping in. Monstrification of our political enemy feels very self gratifying, doesn’t it reader? As an aside, do we need to believe Goebbels treated his children in an unloving way to agree he held repugnant and awful views and participated in the mass murder of European Jewry and constructed a powerful propaganda machinery of hate and dehumanisation? I don’t see the reason we need to bring Goebbels’ kids into any discussion about his hateful genocidal behaviour. He and his wife did choose to murder themselves and their six children after the defeat of the Nazis and the suicide death of Hitler in the bunker.
What’s Nazi Germany got to do with present day America and Charlie Kirk? Goodwin’s Law is ridiculous. Stop invoking it, it reveals your low intellectual capacity when you invoke Nazis at every turn in a discussion about present day conservatives.
So, anyway, it’s been a wild and weird week. Those who cannot find empathy for anyone with whom they disagree truly live in a hell of their own making. That’s not my problem, unless I choose to participate in that poisonous hellscape game they decide to play. Reader, I refuse.
Interestingly, the be-kind cult members now furiously trashing the late Charlie Kirk often happen to support antisemitic Palestinian activism and sometimes even Hamas et al as viable resistance movements. Not sure if they know about the level of sexism, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and general intolerance within the Palestinian society. Perhaps they choose to make an exception because hating Israel means more to them than upholding human tolerance values.
I don’t understand celebrating death. I don’t understand deciding a person’s life means nothing because they hold views with which I disagree. This week has given me pause to think about the way I think about people, especially those with whom I disagree and find repugnant. All life comes from g-d. All humans exist for a reason. It’s not my place to decide who should die, I acknowledge capital punishment as wrong even though at times I’ve advocated it for certain crimes, such as child rape.
Anyway, I wrote this essay to highlight the way dehumanisation has crept into our political and public discourse. It’s alarming and we should take the opportunity Charlie Kirk’s tragic and senseless death provides us to think about our values and what life we wish to live and what society we wish for our children and grandchildren. We have a choice in how we respond. So, let’s model the behaviour we wish to see.
Hillel said “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.”
Jesus said, “Do unto others what you would have them do to you.”
I leave the ball in your court now, reader. It’s for you to decide how you will engage. Cross or Sword, pick one. Choose wisely.
What if Jesus addressed Congress? By Brian Zahnd, from 2015.
