I find it personally deeply upsetting. Kirk was a very religious-y person and I’m an implacable atheist, so there there lots of things I disagreed with him on. But what he encapsulated to me is “free speech”. He debated with everyone, openly, without hostility, honestly, directly. He was without guile, laid it out on the table, kind to a fault, and, most dangerously of all to the left, extremely convincing. To me that makes him one of the greatest men of the 21st century. Free speech is, to me, probably the greatest virtue and basic foundation of all of society, and yesterday the men who couldn’t win the argument took out its greatest, happiest warrior.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
Samizdata quote of the day – Charlie KirkSeptember 11th, 2025 |
 24 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – Charlie KirkLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts… when you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group.
Charlie Kirk, RIP. That quote of his comes from this article.
He went into the colleges and universities to talk to young people, to listen and inform.
Many on the left chose to celebrate in a series of truly sickening tweets and videos when one of the most deranged of their number took the law into his own hands and murdered a man who’s only crime was a willingness to engage with them and challenge their ideas. For this he had to die and his death be treated as a reason for celebration – including by the incoming president of the Oxford Union who debated with Kirk earlier this year and viewed his death as reason for a good old Lol. Utter filth.
Along with the brutal slaughter of the young Ukrainian girl and the horrific indifference of her fellow passengers it’s been a pretty grim couple of days.
Well said.
I was never a big follower of Charlie Kirk but he always seemed a lot more civil to his opponents than many of them were to him, and what has happened here is a tragedy for the family and a huge outrage.
Sadly, it is instructive what pond scum comes out at times like this. Scrolling through twitter alone I’ve seen feminists… leftists… Blairite liberals… Bush era Republican never Trumpers… and NAFO ghouls gloating and talking absolute garbage at Kirk and his family’s expense. All repulsive people.
@John
Along with the brutal slaughter of the young Ukrainian girl and the horrific indifference of her fellow passengers it’s been a pretty grim couple of days.
TBH I think it is a mistake to think of it this way. What happened to that young girl was simply horrendous, and when it comes to the perpetrator it makes me regret the eighth amendment — I think death is too easy for him, I think he should be beaten to death with a baseball bat. And certainly it is illustrative of the collapse of civil society and many of the failures of the judicial system.
But the Kirk assassination is quite different. It is very like the assassination of Martin Luther King, with the exception that Kirk was a much better man than King ever was. He is a singular leader and is effectively irreplaceable. If the left wanted to advance their agenda by killing someone then Kirk may well have been their best choice. Without him Trump probably would not have won, and his death will make a dramatic difference to the next few elections, something that could well cause tremendous hurt when the movement in the US to restore sanity to government is stalled. The failure of DOGE was bad enough, but this is several orders of magnitude worse.
I think for people who don’t live in the US it is hard to understand his impact. In the past decade this man has created a conservative organization out of thin air that has chapters in almost every college and every high school in the United States. He is responsible for turning the youth vote from a dominantly left wing vote into a majority right wing vote — especially among men. A 20 percentage point swing. This young man on his own completely transformed the political landscape and hugely shifted the Overton window. He wasn’t without help but a large amount of the change is on his shoulders.
But that is politics. What he really represents is free speech, the willingness to speak that which we aren’t allowed to say. To yell “Voldemort” when everyone said “he who must not be named.” A willingness to have open dialog not based on anger or hate but honesty, a willingness to hear the other side. A willingness to honestly articulate what really is ailing the young people of America. It isn’t trans rights, it isn’t abortion, it is the lack of jobs, the fact that buying a house is inconceivable, it is the idea that getting married and having kids is a good, healthy thing the redounds to the blessing not only of that family but the whole nation.
And in a sense he is more important than even President Trump. Trump, were he, God forbid, assassinated, has a deep bench of people to carry on the torch. But there is no replacement for Kirk. He is a singular individual that comes along once in several lifetimes.
His murder is of incalculable consequence. Again, I think the best comparison is to the murder of Martin Luther King. King’s murder still echoes with us today, and Kirk’s will have consequences for decades to come.
Biggest impact that I’ve seen is, the number of people arriving at the conclusion that we simply cannot live with these people.
I’m going to expand on Krauthammer’s Law: They’re stupid AND evil.
(Just for clarity’s sake: this is driven by the huge volume of gleeful reactions to Kirk’s murder. People are now making lists. The next few months may well be lit.)
@bobby b
Just for clarity’s sake: this is driven by the huge volume of gleeful reactions to Kirk’s murder.
There was a lot of rejoicing when MLK was murdered too.
I offer for consideration of the Gentle Readers the name Jose Calvo-Sotelo, the date July 13, 1936, and the country of Spain for research.
Subotai Bahadur
Martin:
Nick Sortor (the Never Trumper in your links above) wasn’t celebrating Kirk’s death, but the firing of the MSNBC commentator who was ghastly about Kirk’s death
I was referring to the MSNBC guy Matt Dowd who got fired there (I should have made it clear).
If you look at Dowd’s history, he was the chief strategist for the Bush and Cheney campaign in 2004.
I was not an uncritical fan of Charlie Kirk, to say the least, but the reaction to his assassination by many people and institutions on the Left all across the Anglosphere has been appalling.
Fraser,
Noted and largely agreed but even though it is minimal in impact to the death of Charlie Kirk the callous indifference of her fellow passengers, and let’s not beat about the bush – they were all black, chilled me to the bone.
Perry points out the predictable vile reactions to Kirk’s murder (now being followed by hollow claims of victimhood once identified as the scum they are) by the politically active and the self-regarding social media narcissists and provocateurs.
On that Charlotte train I’m talking about “normal” people. Probably not criminals, not politically active, just regular folks who couldn’t give a shit when a young lady was bleeding to death almost within touching distance of them because she was a different colour.
…the reaction to his assassination by many people and institutions on the Left all across the Anglosphere has been appalling.
Indeed. And many of them are finding out that karma is indeed a bitch.
Those who punish others for peacefully expressing their opinions strike at the root of all liberty. And real democracy is impossible if the public are not allowed to hear all opinions.
This is why, for example, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is such a hypocrite (as are the British and international, yes international, establishment generally) – Sir Keir condemns the murder of Mr Kirk, but had Mr Kirk been British he would have been sent to prison (by Collectivist lawyers such as Sir Keir and under “laws” that Sir Keir supports) long ago.
Will the Prime Minister now support the repeal of the Acts of Parliament that have, one-stage-at-a-time, been strangling Freedom of Speech in the United Kingdom for decades? No-he-will-not. So the condemnation of the murder of Mr Kirk by the Prime Minister is false, the words of the Prime Minister are lies, may they turn to ashes in his mouth.
It’s not the murderer who requires cruel and unusual punishment.
You have to hit the head of the snake.
And a lot of them now finding out they aren’t immune to the consequences, some probably for the first time in their lives.
I have to say I have wondered whether, if I were sent to prison, tortured, or murdered for my views or my ethnicity, the progressive people I have played roleplaying games with for years would be saying, “Too bad, but he brought it on himself.”
My wife has reached the point where she can hardly bear to look at social media because of the ugly comments there from people she knows.
We used to think these were decent human beings who disagreed with us.
William H. Stoddard.
I made this grim discovery many years ago – and I know how horrible it is.
Both you and your wife have my deepest sympathy – it is indeed horrible to find out that people who one thought were decent are utterly evil (yes evil) and wish to do us harm.
To find out that “friends” are really enemies – and enemies with no honour.
When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts… when you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group.
This is why Charlie Kirk was so loved by aging moderates, and quietly disdained by political activists. He toed the legacy liberal line beloved of leftist icons like Martin Luther King or FDR that understanding people better brought peace. He was from a different time.
In reality, when people understand each other better, it often brings violence. A historian examining the gulags isn’t overcome with love for Stalin. A police officer reviewing a child abuser’s crimes isn’t flooded with human empathy. Understanding evil leads to justified hatred.
No, he was loved because he was effective, rather than preaching to the choir (which is what makes activists love someone).
Is that really the case though? Kirk was on many things probably more ‘moderate’ than I am, but he did say the Civil Rights Act ‘was a huge mistake’, which is something milquetoast ‘conservatives’ would never have the cojones to say.
Parmeni – how was Franklin Roosevelt a “liberal”?
In what universe is someone whose first action as President was to steal all monetary (monetary) gold from ordinary people a “liberal”? And in what universe is an admirer of Stalin (a murderer of millions of people – which Franklin Roosevelt knew in the 1930s when he was establishing diplomatic links with Moscow) a “liberal”?
As for Freedom of Speech – Franklin Roosevelt used the IRS (the tax police) to harass political opponents, and he used the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to make sure that the radio stations were biased in his support – preventing real debate.
There is nothing liberal in the above. As for Martin Luther King – are you trying to be funny? You know the FBI transcripts as well as I do – you know he was not a liberal.
As Perry says – Mr Kirk was EFFECTIVE – that is why he was hated.
Martin – as you may know, Ayn Rand (who did not have a racist bone in her body), and many other people, predicted that the 1964 Civil Rights Act would lead to racial quotas – as employers, basically, have to “prove their innocence” and the only way to do that, is to have a workforce that matches the ethnic make-up of the surrounding population – i.e. to NOT hire or promote on the basis of merit, on the basis of competence.
The establishment denied that the 1964 Act would lead to de facto racial quotas – but, of course, it did.
In Britain the “laws” went much further – attacking Freedom of Speech as well as everything else.
The practice of American, and other Collectivists, of calling themselves “liberals” is totally dishonest and must be rejected.
When they claim to be liberals – their lie should be condemned.