Let me say this upfront: I was not Charlie Kirk’s biggest fan, nor was I a bitter detractor. I saw him in cynical terms and still do, as an ally of convenience on some issues, an opponent on others. As I am very much in favour of free speech, I am perfectly happy to see his image raised as a political icon, a literal free speech martyr.
Being a family man with much to live for, I venture with confidence Charlie Kirk would have rather not been assassinated. But nevertheless having been murdered by some trans-fixated politically motivated lunatic, Kirk is perhaps looking down from the heaven he believed in feeling vindicated, pleased that at least his death mightily serves a cause he strongly believed in.
I do find it interesting to see this AI generated meme appearing, showing political activist Charlie Kirk and Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska…
Both were murdered whilst on video. Iryna Zarutska was stabbed by a racially motivated serial-offender a couple weeks before Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Kirk spoke out about her murder, horrified by the vile senseless crime captured in slow motion for all to see. And of course he cared, Iryna was murdered by a US national in the United States of America.
But Kirk was not keen on supporting Ukraine against mass-murderous Russia, which was what had driven Iryna to become a refugee in the USA. Had she died in Ukraine in a Russian missile strike on an apartment block, her passing would not warrant a mention, just another nameless victim of the Russian imperialism Kirk would rather not see a single US cent spent opposing.
Charlie Kirk was deeply religious, claiming this was his strongest motivation, which was probably true. He was also a nationalist, and in that particular Gott mit uns strain of American Christianity, maybe Charlie Kirk did not see the tension between his indifference to the victims of the war in Ukraine and his Christianity, possibly seeing the narrow interests of the USA and God as being one and the same. But perhaps my own aggressively secular sensibilities are showing.
So, I am happy to see him exploited as a free speech martyr, even though I did not particularly like the man, and I am confident Charlie Kirk would have been perfectly ok with that too.
I don’t think–I never say any evidence–that Kirk was indifferent to the suffering of the people of Ukraine, just that he didn’t think that the US should be involved in the conflict, that we we have enough other problems here that we shouldn’t be getting involved in other people’s conflicts.
For various reasons I disagree with him, to different degrees.
It is unfortunate, and possibly telling that you use the phrase “Gott mit uns” in reference to Kirks “strain” of American Christianity (I should note here that I am not Christian, though I know many who are very religious). It’s a very cheap shot, and it comes across as if you’re trying to tie Kirk and his co-religionists to the Nazis, when the nationalism of each is *very* *very* different.
Especially since the Nazis were anti-christian, anti-capitalist, and their notion of “nation” was “blood and soil”, basically racial, while US patriotism is not.
Not at all, to me the connotations are Prussian circa 1701, not “Nazi” circa 1933 😀 I don’t imagine the NSDAP as being very God driven.
Perry,
A very thoughtful post and one I entirely agree with.
I do not like “Christian Nationalism” at all. But Kirk had his views and was open to other ones. I think the greatest positive legacy of his murder and the one that we should never forget is that he was not shot whilst delivering a rant, a polemic or even a speech. He was shot dead for engaging in debate. That is how low the enemies of freedom have become.
He was quite literally shot dead for “violating” a “safe” space. The bitter irony.
A good speech. A very good speech indeed, and that is not ironic in the least.
I hasten to qualify that i know nothing about Charlie Kirk’s opinions about the Ukraine/Russia conflict. Maybe you are wrong about said opinions, but i strongly approve of the values that you express.
I think this is on topic as it was sparked by the Kirk assassination: Victor Davis Hanson writes, asks, “is STEM the only thing being taught in universities that is not actively harmful?” Or words to that effect.
The Humanities having been hijacked long ago by those cheering Kirk’s assassination. It had me seriously asking: what would be missed if we shut down public funding of these odious Uni departments? Any department with “studies” or “science” in its name.
This whole episode does prompt the question: have we reached a tipping point in the fight against the insane Left?
Descending down to Earth:
There is this interesting case of a student arrested for what appear to me as acts protected by the First Amendment.
I’d be interested in knowing from bobby or other legal scholars on what basis that woman could be arrested.
In any case, i am happy that her name will be on the internet forever: it was worth arresting her just for that.
What were Kirk’s views on Ukraine? Not familiar with any statements in that regard.
@ Snorri – as later reporting and video makes clear, the young woman was not arrested for her speech, which probably is First Amendment-protected as you say, but for assault (she clearly pushed and shoved several people) and disorderly conduct – IOW, not for anything she said, but for what she did.
llater,
llamas
There were a number of issues I disagreed with Charlie Kirk on, abortion, religion in general, and I many of his views on marriage and relationships. I did not disagree with him on Ukraine, but I certainly understand people might think differently.
However, I think it is important to comment on this idea that his Christian views somehow compel him to insist the government sends money to Ukraine. To be clear I am not a Christian, but I have head this argument a lot. A person can have compassion on the suffering and offer to help, and that is surely something that a Christian or any person who aspires to be “good” should do. But that is a very far cry from that same person demanding that the government do it. I’d argue that compassion for the suffering would rather demand that you didn’t get the government involved since they usually screw everything up, but perhaps in martial matters that is less the case. We saw this with the earthquake of criticism about shutting down USAID: “Don’t Christians care about solving AIDS in Africa?”. Yes they do, and they do it by sending money and people to help with that problem. They just don’t send it through the hands of bureaucrats with sticky fingers, who use these poor victims to manipulate and achieve political ends.
If people want to support Ukraine they should go ahead and do it, no government policy should prevent it, and certainly Ukraine should be able to buy weapons from American arms dealers. But I don’t see how we can justify the government forcibly taking money from unwilling tax payers to advance their agenda, or, come to that, how doing so is a Christian thing.
But Kirk’s importance was not really about any of these issues with one exception. He was about freedom of speech. He was about liberating the academy from the monoculture of thought that made it impossible for all but the bravest of students to speak their mind. He provided “safe spaces” where conservatives, Christians, libertarians, and even the growing number of non political “wtf is going on with our culture” people to express their views without the inevitable tsunami of criticism. The academy has been rotting our culture with both their socialist views and lately with their just batshit crazy ideas, for thirty years. Kirk was the FIRST and perhaps only person who has done anything to reverse this trend. And this explosion of free speech that he released was the reason we do not have a President Kamala Harris — a woman who may be the stupidest, least qualified, most inarticulate, most unprincipled person to ever run for office anywhere, never mind the Presidency of the USA.
I’m sure she would have continued the “any amount of money you want for as long as you want” to Ukraine as with Biden, and if Ukraine is the only issue one cares about, then perhaps she would have been a better choice. But as for me, and most Americans, Ukraine is a far off land we couldn’t find on a map, and there are vastly more pressing issues for us to use our money, time and energy on.
If Ukraine is the only thing one cares about then Kirk is not the guy. But for people who looked at a broader range of issues, or for people who agree with me that free speech is the foundation of a free society Charlie Kirk was a hero, and his assassination as devastating as the assassination of Martin Luther King.
Perhaps Kirk preferred to deal with the issues that most concerned him and about which he was most knowledgeable — staying within his intellectual wheelhouse, as it were, and yielding Ukraine to people who are more knowledgeable on that subject. E.g., people like you.
@Snorri Godhi
Regarding the student’s arrest, our courts have held that some reasonable restrictions concerning the time, manner and place of expressing free speech are allowed. It is not acceptable, for example, to stand at the tomb of the unknown soldier and yell about the murderous American troops. Though you can certainly do so in the vast majority of public spaces in America.
There is not more passionate advocate of free speech than I am, but this seems reasonable to me. It is a big country, so sorry, no, you can’t yell your obscenities at a funeral. Do it if you like, just not here, now and in such an obnoxious manner.
So the police had some justification in arresting this woman. But, to be clear, unlike in Britain, she will be marched off and released without any charges being brought. No doubt she will be spouting her toxic garbage somewhere else within an hour or so.
BTW, why are these people so often fat and extremely ugly? Maybe all that toxic bile within them manifests in their appearance? (See what I did there? That’s freedom of speech too.)
The parallels are obvious – bother were murdered by people who shouldn’t have been able to do so, either due to the incarceration for public safety they deserved but didn’t get, or lax security at a public talk by a figure who was the target of nutters.
Both were worth far more to society than their worthless killers who hopefully will both face the death penalty.
Despite agreeing with Fraser Orr more than Perry in regards Kirk on Ukraine, I have to admit grudging respect to Perry’s courage for being willing to post something about Charlie containing a clearly disapproving point.
I expect it will cost him a few friendships, and a lot of “ally of convenience”-ships.