Charlie Kirk and the apocalyptic narcissism of trans
Kirk’s final words were about the scourge of transgender violence. He was right.
BRENDAN O’NEILL
It is the blackest irony, like a sick joke by the universe, that Charlie Kirk was gunned down as he discussed gun violence. That word – ‘violence’ – was the last he ever uttered. Milliseconds later, violence of the gravest kind was visited on him. Actually, we need to be more specific: Kirk was discussing trans violence in the seconds before his death. He was pushing back against one of his student interlocutors who seemed to downplay the phenomenon of trans mass shootings. The student badgered Kirk to say how many such shootings there have been. ‘Too many’, Kirk replied. Seconds later, his carotid artery was severed and he was dead.
I’m not suggesting Kirk was executed for daring to talk about trans violence. The gunman will not have been able to hear what Kirk was saying – he was on a rooftop 200 yards away. Yet while it might be coincidental that Kirk was so tyrannically slain in the very moment he was lamenting the violent turn of trans ideology, it nonetheless feels chillingly noteworthy. For it captures a dark truth about this act of militant cancel culture, this savage censoring by bullet: namely, that Kirk was seemingly targeted for his love of giving blasphemous voice to facts and ideas the woke would rather redact.
The thing is, he was right: there are too many trans shootings. There has been a violent turn in the trans ideology. The trans sect does seem ever-more consumed by a brutish animus for anyone who dissents from its post-truth orthodoxies; for those phobes, bitches and heretics who dare to withhold their validation from men who claim to be women or youths who claim to be non-binary. And for people like Charlie Kirk: witness the sick celebration of his death among the post-sex, post-social blue-hairs in that digital cesspit of trans lunacy. You thought the ‘revolution’ would be ‘magically bloodless’, asked one well-known trans activist before Kirk’s body was even cold.
Both the circumstances of Kirk’s killing and the fallout from it shine an unforgiving light on the apocalyptic narcissism of late-stage trans hysteria. It is profoundly significant that he was shot to death while expressing ‘wrongthink’ about trans activism and that much of the posthumous demonisation of him by the activist class has focussed on his ‘transphobia’. The trans spectre casts its shadow over almost every element of this barbarous assassination, and we must be free to talk about that without fear of cancellation or retribution.
There is talk of it being a trans-inspired shooting. We will hopefully learn more now that a suspect – one Tyler Robinson – is in custody. A preliminary report of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says that bullet cases recovered from the assassin’s gun were engraved with ‘transgender and anti-fascist’ statements. This has now been partially confirmed. Officials at a press conference today said one bullet casing said ‘Hey fascist!’. Another had the lyrics to an Italian anti-fascist anthem. Another said ‘Notices bulges’, which is reportedly a reference to a meme about normies’ obsession with trans people’s bulges. We await further info on exactly what was going through this man’s mind as he allegedly laid waste to the life of Charlie Kirk.
For me, though, what’s striking is the sheer chutzpah of commentators who furiously slammed those who wondered if this might have been a trans-inspired assassination even as they themselves flagged up Kirk’s ‘problematic’ views on trans. ‘How dare you say this murder was trans-related’, they said in one breath, and then in the next they were damning Kirk as a sinner against their sacred trans beliefs. They seem to want it both ways – to bury the idea that this had anything to do with trans while also grossly hinting that Kirk’s ‘transphobia’ made him a bad person and possibly a target. It sounds to me like they’re saying: ‘Trans activism didn’t kill him but it would be understandable if it did.’
‘MAGA is already blaming trans people for Charlie Kirk’s death’, fumes the New Republic. They’re exploiting his killing to ‘advance their transphobic policies’, it said. It goes without saying that trans people should not be made collectively guilty for Kirk’s murder, especially given that the chief suspect does not seem to be trans. And yet if people on the internet are wondering out loud if Kirk might in part have been assassinated for his ‘anti-trans’ blasphemies, can you blame them? After all, his supposedly sacrilegious disdain for the cult of genderfluidity has been put front and centre in the posthumous digital inquisition of his life and beliefs.
Here’s my question: why would you obsess over Kirk’s trans views so soon after his death if not to hint, wittingly or otherwise, that they provide some kind of moral context for what was done to him? He believed in biological sex. He wanted men out of women’s sports. He opposed the drugging and mutilation of confused young kids. These are normal views shared by millions. Barking ‘He was transphobic!’ even before he’s been buried would be like shouting ‘She was Brexitphobic!’ following the terroristic murder of Labour MP Jo Cox in 2016. That is, it smacks of a horrific implication that there is a logical link between what Kirk believed and what he suffered. That the one follows the other.
Others have gone further and openly cheered the execution of this ‘anti-trans’ heretic. As Jenny Holland has written on spiked, faux-progressive ghouls have gloated over the body of this man who committed the sin of thinking differently to them. This includes the bourgeois eunuchs who clog up TikTok with their trans blather. And trans ‘comedian’ Brandy Bryant, who sneered: ‘Breaking: Charlie Kirk loses gun debate.’ Most strikingly, Jesse James Rose, a hirsute young man who masquerades as a ‘girl’, told his more than 500,000 followers on TikTok that ‘The sympathy for Charlie Kirk is fucking weird’.
‘He was shot’, said Rose, ‘in the middle of saying something transphobic about trans people’. So now it’s transphobic to talk about mass murders carried out by trans people? ‘I’m confused as to how you thought the revolution was going to be magically bloodless’, Rose continued. Boom. There it is. The treatment of Kirk’s killing as a species of activism, as ‘revolutionary’ payback for his ‘transphobic’ views. I don’t know about you but I find it horrifying that hundreds of thousands of youths on TikTok are being indoctrinated with such sick apologism for the slaughter of a 31-year-old father of two.
‘Don’t blame this on the trans ideology’, they say. ‘This was a revolutionary act against transphobia’, they say. Make your minds up. Was this young man shot in the neck and made to bleed to death in public for daring to say you can’t have a cock and be a woman, or was he not? Was this an act of extreme Inquisition-style violence for the sin of understanding biology, or was it not? In a sense, it doesn’t matter if the suspect shot Kirk for his ‘anti-trans’ views, because we now know there are many people in our society who think such a thing would have been fine. The justice system will deal with that act of violence at Utah Valley University – it falls to the rest of us to confront the cult of violent thought that is spreading like a pox in woke circles, and especially in the trans sect.
Kirk’s killing has drawn to the surface of our societies, like scum on water, the violent bent to the trans ideology. He was right that trans violence is a growing scourge. In the US, there have been at least five mass shootings carried about by aggrieved trans agitators. There was the slaughter at the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis last month when a trans bloke allegedly fired at tiny kids praying, killing two and injuring many more. The gross taunt, ‘Where is your God?’, was written on one of his guns. There was also the massacre at a Christian school in Nashville in 2023, in which six were slaughtered. And the shooting at a school in Denver in 2019. And a massacre at a warehouse in Maryland in 2018.
The dream of violence seems to permeate trans thinking. The crowing over Charlie Kirk’s death on that libtard hellsite, Bluesky, got so bad that Bluesky’s bosses had to issue a warning to their 38million users to stay within the ‘community guidelines’. And much of the post-Kirk glee touched on the trans question. ‘Can we get JK Rowling next?’, asked one Bluesky lowlife. It would be for ‘the greater good of trans people’. This isn’t the first time an act of violence has got people salivating over the prospect that a similar fate will befall that witch Rowling. When she expressed horror at the attempted murder of Salman Rushdie in 2022, an X user replied: ‘Don’t worry you are next.’
Rowling’s death is feverishly fantasised about in the trans sect. ‘Bring back witch-burning… JK’, said a banner on one of those marches of misogynists that followed the UK Supreme Court’s ruling that men are men and women are women. They literally want to strap her to the stake for the crime of believing women exist. A trans author even wrote a book called Manhunt that gleefully featured Rowling’s death. ‘The only good TERF is a dead TERF’, say the sick placards of these self-regarding cross-dressers. ‘Decapitate TERFs’, said one in Edinburgh. The misogyny of ISIS meets the misogyny of trans in this twisted fantasy of violently removing the heads of women who refuse to bow down to men in dresses.
It’s not just violent rhetoric, either. Gender-critical women have been bombarded with rape threats and death threats. One of the acts that first opened my eyes to the misogynistic horror of trans was the violent assault on the feminist Maria MacLachlan, then 60 years old, in Hyde Park in 2017. She was thrown to the ground by trans activists and ‘repeatedly kicked’. And who can forget that dystopic vision of Kellie-Jay Keen being set upon by a feral mob of misogynists in Auckland in 2023 for her moral offence of believing we should ‘Let Women Speak’
Trans activists demonstrate against Kellie-Jay Keen who was speaking in Liverpool, UK, on 8 October 2023.
Violence, or the implicit threat of it, swirls around the trans ideology. You see it in those mobs of men in women’s clothing who gather at gender-critical events to howl down the uppity bitches who dare to deny their identitarian delusions. You see it in the gang-like menacing of academics like Kathleen Stock and Selina Todd for their speechcrime of sex belief. You see it in their perverted fantasy of ridding Earth of JK Rowling so that fat fellas in bikinis will never again have to see one of her pithy, piss-taking tweets. And you see it in the dancing on Charlie Kirk’s grave before he’s even in it.
We need to talk about this culture of menace that attends every aspect of trans. Its thought processes, its banners, its ambitions – all are riddled with the savagely anti-social fancy of erasing or at least silencing women and men, but mostly women, who have the gall to demur from the ideological insanity of ‘sex-changing’. Here’s the thing: the violent strain to trans is not accidental. It’s not some unfortunate add-on to an otherwise typical ‘progressive’ cause. No, this unforgiving and sexist militancy is a direct function of the apocalyptic narcissism that underpins trans in particular and identity politics more broadly.
The problem with the trans delusion is that it falls apart in the absence of public assent. The minute someone says ‘This isn’t real’, the whole charade trembles. This is why men who masquerade as women react so furiously when women tell them to get out of their bathrooms: because they instinctively recognise that this is not just a fleeting inconvenience but a calling into question of their entire hallucinatory identity. The narcissist requires constant and uncritical validation, which means that even one expression of doubt is enough to make him feel cornered, undermined, imperilled. And we know how self-regarding men tend to respond in such situations: with threats, even violence.
Christopher Lasch wrote about how the narcissist ‘depends on others to validate his self-esteem’. He cannot live ‘without an admiring audience’. ‘For the narcissist’, said Lasch, ‘the world is a mirror’, whereas for the older ‘rugged individualist’ the world was ‘an empty wilderness to be shaped to his own design’. As a result, the narcissist develops a ‘transactional’ relationship with other people, seeing them less as free and equal beings and more as nodding validators of his own sense of personhood and importance. In the cult of narcissism, your fellow citizen is reduced to your moral fluffer, his prime duty being to massage your identity, however unreal it might be.
Transgenderism represents the ultimate institutionalisation of what Lasch called the ‘culture of narcissism’. For in this ideology, the individual’s self-image has no basis in reality whatsoever – it is invented from pure cloth – which makes him even more dependent on the willingness of the public to suspend every one of their critical faculties and obsequiously say: ‘Yes, you are a woman.’ If they don’t, if they dare to shatter the mirror that these men arrogantly expect the world to be, then the deluded story these men tell themselves starts to crumble. They feel existentially threatened, and they lash out.
The danger of identity politics is precisely its creation of a relationship of reliance between the self-regarding identitarian and the broader public. In this real-world dystopia we relate to each other less as equal citizens than as demanders of validation and providers of validation. Our relations become, as Lasch said, wholly ‘transactional’. We are reduced to units on a chessboard in the grand game of ‘recognition’. Add to this mix the fact that trans has been so psychotically indulged by the institutions of society, and the fact that the men lost in this false religion tend to develop a misogynistic disdain for the women who withhold their validation, and you have a truly violence-tinged narcissism: identity politics at its most toxic and unpleasant.
The end result? Even the bloody assassination of a young dad can be cheered because it provides an ‘alleviation of anxiety’. It gives breathing space to the narcissists. It removes from the world someone who committed that gravest sin: he refused to sacrifice the truth of his own eyes to the end of validating the fallacious self-image of ‘women with penises’. When human life itself is seen as a small price to pay for indulging the misogynistic idea that womanhood is an easily acquired identity, you know our societies are in deep shit. It’s not Kirk’s vile killing that was ‘revolutionary’. It’s the determination of women to deny validation to the men who have stolen their sex, and in the process to shatter this lethal ideology once and for all.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. His latest book – After the Pogrom: 7 October, Israel and the Crisis of Civilisation – is available to order on Amazon UK and Amazon US now. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy
This article (Charlie Kirk and the apocalyptic narcissism of trans) was created and published by Spiked Online and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Brendan O’Neill, Spiked Chief Political Writer
See Related Article Below
The Transgender Castration Cult
ARMANDO SIMON
In viewing the manifestations of the transgender movement in the past decade, it is evident that it is a cult. This has been voiced by many, including some transgenders. It is evident also in the degree of excessive opprobrium and censorship that descends upon anyone, even a physician, disagreeing in the slightest with some of the claims made by adherents of the movement, a typical response of cultists to heresy and to apostates (persons who have detransitioned). A typical response is, “I’m going to kill JK Rowling with a big hammer. JK Rowling is very horrible and I hate her so much” and “I’ll slit your f—— throat and f— your newly made neck p—-.” Additional instances of vicious hatred by transgenders can be seen here.
And they are relentless; despite the obvious scientific evidence that contradicts their views, transgenders and their enablers persist in repeating their mantra (such as the recent Associated Press declaration naming a man as the third-place female athlete of the year). They even claim that science supports their claims.
Two points differentiate the present-day transgender cult from previous ones. One is that sexual mutilation in the past was done for the sake of an external ideology, whereas now becoming transgender has become the end in itself — i.e., sexual mutilation has become the ideology, with an extensive supporting network of other transgenders and enablers. Second, the main focus of castration and mastectomy is on minors, with the recruitment grounds being the internet and schools.
With regard to schools, some supporters of the cult are toxic teachers who conspire against the parents, whom they see as the enemy preventing enlightenment. They label parents concerned about their children’s welfare as “far-right extremists” for opposing the cult’s power over their children. They convince students that gender is “assigned,” as if chromosomes did not exist, a Lysenkoist attitude. These teachers are eager to “educate” their pupils on the teacher’s own sexuality (as if the children cared) rather than simply teach the traditional subjects of math, reading, and writing. Significantly, some of them use variations of the classic pedophile argument of “Let’s keep this a secret between the two of us.”
Recruiting others to join the cult is done incrementally, by idealizing the transition, minimizing the proposed mutilation, using euphemisms, presenting a role model, and creating confusion about self-identity — in short, engaging in linguistic legerdemain. Mentally ill individuals and children are particularly vulnerable and are thus targeted. Block found that high school–aged teenagers who identify as transgender are also more likely than their normal peers to have concurrent mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, attention deficit disorders, and autism. Wanta and coworkers found transgender patients to have a statistically significant increase in prevalence for all psychiatric diagnoses, while in Finland, Kaltiala-Heino and her coworkers found psychopathology in girls who considered themselves boys.
It appears that mothers of transgender/gender-dysphoric children may have a history of mental illness themselves, although there are scant studies. Marantz & Coates found that 53% of these mothers met the criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder in contrast to 6% of controls. The study needs to be replicated and expanded.
Another transgender propaganda pillar is the argument that individuals with gender dysphoria who are exhibiting mental illness symptoms will no longer have symptoms once they go through “gender affirmation” through surgery. Lewis found that persons who had indeed undergone surgery had a significantly higher risk for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance use disorders than those without surgery. Inversely, a physician who previously advocated puberty-blockers for children in order to alleviate mental health issues carried out a study involving giving puberty-blockers and found that there was no change; however, she refused to publish the results since they went against gender ideology, which was unfortunate, since there is scant research on the subject.
Informal observation seems to exhibit Munchausen Syndrome by proxy and single mothers. One gets the impression that with celebrities, having a transgender child or children is a status symbol among their peers. Formal research needs to be conducted on the mothers of children with gender dysphoria since most of the studies carried out have focused on the children.
The following statement by one such mother diagnosed with OCD is illustrative:
When I became pregnant with Noah, I could feel, through my mother’s intuition I suppose, that he was not subscribing to gender stereotypes, so I decided to provide an environment for him early on that would allow him to discover how he wanted to express himself.
Similar cults through history
Castration cults have occurred occasionally throughout history. In India, there was the Aravan cult. The Tritiya Prakriti referred to both self-castration and homosexuality. On the other side of the world, the priests of Cybele castrated themselves. In more recent times, the Skoptsy in Russia practiced castration and mastectomy to eliminate sexual lust. And the relatively recent Heaven’s Gate cult in America castrated themselves prior to committing suicide in anticipation of an approaching comet.
And this realization that the transgender movement is truly a cult explains why there is so much resistance to more rational policies and information on “transitioning.”
After all, other medical procedures are not being militantly promoted, as is the case with gender “transition.” There are no mass demonstrations advocating appendectomies, there are no hysterics resulting from someone denying the need for unnecessary appendectomies, no one is recruiting healthy individuals to have their appendix removed, there is no concerted effort to convince children to have appendectomies, and oceans of ink are not being spilled over whether or not healthy persons should undergo an appendectomy, nor is anyone flying an Appendectomy Flag.
Conclusion
Transitioning procedures should be halted, at least in children, until further objective research is conducted, free of any ideology pro or con. Psychometrics should be mandatory in all cases. Further investigation should concentrate not only on the children, but also on the parents and any factor in the patients’ environment that may be encouraging transitioning.
Ultimately, the question remains: How many more children will undergo sexual mutilation until more rational persons call a halt? Transitioning procedures should be halted, at least in children, until further objective research is conducted free of any ideology.
Armando Simón is a retired psychologist and historian, author of The Book of Many Books.
Image via Pxfuel.
This article (The Transgender Castration Cult) was created and published by American Thinker and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Armando Simon
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply