Charlie Kirk Assassinated: They Couldn’t Prove Him Wrong, So They Killed Him.
Is the death of the man who created Turning Point, a tipping point?
Charlie Kirk was murdered yesterday in Utah. Mathew Dowd at MSNC (pictured above) had some thoughts on that murder, which differ from mine. I’ll start with my thoughts, and end with his.
So what is my view on Charlie Kirk’s horrific murder? It is this:
He was murdered for talking to people. He was murdered doing what radical progressives do not want anyone to do-for thinking, for speaking, for debating, and for having his own ideas and opinions, rather than the ones radical leftist progressives insist everyone should have.
Charlie Kirk had a strong Christian faith, shared with his wife and family. His wife has already referenced that faith in response to the cruel slaughter of her husband, and I hope it gives strength and support to her and, most importantly of all, to the children robbed of their father.
Like early Christian missionaries, Charlie believed in spreading the Word. The method he chose to battle bad ideas and evil ideas was debate. He went on debate tours, discussing politics, faith and freedom. He went to places where he knew his views would be opposed. He asked his opponents to prove him wrong. He spoke for what he thought was right and good. He was a proselytiser.
Prove me wrong,
A characteristic slogan that said a lot about what Charlie Kirk was doing and believed in. Asking someone to prove you wrong shows faith in the power of discussion to reach agreement, and trust in the ability of people of different politics to change when presented with compelling arguments from the other side. It’s a challenge, but an inherently peaceful one that admits the possibility of being wrong.
Kirk was a man of strong faith who always asked, in politics, for strong evidence. That was a combination that gave both moral and factual weight to his life, and to his arguments.
I didn’t necessarily agree with everything Kirk said or did. There were people on the alleged Right he interacted and associated with that I no longer respect. I didn’t follow Kirk closely, to be honest, but I was aware of his impact and influence and I have watched him debate.
I will say this, regardless of whether or not anyone can find or quote a view of his I strongly disagree with. I never saw him lose a debate. And I never saw him use anything other than rational debate, or advocate anything other than rational debate.
If anyone lived and died by a belief in the transformative power of debate, of simply talking things through and reaching the truth together, where adversarial opinion remains bounded within civilised limits, it was Charlie Kirk. His whole career was built on not just speaking, but letting others, very opposed to him, speak too. Kirk gave some speeches, but he was primarily about the format of letting people challenge his views, before he challenged theirs.
Progressive leftists, who form a large part of campus and university life, who are the loudest and most strident voices in activism and protest movements, and who are also a very large portion of the affluent middle class and very heavily represented in the instirutions and professional classes, could not tolerate Charlie Kirk’s challenge.
Their ideology never beat him in debate, and they knew it.
And then he was murdered.
This reality says everything we need to know about which side of politics is truly filled with hate, which side of politics uses political violence, and which side need to tone down their rhetoric, stop encouraging murder, stop silencing everyone of a different opinion, and stop deploying demonisation and visceral loathing of whole categories of people (white people, men, Christians, Republicans, straight people, conservatives, Jews, blacks who depart from Democrat affiliation, TERFS who oppose Trans activism….the list itself shows that progressive hate extends well beyond the bounds of the traditional Right) simply for them existing or having non progressive leftist views.
It’s a reality confirmed when we see Democrats on the floor of the House refusing to honour a minutes silence in honour of Charlie Kirk and shouting ‘no’ when asked to respect a prayer for him and his family. And confirmed again by any cursory examination of the raging sewer of Democrat and progressive social media commentary, with thousands of Democrat voters posting their pleasure and joy in response to Kirk’s murder, just as they expressed their disappointment when assassination attempts against Donald Trump failed, or just as they immediately turned the assassin of a CEO into a hero and sex symbol for his cowardly act of political violence.
There are a large number of Democrats today, indoctrinated to the level of being effectively sociopaths, who pose a threat to anyone who dares defy their demanded ideas and positions. This is an undeniable fact.
The political murders are coming from their side. Kirk offered debate. Kirk’s only weapon was a quicker mind loaded with relevant facts. The weapon of those who disagreed with him was a sniper rifle loaded with bullets.
The two sides are not the same and there is no equivalence of responsibility for political hate, violence and division.
I’ve argued many times that ‘our’ side needs to be far less polite. I’ve argued consistently for years that we cannot care about the feelings of leftists and progressives. I have written scathing things about their leaders and personalities on many occasions. And I believe that I have the right to hate people who hate me, that my own thoughts and emotions are not subject to any law or restriction imposed by others, and that I have the free speech right to criticise, laugh at, mock or offend people I don’t agree with or people who support and express actually dangerous things.
So am I a hypocrite if I also believe that the rhetoric of the Democrat Party and the attitudes of progressive leftism are directly responsible for Charlie Kirk’s murder, or if I ask for their speech to be policed?
I don’t think I am. Because I’ve never called for their deaths or for violence. Not once. I have never backed known terrorists. Not once. I’ve never taught people to hate all blacks. I’ve never taught people that Hamas are the good guys. I’ve never laughed at a Democrat death.
The gulf between the Left and the Right on this is enormous. The gulf between the things a Charlie Kirk did and the things a Luigi Mangione did is enormous. Nobody shot at Joe Biden. Nobody rounded up and imprisoned hundreds of Democrats for years without trial. The right wing has had a campaign of talking against the demonisation of white people and the silencing of conservative opinions, not a campaign of speaking for the demonisation of black people and the silencing of other opinions. The Right has been fighting FOR free speech, and the Left for its end. The battle against Trans activism has not been advocating that Trans people should be attacked or harmed, but that children should not be genitally mutilated and chemically altered before they know what they are doing. The Right has not banned books, but asked that books with adult sexual content not be promoted to children. It wasn’t the Right who took away basic civil liberties and demanded obscene restrictions of thought, speech, movement and medical choice and consent during COVID.
We have called out things that are wrong, but we haven’t called FOR things that are wrong. And that’s a basic, fundamental, enormous difference. Charlie Kirk represented the methodology the vast majority of the Right uses-debate, logic, reason, sometimes sarcasm and sometimes blunt uncomfortable truth that offends people. The other side killed him.
Whether it was a professional hit, which a single shot to the neck from distance and a rooftop escape would suggest, or something else….it matters that the killer is found and justice done, and it worries me very much that this might not happen.
But it matters too how much Democrats and progressives, collectively, have gone completely psychotic, and prone to endorse and celebrate the political murder of people who argue against them. It is unsustainable that the people who invented the term stochastic terrorism and the phrase “words are violence” get away with encouraging and inspiring people to kill their political opponents. Those who invented ‘hate speech’ as a concept, have engaged in hate speech far more than we have.
Mainstream media really do have blood on their hands. The Democrat Party really does have blood on their hands. And they are damned by their own logic.
This is how MSNC responded to Charlie Kirk’s murder:
“We don’t know the full details of this yet,” MSNBC political analyst Matthew Dowd said. “We don’t know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration, so we have no idea about this. But following up what was just said, he’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to: Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.”
“And I think that’s the environment we’re in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place,” he added.”
MSNBC is supposed to be a professional and moderate outfit. Matthew Dowd is supposed to be a professional and moderate presenter. Of course they aren’t and he isn’t. They are an extremist progressive outfit, and he is an extremist progressive operative. They are the people who have been whipping up hatred and fanaticism in the Democrat base for years.
The first thing they did was try to blame Kirk supporters for the murder of Charlie Kirk, and then to blame Charlie Kirk for the murder of Charlie Kirk. The same logic that a rapist might use when noting that a girl was asking for it by wearing a short skirt. The same thing, if applied to any of their favoured groups, they would instantly call ‘victim blaming’.
And as ever, Dowd couldn’t acually name any of the ‘awful words’ that he thinks justifies killing someone. As ever, Dowd couldn’t see how everything he was saying applied, not to Charlie Kirk, but to himself and to what he was doing. It’s that self blindness on their own extremism and responsibility for violence that exists throughout a mainstream media that has pushed and pushed for at the very least a decade now for people like Charlie Kirk to be hated and for views they don’t like to be answered with violence.
Dowd has been fired, but Dowd style media commentary has already done a hell of a lot of damage. Did Dowd ever once in his career ask someone to prove him wrong? No. Because Dowd always assumed he was absolutely right, and anyone differing was full of awful thoughts that have to be erased. Which is the basic progressive assumption and the reason that Charlie Kirk threatened them so much.
This article (Charlie Kirk Assassinated: They Couldn’t Prove Him Wrong, So They Killed Him.) was created and published by Jupplandia and is republished here under “Fair Use”
See Related Article Below
RIP Charlie Kirk
A disgusting attack on political debate.
LAURA PERRINS
It is no coincidence that Charlie Kirk was shot in cold blood while speaking at a campus to young people while wearing a t – shirt with the word Freedom written across it. We do not know the identity of the person who shot and killed Mr Kirk but we know he murdered him with a sniper’s bullet, like a coward, because Mr Kirk debated with young people and loved freedom.
Mr Kirk used the age-old art of democratic debate, oratory and political persuasion to convince people that his view of the world was more coherent and moral than others. He was a Christian conservative who loved freedom. That’s why he was assassinated.
The Utah Valley University event was meant to be the first appearance on a 15-stop tour around the US, during which Mr Kirk had previously asked students and guests to “prove me wrong” in debate-style events. The killer who disagreed so profoundly with Mr Kirk could have just gone to one of the 15-stop tours and argued with him and ‘proved him wrong.’ But that’s not what happened. He murdered Mr Kirk instead. That’s what some people do.
This is an outrageous attack on anyone who debates or attends debates on any campus on the west. Every single head of every single debating society should understand this is an attack on them and the very idea of civilised debate and free speech. I’ve been debating since secondary school. I don’t intend to stop now.
Charlie Kirk addressed the Oxford Union a few months ago.
.
This was a political assassination and it is a terrible coincidence that it comes when Robert Kennedy Jr is a part of the Trump administration. His father Democratic Senator Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in 1968 by Sirhan Bishara Sirhan a Palestinian-Jordanian man. In 1989, Sirhan told British journalist David Frost: “My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel and his deliberate attempt to send those 50 fighter jets to Israel to obviously do harm to the Palestinians.”
In 1963 Robert Kennedy Jr’s uncle John F Kennedy was assassinated by a communist Lee Harvey Oswald.
As my editor explains at Gript, “we have a problem in the modern west. That problem is that a large swathe of the political left has stopped consenting to defeat. It views its opponents as not merely wrong, but illegitimate.
Charlie Kirk was murdered, about an hour ago (as I write this), because too many of his opponents thought his politics were illegitimate. Not only that he was wrong, but that he should not be permitted to say what he thought. That his very arguments – on everything from gun control to abortion to the middle east to tariffs and trade – should not be heard, in case people might agree with them.”
Charlie Kirk was a man of faith, family and flag. He loved America. He was a Christian with a deep respect for Judaism. He has been stolen from his wife, Erica Kirk, a former Miss Arizona and their two children, a daughter, aged three, and a one-year-old son.
The following might seem obvious but necessary. Because we are now saturated with violence it can be difficult to understand the horror of such events, you can become immune to it. Yesterday I watched the entire video of Iryna Zarutska being stabbed on a train and dying slumped on the floor. It was chilling. This morning I watched a sniper’s bullet take the life of Charlie Kirk.
To lose someone you love to an illness or an accident is bad enough. But to lose someone to a violent act is of a different order. Erica Kirk was at the event where her husband was murdered, we can only hope she did not see him being shot. Jackie Kennedy was looking directly at JFK for the fatal shot, having turned her head after the first one. Jackie Kennedy suffered serious PTSD afterwards as well as instantly losing her husband, the father of her two young children and her home.
This was not just the assassination of one man, this was an attack on his family, his two young children and the ideas that Charlie Kirk wanted to advocate: freedom and conservatism.
Michael Knowles at the Daily Wire said this:
“Discerning observers believed in Charlie Kirk, not chiefly for his accolades or his appearance, but for his manifest virtue. Charlie’s prudence, the principal virtue in politics, built a generational coalition that helped to transform the American government. His temperance distinguished him as one of the few on the Right to eschew whisky, cigars, and every other delight that might have distracted him from his purpose, for which he had so little time. His sense of justice produced clarity in moral vision and grace for his opponents. His fortitude impelled him to enter the public square without a hint of servile fear.
Charlie’s only fear was the holy sort—awe and wonder, the beginning of wisdom—and his clearest virtues were theological: faith, hope, and charity. We mourn his death, we take up his cause, and we entrust him, as he confidently entrusted himself, to God’s care.”
Ben Shapiro said:
“Charlie was a good man, a man who believed in right and wrong, who stood by his Biblical values. All of us will miss him, and I can’t imagine the pain of his beautiful young family, and we must all pray for them. And we must pick up the baton where Charlie left it, fighting for the things he believed in so passionately.”
Erika Kirk tweeted, before the monstrous attack on her husband, a prayer from Psalm 46:1. “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.”
Pray for Erika Kirk and her two children.
Charlie Kirk 1993 – 2025
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May his soul and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen
This article (RIP Charlie Kirk) was created and published by Laura Perrins and is republished here under “Fair Use”
*****
The Ghoulish Leftists Celebrating Charlie Kirk’s Murder
WILL JONES
When a political figure is killed over his politics, you would expect people from all sides to come together in condemning the brutal murder and the degeneration of civil discourse into violence that endangers all. But the fanatical Left in the US don’t seem to see things that way. Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk at a university event in Utah yesterday, conservative social media users have been stunned to see Left-wing accounts awash with celebrations of his death. Here’s a selection of some of the worst of the ghoulish messages.
The Oxford Union’s incoming president George Abaraonye appears to have celebrated Kirk’s death just months after debating him. According to the Telegraph:
In messages seen by the Telegraph, Mr Abaraonye posted: “Charlie Kirk is dead, let’s f—ing go” – a common celebratory phrase among Gen Z.
Another message, believed to be on the student’s Instagram account, stated “Charlie Kirk is dead loool”, an exaggeration of the abbreviation “laughing out loud”.
Messages were shared in a WhatsApp group for Oxford Union members. At least one of his messages was soon deleted.
Mostly Peaceful Latinas caught Glen Turf, the Chief Officer for Global Learning at Miami Country Day School, in the comment section of a Charlie Kirk Instagram post saying, “He died. Oh well. He ironically promoted gun usage. Karma.” The account notes that Miami Country Day “is a prestigious private school in Miami whose students include the children of Shakira, Messi, and Tom Brady”.
.
Anthony Constantino found Christoper Rispoli, the owner and vet at Gentle Care Animal Hospital in Oklahoma City, celebrating the murder and claiming “he is only the first”.
Baked Alaska asks: “Why is the supervising producer of @ABCSharkTank & @BuzzFeedNews mocking and celebrating the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk?”
.
StopAntisemitism came across DC Comics’ newest author and a former ‘Antisemite of the Week’, Gretchen Felker-Martin, mocking the shooting and death.
Libs of TikTok posted a teacher at Naples Central School District in New York celebrating Charlie’s assassination.
“I guess sometimes karma really is a b*tch,” wrote the delightful Marcia Metcalfe, NAACP Chair in Meadville, PA.
MAGA voice highlights Joanna Schveder, a teacher in Cleveland, saying she hopes Charlie Kirk “never finds rest and always suffer in eternity”.
Gender Receipts catches transgender journalist India Willoughby reposting a tweet that blames Kirk for his own assassination:
Visegrád 24 has a thread gathering some of the worst responses on X from the oh-so-tolerant liberals.
There’s also a video of what Visegrád 24 calls “probably one of the most revolting responses to the killing”.
Andy Ngo tweets:
Henry Zebrowski, a host of the @SIRIUSXM exclusive podcast The Last Podcast on the Left, mocks the m—rder of Charlie Kirk with the text, “anti-vaxxer finally gets shot”.
Tim Urban did a search on BlueSky for Charlie Kirk’s name and found the vast majority of highlighted posts were celebrating his death.
.
Even in the mainstream media, the Guardian‘s coverage made sure to imply Charlie was to blame for his own murder, as SEEN in Journalism posted to X:
The @guardian has published this nauseating ‘profile’ of Charlie Kirk “His career had also been marked by the promotion of misinformation, divisive rhetoric and conspiracy theories. His views had consistently baited and provoked the Left.”
On Good Morning Britain, Left-wing writer Nels Abbey compared Kirk to David Duke, the former leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
During a debate on Good Morning Britain, fellow guest Michael Gove described Mr Kirk as “a sort of Cicero for the TikTok age”, adding that it was “the latest political assassination to afflict America”.
But Mr Abbey intervened to say: “Can I just say something? I don’t believe he was a Cicero for the TikTok age, I believe he was a David Duke for the TikTok age.”
When host Kate Garraway asked him to clarify who Duke was, he replied: “He was the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.”
And last but not least, the BBC’s rolling coverage included Democratic strategist Joi Chaney appearing to laugh as she mockingly remarked: “I’ve never shared a Trump post in my life. I will contemplate sharing this one. But what I will say with a caveat. He wasn’t admired and loved by all, so that’s an exaggeration.”
Stop Press: The Mail has a round-up of the appalling reactions to Charlie Kirk’s murder.
Stop Press 2: The shooter’s ammunition has been found engraved with pro-trans and Antifa messaging, it’s been reported, apparently confirming him as yet another violent far Left lunatic. He remains at large – though images of a “person of interest” have been released by the FBI.
.
••••
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