Today I originally had planned a piece regarding 9/11 and its legacy on the United States. However, yesterday demanded a different allocation of our attention. It goes without saying that an examination of 9/11 and specifically how it is remembered today is much needed in our post-truth society. However, the political assassination of Charlie Kirk has caused a nationwide uproar of grief, fear, virtue signaling, and angst for what is to come. Charlie Kirk was doing one of his standard debate tours in Utah where a gunman almost 200 yards away shot him with a bolt-action rifle, fleeing the scene. At the time of this writing, he has not yet been found. This writing will not be about Kirk’s assassination as an event, but rather, what comes after. For the future-thinking people, what comes after acts like this in a post-reality political/ideological landscape is a nightmare.
There are some things I do not need to spend time elaborating on. There are also some things I do not want to elaborate on, but must. First, I obviously condemn this shooting. Second, we are not (yet) in a position to justify political violence; you will remark my position against the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. Third, I am not happy, relieved, or thankful for this shooting, despite the claims of the MAGA grifters and those who seek to politically capitalize on this event. These points need no elaboration, and suffice it to say, if you think an act of this flavor is one I support, you might need your head examined.
One other note of housekeeping… There is no ‘party of violence’, and anyone claiming that the left or right is a literal party of violence rejoices when political violence arises, so they can get witty one-liners rolling down their mental conveyor belt. When two democratic lawmakers in Minnesota were assassinated, or when ICE cracked skulls in L.A., or even after the insurrection on January 6th where pipe bombs were found at the Capitol, few or none of us claimed the right, as a monolith, is a party of violence. People like Matt Walsh, who just tweeted “the left wants us dead,” are not facilitating a sane and valuable culture here in the West. People who deploy this rhetoric thrive off political violence and assassinations; they do not have the best interests of the country in mind.
There is one more thing I wish to get off my chest before I begin, and it is certainly where many of you will cease reading. Those who seek to weaponize Kirk’s death for political slogans, dunking on the left (identity of shooter has not yet been confirmed), or shaming those like me who will not necessarily be missing Charlie Kirk, have no leg in this race. Those who immediately had a political thought of how they can use Kirk’s death to strengthen their arguments against ‘libtards’ are ideologically repugnant, and it is worth saying that they might even enjoy or celebrate Kirk’s death for their own political resolve. Characters who immediately took an opportunity to capitalize on Kirk’s death, like Donald Trump and Andrew Tate (Tate posted that now is the time for a civil war), should be ignored. There is a conversation to be had regarding where we go from here; those who think the left killed Kirk should be left out of this conversation.
Though this is certainly not about me, the context of this event seems strangely and conveniently lined up with my current ordeals. I am in Seattle, now, for a 2-hour lecture from Sam Harris called Truth and Consequences. This occurred last night. Readers of my work and listeners of my podcast know I am very familiar, annoyingly familiar, with Charlie Kirk and his work. I have debated him twice, going viral from my first encounter, and having a strange encounter the second time, where he apologized for how the first encounter was edited to not represent my actual position. As much as I stood against him, this apology was unlike him and took me off guard. I was appreciative of his sincerity. These videos are on my social media. I also published an episode on my podcast regarding Charlie Kirk, my interactions with him, and the epistemic threat his work posed to social cohesion and epistemic fortitude. This writing is not going to be about me bemoaning the work of Kirk; I have done that enough, and the few rare incels on the left celebrating Kirk’s death are providing us with plenty of Charlie criticism.
A key point that Sam Harris insisted on throughout his talk was the idea that Culture Matters. The culture we live in matters; the culture we share with other nations matters; and the culture we leave for future generations matters. Culture is not skin color, it is not genetics, and it is not hereditary. Culture is a man-made wonder that can be used for evil or good. Does your culture insist that women cannot drive, Jews are the parasites of society, or that you can just follow your truth and only your truth? Then your culture might be one of intellectual decline, moral depravity, or identitarianism. If your culture is one of enlightenment values, emphasizing progress, intellectualism, liberty, and personal growth, then you might be in one of the great cultures that other countries should replicate. We need to confront which culture we want to live in; we must also grapple with the reality that there are no neutral members in society. This is a point I want to drive in harder: you contribute either positively or negatively to the culture you inhabit. How you contribute and what you contribute is up to you, but that you will contribute is not an option. Supporting an ethno-nationalist Christian theocracy is one way you can contribute. You might also decide to give to the needy and send money to vetted charities. You might choose to homeschool your children and live off the grid, thus promoting the notion that polite society might not be so polite, and might actually be harmful. How we contribute to society matters, and in the advanced, techno-sophisticated, hyper-connected society of today, your contribution reaches more people than ever.
Charlie’s death is a tragedy in terms of the culture we should all wish to cultivate. A culture where political violence is encouraged or thought to be justified does not scream of flourishing. It should be noted here that there is a threshold where political violence becomes justified, and though I will sit at the debate regarding whether the United States has reached that threshold, I will not take the side in arguing that it has. I was shocked at the death of Kirk. But the silver lining of this horrific event is that it brings us all back to the social table to discuss what culture we wish to cultivate.
Charlie was very involved in this conversation, often remarking how black culture, Islamic culture, and immigrants (less so the white ones) degrade and erode Western society. Though I have never been accused of being too lenient on addressing the harms of radical Islam, and though I have always defended the idea that liberal nation-states should control their border and who enters the country, Charlie’s vision for the West did not scream of tolerance and enlightenment. Many are seeking to remember Charlie by advocating for his vision of America. Now, I followed Kirk very closely, often complaining he was not important enough to steal so much of my attention and time, and I am left asking in this state of confusion: Is Charlie’s vision for America really one we should strive for?
This is not a moment to go down the list of things that Charlie believed that made my blood boil. Rather, it is to critically analyze the social vision Kirk had for America. We have a menu full of options regarding the future we want for ourselves and future generations. We must pick wisely. Out of risk of this section being too harsh on the departed, it will be short and concise. Kirk defended the acts of January 6th, a blatant and disgusting subversion of our democracy. Trump argued that the Constitution itself, the backbone of the American identity, should be suspended so he can steal the election. To the day Kirk died, he still denied the results of the 2020 election, promoting anti-democratic conspiracy theories that undermined our institutions and democratic norms. Next, Kirk defended the arresting and deporting of individuals without due process, Habeas Corpus, a key liberal ideal that should be protected for everyone. Kirk promoted the idea of the United States annexing Greenland and Canada, making a trip with the vice president, JD Vance, to Greenland. Is the annexing of sovereign countries a vision for the United States and Western liberalism in general, one that we should seek to promote? I think not. This list runs on seemingly for infinite, but in this writing, it ends here. It stands that Kirk’s vision for the United States was largely incompatible with the liberal philosophy that democratic societies choose to pursue.
Political violence has been a gripping topic in the United States as of late. At the risk of appearing as someone who puts forward ‘what-aboutisms’, I hesitantly ask if anyone was this bereaved when Vance Boelter shot and killed two Minnesota lawmakers? Or when Paul Pelosi was attacked with a hammer.1 Point being, we do not need to fake grief over this loss. I do not expect flags to go at half mast when democratic lawmakers are murdered, nor do I expect flags to go at half mast when a lunatic kills two Israeli embassy members (as had happened in August 2025). Rather than virtue signal political tears over victims of political violence, we should ask ourselves if this is the culture we wish to live in.
We have been witnessing the damage that the left insinuates with cultural relativism by its hyper-tolerance of anti-democratic societies like those of, say, Somalia or Iran. However, a trip to Elon Musk’s X platform, or TikTok, brings forth the reality that soon the United States might be one of the cultures being tolerated. A school shooting happened the same day as Kirk’s assassination, and if that was even lucky enough to enter our knowledge, it did not have a very long half-life.
I am making a controversial claim here: that most of the sadness and mourning of Charlie Kirk’s death is performative, and distracts us from our mission of constructing a more pluralistic and intellectually enlightened culture. We do not want to live in a society where political violence is more and more normalized, as school shootings have become. School shootings such as Columbine and Sandy Hook literally paused society in its steps. Now, school shootings are boring and must compete against porn, brain-rot, and Russian AI political propaganda for our attention. The United States is facing a threat of normalized political violence, which destroys cultures.
Charlie Kirk was known for his rhetoric against empathy, claiming that gun deaths were a worthy price to pay for keeping assault rifles around, and that Trump is a legitimate savior from the demon-crat hoard who wants to turn all your kids trans. Charlie will not be remembered by many of us as a lover of freedom, a bastion of an idealized society, or even a decent person. However, he will be remembered as a martyr for the fight against political violence, a fight that I am happy to wage, and I am certain that Charlie Kirk would join me on such a crusade.
I expect this writing not to land well with many.. If you read it completely and have a response, the comment section and my email are open.
Regarding this, I recall Donald Trump Jr. making a joke that for Halloween, he was going to dress in underwear with fake blood.