0
0
Witnessing the footage of Charlie Kirk’s demise was a lamentable experience, and I strongly discourage anyone from seeking it out. It’s a disappointment that the person who captured that video chose to share it on the internet. I regret watching it. The assassin’s animosity towards Charlie Kirk must have been immense. The horror of this ordeal is overwhelming. This incident has instilled a sense of apprehension (in me) regarding public engagements. My immediate thought was the disturbing possibility of a similar fate befalling Donald Trump last year. That video has left me heartbroken, extinguishing any remaining optimism I held for humankind.
There is an underestimated level of animosity present in our beautiful world. May Charlie Kirk find eternal peace, and may his loved ones find solace. My deepest wish is that he had managed to evade such a fate. Categorizing it as an assassination stems not from any belief that Charlie held political sway or was a celebrated advocate for civil rights. Instead, it’s the very nature of his demise. The act was abrupt, savage, and utterly devastating. Moreover, considering the subject matters Kirk explored, which pertains to civil discourse and conducts (of today), it’s fair to acknowledge him as an activist for civility, now silenced in the most harrowing manner.
As an Independent, I found that my main disagreements with Charlie Kirk’s point of view were around 60%. However, I believe he wasn’t a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, or any other negative labels assigned to him. By automatically accepting those labels, we could inadvertently bastardize traditional Christianity itself, which would be un-American. I saw Kirk as a White activist who advocated with American Conservative views. He was very naïve, and his celebrity, influence, and wealth worked against him. Giving Kirk those loaded labels subtly implies that his downfall was deserved. It also helps his real killers avoid detection and accountability.
Kirk shouldn’t be a martyr. But only five days have passed since his death. Making a firm judgment now is premature. It’s essential to examine why he chose to discuss his topics. What motivated him to speak on those issues? If we conclude his motives are malicious, then we should also question how he was able to access such a large audience. There’s an invisible barrier, if you get me. I’m a 48-year-old writer who holds a university degree, as well as diplomas and certifications. I have authored twenty published books. My latest publishing deal is with an institution in Oxford, UK, and my collaborators are affiliated with Oxford University.
One of my works has become a bestseller. Yet, I have never been invited to speak at Oxford or Cambridge University, nor has anyone offered me speaking opportunities comparable to those granted to Charlie Kirk, who was a high school graduate and a college dropout. This discrepancy suggests external influence, implying that unseen forces existed behind him. He arrived with bodyguards while having full access to thousands of students. As an author, one of my biggest challenges is affording at least $30,000 for PR firms. Kirk had unlimited access to major PR agencies (that cost $100, 000+) and top US officials, including the President.
If my YouTube video exceeds 20,000 views, someone intervenes to stop the increase and reduces the views to fewer than 10,000. My social media platforms are constantly under surveillance, and my Wikipedia page is often vandalized by administrators at Wikipedia. Hackers repeatedly attack my website and blogs. They hack into bookstores that distribute my books and remove them. Cybercriminals have followed me for decades. Yet, Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens emerged nine years ago and gained prominence without these restrictions. Someone behind the scenes is controlling the Kirk narrative, so don’t trust everything you hear or see.
Charlie Kirk was severely wrong in his assertion about Black people. In my opinion, it was primarily due to his inexperience. He hadn’t been around us to understand our struggle. Also, when White activists become revolutionaries, they must fight the system supporting them. They have to betray their race and undermine white privilege. They can’t sabotage their self-interest. For example, feminism is a predominantly white movement. If you notice, they refer to their oppressor as the “patriarchy.” That patriarchy is white supremacy. The feminists can’t go against white supremacy because it supports them. It makes feminism possible.
So, most White activists will deviate and mislabel their oppressor. In their discourse, specific topics are almost taboo. It’s the same with Kirk speaking to Black folk issues. He wanted to discuss solutions for our problems, but he couldn’t delve into the root cause or history of the issues. Doing so would have put him at odds with the power structure that supported him. We also witnessed this when White activists try to become “conscious” but fail to mention the root cause of the problems. Like the Occupy Wall Street movement, which had to disband to avoid undermining its supporters. The January 6th movement also could not carry out the overthrow.
All what Europe and the West have to do to make it right is to issue an official apology to Africa and Black folks and then set up compensatory measures to balance the scales. However, that will undermine their self-interest, so they avoid it. I believe Kirk was a White activist who often mentioned Black issues. However, he blamed Black people for the problems while giving partial acknowledgement or dismissal of the root causes. He wanted Blacks to unite, take the bull by the horns, and stand up to our problems. But he could not blame white supremacy for the part it plays in the matter. That was probably what made him appear racist.
As a Christian with a traditional mindset, I agreed with 40% of what Kirk said. I don’t support mass deportation, but I want a secure border. I believe in diversity and inclusion, but I also want to see more married and law-abiding heterosexual couples with children who make positive contributions to society. Kirk was further to the right, a full-blown conservative, while I’m a right-leaning independent, which makes me slightly liberal to some extent. I would describe what he did as a white person who advocated for traditional Christian values in the United States. So he was a White activist for the United States. Europeans founded the United States.
The original American dream is a replication of European-esque family and economic structure, which is about the American industry and societal structure in the United States. Today, schools and universities have become a battleground. One reason radical feminism has spread so much is that its missionaries focused on students in the classroom. Conservatives were late to the party. Liberals dominated that arena for a long time and groomed generations of schoolchildren. Kirk may have realized that, which is why he staged his discussions at the universities. He was hoping to flip the kids’ minds back from radical feminism to traditional American beliefs.
However, at this time, the radical feminists have enjoyed a long head start in that arena. The students have already been radicalized. Now there is a chance one of them could pop you if you go on their campus and oppose their beliefs. That’s why I said Kirk was inexperienced. His perspective was that Black people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps because Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion tamper with our credibility. He assumed that it would be challenging to conclude that Blacks are elite if we get a special pass to get into Harvard University, for example. He ignored the white supremacy part. Kirk did not expect his demise.
Therefore, in that logic, the existence of an HBCU itself would prove his point. Republicans are also fractured. Yes, Kirk could be narrowed down to a White Christian Nationalist. But I’d say a White Activist could help smooth things out. I believe Charlie Kirk was extremely brilliant but inexperienced due to his young age. Give me a microphone (at age 31) and put me in front of 5 million people, and I would make a ton of blunders. It’s like Kevin Samuels. Kirk wanted to challenge us to face and defeat our own dragons. Please don’t take any shortcuts or hand-me-downs, so your success will be unquestionable. As a White man, he came off as a racist.
My perception is that Kirk exhibited little racial prejudice. I believe he would have regarded Black and White Christians with equal consideration. He struck me as someone who embraced equality, though he didn’t explore the reasons behind challenges faced by minority groups like the LGBTQ community or feminists. Another reason I believe he was naive was his stance on abortion. An experienced person knows not to bring humanity to that argument. It’s my conviction that the reason some people celebrated his death like they did with the late Kevin Samuels is because he spoke against their convictions. Kirk was brutally honest.
The Democrats have been unable to produce a charismatic leader since Obama, and the Republicans might find themselves without one following Trump’s departure. Kirk seemed to be positioning himself as a credible contender for the Republican nomination. I believe Kirk’s demise could also be rooted in seeking to clear this path. The Republican Party appears ready for a showing in the next general elections. That’s due to the rising influence, visibility, and public regard for figures like J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio. I can foresee a Republican ticket that’s more energized, but since the Conservatives are fractured, there could be infighting.
