To start with an obvious statement, the assassination of Charlie Kirk is completely unacceptable, and has no place in any civilized society, or even semi-civilized society. The police already have a man in custody, and, if he is found guilty, he deserves to spend a very long time in prison (I don’t agree with the death penalty.)
However, the fact that Kirk’s murder is an unacceptable crime should not distract us from two very important truths. Firstly, that Charlie Kirk was an absolutely horrible human being. And secondly, that the Republican party, along with the American Far Right in general, are cynically using his death to advance their own ends.
I might seem a bit unsympathetic to Charlie Kirk. And, to some people in Ireland who don’t spend every day keeping up with what is going on in America, it might be difficult to understand why I sound so harsh. Why have I such condemnation for a young man, younger than me, who was cut down in the prime of his life, leaving behind a wife, a daughter, and a son?
Who was Charlie Kirk?
Well, have a look at this video to give you some kind of introduction to this man’s beliefs and morals.
Yep, he says in this video that abortion is unacceptable even in the event of the rape of a 13 year old girl by her uncle, putting him to the right of even J.D Vance on this issue. Charlie Kirk could not entertain the idea of an extremely traumatized teenage girl having access to an abortion. When a young girl needs the support and care of our society, Kirk supports putting her through nine months of agony.
But wait, you say! Perhaps this is just a slight flaw in his moral compass, and, in spite of this one thing, he actually believes in a world of happiness and rainbows and puppies for gay people and trans people and people of colour and Palestinians! Perhaps the forced birth for raped girls was just a slight woopsie daisy in his ethical system!
You’re right, of course, you’re right! I should look at the rest of Kirk’s beliefs before I throw the baby out with the bathwater just because he’s a forced birther when it comes to rape victims! So I’ll look at the rest of what this man believes, perhaps other than this one moral misstep he’s a wonderful person!
So I looked up Charlie Kirk’s views on gay people, which I assumed were lovely and beautiful and lovely. But, boy, was I wrong! Look at the video at the start of this reddit post:
In this video, a discussion is being had between Charlie Kirk and other generic far right people about Ms Rachel, who you may know as an epic hero to small children everywhere, and more recently, she has become famous as an advocate for Palestine. And you better believe we’ll be talking about Charlie Kirk’s views on Palestine later!
Anyway, Ms Rachel states that the bible asserts that people should “love their neighbour”, advocating for a very compassionate form of Christianity. Kirk responds that you love someone by, “Telling them the truth, not by confirming or affirming their sin.” He then goes on to say that the bible says, “Though shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death”.
The most generous interpretation I could think of about Charlie Kirk quoting a bible passage that says gay men should be stoned to death, is that he was merely pointing out that the bible has at least some contradictions, though if this were true I’m not even sure what his point would be. He was a Christian, and remained a Christian, despite the fact that he acknowledged that the bible contradicted itself?
But no, the next thing he says confirms that no, he is not merely pointing out that the bible has at least some contradictions.
“The chapter before, confirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”
So I hope that makes it clear, Kirk not only confirms that yes, the bible does advocate for stoning gay people to death, but asserts that this is “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” I’m sure defenders of Charlie Kirk will say, “But he never actually said that gay people should be stoned to death, just that that’s what it says in the bible!”
Okay, but to repeat, for the third time, he describes this as “God’s perfect law.” If I was to be really generous, more generous than I should be, I might say that Charlie Kirk never actually stated that U.S law should be changed in any way so that being gay would be punishable by death, but, given that he enthusiastically quotes a bible passage that states that gay people should be killed, are we really to believe that he didn’t at the very least, and I mean at the very least, think that gay people should be persecuted and ostracized?
That’s my benefit of the doubt doing a lot of heavy lifting I’m afraid!
Well I must say I’m a bit disappointed! I sincerely believed that his belief raped children should be forced to give birth was his only moral misstep, but it turns out his beliefs on gay people are also a bit shit!
But, two horrible beliefs isn’t that bad! Let’s continue to examine the beliefs of this man who was taken in the prime of his life, let’s examine his views about people of colour! Come on then, I’m confident that it’s going to turn out he was a hero to everyone regardless of the colour of their skin!
“So when you see a black pilot, you wonder, did they earn it, or have they been placed there?”
Yikes! He said he doubts the capability of black pilots! Of course, he claims the reason he doubts the competence of black pilots, is because of D.E.I, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. His claim is that D.E.I might cause an airline to put an under qualified black pilot in the cockpit in order to meet their quotas.
You see, he doesn’t doubt the abilities of black people, it’s all D.E.I’s fault!
Here Charlie Kirk argues against the Civil Rights Act.
Do I really need to explain, given everything else about the man, that he also had shitty views on trans people? That would be a very unusual set of beliefs wouldn’t it? Anti-gay, anti-black, anti-abortion, pro-trans? So yeah, I probably don’t need to explain that he was a transphobe, but explain it I will.
In this video, he describes trans people as a “throbbing middle finger to God.”
While this description makes trans people sound, actually pretty fucking cool to be honest, it’s clear what his intent was. To stir up even more hate, and even more bigotry, and to create even more ostracization against this already marginalized community. He goes on to say that in the bible…..
Hang on, just one second, I need to say something else before I continue.
If it is indeed the case that the bible does say that LGBT people are wicked, or immoral, or evil, I do not, fucking care, one iota. Any book that says this, is wrong, not partially wrong, but completely wrong. Any society that grants human rights not on the basis of the worth of all human beings, but on the basis of some goddamn book written 2000 years ago, is a society that does not deserve to exist, end of story.
So yeah he goes on to say the bible says trans people bad because blah blah blah blah blah.
So, where are we now, Charlie Kirk believes children should be forced to give birth, has horrible views on black people, on gay people, and trans people, but, maybe these are just a few errors in his moral system. Surely he wouldn’t, I don’t know, use 9/11 to stoke up fear against the possibility of a Muslim becoming Mayor Of New York?
Oh…..
Zohran Mamdani is doing very well in New York, and it’s possible he might be its next mayor. What kind of despicable human being using the horrific attacks on September 11th in order to provoke fear and hostility to Zohran, just because he’s Muslim?
I’m noticing a pattern here. Anything that is bad, that enhances human misery, Charlie Kirk supported. Eh, this is a wild guess, and, I could be off base here, but, did Charlie Kirk support the mass slaughter of the Palestinian people? Well, I shouldn’t make assumptions, just because he supported forcing children to give birth, and had horrific views on gay people, trans people, and black people, and Muslim people, doesn’t necessarily mean he supported genocide, does it?
Well, here he is saying Palestine doesn’t exist, literally using his platform to erase the Palestinian identity.
Here he is denying that Israel is starving the people of Gaza:
And here is what Nehenyahu had to say about Charlie Kirk. Remember, if you’re even slightly against the genocide in Gaza, Nehenyahu calls you an anti-Semite:
“Charlie Kirk was murdered for speaking truth and defending freedom. A lion-hearted friend of Israel, he fought the lies and stood tall for Judeo-Christian civilization. I spoke to him only two weeks ago and invited him to Israel. Sadly, that visit will not take place,” said Netanyahu.
So there you have it, an all around awful human being. I feel bad for his children, who have had their father taken from them, but this absolutely despicable human being won’t be missed by me, or by many LGBT people, by many Muslim people, and by many other people who’s rights and basic dignity were placed in danger by his hateful rhetoric. And as said earlier, as a matter of basic justice, the person who assassinated him should face a quite lengthy prison sentence. But, for me, that’s far as it goes. Good riddance to Charlie Kirk.
But, now that I’ve explained how Kirk was a massive shit, I want to explain something else. Trump, and the Republican Party, are canonizing Charlie Kirk. Metaphorically of course, but the dangers of him being elevated to far right saint are very real.
Listen to what Trump says here:
“The left is under investigation.” It sounds like me that Trump is trying to starting a McCarthyist style crackdown on the left wing in America. Well that’s a whole load of troubling isn’t it!
And this video makes even less sense, if it’s possible for Trump to make even less sense.
He not only uses Charlie Kirk’s murder as an excuse to go after the left, but uses, the assassination attempt on himself for this purpose? We still don’t know the motives of the person who assassinated Kirk, but we do know all about the person who attempted to assassinate Trump. And he was a Republican!
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-shooter-republican/
But it doesn’t matter. If it turns out that the person who shot Kirk wasn’t left wing, but right wing, or had no clearly formed political opinions, Trump will either brush that matter aside or continue to insist that the shooter was left wing.
But maybe I’m too paranoid. Maybe Trump, the Republican party, and the right wing in general, are just horrified that a man has been murdered, regardless of the fact that he’s on their side?
I’m afraid not. Let’s look at how Trump reacted when Democratic representative Melissa Hortman, along with her husband, were murdered in a quite similar manner to how Charlie Kirk was:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-responded-charlie-kirk_n_68c45f2ae4b0b50574086e00
No flags flown at half mast, no phone call to Minnesota Governor Tim Wals, and no Presidential Medal of Freedom for Mellisa Hortman or her husband Mark Hortman.
Very little of the reaction to Charlie Kirk’s death is about compassion for a man killed so young in his life. I’m not saying that’s not part of it, it is shocking when someone at such a young age dies, especially so violently. But the main reason for Charlie Kirk’s new found sainthood, is because it’s useful. Charlie Kirk’s martyr status will be used to go after Donald Trump’s political enemies. And that should be extremely frightening to anyone who’s paying attention.
Ponderings Of An Autist 
One thought on “The Cynical Canonization Of Charlie Kirk”