I'd never heard of him.
Was he in some cult film from the 70's? A part-time second banana on a late show? A minor league baseball pitcher? Maybe he was a NASA scientist?
None of it.
The guy was a podcaster and YouTube influencer who started Turning Point USA, the organization that brings right-wing politics to college campus' while downplaying the importance of a college education.
I think. See I had to google the guy. I admit that I found a lot of stuff that called him a man of faith and a great debater. That he was polite and intellectual. That his Prove Me Wrong TikToks were super popular and probably helped to make him a millionaire. Hey, no shade, that's the Capitalism and Free Markets he apparently loved to brag about as the thing that Made America Great. He was a loving husband and the father of 2 young children. Why would anyone want to shoot this guy?
And then...I saw he was MAGA. I read where he disparaged black Americans as being inferior. I began to watch some of his YouTube videos; cleverly edited on his own channel to show off "his debating skills". I saw videos where he said women needed to just get married and have babies. He didn't think most people felt safe on a plane flown by a black pilot. He thinks Trump's election was "stolen" and that the people of Gaza deserve to be starved to death because Isreal can't negotiate a hostage release. I read a professor's account of how she was placed on some "list" of his that made her the target of trolling on social media.
My head was spinning. So who was this guy, really? I mean, I saw so much outpouring of dismay and grief, and mourning. I hadn't seen this much crying over someone you'd never met since Betty White passed away. Surely, this guy hadn't really said all these horrible things written in these memes. This guy surely was taken out of context or something.
Nope.
I watched YouTube videos from this own account. He said that a certain number of deaths by gun violence was just an acceptable side-effect of the Second Amendment. Huh? I began to wonder where all the videos were of this "good guy". Was he polite when he debated? Pretty much. Until someone got under his skin or wouldn't be tripped up in his "whataboutism". Then, the guy could get downright rude.
President Trump called for flags to go to half-staff. He said he's gonna give him the Medal of Freedom or something. Half of the country called him a white supremist and the other half is crying over the senseless violence of his death.
I NEVER heard of the guy. What am I supposed to believe? Where is the truth, the evidence?
Then, I reminded myself; he documented his beliefs on TikTok and YouTube. Those debates on his channel are curated to be what he wants his followers to believe. He is an Influencer. And his Turning Point USA is on college campuses to Influence the youth vote. When that kind of thing shows up from Russia or any Muslim, I believe we call it radicalization. I guess, if you're a Christian Nationalist, it's the American Way.
I don't need Memes or Democrats or Republicans to explain this guy to me. He's right there; on Youtube and his Podcast. In any number of videos from his Prove Me Wrong debates. So here's where the truth resides. I'll share my conclusions with you. But just a disclaimer: I don't think anybody should be murdered for expressing their opinion. Freedom of Speech is a coveted right around the world and there are plenty of places without it and they'd give anything to have it. Charlie Kirk had the RIGHT to express his opinion without fear of retribution or violence.
Here's what I can conclude:
1. Charlie Kirk was a polite, even friendly, debater with people who weren't entirely sure of what they were debating or couldn't make a point. He debated well with those who really disliked him or really admired him. Those who admired him just asked for advice and seemed just happy to be in his presence while those who disliked him got tripped up on many of his "statistics" and "if you believe that then you HAVE to believe this, or you're full of BS". In both cases, he remained polite, calm, and even friendly. HOWEVER, I watched several videos out of the UK where he went to debate some college students over there and he was totally out of his element. Those students gouged him out. They stood their ground and called out his BS stats. They were well informed about the topic they brought to the table, so much so that Kirk just plain got frustrated at certain points and his voice would rise, he became a bit rude and seemed to be just another MAGA talking out of his ass. I have concluded that when up against educated individuals who are well informed of the news of the day, he basically pissed in the wind BECAUSE he only knows how to SOUND intellectual.
2. Charlie Kirk seemed to be a right-wing extremist, and a racist. All his basic and repeated viewpoints went back to the 1950's. Apparently to him, everything was better in the 50's. I mean, there wasn't any civil rights movement, feminism, or any of that DEI or CRT bullshit. I got the impression that that timeframe was his ultimate goal; that's when America was truly great. When white men could hold the power and everyone else could accept it. His arguments that African Americans and women were happier back then were grounded in the fact that they said they were. Or because the crime and suicide rates weren't as high back then as they are now. His argument was literally because there's more crime now, African Americans are less happy because they are the ones committing the crime and they wouldn't commit crimes if they were happy. Seriously? That's the most racist thing I've ever heard! And the fact that women are less happy these days because they're not having families, not having babies?! Say what? You have no idea how women feel and married women in the "old days" weren't always happy. They were trapped. It was too much of a stigma to get a divorce, no way to have her own money, and made to feel like a failure if you couldn't handle your own children. Women STILL make less money than men in the workplace despite Kirk saying exactly the opposite in one video I watched. The nation wasn't better in the 50's, it's just that all the little shadowy things that many people talk about on social media these days wasn't discussed in polite company back then.
3. Charlie Kirk was a Christian Nationalist. Now here's where the fine line starts. Every religion is welcomed in the US. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence states it. America is built on it. To conclude that Christianity is the sole belief system of every American is UN-American. We have to be tolerant of all beliefs. The separation of Church and State is an important part of that. ALL peoples of all faiths should feel that they are equally represented or at the very minimum there is no partisanship for one faith over another. Kirk was very anti-Islam and vehemently defended the state of Israel against Gaza, in a very heated discussion he had posted to YouTube only 3 months ago. He would often use the choice of picking between the Bible and the Quran and only one being the "good" or "Truth" choice. Guess which one? See this zealousness of the Chirstian faith has no place in politics or the government. Church and State are separate things. The Christian Nationalist is an extreme end of the Christian faith and I do not frown upon Christians because of its existence. Nor should Muslims be judged by the actions of a few extremist groups. Nor should all Jewish peoples be lumped into the Zionist movement. The world is polarizing into extreme groups and if the strict "my way or the highway" mentality of these groups continue, this nation will never agree on anything ever again. Kirk fed these extremist views without apology. You are allowed to believe what you believe, you are allowed to practice it in public, you are allowed to speak about it in public, you are allowed. However, you are NOT allowed to bring it into governments or to foist it upon others and weaponize it against others. It's called Tolerance.
In conclusion, I cannot find any reason to cry over Charlie Kirk. His family will miss him, but the world will be better off without him spouting his extremist views. Should he have been murdered? Hell, no. All you had to do was "Prove Him Wrong" and he would have revealed his true nature. Do I understand why people are crying over him? Still, no. Perhaps I am missing something in my Google searches.
All I can think to say is that a gun can't argue your point and it certainly won't make anything better. Charlie Kirk will be turned into some kind of martyr for the right, now. His name is now known to even those like me who didn't know who the f* he was. A gun has made him immortal.
He died I suppose with his beliefs proving his point.
If you don't want gun reform because you believe it's an infringement of your Constitutional rights, you better remember that the Second Amendment ain't bulletproof when you hide behind it.
-Wy
BTW: RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment