I haven’t written anything about the murder of Charlie Kirk, partly because I’m still a bit lost in shock and grief, but also because I’m not really sure what ought to be said. So I’m just going to sit in front of the page for a few minutes here and see what comes out.
First , I want to join the chorus of prayers and sorrow for this man’s family – his beautiful wife and two young children. We should do what we can to try to absorb their pain. Charlie Kirk, a decent caring, gentle man who loved his family above everything, was only 31; his children hardly had time to get to know him. His young son won’t even remember him.
Of all the people to single out for violence in this time of deepening social fracture, Charlie Kirk was perhaps the worst the Left could have chosen: he was one of the few people remaining on either side of this darkening conflict who still held fast to the civilizing principles of outreach, discussion, and debate; one of the few remaining on either side who still thought the enemy was even worth talking to. Now he’s gone.
Why Charlie? Because, in his tireless outreach to young people from coast to coast, he was winning: he came to talk to them, with respect and an open, generous heart, to offer them an alternative to the bleak and resentful nihilism that threatened, in their schools and online communities, to overwhelm them before they could even get on their feet. But much more than that, he came to listen to them — and by doing so, he opened their hearts in a way that allowed him to teach them things — timeless truths — that they would never have learnt elsewhere. By making them defend what they thought they believed, he made them, often for the very first time, examine their premises. And in ever-increasing numbers, he won them over, and gave them meaning, and love of their country and their heritage, and he gave them hope. And this is why he was murdered, and why his death is such a terrible, terrible loss.
It’s hard not to see what unfolds before us now — especially following on the heels of the unspeakable murder of Iryna Zarutska by a man clearly possessed by evil — as a battle against demonic forces. May Charlie Kirk’s unquenchable and godly spirit energize and strengthen us for this battle.
“We need to have a national conversation,” they kept telling us.
Well, we tried. Now, that’s over.
4 Comments
When they said we needed to have a national conversation they apparently meant something like a Marxist struggle session, not an actual give and take where we’d be allowed to express and defend different views than theirs.
I posted this link at Bill’s Maverick site. I figured that it’d be well-posted here, as well.
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/peace-has-been-murdered-and-dialogue?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=841240&post_id=173321322&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1dw7zg&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
it rewards the reading.
Good to have your back posting, Malcolm. Sorry it has taken these developments to spur you into action.
Thanks, John, for the link. It is difficult and painful to read, but I agree “it rewards the reading” whether we totally agree or not.
I just the other day had a conversation with a liberal about conversation. Political “conversation” may at first inform, but it quickly becomes a distraction or a time-waster. Politics demands decision, not conversation. We must decide whether transgender men can compete against women, and, beyond a certain point, “conversation” does nothing but postpone that decision.
“Let’s talk about it” means “let’s not do anything about it.” This sometimes serves to preserve the status quo. At other times it serves to prolong a state of flux and indecision. But politics is ultimately about decisions, not conversations. As they say in parliamentary procedure, there comes a point in discussions where someone must “call the question.”