As you've all seen by now, Charlie Kirk was martyred for having the courage to openly proclaim the ideals and realities this country was built on. I didn't agree with him about many things, but I find that I agree with him a lot more now that I've watched him take a bullet for me. He took a bullet for all of us, and I am compelled to reflect on what we owe him for that.
He was not killed for being a radical, spreading hatred or lies, or any other imagined crime or shortcoming. There is no justice here. He was killed for being honest, courageous, sincere, and effective. He was killed for being better than the rest of us, and for beliefs most of us hold and all of us depend on. That's what hits close to home for me. Losing him sets this country back in a big way, and makes clear that the rest of us, who have even less of a claim on legitimacy than he did, are next. The people who did this and wanted this would round us up and kill us all if we let them. Charlie wasn't letting them, and now we've lost him and its up to the rest of us. I'll be damned if we're going to let him down.
First of all Trump needs to act decisively to dismantle the established networks of leftist radicalism that caused this. There are a lot more guilty parties here than one freak with a gun, and a lot more crimes than just one assassination. I'm not a legal or political expert, but RICO comes to mind here, as do the many laws on the books against exactly this kind of agitation. All that is needed is the will. That's the first kind of justice we owe to Charlie: to have the will to prosecute all of his murderers, and execute the worst, before they get the chance to murder any more of us.
But we also need to continue his legacy, and that's something the rest of us need to do. What Charlie showed was the unreasonable effectiveness of open, courageous, sincere, reasonable debate. He got out there and made people account for why they disagreed with normal conservative ideas of what this country is about. We might see things differently than he did, but his method was necessary and good. It is in open debate that truth can be found, lies deconstructed, and collective interests decided. There is no free marketplace of ideas and no republic without guys like Charlie, only whispering fearfully in private while his murderers terrorize and brainwash the public and pick us off one by one.
This is not an isolated case. The people who killed Charlie are the same people who killed Iryna Zarutska and many others, who trashed our cities, sold out our country, and turned our own institutions into weapons against us. We don't have to live like this. Charlie showed us a way out at the cost of his life: open courageous peaceful debate in support of normal common sense Americanism.
They can't kill us all. It took them years of effort to radicalize thousands against Charlie so that one would kill him. Their tyranny depends on there only being one or two guys like Charlie, with everyone else being cowards. We need to show them that there are many. We need to become many guys like Charlie, as fearless and levelheaded as he was. We need to pick up his flag.
I don't know yet what that looks like. It starts with not self censoring, with seeking out debate and dialog with people who disagree, being courageously willing to defend our nation in rhetoric and organizing. If you had asked me a year ago, I would have said that was stupidly naive, you would be killed for your efforts, and no one would even be persuaded. But Charlie proved me wrong. He was killed, but millions were persuaded. There are far worse fates than martyrdom, when the alternative is slavery born of cowardice. The rest of us should feel infinitely blessed if we could achieve a hundredth of what he did with our lives and deaths.
So let's start with that: Charlie Kirk died a patriot and a martyr, and we must honor his legacy by being much bolder in defending the truth in public. Debate me.
By all means don't self censor, I think its always good to speak honestly about ones beliefs.
I do think that what is emerging on the right, however, is the perfect mirror image of all the problems with the SJW left during the 2010s. As we speak the right is going on a moralizing crusade top get tens of thousands of people fired from their jobs for online speech. Is a lot of that speech ugly? Sure. So was a lot of the speech that got the SJWs riled up. And they too were preoccupied with alleged crimes like targeted harassment and linked their opponents to violence such as mass shootings to justify how they feared for their lives. So too did the SJW left use the coercive power of the state where it suited them. I don't think there'd be much difference between using RICO to go after Soros than how SJWs used the department of education to remove due process on campuses and ban fraternities.
You may claim that this would be hypocrisy for many people to oppose the firing campaigns and using the shooting as a Reichstag fire moment to crackdown, but some people were always principly against these things from the beginning.
I think the campaign to get people fired is the white people version of george floyd-style rioting... it's "doing something fun with your friends." RW White people know that: they can't protest, they can't hold rallies, all the normal channels of political organization are closed off to them, so they make a big fuss out of nurses and teachers being retarded on Facebook.
The goal of JD and Miller should be to expunge the antifa networks and their NGO backers from society. If they do anything less than that our goal should be putting the people into power who will.
>>4455 > what is emerging on the right, however, is the perfect mirror image of all the problems with the SJW left during the 2010s
No, effective exercises of power are Good Actually.
• On getting people fired: Randos on Instagram or Facebook don't matter much, but removing military officers or federal bureaucrats who openly express sympathy for the murder is entirely appropriate and useful.
• On going after antifa networks and their NGO financial backers using RICO: This is long overdue on its own merits. It is exactly what the Trump administration should do.
• On the argument that these things are analogous to bad things that SJWs and Biden did: I can see how from a libertard perspective it might look like that. But I'm not a libertard, so that's irrelevant. The relevant questions are: Are these actions justified on their own merits, and are they effective and useful? The answer is yes.
>>4457 RW white people very much do protests and political organization. And I'm very much sure it is fun! So were the left cancelation campaigns which satisfied a deep superegoic pleasure and felt like doing something meaningful for the ppl involved.
>>4458 I'm not going to say there isn't a point of view from which those things will seem justified. I just happen to think that this point of view was not the primary point of opposition to SJWs. Rather that opposition came from a defense of freedom and rational public discourse as such, which is where my sympathies lie. The current right's pursuit of strongman politics has shown the limitations of the sort of things you suggest, which is you empower a single retard to do whatever he wants without limits.
>>4459 > ... this point of view was not the primary point of opposition to SJWs. Rather that opposition came from a defense of freedom and rational public discourse as such ...
It's not interesting or important what the more libertarian opponents of SJWs were thinking 10 years ago.
> The current right's pursuit of strongman politics has shown the limitations of the sort of things you suggest, which is you empower a single retard ...
I don't think Trump is perfect. Far from it. But this isn't about Trump. The relevant question is: Are there effective and useful measures that can be taken against organized support for violence, within the bounds of existing law? If so, we should identify and support the federal government taking those measures.
>>4460 >It's not interesting or important what the more libertarian opponents of SJWs were thinking 10 years ago. Perhaps not literally what they were thinking, but some of us still believe in those principles. The question of how to follow through on the promises of liberalism despite its failings is an important one.
>But this isn't about Trump. The relevant question is: Are there effective and useful measures that can be taken against organized support for violence, within the bounds of existing law? If so, we should identify and support the federal government taking those measures. Not very different from the sort of thinking that brought us the patriot act and the modern day national security state.
>>4461 > Not very different from the sort of thinking that brought us the patriot act and the modern day national security state.
It's not really relevant to this thread, but I'll state for the record that I do not and have never supported the Patriot Act. But RICO has been federal law since 1970. If you oppose even the use of pre-9/11 federal law to prosecute organized support for violent crime, then we have very different perspectives indeed.