The Times, They Are A-Changin'

How Charlie Kirk's Murder -- And Two Other Deaths -- Should Radicalize Us

Rod Dreher Sep 15

READ IN APP

Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk: one week, two murders, a changed world

Yes, this is going to be another Charlie Kirk post, because I am convinced that a moment of reckoning has suddenly arrived, in many ways.

I woke up Sunday to learn that Tyler Robinson, Kirk’s assassin, was living in romantic partnership with a man, Lance Twiggs, who was transitioning to female, and who was also, it appears, a furry (a weird subculture of people who costume as animals, and often sexualize their costumed selves). (Read Andy Ngo’s excellent online sleuthing.) It could be that Charlie Kirk died so Tyler Robinson could defend the honor of his troon (tranny) lover. Of course we knew already that Robinson was steeped in radical Left/Antifa politics.

Robinson and Twiggs were ex-Mormons raised in conservative families, who were radicalized by going deep online and living there as if it were reality.

Let me offer you this full post by Robert M. Sterling, which he uploaded to Twitter. It’s long, but I think it’s very true. If you’re on X, follow Sterling:

My liberal friends are completely oblivious about how radicalizing the last week has been for tens of millions of normal Americans. Zero clue.

I’m not talking about people who are “online”; I mean regular, everyday Americans. “Normies.” People who scroll through Facebook posts and Instagram reels from the Dutch Bros drive thru line. Political moderates who have water cooler chats about Mahomes touchdowns and Bon Jovi concerts, not Twitter threads or Rachel Maddow monologues.

Millions of them. Tens of millions. They’re logging on, they’re engaging, and they’re furious.

And I’ll be candid: They blame you guys. They blame the left. Regardless of whether you believe it to be justified, they think you’re the bad guys here. And they are reacting accordingly.

I can already hear some of you racing toward the comments to start screeching in moral indignation, so I’m going to be blunt: Shut up and listen to what I’m telling you. Your movement will lose any semblance of relevance if you don’t develop some small measure of self-awareness, and—absent someone force-feeding you bitter medicine—you guys collectively lack the humility to do this on your own.

Here are the facts:

Fact 1. Tens of millions of Americans started the week seeing a 23-year-old blonde woman—a young woman in whom virtually every parent watching pictured their own daughter—stabbed in the neck by a career criminal. These people then found out the murderer had been released from jail 14 times over.

Fact 2. Two days later, tens of millions of Americans watched a video of Charlie Kirk get murdered speaking to college students. Millions of these people knew who Charlie was; millions of them didn’t. Upon seeing the video, however, these normal Americans from across the land and across the political spectrum agreed that he was the victim of a terrible, fundamentally unjustifiable crime, and their hearts broke in sympathy for his family. Good people who had never even heard the name Charlie Kirk before wept.

Fact 3. Immediately after seeing the footage of a peaceful young man get shot in the neck, these same people logged onto Facebook and Instagram (remember, we are talking about regular Americans, not perpetually online Twitter or Bluesky users) and saw some of their local nurses, school teachers, college administrators, and retail workers celebrating this horrific crime. Not just defending it, but cheering it.

These are all facts. You may not like the implications of these facts, and we can certainly debate the underlying causes thereof, but, indisputably, they are nevertheless factual statements.

Here’s what it means for you, the Democrats reading this: These normal, middle-of-the-road, non-political citizens just become politically active. They realized that politics cares about them, even if they don’t particularly care about politics. After watching Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk both bleed out from the neck, they think their lives and the physical safety of their families—the bedrock of human society, the foundation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—depend on political activation, whether they desire it or not.

These people are now sprinting—not jogging, not walking, but racing—to the right. Because they blame you guys for everything that just happened.

When they see footage of Decarlos Brown stabbing a Ukrainian refugee to death, they don’t see just one demon-possessed man. They picture every university administrator, HR bureaucrat, and DEI apparatchik that ever lectured them about systemic racism, the “carceral state,” or the need to release violent crime suspects without bail in the name of social justice. They then think back to conversations they’ve had with their cop friends—their buddy from high school who quit the force after getting tired of being called a racist, their friend at the local YMCA who vents about having to release career criminals because Soros-funded prosecutors aren’t willing to file charges—and they realize everything the left has told them over the last five years has been utter bullshit.

And they blame you. Because, even if you count yourself as a moderate Democrat, your party supported the district attorneys, city council members, and mayors that let fictitious concerns about mental health and racial justice supersede very real concerns for their family’s safety.

When these Americans see blood erupt from the side of Charlie Kirk’s neck, they don’t see just a martyred political activist. They think of every extreme leftist they’ve ever met who (1) calls anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton a fascist and (2) constantly jokes—“jokes”—about punching Nazis and “bashing the fash.” They realize that there really do exist people who wish to see them dead for their moderately conservative political beliefs, their Christian faith, and even the color of their skin. They ask themselves if the violence visited upon Charlie might one day show up on their own doorstep.

And they blame you. Because, even if you’re just a center-of-the-road liberal, you lacked the courage to police your own ranks. You let modern-day Maoist red guards run loose across every facet of society, and what started with social-media struggle sessions has now turned to 30-06 bullet holes. When these Americans log onto social media and see their neighbors justifying, celebrating, glorifying murder, they realize that some who walk among them are soulless ghouls at best, literally demon-possessed at worst.

These people—whether they faithfully attend church every Sunday or only attend with relatives once a year, on Christmas Eve—start talking about things like spiritual warfare. They implicitly understand that no normal human casually celebrates the mortal demise of a peaceful person. And they blame you.

Because, even if you condemned Charlie Kirk’s murder, they probably haven’t seen you condemn those in your own movement who cheered it on. They view you as complicit in allowing heartless fellow travelers to celebrate death, and it repulses them.

For all of these situations, what has your response been? Nothing but bullshit. In response to Iryna Zarutska bleeding out on the floor of a train, you post bullshit statistics about reductions in reported crime, when everyone who’s ever been to a major urban center in the last decade knows that actual crime has skyrocketed, only for victims not to waste their time reporting it to cops that don’t have the manpower to respond and prosecutors that seek to downgrade as many felonies as possible to misdemeanor citations.

In response to a 31-year-old man taking a bullet to the neck in front of his family, you post nothing but bullshit whataboutism.

> “What about January 6th?” (Honest answer: After you let Liz Cheney spend two years operating a star chamber in the House, combined with countless other failed attempts at “lawfare” against Trump, no one cares anymore.)

> “What about Mike Lee making a dumb joke on Twitter about some guy in a mask in Minnesota?” (No one outside of Utah, DC, or Twitter knows who Mike Lee even is.)

> “What about Paul Pelosi?” (That’s not comparable to Charlie Kirk getting shot, and we all know it. And, again, Paul who?)

> “What about regulations on assault rifles?” (That’s not going to get you very far when one of these killers used a knife and the other one used a common hunting rifle.)

In response to teachers, healthcare workers, and thousands of other liberals cheering on Charlie’s murder, it’s nothing but more bullshit and misdirection.

> “It’s not THAT many people celebrating!” (Yes, it is. Everyone has seen it on their Facebook and Instagram feeds.)

> “I thought you guys didn’t support cancel culture.” (We don’t cancel people over their opinions; we’re more than happy to see people lose their jobs—especially their taxpayer-funded jobs—for actively cheering on murder, though. If you can’t see the difference, that’s your own shortcoming.)

All bullshit. Not even smart bullshit, but stale, mid-grade, low-IQ bullshit. Ordinary Americans see right through it, and they don’t like how it smells.

You probably don’t like hearing this. But you need to hear it. Because I’m right, and, as you reflect on this, you know I’m right. The ranks of my political movement gained millions of righteously angry new members this week. We have a mandate to ensure these crimes never happen again, and that’s exactly what we are now going to do. If you want to keep a seat at the table as we do so, you’d better clean house and start policing your own.

A friend back in the US texted me this overnight:

FB blew up in my face. Family and friends celebrating Kirk’s death. The best man at my wedding that I’ve known for 35 years blocked me becuase I called him out for cheering on his death. I deactivated Facebook. I don’t need to see this. It genuinely hurts to know so many people in my life have such bloodthirsty and are so callous.

My friend has a heart condition. This experience caused him chest pain, which he had to medicate to keep it from turning into cardiac arrest. Yep: his heart literally strained to the breaking point from shock and anger at seeing people he cared about to have a relationship with him cheering the slaughter of a man who held the same opinions, pretty much, as he did.

I agree. Prior to last week, the only thing I knew about Charlie Kirk was that he was some kind of successful MAGA influencer. That’s not my world, so I didn’t investigate further. Now I know there was so much more to him than that, but even if all he was was a MAGA influencer, I would feel the same way. If I find that anybody in my life cheered on, or is cheering on, Kirk’s murder, they’re now out of my life. I have nothing in common with people who celebrate political assassination of a man simply for holding and stating opinions contrary to their own.

Killing Osama bin Laden? Fine. He was a terrorist and a mass murderer. But Charlie Kirk was about as average-American as you can get. He used words of persuasion, not weapons. One of the most extraordinary things about him, something that lifted him above average, was that he was willing constantly to engage his opponents in civil debate. This is what made him so popular and influential. At his campus appearances, he made a point of giving people who disagreed with him the privilege of moving to the front of the question line. He welcomed disagreement! In today’s NYT, there’s an account by a conservative college student that shows you the kind of movement Kirk started. This is from Jeb Allen, a conservative at Amherst College, a liberal bastion:

Last spring, I received a death threat in response to an article I wrote. My friends at Turning Point USA encouraged me to request the Amherst administration drop all disciplinary action in exchange for a one-on-one dialogue with the student. That request was granted, and I found our conversation informative.

Today, I believe that among the things the state should do is to ban all gender transition. Close the clinics. Forbid cross-sex hormones, and prosecute doctors who persist. If that is politically untenable, then strictly forbid it to anyone under the age of 30. Outlaw any policies that in any way grant privileges (e.g., bathroom and locker room access) to transgenders. Agreed, the great majority of transgenders are not murderers, and deserve to be treated with ordinary human decency. But we must abnormalize this condition again.

There’s not a lot the government can do about computers and youth, but there is a hell of a lot parents can do. This image, from Tyler Robinson’s mother in 2013, ought to be on the minds of every mother and father in America:

Note this commentary on it:

We need to once again abnormalize letting kids get computers and smartphones. It used to frustrate me to see the Christian school my kids attended forbid students to have phones during school, but parents — conservative Christian parents — permitting it out of school hours. It was like all the good the school tried to do was totally undermined by the kids’ parents.

It has been very heartening to see clips all weekend on X of people saying they are going back to church for the first time in ages, or going for the first time ever, because of this (watch this incredible short clip). Or picking up a Bible. Or leaving the Left. As the WSJ reports, the Charlie phenomenon is going global. You should also know that in the European media, Charlie is being described as a right-wing extremist and freak (strong implication: who had it coming). Here’s a report from German media about how a professional soccer team is coming down on a Christian player, Felix Nmecha, of African background, who is in trouble for posting mild, apolitical support for Kirk. The clip I post is from the translation:

This outraged some fans, and has prompted the team to say they are going to be having a talk with Nmecha. And you wonder why Europe is in so much trouble!

Here’s a fascinating take on the meaning, especially historically, of Charlie Kirk by T. Greer on his excellent Substack, The Scholar’s Stage. Excerpt:

To understand these emotions, you must first understand what the young Republican on campus was feeling at the height of the Great Awokening.

The young Republican felt afraid.

The young man who believed that a transgender woman is not a woman, or that white privilege is not a national crisis, or that Donald Trump should be president, was a young man who lived in fear. He feared what would happen if he expressed his beliefs. He feared humiliation. He feared that his classmates would blackball, bully, or haze him. He feared becoming the subject of a viral wave of hate. He feared having advisors and professors turn on him, damaging his grades or sabotaging his future career. (While I have used “he” here, all of this was even more true for the conservative young woman, who faced even greater social pressures to conform and more vicious tactics when she did not.)

These young conservatives feared because they took the rhetoric of their professors and classmates seriously. They expected to be treated with the same grace, respect, and friendship that the median progressive reserved for the Ku Klux Klan. Time and again they were told that their beliefs were the functional equivalent of a Klansman’s. In this environment, only the most disagreeable or the most courageous were willing to stand up for their beliefs.

It was in this air of fear that Turning Point USA began to rise. For years progressives have looked at Charlie Kirk’s campus events and lampooned him for spending so much time debating 18-year-olds. They missed the point of these events. By walking onto hostile campuses and planting TPUSA chapters, Kirk showed young conservatives that they were not alone. By arguing with anyone willing to stand in line—professor or protester, heckler or hanger-on—Kirk was demonstrating that conservative beliefs could withstand the scrutiny and social pressure of the college environment. Their creed could take the blows and keep its shape. Every clip he uploaded was evidence that a man who openly championed this creed could walk away looking better and wiser than the progressives who attacked him—no matter how many of these attackers there were. Kirk cut against the spirit of the age. He was no anon. He did not hide behind a handle or bury his convictions in the darker corners of Discord. Every time Kirk or his proxies praised Trump or made some inflammatory declaration, they were showing young conservatives that they could not be silenced.

Behind all of this was one overarching message: Do not fear. You have truth behind you. An entire fellowship of young conservatives stands behind you too. Charlie is here today to show you that conservatives like you can stand tall in hostile spaces. You can also do this. You should also do this. They do not own the public square. You do not need to be afraid.

That was the message of the man who was murdered this week.

You know, this is a variation on the message of both Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Vaclav Havel. They both said that people who are willing to live not by lies, and willing to suffer for their convictions, will attract more and more people to their cause by their courage, such that eventually a system built on lies will collapse.

Charlie Kirk embodied that. He was willing to suffer the scorn of campus haters for the sake of engaging them in public debate. Indeed, he said many times that the alternative to discussion and debate is violence. He paid for that conviction with his life. I don’t feel comfortable calling him a Christian martyr, because he was not murdered for his faith per se. But he was absolutely a martyr for free speech, like Socrates.

And now we see so very many people who were afraid no longer willing to be silent.

I’m also seeing on X a lot of people complaining that their churches were packed over the weekend, but their pastors said nothing at all about Kirk’s murder. To be fair, I don’t believe clergy are obligated to preach on current events. But this one — my God, it was news around the world, and had so very much to do with faith and courage and the wages of sin! And so many pastors, it appears, blew it. How out of touch with the needs of your flock can you be? I am reminded once again of the Orthodox priest I once met who refused to talk about gender ideology to his congregation, even though parents in it were confused, because he didn’t want to be “political.” Men of God, sack up! People need to know that the church is a place they can go for wisdom and leadership on how to live godly lives in a world that has turned its back on Him. If all you can provide are canned sermons that have little or nothing to do with the actual lives people live, then you are failing.

The American pope had nothing to say about it, aside from expressing condolences to the new US ambassador to the Vatican. Our Catholic reader Anne Heath sent this commentary, written by an angry Catholic, with a broken heart. Excerpt:

And Leo? On the very day of the assassination he tweeted not about Kirk, not about truth, not about martyrdom, but about migrants at Lampedusa. His only mention of Kirk came two days later in a private conversation with the U.S. ambassador, where he warned that “political differences must never be resolved with violence.” A diplomatic platitude, whispered in private, while the nations chanted in the streets.

Leo indicated that his first foreign trip will be to the island of Lampedusa, same as his predecessor’s first foreign trip, to highlight the plight of refugees. If so, then that is a signal that nothing much is going to change in this pontificate. Would that Leo go to Lyon to comfort the family of this wheelchair-bound Chaldean Catholic, who fled his native Iraq to escape ISIS persecution, slaughtered on a livestream by a machete-wielding Islamist for preaching the Gospel:

Say his name: Ashur Sarnaya. He was martyred by the same sort of person Pope Leo is urging Europe to keep letting in, and whose violent presence is driving Europe to the brink of civil war. Such is the pastoral wisdom of so many Christian leaders. Europe, and all the West, ought to be a haven for Christians fleeing Islamist persecution. But the Leos of the world want to keep letting Muslims in. No wonder Christians are losing faith in their institutional leadership — but not, let us hope, in Jesus Christ! (BTW, that same report Anne sent features a report of a German Catholic bishop going on TV to say that the Bible is wrong about homosexuality.)

Yes indeed, Charlie’s assassination has been an apocalypse. We are seeing who people are — and who they are not. We are seeing Good, and we are seeing Evil. We are seeing ourselves too. The words, or lack of words, from religious leaders say nothing to us, or are even counsels of despair. But the blood of Charlie Kirk, the blood of Iryna Zarutska, and the blood of Ashur Sarnaya shouts to us: You must change your life!

Tertullian: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” Strictly speaking, Sarnaya is the only true Christian martyr of these three. But there is not a Christian alive — indeed, not a person of conscience anywhere — who cannot read these signs, and choose to live in a different way. A better way. A braver way. A holier way. Me too.

Bob Dylan said it well two generations ago:

For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled

The battle outside ragin’

Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls

For the times, they are a-changin’