The American conservative was open to dialogue with progressives, even if he knew that “for those like us there are no safe spaces”. His death sentence: he was fighting against Wake ideology, politically correct, abortion and follies of gender
Charlie Kirk He was aware of the risks he ran. And this does not mean that if he has been sought, as the unique left editorialist suggests in an attempt to muddy his memory. Rather, it means that he has courageously faced the danger and died of his ideas. Ideas that sometimes expressed in a very direct way, sometimes rough, and that we should examine, taking into account the US context, of the level of the debate in those parts and the type of rhetoric that goes larger on one side and on the other. Obviously in our part this does not happen: words without context are extracted, without considering where and when they have been pronounced, or to respond to what. The result is that the ideas of Charlie Kirk In these days they have been simplified, mystified and vilipese on social networks and the media. Illustrious intellectuals such as Stephen King they wrote for example that Kirk He wished the death of gays, and they were forced to deny publicly. But if some extreme and false statements have been corrected, most of the lies continues to circulate, and Charlie is still presented as a sort of racist and intolerant white supremist.
In reality, he was perfectly part of the cultural path of American evangelical Christians. He was a conservative Christian, first Christian and then conservative. Most of his books, including Time for A Touring Point and the bestseller The Maga Doctrineare marked by a robust defense of the free market and the minimum state, according to the order of ideas of American libertars and tea party. But they are certainly not the fans of sermons in favor of old -fashioned capitalism that has gained the hatred of almost all the progressive activists of America. Kirk He was detested by his opponents especially for what he said and wrote about the Wake culture, the claims of minorities, abortion and gender battles. He was a “cultural warrior” on the right, and this cost him his life.
He knew he was running a danger and had repeatedly spoke about it, claiming that there were no sure places for conservatives, especially in American universities. “That ironically that all those lessons on the desperate need for safe spaces on campus and on the wickedness of micro -aggressions and offensive speeches come from the left,” he claimed. «It is ironic because the progressives are most often the attackers. Conservatories are humiliated, avoided, excluded and exiled. The micro and macro attacks against conservatories are tolerated, if not applauded. But it is not the conservatives who ask for safe spaces and the others protect themselves from being injured in their feelings. Compared to progressives, how frequency conservatives organize noisy events to prevent progressive oratories from appearing on campus? With what frequency do conservatories harass the progressives in an attempt to recruit students for their causes? With what frequency do conservatives say that the freedom of speech of the progressives must be limited because it is hateful and offensive? With what frequency do conservatives march on the administrative offices to impose the cancellation of progressive oratories? How many conservatives ask for safe spaces that are essentially resonance chambers for … liberal emphasis? How often? Not often, even never. The self -styled progressives are those who are suffocating freedom of speech and making the expression of conservative ideas a risky undertaking, betraying the culture of freedom of speech that the liberals not long ago praised and defended aggressively. When it comes to hostile university environments, it is difficult to find one that exceeds those progressive, liberals and far -left clans are creating against conservatives ».
Giving himself to his supporters, he added: “Why are the left activists always complain, protest, climb on the stages and operate fire alarm alarms, while we conservatives remain silent when we hear things with which we do not agree?”.
For him, freedom of speech was an absolute value. And he detested he was threatened. Defend her, he explained, “it’s not an easy task. Our founding fathers knew it well as they fought to find a better way to govern respect, on the one hand, to the monarchies, to the dictatorships and to the European oligarchies. Or, on the other, to the anarchy of the bloody reign of terror that gripped France after the failure thus miserable his experiment with democracy. Finding a balance between authoritarianism and anarchy is really difficult. So, how can this idea not be in danger when the future American leaders are taught that emotional and physical comfort is more important than a rigorous debate, that avoiding offenses is more important than protecting freedom of expression, that freedom of speech can be silenced because it could hurt someone’s feelings? “.
About the combative minorities in search of social compensation, a joke showed off: “Anyone who is declared the largest victim can become the largest bully”. And he took it with the progressive censors: «Once the liberals were convinced defenders of freedom of speech. Today, the progressives of the campus have transformed that honorable inheritance by understanding it, arrogating the right to suppress the freedom of speech, deceiving himself believing to protect it. Opinions, judgments or pure propaganda are manifested under the remains of learning. It is incredible what passes by erudition in university classrooms and even high schools today. ”
To counteract this state of affairs he had founded in 2012, very young, his organization Turning Point. “We fought tirelessly against the well -oiled car of the Left team and we faced them aggressively on every occasion,” he claimed. «We fight them with their tactics and fight them with new tactics that they have never seen before. Mainly what we are trying to do is distance themselves from the answers and counterattacks commonly associated with the Right Team and hit in a preventive and hard way. (…) One of the most effective weapons, if not the most effective, that the other part has deployed is the use and control of language and word. In the history of war, one of the most revolutionary inventions was that of the crossbow. Although it is associated with medieval Europe, it was actually invented in ancient China, perhaps already in 2000 AC the Chinese were so sure of his great power that they did everything to keep it away from their enemies, and some tests suggest that they even took unilateral disarmament. They knew he had incredible destructive skills. The control of language and the politically correct have become the modern crossbow of the Left team, which is brandishing its weapons without consciousness ».
Yes, the politically correct and the Wake culture were his black beasts. Most of his public interventions devoted them to fight them. “I want to better define the phenomenon we call politically correct,” he wrote. “The term has become so widely used that it is now almost impossible to spend a whole day, unless you are at home sick with the TV off and the smartphone in air mode, without hearing it use. Everyone knows what it means: that there are only a few things that can be said or do without being considered inappropriate. But what does it really mean and who considers them inappropriate them? On closer inspection, the politically correct is nothing but self -censorship. Forces people to voluntarily stop behaving or speak in a certain way. The engine of this process are two basic emotions: the sense of guilt and fear. The politically correct induces people to self -censure because they feel guilty for what they are about to say or do and are afraid of losing something if they say or do it. The emotions of guilt and fear are motors of behavior so powerful that people stop without even asking the question: “Who am I really offending?”. Almost without exception, the answer to the question is that you are not offending a significant number of people apparently protected by the censored discussion. What you are really doing is to reject a small collectivist group looking for a sort of privilege or protection and does not want an honest and open discussion on the matter. It does not matter what the topic is, the people determined to replace collective decisions to individual freedom use the pulically corrected crossbow to establish the acceptable terms of the speech. They do so that people like me appear indifferent, insensitive and decidedly evil. (…) If we discuss reasonable controls on immigration, we are xenophobic; If we are financial success we are “one percent”; If we suggest that people should pay for their discretionary choices on birth control, we are conducting a “war on women”. It has become very uncomfortable and in some cases dangerous for academic, corporate or public careers to use direct language to discuss direct issues. The politically correct is a weapon that induces committed people who know how to behave voluntarily surrender. It is worse than being hypnotized, because you cannot order a person under hypnosis of doing something harmful to himself. Throughout America, campus and offices, the politically correct is pushing citizens who love freedom to remove their clothes, behave like chickens and jump from the windows of the twelfth floor ».
Freedom of speech, thought, expression, always and everywhere. If it is true that Kirk Sometimes it was stinging, it is also true that he was always willing to debate, to listen to others, to accept the attacks including the most ruthless ones. Yet he was also capable of great empathy. Just watch the video of a dialogue with a student who defines himself as a transgender and declares to be intent on changing sex. Charlie listens carefully and responds with extreme grace, with understanding and kindness. He invites the boy to “pay close attention before introducing drugs into his body”, he asks him to “wait for a diagnosis” and to reflect for a long time. It does not judge, it does not offend: invites.
Of course, towards Charlie activists, it was relentless, and it was among those who put pressure on Donald Trump to take measures in defense of minors: «Trump He promised to sign a law that prohibits sexual mutilations about minors in all 50 states, “he wrote. «It should come forward and organize an event in which children who abandoned the path of conversion tell their tragic stories. Go to the attack, close the clinics and protect children ». Even when the president decided to listen to him, Charlie did not lower his guard: “The executive order for the protection of children from chemical and surgical mutilations”, he said, “represents a trendy reversal and a complete and absolute denunciation of the childhood social contagion that destroyed countless families and confused and brutalized children, leaving thousands of people permanently sterile and massacred” on other occasions if he took it with the “cult Transgender of sterilization and mass mutilation »and invoked Nuremberg -style processes for activists who push minors to change sex. But he never failed to repeat: “My prayer for people who believe they are trans is that they stop warning their body and instead learn to love the body that God gave them”.
It is likely that the anti -trans battle triggered the anger and madness of its killer. Who now insults Charlie’s memory by accusing him of having fomented division, should remember that, in the USA and elsewhere, the same ideas are shared on the right and left, and even not a few scientists. In any case, Charlie was available to discuss his statements with anyone, to question them, to break the hair in four. To reject the discussion, most of the time, were his opponents. Arrogant like those who today claim to demolish his thoughts without even knowing him.
