Kirk, Part 3: The Deep Divide

PREAMBLE: Ladies and Gentleman, Super is happy for this discussion to continue if we can remain civil and disagree respectfully, updated as necessary. If not, comments will be removed and if necessary the blog closed and any future Kirk-related blogs closed for discussion.

Part 1, by Wiz (more right leaning)

Part 2, by Prof Daz (more left leaning)

SYNOPSIS: Charlie Kirk spoke his final words at 12:23 p.m. on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, in front of around three thousand people. Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old alleged shooter of the 31-year-old Republican, remains under investigation. Utah’s governor suggested he may have been radicalized by the Left, though his MAGA-entrenched family and transgender partner complicate the narrative.

The attack shook the United States, exposing deep ideological fractures. Two days later, President Donald Trump concluded that “the radicals on the left are the problem” rather than the radical right who, he said, merely want to “stop crime,” framing the debate in partisan terms during a live Fox News interview. However, voices such as Jack Posobiec and Steve Bannon, speakers at Kirk’s conventions, had long used hard-line rhetoric, calling the Left “demonic” and urging the building of “an army of the awakened.”

History offers a far broader perspective. Abraham Lincoln, Yitzhak Rabin, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated by right-wing extremists. John F. Kennedy and Archduke Franz Ferdinand, whose death helped ignite World War I, were killed by left-leaning radicals. A two-way street.

Just months earlier, on June 14, Democrats Melissa and Mark Hortman were gunned down in their Brooklyn home by Vance Boelter, a hard-right evangelical, white Christian who disguised himself as a police officer. Married nearly 32 years, the couple left behind two children. The killings, however, received far less attention than Kirk’s death and did not prompt a presidential call to confront the radical right.

“What do they all share in common? Every political assassination is an attack on the collective; on our ability to disagree without destroying,” an academic observer noted. George Bernard Shaw called it the "extreme form of censorship."

Left or Right isn't the problem in my view. The greater danger lies in the radical mind and in how easily society nurtures the “us versus them” divide. As Desmond Tutu warned, “The moment we divide the world into ‘us’ and ‘them,’ we begin to lose our humanity.”

Charlie Kirk (above and below) is survived by his wife and two children.

Married nearly 32 years, Melissa and Mark Hortman as well as Gilbert, their Labrador (below) leave behind two children.

Boelter who assasinated the Hartmans allegedly kept a hit list of 70 targets, including Democratic lawmakers and even some anti-abortion clinics. The same early morning at 2am he invaded the Minnesota home (above) of the Hoffmans and their children who survived the shooting following surgery.

A further thing to unpack about Charlie Kirk is that, in his passing, there is an ongoing effort to rewrite his past. If people want to curtail further acts of political violence, they need to both walk and chew gum. Murdering Kirk due to whatever differences the shooter had with Kirk is wrong, and dancing on the grave in glee is unbecoming and deeply unhelpful. But one can walk that line without chewing up Kirk's stated positions until they are unrecognizable. Put differently, claiming that straight reports of Kirk's statements are 'fake news' is just an Ostrich Strategy for not looking to see why there is such widespread concern that Kirk’s murder is being used as pretext for mass censorship. A good rule-of-thumb is that if you think it is fake news, perform the so-called SIFT Strategy first: Stop and reflect, Investigate, Find better sources, Trace to source wherever possible. If you’re right, great, you have avoided misinformation; if you’re wrong, maybe listen.

In my opinion there are many things Kirk said that I find racist, sexist and homophobic. Nor do I share the religious convictions Kirk held, nor his extension of those convictions into arguing for a theocracy. But for the moment, we can take the example of racism, because in the Australian context debates about racism bubble to the surface frequently. Moreover, for all those claiming Kirk should be a model for democratic discourse, I want to suggest Kirk was the worst model for Australian discourse about race relations.

Kirk uttered many claims that many people took as racist. Given some wish to pursue the line that an ungodly left just cannot tolerate a religious individual openly debating his critics, it is instructive to turn to what a black Reverand concluded about Kirk's debating style. Reverand Grayland Scott Hagler is the (retired) senior minister at Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington DC. Early in his reflections on Kirk's murder, Rev. Hagler says the following:

"I have stood over many coffins of people I did not agree with and said words of comfort to the families during my 40-plus years of ministry. In doing so, I have looked at a person’s life to find something to say about their character, worthiness, and contributions they have made in their lifetime. Sometimes the task is easier than at other times."

Rev. Hagler states that the problem he has ‘in affirming his [Kirk’s] life” is that “he evidently did not care in his living about the security and comfort of others. He did not show empathy”. We know from elsewhere what Kirk said of empathy: that it was “made up” and “does a lot of damage”. A political columnist (Polman) quoted the multiple groups whom Kirk stated he did NOT feel empathy for (black professionals, black woman, George Floyd [note the theme], victims of gun violence including school children, single woman, Jews and gays). Polman concluded by quoting Hannah Arendt (theorist of totalitarianism) to the effect that to lack empathy is to approach barbarism.

Unlike Kirk, then, we can feel empathy for Kirk’s fate, but in no way does that obligate us to celebrate his life. That is the crucial distinction lost when we hear these fake news claims (they fail the SIFT test) that leftists are gloating ‘Kirk deserved it’. No, political violence is wrong, and we can extend empathy without that empathy over-taking our critical sensibilities so that we turn a blind eye to all the hateful things Kirk said. The ‘leftists are saying Kirk deserved it’ line represents an inability to listen to people who do not find what Kirk said acceptable and who are exercising their free speech to voice their disapproval.

And so ‘on race’. Kirk questioned whether black pilots, black customer service workers, and black female media commentators, lawyers and politicians (to name but a few) had their ‘place’ because of race or merit. It was race, concluded Kirk; none deserved their role and stole it from more deserving whites. Indeed, blacks were ‘prowling’ or ‘moronic’ or (the black women) ‘do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken seriously’. No amount of ‘oh but the context’ can save these claims, especially because the ‘but the context’ argument never amounts to the objector going to the context and showing how it saves the claim. Instead, it’s just that of course the rich white Christian boy you saw a 2-miniute video of, smiling, is pure. Amongst other vile things Kirk stated, this Guardian article by Stein links to all the claims (SIFT method) noted above.

Returning to Rev. Hagler, he observed the irony that Trump has simply “criticized ‘the radical left’ for castigating the hate language of Kirk”. Kirk has “expanded” rather than contracted “hatred”, concluded Rev. Hagler, because he “marketed the vile speech of old racism in new wineskins”.

When I read Rev. Hagler noting Kirk’s rebranding of old racism, I was reminded of Kirk’s spreading of debunked information about Goerge Floyd, the black man murdered by a police office in 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This is where ‘I can’t breathe’ comes from. From Kirk’s perspective, the police officer Derek Chauvin should be “pardoned”, George Floyd “died largely of a drug overdose”, it was a “show trial” and we should not have “trial by media” (HERE: 0:00-2:14). Not have trial by media, huh? Anyway, Kirk followed Shapiro and said we should “re-analyze” the Goerge Floyd case due to “improprieties in the trial”.

But if you want to see what Rev. Hagler was referring to in Kirk repackaging old racism for a terminally online, attention-challenged young audience that views politics through memes, see Kirk on George Floyd as a “scumbag”. It’s how Kirk frames the scumbag claim. Kirk goes to Minnesota in 2021 for his ‘Exposing Critical Racism’ tour. In Mankato, Minnesota (reported HERE), which is about 1.5 hrs south-west of Minneapolis, Kirk told the crowds that Floyd was a scumbag and that Minneapolis was in urban decay.

But to see the repackaging of old racism, note how Kirk frames what those who only watch small video clips hurriedly label a ‘positive message’:

“Just don’t totally mess up this state. It was built by wonderful Scandinavians, and it seems as if it’s being destroyed now, rather intentionally.”

I might be one of the few Australians on this site who has lived in Minnesota. The ‘Scandinavian heritage’ quip is not neutral. It is coded racial talk. They do not call the Minnesota NFL team the ‘Vikings’ for nothing, with Scandinavians having settled in Minnesota. Why? The Homestead Act of 1862 permitted Swedes, Norwegians and Danes to settle land in Minnesota and, coming in with equity, those settlers had material advantages over the formerly enslaved who were not receiving the promised Reconstruction funds to secure land. Segregation was baked into housing supply for generations. There are now a host of white supremacy groups in Minnesota – Neo-Völkisch – that specialize in so-called Odinist rhetoric that frames modern Minnesota as in decay and to be saved only by foregrounding its Nordic roots. Of course, many Scandinavia Americans want no part of that talk. But when Kirk warns of the State being messed up and moves quickly to wonderful Nordic roots, that is dog whistle stuff par excellence. Or as rev. Hagler said, “old racism in new wineskins”.

Many on the left therefore refuse to martyr Kirk because we see racism. Kirk would be the worst, not best, model for Australian race politics.

"Newsflash , religious guy says stuff you could perceive as sexist and homophobic , so on that , we can assume you dislike every single practising Muslim in the country ? Or is it just white religious men you dislike ?
He says stats prove women were…"

"Agree chief, this speeds up the kids development - this season has been enjoyable, watching players improve especially the baby eels - next season we make the 8 or even top 4."

"A further thing to unpack about Charlie Kirk is that, in his passing, there is an ongoing effort to rewrite his past. If people want to curtail further acts of political violence, they need to both walk and chew gum. Murdering Kirk due to whatever…"

Replies

His Eminence Sir Eddie the Hooter September 16, 2025 at 10:29pm

See what happens when the socialists/ communists/ take control. Liberty herself is under threat.
Prof. Daz September 16, 2025 at 11:16pm

A further thing to unpack about Charlie Kirk is that, in his passing, there is an ongoing effort to rewrite his past. If people want to curtail further acts of political violence, they need to both walk and chew gum. Murdering Kirk due to whatever differences the shooter had with Kirk is wrong, and dancing on the grave in glee is unbecoming and deeply unhelpful. But one can walk that line without chewing up Kirk's stated positions until they are unrecognizable. Put differently, claiming that straight reports of Kirk's statements are 'fake news' is just an Ostrich Strategy for not looking to see why there is such widespread concern that Kirk’s murder is being used as pretext for mass censorship. A good rule-of-thumb is that if you think it is fake news, perform the so-called SIFT Strategy first: Stop and reflect, Investigate, Find better sources, Trace to source wherever possible. If you’re right, great, you have avoided misinformation; if you’re wrong, maybe listen.

In my opinion there are many things Kirk said that I find racist, sexist and homophobic. Nor do I share the religious convictions Kirk held, nor his extension of those convictions into arguing for a theocracy. But for the moment, we can take the example of racism, because in the Australian context debates about racism bubble to the surface frequently. Moreover, for all those claiming Kirk should be a model for democratic discourse, I want to suggest Kirk was the worst model for Australian discourse about race relations.

Kirk uttered many claims that many people took as racist. Given some wish to pursue the line that an ungodly left just cannot tolerate a religious individual openly debating his critics, it is instructive to turn to what a black Reverand concluded about Kirk's debating style. Reverand Grayland Scott Hagler is the (retired) senior minister at Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington DC. Early in his reflections on Kirk's murder, Rev. Hagler says the following:

"I have stood over many coffins of people I did not agree with and said words of comfort to the families during my 40-plus years of ministry. In doing so, I have looked at a person’s life to find something to say about their character, worthiness, and contributions they have made in their lifetime. Sometimes the task is easier than at other times."

Rev. Hagler states that the problem he has ‘in affirming his [Kirk’s] life” is that “he evidently did not care in his living about the security and comfort of others. He did not show empathy”. We know from elsewhere what Kirk said of empathy: that it was “made up” and “does a lot of damage”. A political columnist (Polman) quoted the multiple groups whom Kirk stated he did NOT feel empathy for (black professionals, black woman, George Floyd [note the theme], victims of gun violence including school children, single woman, Jews and gays). Polman concluded by quoting Hannah Arendt (theorist of totalitarianism) to the effect that to lack empathy is to approach barbarism.

Unlike Kirk, then, we can feel empathy for Kirk’s fate, but in no way does that obligate us to celebrate his life. That is the crucial distinction lost when we hear these fake news claims (they fail the SIFT test) that leftists are gloating ‘Kirk deserved it’. No, political violence is wrong, and we can extend empathy without that empathy over-taking our critical sensibilities so that we turn a blind eye to all the hateful things Kirk said. The ‘leftists are saying Kirk deserved it’ line represents an inability to listen to people who do not find what Kirk said acceptable and who are exercising their free speech to voice their disapproval.

And so ‘on race’. Kirk questioned whether black pilots, black customer service workers, and black female media commentators, lawyers and politicians (to name but a few) had their ‘place’ because of race or merit. It was race, concluded Kirk; none deserved their role and stole it from more deserving whites. Indeed, blacks were ‘prowling’ or ‘moronic’ or (the black women) ‘do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken seriously’. No amount of ‘oh but the context’ can save these claims, especially because the ‘but the context’ argument never amounts to the objector going to the context and showing how it saves the claim. Instead, it’s just that of course the rich white Christian boy you saw a 2-miniute video of, smiling, is pure. Amongst other vile things Kirk stated, this Guardian article by Stein links to all the claims (SIFT method) noted above.

Returning to Rev. Hagler, he observed the irony that Trump has simply “criticized ‘the radical left’ for castigating the hate language of Kirk”. Kirk has “expanded” rather than contracted “hatred”, concluded Rev. Hagler, because he “marketed the vile speech of old racism in new wineskins”.

When I read Rev. Hagler noting Kirk’s rebranding of old racism, I was reminded of Kirk’s spreading of debunked information about Goerge Floyd, the black man murdered by a police office in 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This is where ‘I can’t breathe’ comes from. From Kirk’s perspective, the police officer Derek Chauvin should be “pardoned”, George Floyd “died largely of a drug overdose”, it was a “show trial” and we should not have “trial by media” (HERE: 0:00-2:14). Not have trial by media, huh? Anyway, Kirk followed Shapiro and said we should “re-analyze” the Goerge Floyd case due to “improprieties in the trial”.

But if you want to see what Rev. Hagler was referring to in Kirk repackaging old racism for a terminally online, attention-challenged young audience that views politics through memes, see Kirk on George Floyd as a “scumbag”. It’s how Kirk frames the scumbag claim. Kirk goes to Minnesota in 2021 for his ‘Exposing Critical Racism’ tour. In Mankato, Minnesota (reported HERE), which is about 1.5 hrs south-west of Minneapolis, Kirk told the crowds that Floyd was a scumbag and that Minneapolis was in urban decay.

But to see the repackaging of old racism, note how Kirk frames what those who only watch small video clips hurriedly label a ‘positive message’:

“Just don’t totally mess up this state. It was built by wonderful Scandinavians, and it seems as if it’s being destroyed now, rather intentionally.”

I might be one of the few Australians on this site who has lived in Minnesota. The ‘Scandinavian heritage’ quip is not neutral. It is coded racial talk. They do not call the Minnesota NFL team the ‘Vikings’ for nothing, with Scandinavians having settled in Minnesota. Why? The Homestead Act of 1862 permitted Swedes, Norwegians and Danes to settle land in Minnesota and, coming in with equity, those settlers had material advantages over the formerly enslaved who were not receiving the promised Reconstruction funds to secure land. Segregation was baked into housing supply for generations. There are now a host of white supremacy groups in Minnesota – Neo-Völkisch – that specialize in so-called Odinist rhetoric that frames modern Minnesota as in decay and to be saved only by foregrounding its Nordic roots. Of course, many Scandinavia Americans want no part of that talk. But when Kirk warns of the State being messed up and moves quickly to wonderful Nordic roots, that is dog whistle stuff par excellence. Or as rev. Hagler said, “old racism in new wineskins”.

Many on the left therefore refuse to martyr Kirk because we see racism. Kirk would be the worst, not best, model for Australian race politics.
- Wizardssleeves official receipts > Prof. Daz September 17, 2025 at 12:31am
  
  Newsflash , religious guy says stuff you could perceive as sexist and homophobic , so on that , we can assume you dislike every single practising Muslim in the country ? Or is it just white religious men you dislike ?
  
  He says stats prove women were happier when they didn't work , whoooooah ! What a bastard,
  
  Homophobic, yeah I'll give you that , the bibles homophobic. Religious people follow their stupid books, what's tour thoughts on the 1 million practising Muslims in Australia ?
  
  I'm not even going to look, but I'll bet you 48 hours of silence you can't find a single video of Kirk being racist .

of 10

This reply was deleted.