There’s a feeling in my social circles that Charlie Kirk’s assassination is just not another act of political or criminal violence, destined to fade quickly as so many other senseless deaths and attacks have in the past. Political disagreements have become viscerally personal.
I have a relationship with a journalist that some have likened to the relationship between Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. We disagree on virtually everything, but I enjoy her company. However, when we spoke on the phone about Charlie, she seemed strangely sanguine about his death. She told me, “You know he was a racist, white supremacist, and a fascist.” Whoa! Hold your horses; where did that come from?
Image created using AI.
In typical Charlie Kirk style, I metaphorically told her to come up to the head of the line and let’s discuss that. “Where did you get those ideas?” I asked.
There was an awkward silence on the line that spoke volumes to me. Why? Because this individual is generally combative and never at a loss for words. Silence implied she knew she was on shaky ground.
Pulling herself together, she made another pass at her earlier statement, mentioning that Charlie was encouraging the birth of white children to prevent whites from becoming a minority. Charlie was also a proponent of Replacement Theory and has denigrated other races, she claimed. I asked her if she had actually heard these statements or if she had only heard that he had made them. Things got cold after that, and the “I have to go, I have another call coming in” escape ensued.
Some of those disturbing statements I heard in the immediate aftermath of Kirk’s killing bear repeating:
Those are just two examples of the frenzied hostility with which Democrats responded to Kirk’s assassination. We must reject entirely the evil, crazy people who demand that you accept them and their ideas. Ultimately, it’s a zero-sum game dressed up to be “reasonable and accommodating” to anyone or any group that espouses our culture’s destruction; there is no middle ground.
To combat this craziness, we must first understand what we are confronting:
1. Extreme Polarization Has Eroded Empathy—When large numbers of people celebrate a political assassination, it suggests that ideological divisions have become so entrenched that basic human empathy is overridden by tribal loyalty. The person is no longer seen as a human being, but as a symbol of everything one despises.
2. Speech Has Been Reframed as Violence—Many leftist critics viewed Kirk’s rhetoric—on race, gender, religion, and democracy—as harmful or even dangerous. In that framework, they see his death not as a tragedy, but as a form of “justice” or “self-defense.”
3. Anonymity Fuels Performative Outrage—Much of the celebratory reaction occurred on anonymous platforms like Fizz and Bluesky, where users posted phrases like “poetic justice” and “God’s plan.” This anonymity allows people to express extreme views without accountability, amplifying cruelty for social clout.
4. The Collapse of Shared Norms—In a healthy democracy, even controversial figures are mourned as fellow citizens. When that norm collapses, it signals a breakdown in the social contract—where disagreement no longer coexists with dignity, and violence becomes a legitimate form of political expression.
5. Kirk’s Legacy Was Symbolic—To his supporters, Kirk was a champion of free speech and religious values. To his detractors, he represented white nationalism, authoritarianism, and anti-LBGTQ+ extremism. His assassination became a flashpoint—not just for grief or outrage, but for symbolic catharsis among those who felt harmed by his influence.
But the above does not go far enough. We also need to understand how a permission system has developed that falsely excuses this kind of anti-society behavior:
1. Mob Mentality vs. Crowd Psychology—The term mob mentality suggests irrational, impulsive behavior driven by the crowd. People in crowds don’t lose their minds—they often align with perceived group norms. According to psychologist Stephen Reicher, crowd behavior is shaped by shared identity, rather than being mindless chaos. Leaders and symbols play a massive role in shaping what the group sees as “righteous” or “necessary.”
2. Group Hypnosis or Emotional Synchronization—While not literal hypnosis, crowds can experience deindividuation, where people feel anonymous, less accountable, and more willing to act out not just individually, but especially in group settings.
3. Identity Fusion and Moral Absolutism—In highly polarized environments, people may fuse their personal identity with a group cause, leading to moral absolutism, where dissent feels like betrayal. Adopting extreme views without fully understanding them reinforces a sense of belonging and an almost god-like belief that they are society’s soldiers.
4. Cognitive Shortcuts and Slogan Thinking—When complex issues are reduced to slogans (“he’s a fascist,” “they’re evil”), people rely on heuristics—mental shortcuts that feel emotionally satisfying but lack depth.
Taken together, all of the above suggest that the schism in our society is not, and will not be, closed. We have passed the point of reforming the millions of young people and true believers who are brainwashed and aren’t coming back. Therefore, we need to develop a winning strategy that accepts that for most who have crossed that line, they’re lost forever. That’s an extraordinary challenge that we see here, in Europe, and wherever young children have been indoctrinated against their best interests.
God Bless America!
Author, Businessman, Thinker, and Strategist. Read more about Allan, his background, and his ideas to create a better tomorrow at www.1plus1equals2.com.