The Assassination of Charlie Kirk: An Anti-Dialogue Demagogue who lost his life while Manufacturing Outrage
First and foremost, there is no justification for killing an unarmed fellow human being under any circumstances for any pretext. Similarly, there is no justification for taking women and children hostage for any reason. These universal values stem from the very essence of our humanity. Period.
I have recently been prompted on social media to express my condemnation of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Reflecting on past discussions, I recall a similar urging from two years ago, when I was urged to denounce the Hamas attack on Zionist Israel.
My response to both inquiries remains steadfast: I do not condemn either of these events. It is worth noting that among those resistant to the idea of liberating America from the pervasive culture of gun violence was Charlie Kirk himself.
Instead, we need to denounce the far-right extremists and their brutal state sponsored acts of violence against unarmed peaceful civilians in America during their peaceful pro-Palestinian protests or protests against Trump’s tyranny.
For the past two years, anchors from white Western media have repeatedly posed a single question to their guests: “Do you condemn Hamas for what it did on October 7?” This question takes Hamas’s resistance operation out of context and overlooks the brutal occupation that Palestinians have endured for the last seven decades. During this time, thousands of children and women have been taken as prisoners and have faced treatment that is even worse than what Iraqi prisoners experienced at Abu Ghraib in Iraq in the hands of Americans.
Recently, I have been asked to condemn the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a prominent voice advocating for white supremacy, who acted as a megaphone for both the Zionist Netanyahu and the white supremacist President Trump. Let me ask you this: Is it possible for me to denounce transgender individuals or Palestinians, whose very existence he has dismissed, if they resorted to such violence? After all, Kirk has framed his identity as an existential threat to them.
When he suggests that Palestinians and those in the West Bank are mere figments of imagination, isn’t that a declaration that could ignite real and dangerous consequences? Similarly, by insisting that there are only two genders—male and female—he effectively denies the existence of others, and such denial can have serious consequences as it is perceived as an existential threat by them.
How can I find the moral ground to condemn violence by someone whose very existence is under threat? How could I critique Vivian Wilson, the transgender daughter of Elon Musk, if she were to assassinate her father for posing an existential threat to her identity?
Three Components of a Dialogue
Political communication is comprised of three essential elements, each playing a crucial role in conveying ideas and influencing public opinion. The first element, the message, encompasses the substance being communicated—whether it’s a policy proposal, a campaign promise, or an ideological narrative. The second element, the audience, refers to the individuals or groups receiving the message, whose perceptions, beliefs, and demographics the sender aims to shape, and how the message is interpreted and received by them. Finally, the sender or speaker, along with their underlying agenda, represents the source of the communication, whether it is a politician, a political party, or an organization. This component includes their motivations, values, and objectives, all of which influence how the message is crafted and delivered. Together, these three components create a dynamic interplay that defines the landscape of political discourse.
Charlie’s message to his audience revolved around the ideology of white supremacy, aimed at deepening the divisions within American society. He sought to capitalize on the widespread suffering caused by economic decline, rampant joblessness, and the escalating cost of living—issues that were exacerbated by a lack of effective welfare measures. Instead of addressing these pressing concerns, he redirected blame towards non-European people of color and immigrants, portraying them as scapegoats for America’s struggles. Furthermore, he encouraged far-right extremists to join the paramilitary and the army in their efforts to oppress marginalized communities.
Who was his audience? It comprised of the grand grand sons of White settlers of Americans of European descent, descendants of those who forcibly seized land from Native Americans and contributed to their widespread devastation. This group included the xenophobic and morally bankrupt youth crushed under corporate capitalism, under decline, valuing white supremacy over equity and justice.
What about the sender? Who was Charlie Kirk? For me, he was Christian Madrasah elite, Hitler’s Goebbels, a morally corrupt, spiritually defunct megaphone of White supremacy, and Squealer pig of Orwell’s Animal Farm.
The rise of far-right politics in America is linked to economic uncertainty, loss of social mobility, job losses, economic downturns, cultural anxiety, financial insecurity, and political polarization. Leading people to seek simple explanations and solutions, and strong leadership, which make populist rhetoric appealing.
Americans see the “American Dream” as diminishing, especially among working-class and rural communities, which fosters resentment towards elites, immigrants, and globalization, resulting in a favorable climate for far-right movements that promise national pride and stability.
I do not celebrate Kilks’ demise. I see it as a significant political failure of the left and American working people to address the rise of right-wing demagoguery. I mourn the spiritual and moral decline America that brought us to this point, and I reflect on the church’s complicity in the historical oppression of Black Americans, aligning with colonialism and the machinery of war. It is a heartbreaking reminder of our societal struggles.
I urge you to take heed—the spectre of fascism is looming ominously at your doorstep. The nation stands on the brink of a civil war, with a sharply divided America teetering toward disintegration. Instead of celebrating Kirk’s passing, left should gear up for an explosive conflict, civil war, be ready to confront chaos and violence. It troubles me deeply to witness fellow Americans being assailed by the brutal onslaught of far-right extremists, as fear and hostility permeate the air. The sense of impending turmoil is palpable, casting a dark shadow over America.
The civil war in America will result in fracturing America into two distinct parts: one dominated by supremacist White Americans of European descent, and the other encompassing everyone else—immigrants, people of color, democratic socialists of every race, ethnicity, and faith, as well as anti-Zionist Jews. I wait that transformative day with growing impatience.
Understanding Kirk
To understand Charlie Kirk, let us compare him with Islamic preacher Zakir Naik.
At first glance, an American conservative activist and an Islamic televangelist seem worlds apart, however, they have a lot in common. However, they operate on strikingly similar models of influence, leveraging modern media to target specific audiences. Their commonalities are structural and rhetorical, not ideological.
Kirk frames politics as a battle between “patriotic, real Americans” and a corrupt “elite” establishment (the “Swamp”), mainstream media, and “woke” cultural Marxists.
Naik often frames his discourse as the defence of “true Islam” against a corrupting Western secularism, modernism, and other faiths, including Shia Islam.
Commonality: Both create a clear in-group (their followers) and a defined out-group (the “corrupt” other), which fosters a powerful group identity and loyalty.
Appeal to Absolute Certainty and Ideological Purity:
Kirk presents a version of conservatism and American history that is absolute, often downplaying complexity or historical nuance in favor of a clear, ideologically pure narrative.
Naik speaks with absolute certainty on theological matters, presenting his literal interpretations as the definitive truth, often dismissing alternative viewpoints within Islam and without.
Commonality: They both offer their audiences a sense of unwavering certainty in an uncertain world. This is highly appealing to individuals seeking clear answers and a stable identity.
Mastery of Modern Media and Bypassing Traditional Gatekeepers:
Kirk built his platform through social media (YouTube, Twitter), podcasts, and campus rallies, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers to speak directly to a younger generation.
Naik gained massive popularity through Peace TV, a satellite channel that bypassed national regulations and traditional religious authorities, reaching millions directly in their homes.
Commonality: Both understood the power of direct-to-consumer media to build a loyal following unfiltered by critical analysis or challenging interviews from mainstream journalists.
4. Controversy as an Engine for Engagement:
Kirk is known for making provocative, often inflammatory statements about climate change, immigration, and the LGBTQ+ community. This generates outrage, which his platform leverages for massive engagement, algorithm-friendly content, and fundraising.
Naik has been controversial for his views on other religions, terrorism, and women’s rights. This controversy, while landing him in legal trouble, also cemented his reputation among followers as a fearless speaker of “hard truths.”
Commonality: They both understand that in the attention economy, controversy is currency. It signals to their base that they are unwilling to compromise and are under attack from the “out-group,” which further strengthens in-group solidarity.
Targeting and Mobilizing a Youth Demographic:
Kirk’s entire organization, Turning Point USA, is focused on recruiting and activating college and high school students.
Naik’s style, which incorporates scientific and historical arguments to “prove” Islamic tenets, is specifically designed to appeal to educated Muslim youth who may feel tension between their faith and modern science/secularism.
Commonality: Both identified an underserved youth demographic hungry for an identity and a cause, and they built their empires by speaking directly to that demographics’ anxieties and aspirations.
The Arsenal of Persuasion: Tools and Tactics of the Modern Demagogue
Figures like Charlie Kirk, Musk, and Zakir Naik, though ideologically opposed, function as master rhetoricians within their respective ecosystems. Their effectiveness hinges on a shared toolkit of persuasive techniques that shortcut critical thinking and amplify tribal loyalty. Here’s a breakdown of their key tools and tactics.
1. The False Binary (False Dilemma)
This is the foundational tactic. It simplifies complex issues into an oversimplified choice between two extremes, where only one option is morally acceptable.
How Charlie Kirk Uses It:
Example: “You either stand for the National Anthem and love America, or you kneel and hate it.” This framing ignores all nuances behind the history of racial injustice and the concept of patriotic criticism. It reduces a multifaceted issue to a simple test of loyalty.
Another Example: “We have a choice: free market capitalism or full-blown socialism.” This erases the entire spectrum of mixed economies (like those in Scandinavia, which are capitalist with strong social safety nets) that exist in the real world.
How Zakir Naik Uses It:
Example: “You have only two choices: either the Quran is the word of God, or it is the word of man. If it is the word of man, then you must be able to find an error in it.” This presents a rigid, logical-sounding but ultimately false choice that dismisses theological nuance, historical context, and personal faith.
Another Example: Framing modern life as a choice between “submission to Allah’s law” and “the chaos and immorality of Western secularism.” This ignores the vast diversity of ethical systems and peaceful, prosperous secular societies.
The Goal: To make the audience feel that there is no middle ground, no room for doubt, and that any deviation from their prescribed position is tantamount to aligning with the enemy.
2. Exploitation of Logical Fallacies
These are patterns of reasoning that are logically invalid but psychologically persuasive.
Straw Man Fallacy: Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack.
Kirk: Portraying climate change advocates as wanting to “destroy the entire economy” and “go live in caves.” This caricatures the actual policy proposals for a transition to green energy.
Naik: Claiming that critics of certain Islamic practices actually “hate all Muslims” or “want to destroy Islam.” This avoids engaging with specific criticisms.
Ad Hominem (Attack on the Person): Attacking the character of the opponent instead of their argument.
Kirk: Dismissing a critic as a “soy boy,” “brainwashed leftist,” or “elitist college professor” rather than addressing the data they present.
Naik: Dismissing a questioner’s point because they are “not a scholar” or are “influenced by Western media,” thus disqualifying them without engaging their argument.
Appeal to Emotion (Pathos over Logos): Using language designed to provoke strong emotions (fear, anger, pride) over logical reasoning.
Both: Use vivid, alarming language about the “destruction of the family,” “cultural decay,” or “impending doom” to trigger a fear response that bypasses rational analysis.
No True Scotsman: Protecting a generalization from counterexamples by redefining the qualification arbitrarily.
Naik: If a Muslim commits an act of violence, a follower might say, “A true Muslim wouldn’t do that,” insulating the ideology from criticism.
Kirk: If a conservative is caught in a scandal, a supporter might claim, “He wasn’t a real conservative,” thus protecting the movement’s image.
3. Literal and Selective Interpretation of Sacred Texts
Both use holy texts as ultimate rhetorical weapons, but their interpretations are often highly selective and deployed literally only when it serves their argument.
Selective Literalism:
Zakir Naik: He often promotes a literal interpretation of the Quran when it comes to scientific statements (e.g., embryology in Surah Al-Mu’minun 23:12-14) to “prove” its divine origin, a tactic known as “Quran scientific foreknowledge.” However, on other, more complex or metaphorical verses, he may employ sophisticated theological context (asbab al-nuzul – reasons for revelation) to explain them away. The literal interpretation is a tool used selectively to create a sense of irrefutable truth.
Charlie Kirk & His Allied Preachers: They often cite the Bible literally to support political positions (e.g., specific verses on gender roles). However, they simultaneously ignore the literal teachings of Jesus on wealth and poverty (e.g., “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” – Matthew 19:24) because it conflicts with their pro-capitalist, prosperity gospel worldview.
The Goal of This Tactic: To create an unimpeachable foundation for their claims. By grounding an argument in “God’s word,” they elevate it beyond mere opinion or debatable policy. It becomes a divine command, making dissent seem not just wrong, but blasphemous or unpatriotic. It ends the conversation.
4. Gish Gallop
This debate tactic involves overwhelming an opponent with a rapid-fire barrage of arguments, half-truths, and misinformation, so many that it is impossible to refute them all in the given time.
In Practice: Both Kirk and Naik are masters of this. In a live debate or interview, they will cite a statistic, a historical anecdote, a verse from scripture, and a personal attack in quick succession. The opponent is left flustered, trying to choose which point to address, while the audience, impressed by the sheer volume of claims, perceives the Gish Galloper as the winner. The focus is on the quantity of points, not their quality or accuracy.
The Anti-Dialogue Outcome
These tools are not employed in the service of finding truth or common ground. They are weapons of rhetorical warfare designed to achieve specific goals:
1. Demolish Complexity: They make the world seem simple, which is comforting to audiences overwhelmed by modern life’s complexities.
2. Reinforce In-Group Identity: Using these tactics signals to followers, “I speak your language. I am one of you.”
3. Win the Encounter, Not the Argument: The goal is to dominate the stage, own the opponent, and provide followers with a victory to celebrate, not to engage in a mutual search for understanding.
4. Immunize the Followers: By teaching followers to recognize arguments through the lens of these fallacies and binaries, they pre-emptively discredit any future counter-evidence or nuanced viewpoints the follower might encounter. Any critical fact can be dismissed as “coming from the other side” of the false binary.
Ultimately, the use of these tactics is the hallmark of an anti-dialogue demagogue. They build walls around their followers, not bridges between differing people.
