Finding Our Own Heroes
Here's why it's important to recognize Charlie Kirk's enormous sacrifice
Maybe the most significant—and tragic—aspect of the Charlie Kirk story is that he was captured by the Zionist conspiracy at the age of 18.
Most 18-year-olds can be convinced of nearly anything and will agree to almost everything. That’s why they are the preferred recruits in a military draft. Those men standing talking on a street in their own city aren’t “residents.” They are “terrorists.”
Okay.
Shoot them.
Okay.
As we get older, we become less and less susceptible to pernicious ideologies—less likely to be captured by subversive conspiracies. But that’s mostly because, with experience, more of our world views become more settled. And who has the energy to believe something different, let alone conspire in some sort of new effort? What we like to think of as judicious reserve is probably less about experience and good sense than it is about obstinance and indolence. Our judgment of Charlie Kirk’s life will probably be more circumspect if we keep that in mind.
More blameworthy are those old people who understand this vulnerability of young people and have made themselves adept at spotting particularly capable youth and capturing them for causes not necessarily in the youth’s best interests—even inimical to them. Those paying attention and who notice patterns know that Jews are especially energetic in the area of indoctrinating the young.
A bill in Congress right now, the Holocaust Education and Antisemitism Lessons Act, would eventually give the Holocaust Memorial Museum effective control over large chunks of the education of every public school student in the United States, K-12. It was introduced by a Jewish senator from Nevada and a Jewish representative from New Jersey.
As another example, Columbia University in New York City was notorious a hundred years ago for being a hotbed of recruitment activity. Jewish communists used positions of influence to target promising members of the freshman class for indoctrination and eventual involvement in espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union. (Witness, by Whittaker Chambers)
And that’s what appears to have happened to Charlie Kirk: he was captured by the Zionist conspiracy when still too young to have solidly formed principles. He showed promise and suddenly he was being shoveled millions of dollars (millions to a teenager!) to keep the youth—the “conservative” youth—of America on board the slaughter train to Zion
Billionaire Putz Bill Ackman: Hey, Charlie. Great job on the show today keeping America informed on how those Palestinian animals are committing genocide against the tiny little country of Israel.
Charlie Kirk: Gee, thanks, Mr. Ackman! I just strongly believe that if every other country has the right to exist, so does Israel!
Ackman: As I’ve told you many times, Charlie, you are a genius with God-given wisdom. Well, I just wanted to stop by and say “hi.” Gotta ru—oh, I almost forgot. I played a couple of clips of today’s show for a few Holocaust survivors. They said that with your talent and God’s blessing they are filled with hope that the suffering of the Jewish people may finally be coming to an end. They asked me to give this to you as a token of their appreciation.
Kirk: Ten! Million! Dollars! Holy smoke, Mr. Ackman! That sure is a lot of money!
Ackman: You can’t put a price on God’s plan, Charlie.
How many of us at 18 would have taken the cash in exactly the same way Charlie did? How many of those so critical of his career spent “shilling for Israel” would take the millions still today even knowing what Charlie didn’t know then—that you can check out of the Hotel Zion, but you can never leave? (It is easy to say you’d turn down the money when you know you’ll never have the chance to.)
Apparently, in the past few weeks, Charlie Kirk turned down an offer of millions of dollars from Jewish-”American” billionaires and a trip to Israel at the personal invitation of the country’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Now 31, Charlie Kirk said no.
Charlie told his friend, Candace Owens, that he feared for his life—that he was afraid Israel was going to kill him. Most of us can’t even imagine what it’s like to live with that kind of fear. Despite the fear, Charlie Kirk said no.
He had a whole life to look forward to as a husband and a father—a life spent comfortably on the heights of political power. All he had to do to live that life was stay on board the slaughter train. But Charlie Kirk said no.
With that, he made himself into one of our best and took his place beside another one of our best, Aaron Bushnell, the 25-year-old soldier who stood in front of the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC, eighteen months ago and said no. Aaron forced his people to look at what the fuck we are doing, for the love of God. He, too, could have walked away, got back on the slaughter train, but, instead, he doused himself with gasoline and lit a match. I will no longer be complicit in genocide, he said.
Nor will I, said Charlie Kirk, and the monstrous Israelis murdered him for it. He was only 31.
At 31, I was just beginning to question our nation-killing immigration policies. It would be many more years before I had the integrity to say no—before I had the courage to say: I will always seek the truth and never stop. I will always say the truth no matter what. I will always demand the truth whenever I can. I will always defend the truth-tellers when they come under attack. I will always denounce the liars who attack them. I will no longer be complicit in genocide.
Let our guilty, broken country say it—shout it, so that the whole world hears it. We will no longer be complicit in genocide.
And let’s recognize Charlie Kirk’s enormous sacrifice. Whatever his motives, whatever the pressures, in the end he stood up to the Jews by turning down the money. He should be a hero to our youth, which can only happen if the real killers are arrested and brought to trial and their employers exposed.
Craig, I hope you don't get carried away and add Charlie Kirk's portrait next to Aaron Bushnell. They have NOTHING in common as far as I am concerned.
In our desire to "find our heroes" we must be careful to separate the grain from the chaff.
Just because the "chosen"--whom he served willingly and vigorously for more than 10 years, spewing Christian zionism dogma all along-- did not appreciate his recent "triangulation" and decided to snuff him does not turn him into a Christian martyr. Least of all our hero.
Funny thing: JD Vance agrees with you. In his speech today at the huge rally in Arizona called him a "Christian martyr."
The makeover of Kirk by JD Vance aligns with the official campaign to distract attention from any reasons Israel had to eliminate him and blame his assassination of the evil Left who hated him for his moral (ergo Christian) values.
Your makeover ignores Kirk's consistent position over the years of cynical support for the genocidal state that reached peaks of absurdity and immorality.
No, he did not have a "change of heart ." He attempted a strategy adjustment: he would throw a few crumbs to his base (which had moved away from unconditional support of Israel) while maintaining his Christian zionist position. He thought the Jews who criticize Netanyahu would agree with him. He had no "trajectory" from then on. At this point he was sentenced to death. He was too popular to be replaced by a internal coup and all the buzz of Charlie alleged "awakening" had to be cut short. Make a martyr of the Left was the ideal solution.
An article published today in UR argues that Israel was not involved in any way in Kirk's assassination because Kirk was not really turning against Israel. I disagree with this because Israel’s (e.g., Netanyahu’s) perception of whether Kirk was becoming a serious liability is what counts not the fact of Kirk’s real liability.
Nevertheless I found the author’s arguments that Kirk was not really “turning against Israel” very useful — factual and convincing:
They are as follows:
"Kirk, a devout Evangelical, publicly declared that Christians had a divine obligation to “bless the Jews,” aligning himself with the most extreme dispensationalist interpretations of scripture.
He parroted Israeli propaganda almost verbatim, denying that Palestinians were even a real people. According to Kirk, they were not only unfit to govern themselves, they were, quite literally, nonexistent.
He denied the mass starvation in Gaza as fiction, and repeated the grotesque liethat Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. Even when it came to military aggression, Kirk stood firm with Israel. Despite some rhetorical hedging, he ultimately endorsed Trump’s bombing of Iran, another clear indication of his unwavering loyalty to the Zionist war agenda.
His point was not to attack Jewish influence, far from it, but to warn liberal Jews that their own ideological activism was endangering Israel’s long-term survival.
Kirk’s statement was clear: “Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years. Stop supporting causes that hate you.” He then tied this directly to the future of Israel. According to Kirk, if you train an entire generation to view the world through the lens of oppressor versus oppressed, that lens will inevitably be applied to Israel—and Israel will not survive the scrutiny. “Until you cleanse that ideology from the hierarchy in the academic elite of the West,” he warned, “there will not be a safe future. I’m not going to say Israel won’t exist, but Israel will be in jeopardy.”
This is not anti-Semitism. It is not even criticism. It is a tactical warning, entirely consistent with Israeli PR strategy. In the very same episode, Kirk praised the fact that wealthy Jews were finally pulling their money out of the universities they had previously funded—institutions now pushing anti-Israel narratives. This is pure Hasbara, the sort of rhetoric that has been echoed for decades by pro-Israel Jewish intellectuals themselves.
It is plausible that Kirk felt pressure and fear, but what followed was compliance, not resistance.”