One man's reaction to Charlie Kirk's martyrdom

About a leading Christian thought leader, martyr and possible future President

I have several reactions to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. I didn’t follow him or watch his program because I found him too earnest and often a shill for the Zionistas, a cause I do not embrace. Be that as it may, my impression of Charlie, having spent a few hours reviewing various interviews and clips, and as I recently posted on X, is that he was: “A young, articulate, activist, Christian, conservative constitutionalist intellectual, an emerging thought leader of his generation.” He is now also a Christian martyr. One clip in particular struck me:

https://x.com/AshleySCHowes/status/1966138621330862219

If you navigate above my reply, cited above, you will find a 5-minute clip wherein Charlie argues that the US Constitution is clearly and explicitly grounded in Christian faith as evidenced in all the early, original State Constitutions - something of which I was unaware. No doubt there are many who would argue with his take but it is articulate and deeply thoughtful. Although only 31 and growing up within the increasingly kaleidoscopic social media context in which most national news is now embedded, on listening to this clip I realized that Charlie was a member of the current intellectual class, which in earlier days enjoyed great influence in society. When I was growing up in London England in the sixties, there were a handful of leading intellectuals whose views featured frequently in national op-ed pages or interviews on evening television. Today’s milieu is more fractured but at least in terms of how many people regularly listened to him, calling him a leading American intellectual, at least amongst his own generation, is not a stretch.

With Charlie in this clip, you can see he had a sincere, faith-based approach to his intellectualism and although some might deplore this as naive, even pedantic, nevertheless it is impossible to deny his sincerity and passion. To my mind he was someone who from an early age had a vision, dreamed of a path embodying that vision, and then actually walked that path. This is something all honourable men should aspire to do but few actually achieve. Charlie did. This is no small thing.

So what path was he walking on? Obviously I cannot say for sure after so rapid a survey, but it seems to me that he was passionately advocating for a constitutional vision of the United States of America as formed and bound by Christian faith and outlook. As such he was emerging as a thought leader in the Christian conservative movement and as such already exploring a key fault line therein involving their seemingly unconditional support of Israel. There is a recent youtube interview in which he moderates a debate between Dave Smith (lightweight Jewish libertarian intellectual) and Josh Hammer (lightweight Jewish intellectual and Israel cheerleader); also an interchange with the influential conservative newscaster Megyn Kelly in which they deplore the pressure on American conservatives to toe the Israel-uber-alles party line. Clearly, Charlie was open to this critical perspective and given his huge platform in social media and with his daily show on Real America’s Voice following MAGA-thought leader Steve Bannon, and given his public, articulate advocacy of a faith-based Christian perspective inspiring so many people of his generation (and indeed in no small part due to his frequent appearances on US college campuses the past ten years many people his age and now in university have been embracing Christian faith, a relatively new phenomenon) Charlie could be regarded as a direct threat to secular Jewish intellectual movements which have been dominating Western nations for at least a century. In this regard, listen to this short clip in which he blames the extensive anti-white movement - which clearly exists - on secular Jewish influence. This is intellectual dynamite, no doubt suppressed on social media which is why I had never come across it before.

Another take from an ex-spook, Larry Johnson:

So Charlie was a front line thought leader in the ongoing war for the future direction of the American republic and people, a more important figure than I had previously realized. That said, I had already formed the opinion based on listening to him a few times that he was on track to being a senior contender for US President one day and am not surprised to have heard several others say the same since his death yesterday. Indeed, that thought is what has prompted my piece on this generally dormant substack. (Might change soon, stay tuned…)

Assuming that Charlie may well have been President one day, what might that have involved? I think principally he would have ended up confronting the excessive influence of secular Jewish-driven thought whilst serving as a forceful advocate for a Christian view of the US Constitution and what constitutes American civic life, its social contract, the role of prayer and religious services in daily life.

In short, he would have been a deeply transformative American and world leader given his proven ability not only to articulate such complex faith-related perspectives in real-time with hostile interlocutors but also his demonstrated real-life commitment to walking the path he so faithfully manifested. 

Men who follow their dreams are exceptional, they are examples, they are true leaders who in turn inspire others to follow in their footsteps. Had Charlie been allowed to keep maturing, he may have been the first American civil leader to confront the pernicious, subversive influence of concerted, self-serving secular Jewish influencing which has been undermining the American republic for far too long. 

Is this pernicious secular influence Jewish alone? Assuredly not. International finance and banking in both private and public sectors obviously play a large part as does the entire socio-political edifice built around so-called capitalism. My beef with the current zeitgeist, which I often muse about, is that it stems from materialism, by which I mean the superstition that only the physical is real, that non-materialist values and qualia are a) non-existent and so b) unimportant. The end result of this world view is nihilism which in the political sphere leads to a predilection for overthrowing established societies to replace them with false, ideology-formulated utopias of one sort or another which promise well-being for all whilst usually delivering one form or another of mass slavery with a small elite at the top, the so-called ‘one percent’, sitting above it all enjoying the fruits of the masses labour. They destroy, they do not build. They imitate, they do not create. They end up pushing Evil because they are unable to value Good. This materialist perspective is what is behind the relentless push to secularize our social realities, to replace God with laboratories and peer-reviewed papers, to replace Kings and Queens with elected (middle class) representatives, to replace spirituality-based morality and culture with law courts. This mentality, obviously, is not held only by Jews, however I believe as a well organized network within various host nations they have done more than any other visible group or movement to promote it. They are its principle thought leaders, we could say.

This trajectory has been worsening of late, because if you look at what is happening in both the UK and US where Common Law courts are supposed to hold sway, increasingly they are abandoning all of its basic principles and operating like Stalinesque show trials, kangaroo courts. Repeat offenders are frequently released back into the public to return to raping and murdering new victims; those who fight back when attacked are prosecuted and the perpetrators let go. Essentially, the West is under concerted attack; this is not just ineptitude and incompetence. In this context, Charlie Kirk was emerging as someone who was ready, willing and able to confront this destructive secular movement undermining the basis of American and Christian society.

Regular criticism of Israeli policies and actions has only recently begun to start percolating in MAGA media circles with three of the leading voices raising questions, namely Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and more recently Charlie Kirk. I am not writing this in order to speculate as to who killed him yesterday and why, however just stepping back and viewing how this young man was leading his life and the ideas he was promulgating, clearly the secular Jewish materialist strain now so dominant in the UK and US (and other nations) was beginning to come under scrutiny from leading intellectuals like Charlie Kirk and his death has certainly benefited them. However, I must stress that IMO discussing Israel is just an opening into the larger, deeper and more important discussion about the overall direction this secular mindset, so essential in the modern age which gave us the Industrial Revolution starting about two hundred years ago, is leading us. The issues around AI involve this debate; any substantive discussion or movement to effect meaningful reform will have to involve this debate. The Israel question is a manifestation of part of the issue, a symptom of the issue, but not the issue itself.

In the Western context, is it possible for us to push back against nihilistic materialism now dominant in our societies without also pushing Christianity? Or is Christianity a faith which must be embraced in our society in order to reverse the secular, anti-sacred, anti-Life, anti-Creation trajectory? I ask this as someone who embraced Buddhism in his youth, and still am loyal to it, although I also feel that it doesn’t quite work properly if I live in countries where it is not widely practiced and understood. I personally would not advocate for a non-Christian push to counter pernicious secularism because I think Christianity is a bedrock element of Western Civilization. That said, I have often wondered over the years whether or not the growth of secular materialism is due to Christianity having lost its hold on Western cultural consciousness and therefore wondered if whether or not it might be time to explore new ways of embracing non-materialist spiritual methods and praxis?

This is not the time or essay for that question; for now I rest with the observation that this exceptional young thought leader, or intellectual, was moving towards confronting this dilemma at the core of all challenges facing the modern West. This is not about whether or not to support Israel per se, nor even Christianity versus any other faith, but rather pointing out that our civilization needs to face hard questions about where modern secular materialism, which has been driving the West the past few centuries, has led us, and if we need to effect a profound course correction.

I think we need to face such hard questions and suspect he might well have had a great role to play therein, and I now believe, having contemplated all this, that this is why he was gunned down yesterday, precisely in order to prevent this debate from percolating up through American society and the West and modern world in general; also to ensure that this charismatic, sincere and persuasive leader would never become President.