Should the right feign sorrow at our enemies’ demise?
Tens of millions of Americans have been moved and outraged not just by the shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk, but by the appalling manner in which many leftists have reacted to this tragic event.
The leftist reaction has typically ranged from celebration to outright condoning the heinous act. In this instance, the mainstream right has shown their teeth in response. A widespread collective effort to gather and document instances of such conduct has taken place, led by a number of prominent, influential personalities online. Both mainstream conservatives and those of a more radical, populist and ethnonationalist right persuasion, including Rebecca Hargraves, have harnessed the power of so-called “cancel culture” and turned it against the sort of people who first devised this sort of mob hysteria. Leftist swine have been outed, and many are losing their jobs. Texas for example fired and decertified over 100 teachers for expressing such sentiment.
Overall, this is a positive development. It is defining the terms of discourse and applying both real life sanctions to such conduct along with the social stigma that accompanies such sanctions. This will likely deter such utterances going forward, although there is a strong likelihood that many on the left will double down and even sharpen the inflammatory messaging further. While these developments are positive on the whole, certain details of this outrage, at least from the moderate, mainstream conservative set, have expressed the paradigm far too broadly. They are not asserting that wishing, celebrating, or condoning the death of decent people is morally anathema, rather they are framing the admonition against any such celebration or condonement, as a categorical imperative. This is a fundamental error revealing that far too many mainstream conservatives still think democratic norms apply, that the left should be afforded basic civility and decency.
The key, critical factor that makes these sorts of utterances and outbursts offensive is not the celebration or condonement of another person’s death writ large, as a categorical imperative. Rather, what makes such utterances so utterly despicable and vile is determined by who Charlie Kirk was, and how he lived his life. As readers are doubtlessly all too well aware, Charlie Kirk leaves his wife (now widow) Erika behind, a former beauty pageant contestant and devout Christian, as well as a small son and daughter. The son will almost certainly have no living memory of his father.
Despite leftists denouncing him as a “fascist”, “bigot”, “Nazi”, so on and so forth, a cursory review of Charlie Kirk’s interactions with those he disagreed with reveals a man who was both kind and interested in engaging with those who disagreed with him. He was also a man who (erroneously) believed the political and ideological divide could still be worked out by debate and discussion. The man was actually quite moderate. He was particularly kind to so-called “transgender persons”, much more so than this author would be unless such a person was admitting that this idea was a grave mistake and detransitioning. It is these and other considerations that make celebrating or condoning his death so repugnant, a moral anathema to any decent person.
Wishing death on someone, celebrating someone’s death, even condoning death, provided it is within the confines set forth in the landmark Supreme Court Brandenburg v Ohio, which only prohibits direct, imminent incitement to violence, are perfectly justified when condemning horrible people and ideological enemies with designs on racial and national suicide.
Consider Decarlos Brown Jr., the blackie who cut Iryna Zarutska’s throat on that tram in Charlotte. If he was shanked by a vigilante prisoner in an act of prison justice, would it be reprobate for persons to celebrate his death? Of course not. The same applies to a variety of ideological enemies who not only embrace horrible, civilisation-ruining policy, but who are simply evil people. And should they die, this author for one would smile and celebrate, but not without “reading the room” before making such sentiments public. Consider whether the untimely death of the types of individuals listed below, in the abstract, demands decorum, with lip service about respect and well wishes, or if those more discerning would not celebrate in earnest:
- Corrupt if not outright criminal politicians who have used their station in public life as a sort of milking cow, getting fat on kickbacks, insider trader information, and the like.
- Politicians and other functionaries who have purposefully sought to effectuate the Great Replacement, by purposefully importing hordes of black and brown people in the millions, endangering the very future of European posterity.
- Billionaire financiers and moguls who fund antifa, Black Lives Matter, (in effect domestic terrorist organisations), fund radical district attorneys to further a policy of anarcho-tyranny, whereby law-abiding persons get their unusual or harmless pets murdered while giving both and violent criminals free rein to commit any number of crimes, from shop-lifting, to assault to murder.
- LGBTQ activists on TikTok and other social media who deliberately and purposefully groom children.
The list goes on, and on. These are not merely fellow countrymen with whom right-thinking people have ordinary disagreements. These people are anathema, and present a variety of existential threats to Western civilisation and European posterity. Those who look at them with a critical eye do not just disagree with these figures, but hate them. It is not only acceptable to welcome the deaths of those one justifiably hates, but righteous.
However, based on the paradigm set forth in the condemnations of those celebrating or condoning Charlie Kirk’s assassination, this important distinction does not seem to be recognised by a critical mass of mainstream conservatives.
Indeed, a recent poll indicated that some 77% of mainstream conservatives believe it is “always unacceptable” “for a person to be happy about the death of a public figure they oppose”. Note that the correct answer—“usually unacceptable”—was also available as a response. Admittedly, the qualifier limiting this question “to the death of a public figure they oppose” would exempt instances like Decarlos Brown Jr and other heinous criminals. A hard, unflinching look at some of the sorts of persons listed above, however, reveals them to be far more destructive and evil than heinous criminals who deserve to die.
This consideration in turn reveals that, despite the most recent outrages of the left, the mainstream conservative set still has not abandoned what is at its core its milquetoast, ineffectual essence. A critical mass of conservatives still think that democratic norms apply, that these are irreconcilable differences stemming from fundamental disagreements about core values and first principles. This sentiment likely stems from what would normally be a healthy, important ethos that values not just law and order but civic decorum. That may have applied in the 1950s or even during the Reagan era (although many of the antecedents to the number of existential threats before us were present in those times as well). But it does not apply now. It is this same presentiment which has deluded many in the mainstream right to unequivocally denounce Luigi Mangione, even lauding United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. In actuality, Brian Thompson was a loathsome, vile human being, who min-maxed the so-called health “insurance” game at the cost of human lives and the livelihood and well-being of many more.
These and other instances demonstrate that far too many mainstream conservatives have not yet been imbued with the radical, revolutionary spirit that these extraordinary times require. The assassination of Charlie Kirk was certainly not the first such outrage and tragedy, and, sadly, it will definitely not be the last. The longer such types persist with “nice guy” delusions, the more protracted this window of time will be. It is therefore incumbent on those of a more radical, populist and ethnonationalist persuasion to disabuse them of these errors.
Richard Parker has been published on Counter Currents, The Occidental Observer, and unz.com. Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on Twitter, or X if one prefers, under the handle @astheravencalls.
