The murder of Charlie Kirk represents the extreme sharp end of ‘cancel culture’. ‘Cancel culture’ begins with not wanting to hear someone’s ideas and metaphorically clapping one’s hands over one’s ears, progresses to shouting someone down so they can’t be heard, moving on to trying to get them ‘de-platformed’ or have their public appearances cancelled so no-one else can exercise their free choice to hear then either, to doxing – where a person’s home address or family details are publicised with the intention of stalking or intimidating them into silence, to physical violence – and finally, at the very end of the spectrum – to murder. Nothing says “I don’t want to hear you” more conclusively than killing the speaker.
It was also an act motivated by hate. All murder begins in fear or hatred, or both. His suspected murderer, Tyler Robinson, had apparently accused Charlie Kirk of ‘hate speech’ though it would be more accurate to say Kirk spoke ‘speech that was hated’ and Robinson hated it enough to want to kill Charlie Kirk.
After the initial shock wore off the multiplicity of Leftist or ‘woke’ voices on the internet and social media were quick to try and dissociate from the crime, whilst incongruously celebrating it at the same time. The rumour mill swung into full gear: ‘Kirk’s murderer was a follower of Nick Fuentes’. Nick Fuentes turns out to be someone supposedly even more extreme in views than Kirk was accused of holding by the woke Left. In other words, Kirk was killed for not being as extreme in his views in Nick Fuentes. The far-right had killed ‘one of their own’ for not being far-right enough. Unfortunately for the woke Left this makes about as much sense as the conspiracy theory that Trump staged one or both assassination attempts on him. The easiest way to demonstrate the absurdity of such a theory is to ask anyone holding it to voluntarily stand 200 yards downrange of a large-calibre centrefire rifle and take a shot at their head aiming to miss it enough to just clip and bloody their ear, while they are moving around and have no idea of when that shot will be taken. No one but a complete fool would even dream of doing such a thing.
The case has not yet been tried in Court so it is still not proven who killed Charlie Kirk or who wanted him dead. But the Left’s reaction to finding itself a suspect or factor in the murder shows the desperate incoherent and illogical lengths the woke Left go to avoid taking any responsibility for their rhetoric, the ultimate implications of their cancel culture, and to present themselves as ‘the good guys’ – even if they bully and murder their way to pre-eminence.
While the woke Left on social media openly celebrated Kirk’s death, the left-leaning mainstream media were more guarded in their reaction, though on the whole still seemed to welcome it or at least to hint that Charlie brought it on himself. In between the ‘shock’ and ‘tragedy’ of Kirk’s death were plenty of adjective-riddled allusions to ‘controversial far-right / alt-right figure’ ‘accused by his critics of misogyny and hate speech’ ‘outspoken conservative’ or else sandwiched his death in between a list of other politically-motivated attacks such as those on Democrats, in order to fit it into a wider pattern and thereby dilute the impact of Kirk’s own death.
Of course it could be argued by the mainstream media that these are all valid points to make but it doesn’t seem to match how left-leaning mainstream media treats deaths like that of Lyra McKee, an LGBTQ activist assassinated in similar circumstances in Derry in 2019. Once the connections between the chief suspect in Kirk’s assassination – one Tyler Robinson – and woke issues like transgenderism began to surface, the mainstream media seemed to lose its appetite for reporting on the case, perhaps anxious not to cause audiences to make connections between the two topics.
Again, we will have to wait till the case comes to trial to get any solid idea of the facts that emerge. Even then we may never know the full truth. Already rumours are doing the rounds that Mossad was behind the assassination as the hugely-influential Kirk was known to be having a change of heart in relation to his support for Israel. If nothing else, it demonstrates his very open-mindedness as he was known until recently to be a staunch supporter of the Israeli cause. Will this turn into another ‘Who Killed Kennedy’
case? Will Tyler Robinson be the Lee Harvey Oswald of the early 21 st century? Time will show the assassination of Charlie Kirk as significant a cultural event as the assassination of Martin Luther King, a moment when murder was used to shut down the conversation, the killing of a moderate and opening the way for extremists. Among the parallels between Kirk and King are their willingness to dialogue, to peaceful protest, and above all that the values of each were firmly rooted in the Gospels. Kirk was an
evangelical Protestant considering conversion to Catholicism; and King, a Baptist minister. Both were also martyrs, albeit involuntary ones – both died because of, and for, their beliefs.
While the shooting of Kirk can be described as the sharp end of cancel culture, this is only a symptom of the real problem which runs far deeper and is likely insoluble. Here in Ireland, our own leaders expressed their shock and outrage , with Taoiseach Michael Martin saying “there is no place for the gun in politics, no justification for violence in democratic debate”.
He is right, of course. The killing of Kirk is rightly seen as the killing of a moderate who at least was open to dialogue and invited it. It is rightly seen as a violent message that ‘dialogue is over’ – and what does that leave us with but extremism? Sane voices called for calm, a return to sanity and ‘a return to dialogue’.
But is dialogue possible? When Islamic terrorists gunned down the staff of offensive satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, there was an outpouring of support from left-leaning media and woke activists. The cry of ‘Je Suis Charlie!’ went up everywhere, railing and rallying against this attack on free speech. When a man – ironically, named Charlie – is gunned down to silence free speech and invitation to dialogue – there is celebration in woke circles and discreet approval in left-leaning media. When Jimmy
Kimmel’s show was axed over his remarks on Charlie Kirk’s murder it was seen as a ‘bad day for the freedom of speech’. When Kneecap had their case for supporting a proscribed organisation and calling for the murder of MPs dropped – due to a technicality in length of time in trying the case – there was an air of celebration in left-leaning media. A victory for free speech. The same Kneecap had only shortly before signed a petition to get what they described as a ‘far-right’ music festival Mise Éire cancelled in Leitrim. Bizarrely the same petition to de-platform Mise Éire was also signed by singer Christy Moore. Yes, the same man who dolorously protested the censorship of Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act in the 1983 song of the same name:
“What is it they think we cannot comprehend here
What do they fear our reaction might be? Might be?”
Indeed, Christy, indeed.
How can one explain such glaring inconsistency, such obvious hypocrisy? The answer can be summed up in one word: relativism. And relativism is the insoluble problem faced by Western Society today. For almost 1800 years the ‘west’ was based on the assumption there is such a thing as Absolute Truth. That there are Objective Truths that transcend diverse human opinion.
This is because the Western world (and the eastern Orthodox empire) was grounded in a belief in God, a belief in a meaningful purposeful creation. The truths about these were above human dissent and all truth was related to this prime Truth. Indeed Jesus had described himself as ‘the Way, the Truth and the Life’. Not ‘a truth’ one among many, but ‘The Truth’. But even then Jesus too had to face cancel culture: Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own authority, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29 but I know him because I am from him and he sent me.” At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not yet come. (John 7:28-30) “… Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds…” (John 8:58- 59)
Jesus also had to face relativism: “Truth? “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him….” (John 18:38) Pilate was indisposed to see Truth even when it was literally standing right in front of him. He then washes his hands of Jesus’ death, perhaps inadvertently revealing the underlying purpose of relativism: abnegation of personal responsibility. Despite this, a culture which believes in God is also primed to believe in the existence of Objective Absolutes, God being a kind of Objective Absolute in Himself. It is possible to believe that there is an Objective Meaning and Purpose to material reality and this meaning and purpose can be known insofar as it relates to us, and is not dependent on our subjective opinions. Moral terms like ‘good’ and ‘evil’ can only have Objective Meaning in a material universe that is not relativist.
All that was about to change in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Castle Church door. Protestantism ushered in something subtly different. Even though western society still believed in God and the idea of Absolute Truth, with varying interpretations of the Bible The Truth was broken into ‘many Truths’ – your Bible Truth and my Bible Truth. It has been argued that the Reformation laid the groundwork for modern relativism (see for example, ‘Revolt Against Reality’ by Gary Michuta). Yet society was still tied to the idea that one interpretation might be true and another not true (or one reading of the Bible the accurate interpretation whilst another is heresy and error). By degrees as western society abandoned God and religious life, all that was left was relativism, and moral relativism. The Cornerstone had been rejected (Psalm 118:22 and Matthew 21:42)
The underlying problem with relativism is that it denies there is any Absolute Truth, even though statements like ‘there is no such thing as Absolute Truth’ are in themselves self-contradictory. Truth then often becomes simply a matter of personal preference in many or most aspects of life, especially in areas such as morality. But if there is no Absolute Truth neither can there be any Absolute Good or Evil – the terms no longer have any Objective meaning – and no grounds beyond personal preference for any moral system: you like apples, I like pears – which one of us is ‘right’? And relativism is no longer even confined to abstracts like morality, which have long been argued over. Today, a person can ‘self-identify’ and it becomes ‘truth’ if they say so, regardless of any Objective facts. Such a state of affairs can only arise in a society underpinned by relativism. This also helps explain the glaring inconsistency of a left-leaning body politic’s outpouring of sorrow over the tragic murder of Lyra McKee whilst almost gloating over the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Or celebrating the ‘free speech’ of Kneecap having their case dismissed whilst the same band signs a petition to cancel Mise Éire in Leitrim. The reason the Left see no inconsistency here is that the Left has largely reduced all Truth to relativism: ‘truth’ is simply the version of life the Left prefer, period. And even that is not static – what was ‘true’ yesterday may no longer be ‘true’
today as fashions change: growing up in the 1970s and 1980s I remember ‘woke’ voices mocking marriage as ‘a bit of oul’ paper’ (because co-habitation was the fashion at the time and marriage was seen as something ‘to do with the Catholic Church’) until 2015 rolled round and marriage became a ‘human right simply everyone must have’ and important enough to go out and vote in a referendum over. So… ‘a bit of oul’ paper’ or ‘a human right’? Or the people who in the 1970s and 80s mocked priests as ‘a man in a dress [cassock] telling us what to do…’ As Pilate might say ‘what is truth?’
In contrast, the conservative or ‘right’ body politic tend to lean towards the idea that there is still such a thing as Absolute Truth, possibly because more conservatives tend to still believe in God to some degree (though it’s not a given) especially in places like the USA.
Why then is relativism such a problem in the context of the assassination of Charlie Kirk? It is because amidst all the calls for ‘ongoing dialogue’ and ‘we need to talk to each other’ it is being overlooked that in a relativist world this is an utterly pointless exercise: If there is no Absolute Truth then quite simply, there is nothing meaningful to debate or discuss.
Everything – and nothing – is true and untrue at the same time, because ‘truth’ has been reduced to a set of personal preferences. What is the point of effectively arguing over whether you are right for liking apples and I right for liking strawberries? Moreover, because relativism relies so heavily on one’s own personal preferences and beliefs, any challenge to that worldview will necessarily be taken far more personally than challenges to Absolutes that transcend us individually. This is perhaps why the Left’s
reaction to challenges to its beliefs is so vociferous and cancel culture their preferred tool of debate. In a relativist world debate is of necessity less of a debate on ideas than a personal attack on a person’s carefully crafted identity.
As long as these world-views don’t collide an uneasy peace can be maintained – though not a meaningful one. But what happens when one party wants the window open and the other wants it closed? Both wants cannot logically be accommodated at the same time and one must give way. Even within ‘woke’ circles we see how this plays out in disagreement over issues like transgenderism and the heated emotional ad hominem responses this often seems to draw forth. The best we can hope for is some form of accommodation where various ‘truths’ overlap and some form of conflict where they don’t. There is no right or wrong or even Right or Left in such a scenario, but simply ‘might is right’.
As long as any part of world is underpinned by relativism there is no point in discussion unless it is to wean the world away from relativism. And maybe that’s why Charlie Kirk’s speeches cut so much to the bone and caused such controversy. Not because he touched on taboo topics, but because he – wittingly or otherwise – was chiselling away at the foundations of relativism.
Share this: