People Lied and Charlie Kirk Died

            After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I had a social media friend –not celebrate his murder– but more justify it based on an out-of-context quote Kirk made on gun control.  I’d been friends with her for a little less than 20 years.  I’d always liked her and thought she was a very cool person.  I knew we disagreed on politics; we’d had many debates in the past.  I thought they were amicable discussions and they never grew heated.  At least, on my end, they never grew heated.  I wonder, now, if I was misreading the temperature of things on her end.

            Then Charlie Kirk was killed and it was revealed to those on the right that there are many people in this country who would like to see them dead on account of their right-leaning opinions.  The celebrations and justifications weren’t just happening on the far reaches of the internet.  I had several friends who were jarred that they had friends celebrating a man being executed for his speech.  

            When my leftist friend posted the out-of-context justification for his murder, I was appalled, but unsure as to how to proceed.  I was seeing her in a possibly whole new framework.  I had thought our political jousting was friendly.  That we each wanted the same good ends, we just had different ideas about how to get there.  I now had to take into account that I had possibly been de-humanized to her because I occupied a place right-of-center and that the silencing of my speech – by whatever means – was justifiable.  Is it possible that she saw me that way?

            I’m going to hypothesize that yes, she did see me that way in that she ended up unfriending me and blocking me.  An almost 20-year friendship down the tubes because I commented with the full context of a video snippet she posted about Trump supposedly calling for violence against Liz Cheney (he was not) and then pointed out that another anti-Trump post she made was probably more of a state issue and not a Trump issue.  There was no fighting, no exchange of insults, no escalation at all.  I simply provided a differing point of view (the truth) and that was the bridge too far.

            And honestly, I wouldn’t have said anything on either post if Charlie Kirk hadn’t just gotten killed over lies said about him and the passing around of his out-of-context quotes.  Both of which I kept seeing as justification for his being assassinated.  I had now seen the danger of letting lies and mischaracterizations go unanswered that I hadn’t see before September 10^th.  I, stupidly, thought if I provided her with evidence of the truth, that she might see reason or, at the very least, have a discussion that we both might learn from.  I was ignorant of the full extent of the persuasive conditioning she’d been enduring on her side of the political spectrum.

            Scott Adams, creator of the comic Dilbert and – I recently found out– a hypnotist, I think gave a pretty good explanation as to how we’ve gotten to where we are with political violence.  Since 2016, there has been a steady, daily, constant barrage from the leftwing politicians and the mainstream media that Trump is “literally Hitler” and anyone who votes for him are fascist nazis.  These daily suggestions (the constant repetition is what matters) have set it up so that there is an entire segment of our population that has been hypnotized into thinking that we are living in Hitler’s Germany.  Adams calls this the Hitlerian Bubble.  This segment of the population is living in a world in which they think Hitler has come to power in the United States and this is “distorting their opinions and actions.”  

            So, according to this leftwing bubble many people have built around themselves: 

1. Trump is Hitler 
2. Anyone who voted for him are nazis
3. We’re living in totalitarianism
4. They are the antifascists and so
5. This justifies violence against their political opponents who must be, by default, fascists

By its nature, this sort of bubble would not only be wary of opposing viewpoints, but downright hostile to them.  Even when presented with irrefutable facts, cognitive dissonance would set in, keeping the bubble impenetrable.  And through social media, this has turned into a kind of mass hysteria for the bubble people as evidenced by them collectively claiming what a horrible person Charlie Kirk was and yet unable to provide a single example for their claims (despite thousands of hours of video of Kirk online).

They see those that don’t agree with them as an enemy and one that can’t be talked to.  

“I had enough of his hatred.  Some hate can’t be negotiated out,” wrote Charlie Kirk’s assassin after killing a man who welcomed friendly debate with, in particular, those that disagreed with him.  The “anti-fascist” used violence to silence the “fascist” while the “fascist” was giving the “anti-fascists” a platform on which to speak.

If one thinks the mass hypnosis of an entire segment of the population is hog wash, one should know that 1/3 of Democrats now think that Charlie Kirk was killed by a right-winger.  Even though it has been revealed that the murderer was a gay furry that lived with his trans lover and who etched several messages with leftwing, dehumanizing vernacular like “Hey fascist! Catch!” on the shell casings meant for his target, a well-known MAGA conservative Christian.  Regardless of the facts, the hypnotic suggestions had gone out.  “It was one of the right’s own.”  “It was a groyper.”  “It was the MAGA gang.”

One third of democrats believe the exact opposite of what the evidence shows.  And why wouldn’t they?  They’re the anti-fascists, after all.  They’re the good guys.  They’re the ones cheering the killing of a man in cold blood because they don’t like what he said, even though most of them don’t even know what he’d actually said because they’d never taken the time to watch any of his debates.  A man who said evil things like “Disagreement is invited.” or “Be brave and have debate.”  How dare he encourage a free and open exchange of ideas?  How dare he not, instead, teach people to turn their comments off?  Or limit their comments to only people that agree with them?  Or unfriend and block a 20-year friend who might have a different point of view?  Or punch people in the face?  Or shoot people with differing ideas because “speech is violence”?

Truth said, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.” (John 15:18). I don’t like to be hated but I can’t keep quiet anymore when people are spreading lies about other people.  September 10^thshowed me what my cowardice can lead to.  In standing up for the truth, I may have lost a friend but I can’t stand down anymore because Charlie Kirk lost his life.