Charlie Kirk: May his death not be in vain

The death of Charlie Kirk, the charismatic conservative activist and founder of Turning Point USA, shot and killed on Sept. 10, 2025, during an event at Utah Valley University, is not just a personal tragedy. It is the climax of a violent trend that has become normalized in the United States, particularly on the radical left wing. What began as inflammatory speeches, hate chants at protests and divisive rhetoric on social networks, has escalated into acts of extreme violence that have claimed innocent lives.

Let us recall cases such as the murder of Brian Thompson, the healthcare entrepreneur and CEO of UnitedHealthcare, shot in New York in December 2024 by a radicalized dissident; or the heinous shooting attack on the young Israeli embassy employee couple, riddled with bullets in May 2025. Let us also not forget the assassination attempt against President Donald Trump in July 2024 in Butler, Pennsylvania, or on the other side, the assassination of Democrat Melissa Hortman, speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives. These are just a few extreme cases of daily violence targeted at those who think differently.

This escalation demands a deep introspection on the American left. It is time for honest self-criticism: radicalism must be left behind. The explosion of delusional hatred against anyone who dares to assert that there are only two sexes, that Israel is legitimately defending itself from the genocidal terrorism of Hamas, who opposes abortion, who wants to police the borders, or who presents sound conservative arguments, has poisoned the public discourse.

This rhetoric has not only silenced dissenting voices, but has permeated the streets and universities, encouraging physical assaults against conservatives and pro-Israelis.

Two extremes meet each other

Tragically, this radical dynamic has generated a ripple effect in a minority sector of the right, where figures such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens have amplified a discourse that, ironically, resembles that of their supposedly radical adversaries. Their poorly disguised anti-Semitism, their defense of Islamic terrorism and of bloody authoritarian enemy regimes of the West are identical to the extremes they criticize. Always wrapped in arguments based on nonsensical conspiracy theories, historical distortions and even absolute lies, the intent of these two extremes seems clear: to impose delusional preconceptions or spread propaganda from shadowy sponsors seeking to erode the pillars of the West. This has infected impressionable young people, who end up viewing political debate as a matter of life or death, justifying violent attacks against figures like Kirk, or some other, under the illusion of doing good.

Conservatives like Kirk advocate precisely that freedom for all, even those who seek to abolish it. However, they receive only hatred... and bullets.Leandro Fleischer

Charlie Kirk, however, stood aloof from these delusions. Unlike some former allies who chose to amplify destructive propaganda against the United States, Israel and the West in general, Kirk was a genuine patriot. He loved his country, valued freedom and appreciated the historical cost of the institutions that protect our rights. Yes, he had criticisms of what he felt was wrong with his nation, but always within a framework of freedom of speech that allowed for dissent.

He was accused of being racist, misogynist and homophobic, but these were slanders projected by his detractors. Talking about real challenges in the black community is not racism; it is the opposite. Believing in the traditional family and protecting women is not misogyny; it is just being conservative. To assert that there are only two sexes is to acknowledge basic biology, not to hate homosexuals or transgender people. And pointing out the left's double standard is not bigotry; it is pure rationality.

Kirk advocated dialogue for peaceful coexistence

Kirk did not seek to silence anyone. On the contrary, he advocated dialogue as the only way for peaceful coexistence in a diverse society. That is why, at his events and debates, he would give the microphone to left-wing and other extremists, allowing public confrontations before thousands - or millions, via social networks. He was a master of rhetoric: intelligent, quick with answers, with crystal-clear ideas that often left his opponents mute.

Students would try to humiliate him by reminding him of his lack of formal academic studies, but he would cleverly turn the argument on its head: a person without a degree would disarm an academic only with common sense. Thus he exposed the erosion of common sense in universities, guilty of indoctrinating instead of educating. He always did so with a serene smile, an enviable lucidity that unmasked the self-proclaimed masters of morality and the ignorant Nazis fed by viral memes.

Despite the hatred he received, Kirk stole young people from the left: he convinced them with logic, not fury. Had he been a violent, mindless skinhead, perhaps he would have been ignored or even tolerated, using him as an excuse for their narrative. But Kirk didn't fit into that binary trap of extremes. He was a devout believer, inspired by the Bible, but his arguments were secular, accessible to all.

One could disagree with Kirk - I myself do not share all his views - but his style was thought-provoking. It forced one to meditate, to question one's own biases, breaking the wall of polarization that prevents us from listening to the other side. That is not easy in these times.

The dangerous normalization of violence and intolerance

It is inconceivable that defending conservative positions requires bravery, that Kirk should have died for supporting Israel, rejecting gender ideology or stating that Islamism is incompatible with Western values of freedom and human rights, and so on. In fact, no one should die for holding the opposite opinion. Conservatives like Kirk defend precisely that freedom for all, even for those who seek to abolish it. However, they receive only hatred -- and bullets.

This normalization of violence has been escalating for years, and the nauseating celebrations of young - and not so young - people after his death reveal a society where human life is worth less than a like on networks. Maybe that's why woke radicals defend Islamic terrorism: they are becoming just that, globalizing the Intifada alongside Islamist allies who see them as useful idiots, eager to behead them once their role is fulfilled. And beware of right-wing extremists, who feed the same cycle.

May his death not be in vain

The far left, eager to assert itself, sees figures like Kirk as obstacles. If they can't win by fair means—with arguments—they will do so by foul means. This murder must mark a turning point. This assassination should mark a before and after. May Charlie's death not be in vain: may it drive a collective introspection, curbing the violence he always repudiated. Only then will we honor his legacy of dialogue in a country where intolerance is becoming the norm.