RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/14/why-the-left-wants-the-right-to-lower-the-temperature/

In the aftermath of the brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk last week, does the Right need to “lower the temperature” of its rhetoric? That’s what the usual suspects on the Left are saying.

As it happens, “lowering the temperature” while simultaneously raising the intelligence of discussion was one of Charlie Kirk’s specialties. A theme of his campus “American Comeback” tour (which his widow, Erika, plans to continue) was dignified debate. “Prove Me Wrong” was Charlie’s mantra. He eagerly engaged with college students who disagreed—or, sometimes, thought they disagreed—with him about a wide range of political, social, moral, and religious issues.

If you have never seen him debate, I recommend you consult Mr. Google or one of his professional counterparts and watch Charlie in action. He was robust but also unfailingly kind, patient, and attentive to his interlocutors. The reason? He wished to persuade his audience about the rightness of his point of view, about the virtues of America, the wisdom of Christianity, and the leadership of Donald Trump.

How about his opponents? The internet is full of revelatory compilations of left-wingers denouncing their opponents as “fascists,” “Nazis,” and so on.

One series (and here is another) includes CNN’s Anderson Cooper asking Kamala Harris whether she thinks Donald Trump is “a fascist.” “Yes, I do” was her answer.

The word “fascist” had obviously been circulated by Democrat headquarters on the run-up to the 2024 election. Tim “Nimrod” Walz (remember him?) told a crowd that “No one has ever been more dangerous to this country than Donald Trump and he is a fascist to his core.”

“There needs to be blood,” we are told, which is only natural, since, as Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut said, “We’re in a war right now, so you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary to save the country.” New York Governor Kathy Hochul agreed. “We are at war,” she said. In his infamous speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Joe Biden said that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” “The very foundations of our republic,” forsooth! Nancy Pelosi, reflecting on Donald Trump’s border policy, said, “I don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country and maybe there will be.”

Uprisings are something that House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries can get behind. “We are going to fight this in the streets,” a sentiment echoed by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker: “Time to step out into the streets,” he said.

It is all part of the ethic summarized by Eric “Wingman” Holder, Barack Obama’s loyal attorney general. “They go low,” he said, “we kick them.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/magazine-obituary/3802514/charlie-kirk-obituary/

Charlie Kirk loved to argue with liberals. That was apparent to all as he sought them out in national college tours. And if you attended any of his events or followed his viral social media posts, many liberals loved arguing with Kirk.

College students, in particular, would line up to challenge Kirk’s views. He often asked them probing questions in return: Why did they think President Donald Trump was a racist? When does life begin? What is a woman? While there is a tradition of that on the Right from Bill Buckley to Ben Shapiro, Kirk took it to another level for the internet age.

Kirk had an even greater appeal to conservatives on college campuses. With the exception of a select few Christian or overtly conservative schools in the country, academia is a lonely place for anyone a millimeter to the right of Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). Conservative students can feel equally, if more temporarily, beleaguered and often compelled to say things they don’t believe to receive passing grades from their professors or social acceptance from their peers.

As the founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, Kirk helped build a network to connect these students and make them feel less alone. A college campus is also where Kirk was murdered, while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University as part of his American Comeback Tour. He was shot in the neck as he was speaking and slumped over in his seat. Leaving behind his wife, Erika, and two young children, Kirk was just 31 years old.

“I want to be very clear that this is a political assassination,” Gov. Spencer Cox (R-UT) told reporters at a press conference afterward. “When someone takes the life of someone because of their ideas or their ideals, then our constitutional foundation is threatened.”

Tragically, we live in an upside-down world where some view speech as violence and opinions as “erasure” of those who disagree. In their minds, this justifies violence in the form of a bullet to the carotid artery mid-speech and the literal erasure of a father from his children’s lives.

Kirk’s impact wasn’t limited to campus politics. During the nadir of then-President Joe Biden’s 2024 reelection campaign, the Democrats had one last hope, which some political operatives thought would be their ace in the hole: an experienced field operation that would get out the vote in the battleground states. Identifying and mobilizing voters is crucial for any campaign in a competitive race. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris inherited Biden’s machine when she replaced him at the top of the Democratic ticket.

Arrayed against this formidable turnout apparatus was the less orthodox Trump mobilization operation spearheaded by Kirk and Elon Musk. Never had they done something like this before, at least not on this scale. Their task was made even more difficult by the fact they were targeting low-propensity voters, younger people with less of a history of showing up at polling places on Election Day.

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/qed/the-assassins-many-accomplices/

Charlie Kirk is murdered in cold blood and now the Democrats come out with their polished statements, their carefully worded condemnations, their feigned shock. I don’t want it. I don’t want to hear Biden or Harris express “disapproval” over this. I don’t want the likes of Rachel Maddow or Joy Reid wringing their hands and pretending to mourn because I do not believe them for a single second.

Their words are ash. Their outrage is theater. Their sympathy is counterfeit.

Charlie was not killed in a vacuum—he was assassinated by a sociopolitical disease. A disease that rots the mind, corrupts the heart, and dissolves every sacred bond that holds a civilisation together. And that disease was not born yesterday. It has been sown deliberately, watered relentlessly, and cultivated day after day, decade after decade, by the very people now offering their condolences.

The left does not get to cry over the corpse of the man whose murder was made possible by the poison they brewed. They do not get to condemn the harvest of the seeds they planted. Their hands are not clean. Their power, their careers, their prominence — all of it has been built on a politics of grievance, resentment, and destruction.

They stoked the envy. They legitimised the rage. They excused the violence. They told generations of young people that life is nothing but power and oppression, that truth is a lie, that responsibility is slavery, that freedom is domination. And then they act surprised when the mob, intoxicated with that creed, takes a knife or a bullet to the throat of those who dared resist it.

The only proper response to their “sympathy” is anger. The only proper reaction is rage. They do not deserve credit for lamenting the blood they themselves helped spill.

Charlie’s assassin was not alone. He had accomplices in every newsroom, in every faculty lounge, in every campaign office that mocked truth and exalted envy. He had accomplices in every pundit who sneered at responsibility and called it oppression. He had accomplices in every politician who excused chaos as “justice.”

This is the reality: Charlie was murdered by an ideology. And those now issuing statements of “condemnation” are the very apostles of that ideology.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/13/charlie-kirk-iryna-zarutska-and-the-death-of-society/

EXCERPT

For more than a decade now, I have been telling friends, readers, clients—anyone who’d listen, really—that it is now and will become increasingly important in the future to be strong and resilient: physically strong, emotionally resilient, spiritually active, financially tough and flexible, and able to handle oneself in a variety of potentially fraught situations. A big part of this is preparation, doing the planning, training, and homework to be “antifragile” (as Nassim Taleb puts it). Another part of it is attitude, having the confidence to handle what you can and the humility to ask for help when necessary. But even all of this is sometimes not enough.

As we have all learned over the past couple of weeks, and as Robert Burns warned us 240 years ago, sometimes even “the best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft agley.” There is nothing Charlie Kirk could have done to prevent Tyler Robinson from killing him. It didn’t matter how strong Kirk was or how prepared, or even that he was an extremely and openly religious man. Even if he were a cross between Hafthor Bjornsson and Imi Lichtenfeld himself, Kirk could not have stopped his assassin’s bullet.

The same is true of Iryna Zarutska. The horrifying picture of her that has been all over the internet this week tells her story. As she looks up at her murderer, shocked and horror-struck that someone is standing above her, her fate is already sealed. She was dead before she likely even understood what had happened, much less recognized that her attacker had a knife. There was nothing she—or anyone else—could have done to stop him. Even if she had been a cross between Hafthor Bjornsson and Imi Lichtenfeld, she still would have died.

As I said, if someone wants you dead badly enough….

Thus has it always been for man, dating back at least to the time of the man, the woman, the snake, and the apple. Indeed, that man and that woman had two sons, one of whom brutally murdered the other out of petty jealousy. This is man’s nature as a fallen creature. It is who he is—who we are.