The Perilous Trivialization of Horror

He was a young and charismatic conservative leader who advocated for freedom of speech, open debate, the defense of the United States and the family, and who proudly displayed his Christian faith. His motto was "prove me wrong…" He sought to reclaim for conservatives and republicans a space he considered invaded and indoctrinated by wokism, but peacefully, through dialectics and debate. One may or may not agree with him, but can it truly be said that attempting to win the battle of ideas through dialogue is fascist? Certain factions, sadly a growing number of them, on the left find it unacceptable that moderate and more conservative right-leaning and conservative figures should "dare" to enter what they have long considered their private fiefdoms.

In Spain, it is center-right and conservative members of Parliament and politicians who have suffered violence and threats in some university faculties; we recall the extremely serious incident against Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo in Barcelona or the one against the President of the Community of Madrid (the equivalent of a US Governor) at the Faculty of Information Sciences (of which she is an alumna!), to mention just two of many cases, and not to speak of the barbarism of ETA's beastly cubs in the universities of the Basque Country. It must be stated from the outset that being a conservative (I do not consider myself one, but it is essential to defend the right of conservatives and center-right voters like myself) is not a dangerous infectious disease to be eradicated, as seems to be the opinion of a growing number of leftists around the world.

The backdrop to this tragedy is as incendiary as the act itself: Kirk, key Trump ally and the undisputed architect and symbol of the growing youth conservative movement—which was decisive in Trump defeating Kamala Harris by 36 points among young voters—was a deliberately targeted and silenced figure. They knew the huge impact and damage they were inflicting by murdering a popular and admired symbol of the conservative youth. This is far more serious than what a certain type of media is reporting. It is an attack on the very heart of free speech, of which Kirk was a great champion. The shot rang out just as he had finished a speech denouncing "woke indoctrination" on campuses, evoking echoes of historical assassinations that have marked U.S. democratic institutions with blood, intolerance and hate.

However, what has amplified the horror is the indecent aftermath in certain sectors of the media and among left-wing commentators, where coverage has ranged from tepid, almost perfunctory condemnations to open mockery—with phrases suggesting his death was "karma for his defense of firearms." The statements celebrating the assassination and the ironic memes juxtaposing Kirk's pro-Second Amendment stance with his death are terrible; they have proliferated on platforms like X and TikTok, drawing bipartisan rebukes, including from President Donald Trump, who called it an "atrocious assault on free speech."

In 2024 alone, the U.S. has seen nearly 11,700 hate crimes, the overwhelming majority committed by individuals under 29. The statistic is misleading because it speaks of a 1.5% percentage decrease from 2023. However, the data is disturbing, as both anti-Semitic and politically motivated hate crimes have increased.

The monster does not see itself as a monster. To commit a barbaric act, it needs to demonize its potential victim, to blame them for all its own ills or for all the torments of the country or society. Beyond "objectifying" the one it sees as an enemy—an unfortunate expression in this context—the fanatic dehumanizes them, which is different. Not all political crimes are perpetrated by sociopaths or psychopaths; they do not need the exercise of reducing their victim to an aberration to be eliminated, as they lack empathy or a sense of guilt. Those who are not sociopaths require this exercise to suppress any trace of human compassion they may still have. Fanatics do not feel guilt or shame. The most terrible part is that certain messages, even from supposedly mainstream and moderate media outlets, have been instrumental to achieve the effect of dehumanizing and demonizing the ideological adversary more effectively than the nonsense on social media. The goal is to transform them into a monstrous enemy against whom anything is permissible. Conservatives and even the center-right are branded as "fascists, Nazis, racists, xenophobes," and any other epithet that justifies brutal verbal attacks. To call that excrescence dialectics would be a profound insult to the very concept of dialectics. This is the indoctrination of the hard left, which has gradually contaminated the less radical and, in truly worrying cases, those who were once moderate. The more mainstream the medium that demonizes, the more effective dehumanization is.

Criticism is mounting against the scandalous coverage by some media outlets, journalists, and commentators who trivialize or justify the crime on social media and on TV Talk Shows. The State Department has warned it may act against foreigners who "praise or mock" the assassination (visa revocation, etc.). They will have a serious workload ahead of them... And I truly hope that they will keep their word. It is unacceptable and disgusting to mock, rejoice over or even try to water down such a heinous crime. This has happened in the U.S., where MSNBC journalists behaved in a simply repugnant manner. On Katy Tur's program, the host invited one of her regular commentators, whose incessant vomit of repulsive comments can be summarized in his sickening conclusion (I refuse to call it reasoning): "hate thoughts inspire hate words that provoke hate actions." This individual was fired amid an outcry from all sides. But nothing happened to Katy Tur, who, with questions like "will this assassination be an excuse for Trump to do something terrible?", baited the comments from the pretended "intellectual" Dowd. There are hundreds of episodes like this.

We often focus on the most shocking and overlook the more subtle ones, which, by being insidious and cowardly, are perhaps even more repugnant. Such was the case with Wolf Blitzer, who interviewed Representative Ryan Zinke (R) of Montana, a former Navy SEAL Commander and war hero, on his program, attempting to incite him to blame the murder on the proliferation of firearms in the USA. Zinke’s response was impeccable, moderate, and conciliatory, calling for national unity and an end to hate speech. MSNBC and TMZ have faced serious consequences for their inadmissible comments, such as one commentator joking about the "irony of armed rhetoric meeting reality," which led to advertisers pulling out and internal investigations.

The speech of greatest stature and moral depth came from the Governor of Utah, Spencer Cox (R), with memorable statesmanlike phrases, some of the highest quality I have heard in recent years. With expressions like "this is an attack on all of us and on the very essence of who we are," he conveyed that political violence is different from any other type of violence. It is one of the most devastating, as it attacks the basic principles of coexistence and freedom, such as the freedom of expression that Charlie Kirk so bravely fought for and for what he was assassinated.

This contrasts shockingly with the revolting discourse of Representative Ilhan Omar (D), a regular defender of Hamas's positions, who, on the program "Mehdi Unfiltered," criticized conservatives who praised Kirk, going so far as to say on air: "these people are full of shit. And we need to call them out!" The worst example is that of J. B. Pritzker (D), the Governor of Illinois, who directly blamed Trump for fomenting political violence and for being ultimately responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk. I can hardly imagine something more disgraceful to say after such a tragedy. What is even sadder is that fanatics like Rep Ilhan OMAR are uncapable to understand that this crime is against all Americans not just her adversaries that she considers sworn enemies. I am a Spanish citizen, and I have two brothers who are American citizens and true patriots. I can assure you that I share that love and admiration for the USA and that it shocks me gravely when I see the degree of hatred and vile contempt of some American citizens with the shining beacon of freedom, liberty and progress (the real one not what the left tries to sell) the United States of America are.

It saddens me to say that in Spain some have gone even further. Many self-described left-wing media outlets have truly outdone themselves (in Europe, almost no one has dared to say the things that have been said in Spain). The most serious episodes were led by the EFE news official news agency (this is paid with Spanish taxpayers’ money, simply outrageous) and a left-wing radio network CADENA SER (now the most active and unforgiving propaganda outlet of the radical left wing Spanish Prime Minister) that outright called Charlie Kirk a "fascist." I hope the US State Department takes good note of this atrocity. I suppose demonizing Kirk helps to demonize the Spanish center-right and right. It is simply horrifying and does not bode well for our democracies. In fact, if things go down this road, we could very well find ourselves in what Carl Schmitt considered "the inevitable political conflict".

The polarized social reaction following the crime increases the risk of copycat attacks and the pressure to reinforce security at political events. It is truly serious that someone as threatened as Charlie Kirk had no protection whatsoever.

This is not mere schadenfreude (joy in the misfortune of others); it is a symptom of deepening tribalism, where the normalization of violence against ideological adversaries erodes the shared revulsion that should unite a nation. Unfortunately, the justification of violence or its excuse (which is more serious for its hypocrisy) has become widespread in certain mainstream, formerly moderate, left-wing circles, while the culture of violence and its applause are found only in the most extreme sectors of the right. I do not know of a single center-right or conservative party in Europe that promotes, applauds, or trivializes violence. There are speeches that are far more dangerous than all the weapons in the world.

It is important to note that the statements from leading Republican politicians have been in tribute to Charlie Kirk and his legacy, calling for calm and a renunciation of rage. "Take a deep breath and let your anger go," said Spencer COX. The action-reaction dynamic must be broken, but for that to happen, it is essential that sanity returns to political discourse. Let us pay homage to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, better known by her penname S. G. Tallentyre, who, in her 1906 book "The Friends of Voltaire", described his attitude toward liberty with a phrase that, though not his own, is universally attributed to him: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." This could very well be Charlie Kirk's epitaph.