Charlie’s Murderers

This catalog should allay any doubts you may still have about the depth of human stupidity, depravity, and sheer viciousness. A friend, alluding to the world-wide celebration of Kirk’s life, tells me he has never been more hopeful. I believe he is fooling himself. We are spiraling downward. Hot civil war is now a clear and present danger.

You are living in a dream world if you think mutually respectful free speech and unrestrained dialog can save us. Wonderful things, no doubt, but they come too late, presupposing as they do common ground — which is precisely what we no longer have. The problem of common ground has several sides. I will mention just one now.

Suppose you agree with me that there is objective truth and that it is possible for us to know some of it. (That is something few will concede in these days of Claudine Gay and ‘my truth,’ but just suppose.) That concession’s a start, but if you and I are ‘siloed into our positions’ and we each believe we possess the truth about a particular question, then truth-seeking dialog is a sham. For if you already know the truth, or rather think you do, you will not be working with me to find the truth: one does not seek what one possesses. And vice versa: if I am convinced that I have the truth, then my conversation with you cannot be truth-seeking dialog. What we will each be engaged in is an attempt to change the other person’s mind. For genuine truth-seeking dialog to occur, there must be a Socratic confession of ignorance on both sides, or at least an admission that one might be mistaken in one’s beliefs. Kirk was no latter-day Socrates: he was not out to show people that they didn’t know what they thought they knew about things that he knew he knew little or nothing about so that they might reason together in search of the truth. Kirk lacked the doxastic modesty of Socrates. His doxastic stance was more like the firm conviction of Christ. Doxastic modesty is what is lacking today on so many issues that divide us. Neither side admits that it might be wrong. And this, I think, is a major source of all the rage, hatred, and violence, both verbal and physical.

So, while Charlie Kirk was morally superior to his enemies — and in particular greatly superior to those who rejoice in his assassination — he too was convinced that he was right as are his followers who are convinced that he is now with Jesus in heaven. Kirk was also intellectually superior to most of his enemies: he could give reasons for his positions and they were better than the ones they could give for theirs. He had unshakeable convictions and he could defend them rationally. Pressed on why he accepted the Resurrection of Christ, he replied that so many martyrs would not have gone to their deaths in that belief were it not true. The argument has some merit but it is hardly conclusive. That would not be a problem if his interlocutors were not adamantly opposed to Christianity and all of its presuppositions. But they are. Hence their hatred of him and his ideas and their fear that his powerful influence would lead to their suppression. This fear fueled their desire to see him assassinated.

When there was still a large chuck of common ground, mutual respect came easy and conversation among political opponents was fruitful for the ironing out of details against the backdrop of commonly held values and presuppositions. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill differed politically but not as enemies; after hours they were on friendly terms. Thos days are over. There is no longer any common ground to stand on. Political opponents are now political enemies enemies who see each other as existential threats. When we see each other as existential threats is when the guns and knives come out, and when assassination becomes politically if not morally ‘justifiable.’

Posted

September 13, 2025

Conservatism, Disagreement, Pathocracy and Totalitarianism, Political Pessimism, Political Ponerology, Political Psychology

Bill Vallicella

Tags:

Comments

3 responses to “Charlie’s Murderers”

Vini Tadeo

September 14, 2025

You touched on very, very important points, Bill.

First, I agree that people nowadays simply want to believe whatever the heck their ‘vibe’ goes into; they believe anything that satisfies their bellies and makes their feelings — not themselves — feel good. It is no surprise that today, more than ever, there are SO MANY sophists who sell ideas as if they were products. This is a corruption of human beings; this is disgusting.

But, respectfully, I would like to say that people who killed Charlie and the deplorable human beings who rejoice in his death did not just wish his death because they were afraid of being suppressed — they do what they do because they think they are right and justified in doing so. Especially from my Gen-Z perspective (I may be a little bit biased, I admit it), but people nowadays simply couldn’t care less about human life and see each other as enemies because there is a diabolical metaphysics, ideologies, and practices underlying their thoughts. Some of them, I suspect, are 1) an inherently implicit materialist or reductionist view of life, which facilitates the diminishing of human value; 2) a kind of ‘disenchanted’ view of life and reality, which further foments these kinds of behavior we see nowadays, such as hatred, dissatisfaction, envy, and so on, and 3) enemies from the truth that trive and further employ ideologies into the school or intelectual institutions, so as to make these potential killers or enemies of thinking and dissidence feel like they are on the ‘moral highground’, by labelling their enemies in such a mannicheist way.

I think that the only way to avoid these problems is a deep, intellectual, and truth-oriented metaphysical ‘reviravolta’ (as we would say in Brazil); but, at the same time, I suspect that we are in such a problematic shape that the only thing that seems to be approaching is Bezmenov’s vision of civil war as a result of the cracking down of the values of a society by marxists and their ilk. I know this does sound unfair and sad, but… I can’t fathom any other way the things may go from now on.

Reply
1. Vini Tadeo
  
  September 14, 2025
  
  Just a little correction, since I wrote somewhat hastily.
  
  I meant to say enemies of the truth (not from the truth!). I would like to recommend that fellow readers ignore the “but” before “people nowadays simply couldn’t care less about human life and see each other as enemies because there is a diabolical metaphysics, ideologies, and practices underlying their thoughts.”
  
  Sorry, guys.
  
  Reply
  1. BV
    
    September 14, 2025
    
    Vini,
    
    Good comments. Your command of the English language is impressive.
    
    In my penultimate paragraph I wrote, “Hence their hatred of him and his ideas and their fear that his powerful influence would lead to their suppression. This fear fueled their desire to see him assassinated.” You took me to be saying that the haters fear of Kirk’s ideas and their consequences was the only cause of their desire to see him assassinated. But what I wrote does not imply (entail) that. I was merely specifying one explanatory factor among several.
    
    Reply