Who really murdered Charlie Kirk?
Hint: It wasn’t just the assassin who pulled the trigger
On the day Charlie Kirk was shot to death, the American media sounded like they were reading from a pre-arranged script. “We must not let hate win,” they said. “Violence will not silence us,” they tweeted. But let’s be honest—who really silenced Charlie? Was it one man with a gun, or an entire system that had for years marked him as a legitimate target?
Academy – The Official Hate Factory
Let’s start with universities. The institutions that proudly proclaim “diversity” – as long as it doesn’t include diversity of opinion. Charlie was the campus leaders’ biggest nightmare: young, eloquent, conservative and able to attract hundreds of students to the halls.
What did they do to him?
- They canceled lectures at the last minute in the name of “student safety.”
- They organized protests that interrupted his events with chants of “shaming.”
- They labeled him with labels like “fascist” and “dangerous to society.”
Academy is the one who prepared the ground: it taught an entire generation to think that expressing a right-wing opinion is not just a mistake, but verbal violence. And the moment you convince people that an opinion is violence, physical violence becomes “self-defense.”
The media – the slander industry
After academia, comes the media – the factory for the production of fear and hysteria. For years, newspaper headlines painted Charlie as an existential threat to democracy, as a “hate spreader” and an “instigator.”
- Profile articles that portrayed him as a “right-wing thug.”
- Television items that linked him to every incident of racism, even if he had nothing to do with it.
- Panels of “experts” that explained that he was more dangerous than the Taliban because he was in the United States.
The same presenters who shouted at him live – today they call for “cease violence”. The hypocrisy is so transparent it’s almost funny – if it weren’t accompanied by a body.
Big Tech – the court, the jury and the censor
You can’t forget social media. They made Charlie the perfect victim of deplatforming:
- Temporary “accidental” blocks.
- Posts taken down based on “misinformation” – that is, information that the moderator didn’t like.
- Limiting exposure to “protect public health”.
And so, with the help of an algorithm, they broadcast to the world that Kirk’s opinion was illegitimate, that it was dangerous. They didn’t shut him up – they broadcast to everyone that it was okay to silence him.
The Black Humor of Reality
And then comes the moment when someone takes all these messages seriously. He reads the headlines, hears the speakers, sees the blocks on Twitter – and draws the logical conclusion for him: “If everyone says this man is dangerous – I’ll arrest him.”
And the system? It will continue to condemn “violence on both sides.”
This is a cruel joke at the expense of all of us: those who created the climate, those who shouted that Charlie is “dangerous to democracy” – are the same people who are receiving laurels today for “condemning the murder.”
No longer a victim of hypocrisy
The truth must be told: Charlie Kirk was shot twice.
The first time – by a culture that canceled him, that labeled him, that made him a public leper.
The second time – by the assassin who pulled the trigger.
The first time made the second possible.
Why it matters to all of us
Anyone who thinks this is an American story is sorely mistaken. Here in Israel, too, there are those who label opinions as “dangerous,” those who take care to suspend accounts, cancel events, and paint people as monsters. Anyone who thinks it ends there should remember that when someone is labeled an enemy of the people, there will always be someone who will take the law into their own hands.
The lesson is clear: either we stop the incitement industry under the guise of “journalism” and “education,” or we will continue to pick up the pieces after more and more assassinations – cultural and physical.
הירשמו כדי לקבל את הפוסטים האחרונים אל המייל שלכם
