Charlie Kirk was assassinated at an outdoor event at Utah Valley University’s Orem campus. The assailant fired a fatal shot from over 100 meters away and then fled, remaining at large. The United States, which claims to possess the world’s most powerful law enforcement apparatus, has failed to apprehend the suspect despite a prolonged effort and issuing a reward. This efficiency is indeed questionable.
Recalling the United States’ ineffective response to the Los Angeles wildfires, it is clear the country is not on the path to greatness again. In response to such a violent act, Trump issued a strong condemnation, and the Republican Party and conservative voters mourned. However, American left-wing students at universities have been collectively celebrating. Many, in interviews, even said someone had to do it, believing Charlie Kirk deserved his fate. The deep division in this country is alarming.
The election is over, but the division and confrontation persist.Ironically, Charlie Kirk had just addressed gun control issues at the event when he paid the ultimate price for his beliefs. He was a staunch advocate for civilian gun ownership, arguing that an armed society ensures true stability and fairness. The tragedy occurred in Utah, a state known for its gun culture, where over 50% of households own firearms, significantly higher than the national average. Regardless, this is a tragedy.
Dying for one’s beliefs can be seen as fate’s arrangement. May he rest in peace.Charlie Kirk’s image among both left-wing and right-wing people has been distorted, a result of America’s escalating social conflicts. He was neither a great activist nor an exceptional debater. His ability to outwit left-wing American college students on campuses stemmed from their relatively low intellectual caliber.
I am not a brilliant person; in China, my intelligence is likely average. But I am certain that if he dared to post on China’s Zhihu, a platform similar to Quora, and debate with Chinese netizens, he would be thoroughly defeated. He was not defending truth; rather, he was a sophist. He was no different from well-known right-wing activists in history, who often seize on extreme phenomena that resonate deeply with the public to attack political opponents, thereby gaining traction, mobilizing voters, and securing power.
However, this video is not about criticizing his political stance, as that is an internal matter for Americans. I only aim to discuss Charlie Kirk as a person through some details and the severe crisis facing American society today.Charlie Kirk was a steadfast supporter of Trump and one of the key figures behind Trump’s election victory.
His campus events, backed by platforms like X and TikTok, shattered the media dominance of left-wing giants like Meta and Google, enabling Trump to gain unprecedented support from young voters. But what was the result? After taking office, Trump did not spare TikTok, with his administration continuously pressuring TikTok to sell to American companies. As for Musk, he poured substantial funds into Trump’s campaign, and Tesla paid a heavy price with plummeting sales.
X was also one of the most critical platforms for Trump’s traffic, yet Trump quickly excluded Musk from his inner power circle.This farmer-and-snake story fully illustrates Trump’s shamelessness. Yes, if Charlie Kirk had gained power, he would have been no different from Trump. All far-right activists make grand promises before elections and forget them entirely afterward. Remember the American farmers who voted for Trump?
Now, they can only post videos on TikTok about their devastating losses or wait at home for banks to seize their generational farms. Trump deceived them, claiming a tariff war would force China to yield and buy American agricultural products. But what happened? China simply does not care about Trump. When and how the China-US trade war will end, and who will emerge victorious, these American farmers will not live to see.
Vance spoke of Chinese peasants exporting vast amounts of goods, creating an unprecedented trade surplus, and China shows no signs of collapse. Yet Vance, as a representative of small-town American youth, fails to see that American peasants are bleeding.There is an old Chinese saying: things of a kind come together, and people of a kind flock together.
Yes, with a disloyal figure like Trump, what kind of moral exemplar could his supporters be? The Trump family amassed a fortune through cryptocurrency speculation, while the tragedy of American farmers goes unheard.
And Charlie Kirk? He had time to attack the LGBT community but not to speak for American farmers, his former political allies. Without their votes, could Trump have been elected?Charlie Kirk’s typical tactic was to dodge heavy issues, generalize from specifics, and lure opponents into his traps. This was a winning strategy but did not mean he stood for truth.
For example, he openly opposed Muslim culture and the LGBT community, claiming America’s prosperity was rooted in Christian culture. He argued that whether you are white, Black, Latino, or Asian, as long as you embrace Christian civilization and believe in God, you should unite to oppose these groups.
He made no effort to hide his disdain for Muslims and the LGBT community, labeling them heretics. Sounds reasonable, right? How could America accommodate Muslims who pray five times a day? America’s decline, he claimed, was caused by the LGBT community and DEI initiatives. Indeed, the radical actions of these groups have brought some negative impacts to American society, but that is not a reason to eradicate them.
The states that accept the most immigrants and support the LGBT community the most are generally economically prosperous. These states, after embracing these cultures and absorbing large numbers of immigrants, have not lagged economically but have become engines of the American economy, such as California and New York. In contrast, the states Charlie Kirk championed as defenders of traditional American culture are mostly economically backward. Many of these states have a shameful history of racial discrimination.
Religious extremism has never been a driver of social progress. Charlie Kirk seemed to forget that the infamous Ku Klux Klan in American history rallied people under the banner of religion. Would Black or Asian people converting to Christianity truly avoid persecution? If your religious community were so inclusive, why did it not embrace Native Americans? You drove them to remote reservations, built farms and cities on their land, called them savages, and nearly wiped them out. Is this the inclusion you speak of?
America is not a product of Christian civilization; Christian civilization conquered this land. You did not win this land through debates with Native Americans; you conquered it with guns and cannons. Now, Hindus, Muslims, and the LGBT culture are emerging here. Perhaps this is not a disaster but a preordained fate.Charlie Kirk said American values are about people getting married, having children, and watching them ride bicycles before sunset until dark, undisturbed by the LGBT community or Muslims praying five times a day.
Fine, let me imagine I am an American citizen with children living in America. For me, my concerns about the LGBT community or Muslims pale in comparison to my worries about campus shootings and rampant drug issues. Perhaps one day I wake up to find my son, like Musk’s son, has become a daughter, and I would be furious. But that would be better than him being shot. Why did Charlie Kirk so staunchly support gun ownership?
As such a skilled debater, did he not see the glaring flaw in his narrative logic?Of course he did. The rhetoric of all far-right activists contains significant logical flaws, but they defeat opponents through sophistry and incitement. I want to ask him: now that a bullet has taken him away, with his wife and children witnessing it, their lives plunged into darkness, how will they face this? When his children grow up, will they still support universal gun ownership?
The fundamental reason Charlie Kirk backed gun ownership was that it aligned with the traditional values and political leanings of Republican voters in conservative American states. If he opposed guns, he, as a campus activist, would lose a significant portion of his support base.Yes, Charlie Kirk tailored his political stance to the voter map to maximize traffic and support. He was not standing for or defending truth.
This is a common flaw among far-right activists. If the far-left and DEI harm American society, then far-right figures like him risk destroying its foundation. I cannot support those who celebrate Charlie Kirk’s assassination online; it is utterly disrespectful to the deceased, and all violence should be condemned, even if the victim was a scoundrel. But I must say, his death has a significant positive impact on easing America’s growing ethnic tensions.
As an American female college student said in a video I saw: someone had to do it. Sometimes, when facing harm from extremist forces, picking up the same weapons as them seems to be the only way.
Trump should reflect on why his hero, a supposed representative of American public sentiment, received such treatment after his death, with many reveling in this tragedy. If you continue to lie and divide America, this country will inevitably descend into civil war. Every time you appear in public, you will fear being shot again. This is the social reality you have created, and you must take responsibility for it.