When I first heard about Charlie Kirk’s assassination, I felt a wave of sadness. Not because I knew him well. I’d maybe seen five clips of his debates in total. But because I could already sense how it was going to ripple through the culture. My social feed confirmed it within hours.
I don’t write this from a place of agreeing or disagreeing with his politics. I don’t spend much energy on politics at all these days. I’m more interested in what his death reveals about the way we’re relating to each other right now, and why so many people respond with anger, fear, or even celebration when someone on “the other side” is taken out.
Irrational Political Discourse
We must explore why people become so seemingly “irrational” when it comes to politics.
From my perspective there are two things at play here:
One, due to social media, people feel as though they’re more informed than ever (illusion).
And two, the propagandists are getting really good at what they do.
“The purpose of propaganda is to make one set of people forget that other sets of people are human” – Aldous Huxley
I’m not here to argue a side, because I don’t really see sides. When we lean into ‘side’ language, we reinforce the illusion.
If this brings up resistance, I invite you to pause and notice what comes up for you. You might even find yourself desiring to stack up evidence to prove that “sides” exist. That’s a very human response. My hope is that as you read on, you’ll feel a little more space open up between you and that attachment… enough to wonder what life might be like without needing sides at all.
Fear is at the Core
Fear of what?
I’ve spent years contemplating this.
Fear of being told what to do based on someone else’s values.
We live in a society of diverse values. This has been celebrated historically. It’s very American to be diverse and diversity is a strength… when the government is limited (keep reading). But that’s not the world we’re living in right now. We live in a world where the government is playing a major role in most American’s everyday lives.
And the perception is that if the other team is in power then what I value won’t be valued by those in power, and I’ll be oppressed. This happens with people who identify as being on the right or the left.
Doesn’t matter.
The left is afraid that if the right gets enough power then their freedoms will be suppressed. And the same goes for the right.
This only happens when the individual believes their rights are granted by people. The codes and statutes written by men and women in a fancy building.
If authority is placed solely in government, fear tends to rule life until the end.
If you hold this as your reality, you will behave as though there are rulers and the ruled.
One way to look at Democracy is that it’s a story told to get people to buy into the system. The idea that I have a say about who the rulers are is the start of the slippery slope in consciousness.
Democracy is in opposition to equal rights. It operates from the idea that if enough people get together, the collective has the right to oppress the individual. This is why no matter how many laws are created to try to make things feel fair… they just don’t.
If you desire to be free of the fear that rules the masses, you must give up the idea of human authority. This is why I use air quotes when I use the word “authorities”. There is only one authority and it’s within you.
This doesn’t mean that those people in power (power over others is granted by those who agree to give their own away) aren’t dangerous. They most certainly are. They have weapons, armor, and a mass of people who support them.
Even when a collective is misguided, it can still be dangerous.
The best way to reduce the power of the mob is to stop recognizing it as having authority, and view it as it actually is, a mob. Respect it, and do your best to walk away from participating in it.
There is no “against” energy here. There is no enemy and there is nothing to fight.
Fundamentalism is Dangerous
“I have one major rule: everybody is right. More specifically, everybody, including me, has some important pieces of truth, and all of those pieces need to be honored, cherished, and included in a more gracious, spacious, and compassionate embrace.” – Ken Wilber
Wilber reminds us that each perspective carries a partial truth. Building on this, I define fundamentalism as the moment when a part mistakes itself for the whole, when one piece of truth claims to be the entirety of truth.
When someone holds a fundamentalist perspective without compassion we eventually end up with “righteous” violence. This explains why so many people rushed to support the violent actions of the murderer. It’s a fundamentalist perspective that’s being tightly held.
Violence is never ok. I define violence as the initiation of physical force. Physical force can be used in self-defense which is ok.
If you found yourself celebrating or defending the violence, I invite you to reflect on what that means for your own humanity.
The main claim for the support of the murder was that Charlie was filled with hate and he got what was coming to him. But the man never initiated violence. He was conversational. No matter how challenging he may have been, he wasn’t violent.
I saw many people quickly try to defend their position by claiming that the other “side” doesn’t have compassion for when someone on the left experiences this kind of violence. That’s generalizing a few people who lack humanity with an entire group of people.
It’s common for people to defend their position when they’re called out. Even when it’s an egregious offense. They likely couldn’t handle accountability and reacted the best they knew how. We all do that at times.
Charlie’s Passion
It takes a lot of passion to go out and do what he was doing. He stepped into the center of political debate. One of the most dangerous games you can play. He was holding a perspective. Some would call it a fundamentalist view. I have yet and likely won’t consume enough of his content to form an opinion on that matter.
Like many people, I went and watched more clips and longer debates that he held. I didn’t see the hate many claimed. What I did see is that he had a well fortified position that college students were ill prepared to handle. Was he right? No. Was he wrong? No. He was establishing a perspective and sharing it passionately. A part of the truth on display.
He didn’t deserve the result, but he was playing the game.
War is the Result of Failed Diplomacy
War. I’ve studied it. I’ve participated in it. I’m not proud of it. But one thing I’ve learned is that it only occurs when diplomacy fails. When the conversation stops. This murder was an expression of failed diplomacy. The person who pulled the trigger couldn’t see any other way to beat him so they went all the way. They committed the ultimate atrocity.
This reminds me of when Trump was shot. Like many people, when I saw scene unfold on social media I knew that he had won the election. I see the same thing happening with Charlie. Killing him didn’t silence his ideas from spreading, it strengthened them.
When we move towards violence as a solution it only strengthens the perspective of those who already hold it. And for many people, they would never know the perspective, but because of social media many people will convert.
As many holding the left perspective celebrated, they failed to recognize that the right perspective had been fortified.
The Need to React on Social Media with an Opinion
What blew me away the most was how quickly people rushed to post their uninformed opinion on social media for everyone to see.
It felt like I was watching the same talking points ripple straight from cable news into people’s posts.
We really get to look at our motivations on social media. The likes, and comments, little dopamine hits. Your bubble of friends will likely agree with you, scoring you more points (virtue signaling).
But can you take a less egoic, more developed position, and stop. Consider the machine you’re feeding. Meta, X, and Bluesky are the winners for every post you make, especially if it’s controversial. Better make it worth it.
Wrapping Up
I used to be totally consumed with politics. Why did I step away?
- I was exposed to a lot of objective data most Americans will never see when I was in the Navy. I held a high level security clearance. The raw data I saw vs what I saw reported on the news was contradictory way more than I’d like to admit.
- I still have direct access to raw information (people on the ground, non-confidential) and what the news reports has only gotten more inaccurate.
- I realized that democracy is in opposition to equal rights. Just because you get a lot of people to agree doesn’t mean you should oppress an individual. The original republic (nothing to do with the party) that was established in America was the best we’ve ever had. A truly limited government that’s no longer limited enough.
- The most vocally passionate tend to be the least informed. I don’t desire to add to the confusion, I only desire more clarity. That won’t be found in politics.
I desire to have world peace and the only chance we have to get there is by disarming the mob of our attention.
If we want to move forward with more clarity and less fear, we need tools to expand our perspective and quiet the noise. That’s why I’m launching a new program next week.
In order to know peace “out there” we must know it within ourselves.
See you there,
Mike Bledsoe