The Assassination of Charlie Kirk: A Gay and Retarded Post-Modern Tragedy

Andrew Anglin September 16, 2025

Everyone is trying to play the victim after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. But if you really think about it, I’m the biggest victim of this situation. I’m expected to write something meaningful about a completely meaningless tragedy and it’s basically impossible.

People have complained about my commentary. It’s come across as too crass or whatever. I don’t know what website people thought they were on? I can’t take that criticism seriously. However, I can admit: something apparently very impactful happened, and I have not offered any meaningful analysis. I’ve made an inane point about how everyone is taking it too seriously. This is self-evident and not a useful observation. I’ve also said that the government and influencers are exploiting the event as part of a larger program. You’ve got this other guy as the president, but you have to keep the program going, you have to keep manipulating the people, blah blah blah, and so on. That also should be self-evident (though it hardly seems to be).

There was a collective visceral reaction to Charlie’s death and the media was going nuts. People apparently expect from me some type of lighting of the way, some attempt to make sense of the nonsensical event that somehow feels very weighty or historical for inexplicable reasons. As I am “America’s Explicator” (at least that’s what it says on the award), the people expect I should have something more meaningful to say here. Therein lies the issue: how am I supposed to have a meaningful analysis of something that means nothing?

Clearly, Charlie was a person, every person’s life has meaning, and no one should be killing people. But this issue of people being murdered is not new. Assuming the Gaza genocide isn’t making an impression because it’s far away and it’s brown people, then what about the constant school shootings, the endless random black murders? People are being murdered all over the place, and the explanations, if one is given at all, tend to be completely meaningless.

When you hear “radical tranny activist assassinates Zionist shill to fight hate,” it sounds like “Glibdolf Horzet mungles Frinkles Kloplofell to fight jazzlefroth.” It feels like the only reasonable response is to gently close my eyes and massage the bridge of my nose with my thumb and forefinger. “More vile nonsense,” he thinks. “How shocking.”

You will not find anyone offering a satisfactory explanation of the meaning of the event, because there literally is no meaning in this event. Charlie Kirk was promoting grotesque nonsense, taking a check to shill, to confuse people on purpose for the benefit of the people with power. The shooter, as far as we can tell, was into some aberrant sexual behavior, which is something that typically results from an overconsumption of pornography. The sex pervert became obsessed with the idea that the paid political shill was a threat to his feelings. If you can find meaning in that, you’re smarter than me and everyone else.

If I am supposed to try to find any kind of deeper meaning here, the only thing I can really do is analyze why there is no meaning.

Some notable premises involved include:

  • Politics is a game of peek-a-boo for adults. It is all a farce performed by morons, a false reality built up to explain to the public why society is so bad. Meanwhile, anyone still connected to classic reality can easily see that society is so bad because the politicians are simply running cover for elites who act above and beyond politics. This leads to a very dark place. The things politicians and other political actors say and do have no relationship to classic reality.
  • People can accumulate large sums of money by being involved in politics. Simply, you are paid, often extraordinarily well, to lie and trick people.
  • Most humans have become obsessed with wealth as a result of various factors, including (but not limited to) the availability of wealth. Becoming wealthy was not a viable life path through most of history, because there was very little wealth available, and all that existed was centrally controlled by the immovable objects of state and church (one should note that on the full timeline of human existence, church and state are themselves both relatively new). When wealth became plausibly available to peasants, the goal for many became status.
  • Material wants were covered a long time ago, so there is no struggle to meet basic needs, and therefore people struggle for wealth. In the prehistoric era, if you didn’t kill a deer with your spear, you might find some other guy who had better luck and use your spear to kill him and take his deer. You could justify in your own mind that you had to do it to feed your own family, and also, probably the people you killed were somehow evil or whatever, and you were just doing what was right by killing them to take their food. Just so, in the current era, you might take a check to bamboozle people with nonsense. Just so, someone involved with politics may justify his own skullduggery with all manner of mind tricks that are biologically imprinted on people.
  • For humans, at least those of us thinking and speaking in English, “meaning” is both a logically sound, empirical quality of significance as well as an understanding of purpose. “The meaning of a statement” and “the meaning of life” refer to separate concepts, but ones which should be closely linked. This is to say that the philosophical concept of “meaning” should be based on something logically sound, and everything which is logically sound should fit into one’s understanding of the nature and purpose of human existence. In classic reality, all experiential phenomena fit into a comprehensive and coherent understanding of the whole. This whole should be a reference point from which the individual can understand the purpose of experiences, as well as provide context capable of reasonably satisfying any existential questions they may have.
  • The lack of any requirement to work and physically push yourself to satisfy basic needs removes most intrinsic meaning from life. This might seem as though it is philosophical or something, perhaps it even appears esoteric, but it is actually very basic and obvious. “The meaning of life” throughout all but the most recent human history revolved around doing what was necessary to survive. Up through the early stages of the industrial era, most people who didn’t work starved (or watched their elderly and younglings starve).
  • Penicillin did not become widely available until the 1940s. (Note: antibiotics are probably or obviously extremely dysgenic.)
  • People will fill the holes left by a loss of the meaning found in survival with all sorts of things. For the first decades of the post-survivalist age, things were booming (hence the “boomers,” you see). Things degraded rather rapidly, as you would have expected beforehand if you were the expecting sort. Being stripped of the basics of meaning, those survivalist behaviors, people began to lose their sense of higher meaning and purpose, previously embodied in religion.
  • Religion is a system that binds together the people, but also is a system through which they codify a collective understanding of meaning. A religion is a wrapping around the understanding of reality, tying it together and keeping it as a whole that is comprehensible to the individual. Every religion that existed before the modern era was inclusive of the respective culture’s understanding of classic reality.
  • In the absence of classic religion, the impulse that drives religion is funneled into other avenues. Because religion is not logical, the things that fill in the spaces where religion used to be do not have to be logical. Politics have become a religion in the very literal sense of that word. This includes all that it implies it would include. New realities require new religions. Some have framed politics as “tribal,” but this is misleading, as they are in fact cultic. Religious beliefs left over from classic reality have become a subcategory of the larger religion of politics.
  • Post-modern American politickers are able to use la technique to create a situation where instead of a monolithic state apparatus filling that void, a la communism or fascism, you split the populous roughly 50/50 into warring religious cults. This is purposeful: they want people fighting with each other with religious fervor over things that are of no consequence, half of the population blaming the other half for the problems. The people with the actual power can do anything they want while one side blames the other. (You can see both parties make moves to balance the sheets. That is part of what they do with immigration. The last time a president won more than 60% was Nixon in 1972, who won 60.07% of the public for his second term after an extremely popular first term. He was politically assassinated shortly after the “landslide” victory.)
  • Because politics are now a religion, people can go on political crusades. Therefore, people are willing to kill other people for what amounts to nothing more than a nonsensical money scam (see premises 1-4).
  • Sex is a basic animal need, but the individual does not die if it is not met but rather, collectively, a species will die if it is not met. (This almost happened to pandas and is currently happening to Koreans and Japanese and to a slightly lesser extent, white people.) In an environment where this basic need is not sufficiently met for a large percent of the population, deviant sexual behaviors will develop and eventually become endemic.
  • Chronic pornography use is a compulsive behavior that develops out of sexual frustration, as well as loneliness and boredom, and also eventually leads to a very dark place, where the obsessions that develop have nothing to do with the initial issues that started the voyage into porn hell.
  • Human minds are not designed to deal with electronic media. Electronic media allows people to create fake realities which to the individuals engaged are indistinguishable from classic reality. (A further multitude of fake realities are created by no one in particular, but rather are spawned from the void itself and transmitted through electronic media.)
  • Many of these alternative realities involve wealth and sex.
  • Between the development of the printing press and the current moment, classic reality was gradually phased out. At this point, most people in the West have no connection to classic reality, save death.
  • Technology, in general, is making people insane, as a result of both psychological and physiological factors.
  • No one ever thinks he himself is the bad guy.

Thus, with the Kirk assassination, you have two humans, born as innocent babes, who were shoveled into competing false realities bloated by religious fervor. Both were unaware that they were existing in fake realities. If Charlie Kirk was aware he was in a fake reality, he would not have traded his personal integrity and basic human dignity for money in order to bamboozle the public with Jewish propaganda. If the assassin were aware, he would not have murdered a random shill, only to spend life in prison or perhaps get the death penalty. Charlie was certainly driven by wealth, whereas the shooter’s drives appear to have been sexual. (Note: indubitably, a big part of a man’s drive for wealth is sexual in nature.)

These nonsense simulations of realities are all-encompassing and thus very convincing to those operating within them. If a member of one reality kills a member of a competing, hostile reality, the killer is seen as a holy crusader while the deceased is sainted as a martyr. Everyone behaves as though there is some deep meaning to all of this, though no one on either side can explain it without spewing obscene, meaningless gibberish. Because there is no meaning, no one can explain the meaning in a coherent fashion.

Other than to those who knew him personally, “Charlie Kirk” was not a real person inside of these fake realities. He was a symbol for various meaningless things. For some, he was a symbol of goodness, for others a symbol of evil. Within classic reality, human life is sacred, and it is sad someone died, but none of the parties involved in this debacle maintain a connection with classic reality.

In the American cesspit, neither the left nor right sides care much for a “both sides are the same” narrative. However, in classic reality, there is no meaningful difference between the sides, because their respective realities are equally nonsensical, and separated from classic reality by heaps of meaningless nonsense. Because the basic needs are met and there is no survivalism, the assumption is we can easily create a utopia where no one wants for anything. The problem is that the “wants” have vastly expanded as a result of the basic needs being met, and apparently, when the needs are met, the wants can expand to infinity and beyond.

Ostensibly, the “left” side is trying to create a utopia where everyone is brown and children are indoctrinated into homosexuality from birth. All the junkies will stop living on the streets when the government does more housing subsidies. Also, it won’t be complete communism, but the middle class will pay crippling taxes and then eventually they will start taxing rich people to pay for all the programs. Also, they are going to change the weather with solar panels and windmills and electric vehicles that use all of these poisonous rare earth minerals. Russians and Chinese will be forced to do human rights, as will everyone else in the world, because of our values. Maybe we’ll also have sharia law, but there will be free abortions so every woman can pursue her passion. Guns will be made illegal and then no one will ever die. It’s all very easy to do. But these right-wingers are holding us back.

Meanwhile, the “right” side is trying to create a utopia where most people are brown (but you’re still allowed to be white, no one will stop you) and being gay and a tranny is fine (but you have to be in high school or at least middle school before you learn how to do it – remember, the Florida law everyone threw a fit over said you weren’t allowed to teach gender theory in school… before fourth grade!). Furthermore, we stand with Israel and its right to defend itself, because God gave them that land, so we are going to give them infinite military support forever, and anyone who criticizes this arrangement is not welcome in the country. It’s also about peace, but in order to get peace, we have to do a lot of war. Maybe we’re going to back off of this whole “take on China” thing, because that is a bit overly ambitious, but we’re going to kill every Venezuelan cocaine trafficker to stop Mexican fentanyl from China, and then when there is no more fentanyl, no one will do drugs anymore. And also it’s “Judeo-Christian,” but we respect all religions, because it’s in the Constitution. (The Constitution is very sacred and holy because of freedom.) We especially respect Hindus, who are geniuses, and we need to bring them in to build AI. Everyone will be rich because they work in a factory. Because we support Israel, there will be a “rapture” before the “end times” where “Space Jesus” will come down and suck everyone up into Heaven with him. We just need to make the deals and get it done. But these lefties are holding us back.

Surely, most of you, my dear readers and close parasocial friends, are going to lean more towards supporting the right-wing, because their positions overlap with yours more, even though you presumably don’t agree with a lot of the elements of their platform. But you know that this is their platform. These were the beliefs of Charlie and, we can safely assume, the shooter as well. I know Charlie was also talking about families, keeping women out of the workplace, gun rights, and surely at least he was saying “Christianity,” even if it was bizarro Zionist “Bible-believing Christianity” (which stands in stark contrast to all those versions of Christianity that claim the Bible is a bunch of lies). But the overall platform is not great. It’s not great because it is a political cult existing in an alternate reality where all of the associated nonsense is believed with religious fervor. (Note that the elements of Christianity included in Charlie’s doctrine are a subcategory of the larger whole, which is the religion itself; see premises 9-10.)

There is the the third utopia, which is the utopia of the actual ruling elite who control all of the other new realities. Their utopian vision mostly comes from Silicon Valley, and they are focused on building an “AGI” super intelligence which will help them use gene-editing, nanobots, and a computer-brain interface to become “post-human,” which means they will become immortal and invade outer space. Peter Thiel is the closest thing they have to a spokesman at this time, though Elon Musk promotes many of the less offensive aspects of this utopian scheme. You can read the publications of the World Economic Forum (WEF) where they are already planning on how to govern outer space. Yuval Noah Harari, the “ideas man” of the forum, has said that he wants most humans to die off, and his plan is to give them enough drugs and video games to prevent them from breeding as they run out the clock. Alex Karp, the Jewish head of Palantir, the military tech company founded by Peter Thiel which is currently responsible for the AI missile targeting of Palestinians, has revealed a vision which involves every human being on the planet having their every move monitored by AI systems. Though these people are not always straightforward with the details, they are pushing for a “total information awareness” program, which combines all public and private data on individuals, then uses electronic means to track them, including their cellphones and all internet use. They also plan to standardize the camera systems that you see everywhere and use facial recognition to track everyone. It is all very bizarre, but when you look at Trump, and the people he surrounds himself with, it is very clear that this is who is in charge. They wanted Elon to be in the White House basically running everything, and that was happening for a few weeks, but Elon was just too weird and incompetent. Thankfully, James “JD Vance” Bowman is a direct protégé of Thiel, who handpicked him and built his entire political career. He is of course the current favorite to be the next president. Palantir has contracts with the US government right now to combine all of the federal databases with information on people into a single database searchable through AI. Many Republicans were calling for this to be used more aggressively against immigrants somehow.

It’s all quite the mess.

Making an Ass of Us Both

The reason my initial responses may have appeared crass (aside from the aforementioned “check what website you’re on, bro”) is that I often lazily assume everyone is on the same page as me in terms of the existing premises. Within all of this context, when I saw people on social media posting pictures of Charlie with his kids, I did not make the intended jump to putting myself and my family in that position, but rather viewed the people trying to get me to make that jump as emotionally exploitative vampires trying to suck out my emotional and spiritual energy in order to promote their insane political cult. I’m not going to apologize for that. When I saw people spamming these photos of his family, I said “oh come on, fuck you,” not because children losing their father is not universally recognized as a human tragedy, but because the only reason someone would post those images is to promote this stupid political cult.

People are murdered every single day, and with each of those murders, you could go through and show the families of the deceased, and ask people to put themselves in that situation. Obviously, you can’t get all emotional about everyone in the world who is murdered every day. All this would do is drain you of all of your emotional energy, which should be spent on the people in your own life who you can have an impact on, not pissed down the spiritual abyss of social media.

Here’s something to think about: many or most of the people telling you to look at pictures of Charlie Kirk’s kids, to look at the up close video that his wife had filmed of herself crying over his corpse, are the same people who were calling for the ban of TikTok so you couldn’t see videos of Palestinians being murdered by Israel. I do not say that to make the claim that Charlie deserved to be killed for promoting the genocide in Gaza. I don’t even intend to claim that you should care as much about Palestinians as you do about someone from your own country. Rather, I want to point out that these people understand that emotions can be manipulated for political purposes by images of human tragedies.

(Note: I am aware that people are saying that Charlie was planning to turn on Israel, I’m aware he made some comments in that direction. I don’t believe he was going to turn on Israel or that if you went through his entire series of statements over the last two years, or even just over the last few months, that many people would reasonably reach that conclusion. The short story there is that Charlie had a history of making contradictory statements in order to create sound bites to appeal to people with differing opinions. There was obviously no way for him to operate a youth organization without addressing the Gaza situation in some way, but for every clip you see of him saying something about Epstein being Mossad or Israel going too far, you can find a clip, from the same timeframe, of him saying starvation in Gaza is a hoax, that all the hospitals are bases of Kuh-Hamas, and that “God gave this land to the Jewish people.” He did a similar thing with immigration: you can find clips of him saying “great replacement” around the same time as he is promoting unlimited H-1B visas. People try to frame it as “he was a young man who was progressing and changing his thinking,” but I’ve gone through much of it and concluded that he was deliberately saying different things in order to confuse people about his agenda via TikTok clips. The longer analysis of all that, where you would actually have to go through and find the clips and create a timeline showing this, is beyond our scope today. At some point in the future I will go through and find the specific dates of clips. For now, I will simply make it clear that yes, I read Max Blumenthal’s article and listened to several hours of podcasting on the topic.)

To further compare and contrast the death of Charlie Kirk with the ongoing genocide in Gaza: what are the political ends of showing these images? Well, Western journalists are banned from Gaza by the Israeli government, so all of the videos from Gaza are filmed by Gazans. Their motivation for posting the tragedies they are experiencing is very straightforward: they are hoping that people will protest the US government and somehow get them to stop sending Israel all of these bombs and war machines. These images are then shared by people who agree that the US should stop funding this genocide. The people posting the images of Charlie and his family are mostly people who are in the political cult he represented, and actually believe in it. But when you have all of these politicians, and influencers linked to the politicians (and the intelligence agencies in most cases), pushing this “Charlie the martyr” narrative, they are doing it for political purposes. Obviously.

One of the immediate political purposes seems to be onboarding conservatives, who were very recently fighting for “free speech,” with a censorship agenda. Many Republican politicians, as well as influencers, are calling for censorship of “leftists.” Even if you supported that (personally, I do not, but I can understand how someone would), it is absurd to imagine that this censorship will result in what you wanted it to result in. It seems a bit ridiculous to have to explain this, frankly, but after the left called for censorship and got it, Twitter and Facebook engaged in a conspiracy to sabotage Bernie Sanders. Furthermore, it was leftist openness to censorship that led to the entire “coronavirus pandemic” debacle, which was not good for anyone and which the leftists are now just as aghast by as the rightists. Furthermore, you’ve seen what the Trump administration’s censorship goals are with the way they’ve operated so far: their primary objective is to shut down criticism of Israel and Jews more broadly. They would also obviously move to censor things such as people asking what exactly was going on with that boat they blew up off the coast of Venezuela. Again, even if you support censoring trannies or whatever, it is never a good idea to give the government censorship powers. They are not going to do what you want them to do. You’ll get a dopamine hit when some tranny you hate gets censored, and then looking back years later you’ll realize they were censoring all of this other stuff you didn’t know about because it was censored.

In the longer term, there is clearly a bigger project at work to build the AI police state mentioned above. Everything that Joe Biden did was also in service of this agenda. Part of that was encouraging lunatic civil unrest, encouraging crime, opening the border, and so on, creating a situation which could then be responded to with “see, we need law and order, so it’s time for an AI police state.” Trump’s administration is now using every conceivable excuse to get military and militarized federal police out on the streets in America, which is incredibly concerning. And yes, I am aware that many people are cheering this on, because they are against crime and immigrants. But how many times do we have to go through this? If they said “we’re putting military on the streets because we are going to seriously fuck you,” no one would be cheering that. They have created the conditions for you to demand something which would have been unthinkable a few years ago. If you look at it, a lot of the basic premises are also nonsensical.

Following the Kirk assassination, we are seeing politicians and influencers call for the government to “make sure nothing like this happens again.” This is clearly a call not only for censorship, but for mass surveillance and a “pre-crime” profile that monitors everyone all the time and determines “who is a threat.” That is, to do exactly what Palantir is saying they want to do. The idea that you can create a system to prevent a random tranny activist from shooting someone makes no sense on its face. Even if you have a ubiquitous AI monitoring system, reading every private message and compiling it in databases using AI, you cannot prevent a random person from killing another random person. It simply isn’t possible.

The crime problem could be addressed by changing laws and giving strict prison sentences to blacks (something which had bipartisan support until very recently; you’ll recall Joe Biden’s famous “super predators” speech). Illegal immigrants could very easily be removed by simply giving strict prison sentences to anyone who hires them for a job or rents them an apartment. You then just announce that immigrants who find themselves without a place to work or live can call some number and get a free plane ticket back to their country. Using paramilitary forces to go around grabbing random Mexicans off the streets is absurd and it’s very surreal that anyone believes this makes sense. Illegal immigration is a federal crime, so you don’t have to argue with blue state governors in order to make laws giving 15-year minimum prison sentences to any individual who hires or rents to an illegal immigrant. I always said that the wall was sort of a stupid idea, because if you just use strict law to make sure the immigrants don’t have anywhere to work or to live, they will just leave. These militarized ICE raids are at best goofy, but when you understand the bigger picture, they are much more insidious. It appears, to an impartial observer, that the real goal has nothing to do with immigrants, and is rather about acclimating the American people to having military and military-like federal cops on the streets in masks running around and throwing screaming people into vans.

These are Complicated Issues

I understand there is a lot here. But I hope this context gives a clearer picture of why it is I was not impressed by the reaction to the killing of Charlie Kirk. Though I have nothing to retract or apologize for, I should have perhaps been more sympathetic towards what people were feeling after seeing Charlie get shot to death while engaging in a political event. I was not a fan of Kirk, and I am legitimately frustrated by the hagiography that has gone on in the wake of his death, but although my default setting is “edgy millennial cringe,” I am able to understand that there are people who look to me for more than shock therapy in the wake of an event that had an emotional impact in the way this assassination apparently did.

I have no doubt that after things cool down, and people see that the government is indeed using this event to do exactly what I said they would do, those articles will age a lot better than all of these posts and podcasts calling for a brutal crackdown on “the left.”

Sadly, though I think I’ve done a lot here to clear up where I’m coming from on this issue, I do not have a final analysis that is any better than that I put in the more crass articles: the government is going to do what they are going to do, the masses of conservatives will cheer it because of this emotional manipulation, and it will not be for many years later that they reevaluate and say that maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to give the government more censorship powers, or to endorse an AI-backed militarized police state.

© Copyright Daily Stormer 2025, All Rights Reserved -- Join the Daily Stormer site chat for future updates in case of further domain seizure.