The Fountain:

Charlie Kirk and the Symbolic Death of Civil Debate

I don’t write on politics, but today there was nothing else to say.

In fact, this email is beyond politics—this is a question of culture and morality.

But why? What is it about this tragedy amongst the hundreds of others?

Before I answer, I must preface: I’m proud of this community. From my conversations with you in emails and comments, I see a respect for critical thinking, self-education, and emotional intelligence. It’s a nice burst of optimism amidst the wider internet, where such virtues seem suffocated by tribalism, ideology, and at its worst, flagrant malice.

The loss of any innocent life is tragic, but Charlie Kirk’s murder did more than end his life.

It was the symbolic death of free speech—the great achievement of the West and the fruit of its universities.

Freedom of speech includes the right to civil debate, where people can freely express their beliefs without fear of state retaliation. It is our intellectual marketplace—a space to discuss ideas, settle disagreements, and dig through the mess for a common truth.

Everyone is welcome in this marketplace. There is a strong diversity of ideas, so it’s only natural to expect conflict—we throw insults around, call people stupid, and too often let our emotions get in the way of constructive debate. This is the unfortunate reality. There are good days and bad days. Good speakers and bad speakers. The honest and the dishonest.

HOWEVER, we must respect the rules of the marketplace. For it to even exist in the first place, people must feel safe to enter. Their words cannot be suffocated by the threat of violence or arrest. No emperor or politician can watch over us with an iron fist, ready to crush anyone who steps out of line. No participant can raise a sword against his rival merely because he disagrees or felt offended—the marketplace cannot become an arena, where words are meaningless and the only end is violence.

Here, we lower our weapons and use our words. May the best ideas win.

We take freedom of speech for granted. It didn’t exist for most of human history; the wrong words could land you in prison, get you exiled, or put you at the end of a blade.

You don’t realise just how good you had it until it’s ripped away from under your feet.

Or perhaps, when you are killed for it.

For some, Charlie’s free expression warranted a violent televised death, a public execution with his young wife and children to bear witness. The young killer was too inept or cowardly to meet Charlie in debate, so he did as weak men do, and regressed to violent impulse.

He rejected the most basic principle of the marketplace. He burned it down, spat on the ashes, and made sure nobody else could enjoy it.

One man got the nation talking. The other ripped out his tongue. Ironically, this only immortalised Charlie’s words and sent them booming across the world. It takes hard work and courage to build something, and when the resentful can’t make it happen for themselves, they tear it down in bloodthirsty tantrum.

Beyond his poor family, thousands of students were left traumatised and the gruesome scene was broadcast to billions—how many churning stomachs and restless nights did it cause?

I hate the spectacle that social media has made out of violence, but at the same time, this is reality. We should stare deep into the savagery that lurks behind peace, so that we never take the latter for granted. I just wish I didn’t see it before bed. I wish he survived. I wish it never happened. But who gives a shit about me—what of his family?

Most of all, I shudder for the new nation that his blood dries upon.

I am too young for 9/11 to have truly disturbed me. Obviously the clips are still harrowing, but by the time I was old enough to understand the weight of the tragedy, it was already softened by a decade and some. It may as well have been the assassination of Kennedy—tragic, but historical and far away.

This is different. This was today. This was broadcast in 4K. I suspect that for many mid- to late-zoomers, this was the closest thing to their 9/11.

After 9/11, America saw a brief but intense unity—infighting is constant, but in times of external threat, we are good at putting our differences aside and stressing our common identity.

I wondered if the same thing would happen with Kirk’s murder, and to some degree, it did.

We saw a sweeping condemnation of violence and a reflection into our own guilt—it’s easy to stoke the flame in peacetime, but many now see that vitriol comes with consequence. I’m not the first to repeat this maxim, but it truly is no longer a question of 'left versus right,' but one of 'good versus evil,' and evil knows no political loyalty.

It especially moved me to see one of Kirk’s political rivals shed tears for him—the young Dean Withers was quick to condemn his beliefs in life, but had the maturity and humanity to put that aside after death. This was soured when I learned that some fans criticized him for it, enough that he felt the need to justify his tears in a follow up video, as if weeping for a death is a crime.

I would like to shrug it off as a handful of antisocial, chronically-online weirdos.

It wasn’t.

In what should have been a time for unity and condemnation, we saw a dark wave of celebration across the internet, and even in the real world.

I remember refreshing the ‘latest’ tab on X in the early hours of the story. People were cheering for his death, either with proud contempt or sly backhanded remarks. I hear Reddit and Bluesky were especially caustic too, with celebration erupting through forums like it was a World Cup final—the latter was bad enough to prompt a warning from the official Bluesky safety account. Some clips showed university students mocking Charlie in his final moments, chanting in success, or calmly saying that he "deserved it." Is this what we have become?

As if to justify the murder, some users reminded us of Charlie’s political beliefs: he was this, he was that, and therefore the world is a better place without him. I saw many comments parroting out-of-context quotes from Kirk as ammunition to legitimize their cheers—this was far from serious political criticism, and closer to glib “gotcha moments” to sugar-coat the slaying. All it takes is a handful of people to snip out a soundbite, and then thousands more will copy-paste it like bots, completely ignorant of the original message and unbothered to look any further. Nothing new there. It’s the intellectual cancer that is the internet.

“Live by the sword, die by the sword.” That was the worst line I kept seeing.

The sword he lives by is open conversation, and the sword he dies by is a ruptured artery and a shattered spinal chord?

Sickening.

I’m not well-tuned to Charlie’s views, and I’m quite ignorant when it comes many of the topics he discusses (which more people should admit, by the way). As I understand, he was the commentary king of mainstream right-wing conservatism: a moderate.

Many recoil at the term in disbelief, and would instead assign the “true” label: fascist, far-right, Nazi—whatever they accuse him of being. As the politically inept so often do, labels are thrown around with reckless abandon. Communist! Fascist! Satan-worshipper! Racist! Soon enough, everyone is everything. The labels lose their meaning. The boy cried wolf, but nobody believed him.

I’m not writing to debate the validity of each label—it’s not why I bring it up.

I mention it because no political label warrants a murder.

Edgy fascists don’t deserve to be killed.

Antifa anarcho-communists don’t deserve to be killed.

Black Israelites don’t deserve to be killed.

Even the morons celebrating the killing don’t deserve to be killed.

Sure, you have terrorist groups and those who directly threaten lives - we’re not talking about them - but merely holding a belief, no matter how stupid, outlandish, or offensive one perceives it . . . that is not grounds for execution. Everyone is an extremist to someone, and according to the rules of those who cheer for murder, everyone is a target.

I don’t want to live in that world.

Luckily, viewpoints are fluid, but only the living can change their minds.

If we want the intellectual marketplace to exist - and freedom of speech with it - then we must exile the violent from it. They reject discussion. They reject debate. They threaten all of us, and blatantly demonstrate that they want no part of our peaceful terms.

Condemning people to death for their beliefs is how we regress into a prehistoric mob-anarchy, where the only rule is violence.

If this twisted world was real, you can justify all sorts of horrors: mosque shootings, stabbings of local politicians, or perhaps Islamist suicide bombings—they all thought the same, that their cause was “just,” that their actions were “righteous,” and they were removing the “enemies” who thought differently to them, whose ideas “threatened” their life or loyalty in some loose way, all while clouded by a deep-rooted hatred.

There is no light in this society. Only death, war, and sorrow.

The “winners” are covered in blood with their soul marred by evil, and the losers are limp bodies on the roadway, disfigured by gunfire and heavy with the metallic stench of death. Who wants this nation? What have you thrown away?

Anyone who cheers after an innocent man’s neck is torn apart by gunfire has a black rot in their soul. They sink below political discourse—the conversation devolves into humanity versus hatred manifest.

Since many internet cesspits are celebrating, it makes me wonder: how many would have pulled the trigger themselves? All it took for this assassination was one mentally unstable shooter with nothing to lose and the resolve to see it through—how many thousands would follow suit if they had that same sick drive to action? How many more Tyler Robinsons are out there right now? How many echo-chambers are festering with violence, both on the right and left?

Those who cheer did not thrust the spearpoint themselves, but I suspect they would have had no problem adding an extra inch to the handle. In their mind, their conscience stays “guiltless,” and all the bloody work is dodged, like a politician sending young lads off to die in a trench. Or maybe like Lady Macbeth, who pressed her husband to gruesome murder while avoiding the deed herself. At least she felt guilt in the end. What sick cowardice.

If you are one of them - if you celebrate this - I don’t want you here—please unsubscribe with the link at the bottom.

I don’t hate you though.

Your sentiment is vile and cannot exist in civilized society, but I don’t hate you.

Perhaps it’s naïve on my end, but I suspect you are foolish or edgy like I used to be as a teenager. Maybe you don’t see the evil in your words. Maybe you stumbled into the wrong communities online. Maybe you have been corrupted by internet crazies. It’s no excuse for your words, but it is never to late to redeem yourself.

I hope you can look beyond the echo-chambers—the smug, masturbatory forums and comment sections reeking with self-satisfied bitterness. Touch grass. Enter the real world.

I hope that message doesn’t apply to anybody on this list, but it’s just in case.

For everyone - including the people above - now is a time for charity and mercy. The world is fragile, and we cannot let our emotions drive us to violent vengeance; evil cannot defeat evil, only add to it.

Instead, I hope you Americans can stay loyal to the values that built your nation. I hope that we can quench the fury, lower our arms, and unite in humility, compassion, and of course, prudent action against the evils that threaten us. I hope we can respect the sanctity of life again, and never put our politics above it, for all opinions are meagre when the very essence of what makes us human is under threat.

I hope you can speak softly and carry a big stick—despite your mercy and good faith, not everyone will de-escalate, and many will only harden their hearts and choose to lash out. Stay safe, stay careful, look after yourselves.

I don’t mean to sound too dramatic, but it’s necessary; many on the right impulsively called for war after the assassination, and in general, people tend to get too cosy with the idea of physically attacking their opponents, especially when the mob overrides the individual. There is room for interpretation as to exactly what that “war” entails, but bottom line is: nobody wants a true war.

These calls are hollow when they come from well-off voices in peaceful suburbs, those who have the means to pack up and leave at the first sign of trouble, and who have been sheltered against death and suffering throughout their entire life. I bet that war cry will quieten down to a whimper when the conflict comes to their front porch. It’s easy to promote violence when you are far away from it.

Naturally, there is righteous anger. I’m angry too. There is action to be taken, no doubt. The action is not war. War will not save the “righteous and moral” because it will kill everyone.

I don’t know what exactly we’re supposed to do.

Start by taming your emotions. Humanise your opponents. Learn to see beyond politics. Stay virtuous. Do not lose your soul in place of ideology. Understand who is willing to talk to you versus who wishes to hurt you. Give mercy to both, and keep yourself safe from the latter. Understand that this is good against evil.

In the face of death, appreciate life in its fragility.

Charlie Kirk did not get another chance to tell his wife and children “I love you,” but you certainly can.

Rest in peace Charlie. May perpetual light shine upon you.

Much love,

Odysseas

​

PS:

Nothing about the regular content is changing. This is very much a one-off email, but again, it didn't feel right to gloss over something so pertinent. I hope you liked it, and sorry if I waffled on too much.
​
PPS:

I do my best to read and reply to as many emails as possible, but there's quite a few -my apologies if I don't get back to you (or if you get a reply several months later...yikes).
​
​