We prefer not to contemplate what this really means

I've been surprised at how much Charlie Kirk's murder has affected me. Somebody on Twitter commented that they hadn't felt this way since 9-11. I thought that was an interesting comparison. However, I don't think that's quite right, at least not for me.

For a very, very long time, many in the Muslim world had openly and frequently declared that they were at war with Israel, Christians, and the United States. We politely ignored them, preferring not to contemplate what that really meant. When the attacks of 9-11 happened, that forced some of us to recognize what many Muslims had been trying to explain to us for a long time. That a very significant portion of the Muslim world wished to destroy Western Civilization.

So, the 9-11 attacks were upsetting to me, but it wasn't exactly a new revelation. Also, it was obvious that if America were ever seriously threatened by the Islamic world, we could win that war in a month or two, if we ever chose to do so. It would be an awful thing, and I'm so thankful that that has not been necessary. But I don't seriously fear any foreign power. The United States has the greatest military in the world. This is why Muslims use terrorism. They can’t challenge our military, so they attack our civilians. Very sensible. Ethically questionable, but sensible.

Charlie Kirk’s murder has been much more upsetting to me.

For a long time, the American left had openly and frequently declared that they were at war with Western Civilization. And with Israel, Christians, and the United States. We politely ignored them, preferring not to contemplate what that really meant. When Charlie Kirk's murder happened, that forced some of us to recognize what many American leftists have been trying to explain to us for a long time. That a very significant portion of the American left wished to destroy Western Civilization.

Of course, most Democrats would not say that they wish to destroy Western Civilization. Just like most Muslims are not bloodthirsty terrorists. But if your team declares war on someone, and you continue to support your team, then you might want to carefully re-evaluate your true motivations. If you continue to support the warmongers, there must be a reason why, and you should be honest with yourself and with others as to exactly what that reason is.

Three thousand Americans died on 9-11. But the murder of this one man is much more upsetting to me. That seems odd, because the message is the same – they both force us to recognize something we should already know - that Western Civilization is under assault.

The difference is that if the Muslim world, or any other foreign entity, seriously threatened us, we could win that war. It would be horrible, as wars always are. But we would win.

Kirk’s murder forced us to recognize what the American left has been telling us for a long time. That they are at war with Western Civilization. With us. And if what they say is actually true, then that is a problem that is impossible to fix. Or at least, so close to impossible that it seems hopeless to contemplate.

After Kirk’s murder, many prominent Democrats are calling for a respectful dialogue.

But that’s all Charlie Kirk did. That’s why they had to kill him. Respectful dialogue makes violence much less likely. It leads to empathy and independent thought. It makes it harder to dismiss your adversaries as Nazis or racists. Democrats and the American left cannot tolerate any of that. It was Kirk’s devotion to the ideals they now pretend to hold that made him their primary target. He just had to go.

Imagine a left-wing Charlie Kirk. Going around to campuses and other venues, inviting his political adversaries to explain their point of view, then debating them on whatever topic they wish. Calmly and patiently explaining the virtues of leftism, and pointing out the benefits of leftism around the world and throughout human history. Explaining the underlying philosophy and fundamental concepts. Listening to opposing viewpoints and attempting to either find common ground or at least to more clearly define their points of disagreement.

Who on earth would be the left-wing Charlie Kirk?

It doesn’t matter because no leftist can do that. The underlying ideology of leftism, and the consistent results of leftism, are impossible to defend. So all they can do is stop debate. Stop discussion. Don’t ever allow anyone to engage in calm, respectful, thoughtful debate.

The very idea of a left-wing Charlie Kirk is absurd. Which, one might think, would bother leftists a bit. One might think.

Two-thirds of Gen-Z young adults hold a favorable view of socialism. One-third hold a favorable view of communism. I would guess that 90% of them couldn’t clearly define either term. But that’s not the point. The point is that they don’t like Western Civilization. So they vote Democrat.

George Orwell famously pointed out that “All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once fraud is exposed, they must rely exclusively on force.”

Podcasts and other new media on the internet have exposed the fraud of modern leftism. Democrats can no longer depend on Walter Cronkite, CNN, The New York Times, et al. to keep Americans in the dark. As long as those news sources were accepted as above reproach, then any disagreement could be dismissed as conspiracy theory.

But with the instant widespread sharing of ideas through the internet, the left’s monopoly on 'truth' has been destroyed. Seemingly overnight. You can understand why Democrats haven’t quite figured out how to handle this new reality. It must be disconcerting for them.

But Orwell told us what happens next.

Now that their fraud has been exposed, they are left with nothing but force.

So we get the BLM riots, burning down cities for months. We get a steady stream of assassination attempts against conservatives from Supreme Court justices, to insurance company executives, to media personalities, to congressmen playing baseball, to US Ppesidents. We get people on the street being viciously attacked because they're wearing a red baseball cap or an American flag T-shirt.

The modern left has been trying to explain to us that they are at war with us. We haven’t been listening, preferring not to contemplate what that really meant.

Because what that really means is that we are in a war, which we didn’t choose, against an adversary that we can’t attack. We can’t have an open war against half the population of the United States. Even if they are at war with us.

We shouldn't. So we won't. Obviously.

Saul Alinsky is laughing somewhere.

You can’t win a war if you can’t fight that war.

The only way that I can think of that we might have a chance in this war would be to follow Charlie Kirk’s approach. Open a calm, respectful dialogue with leftists to discuss ideas. Create an environment of mutual respect and goodwill rather than one of hatred and violence.

That might work.

But the left can’t allow that, obviously. So they won’t.

So there you go.

As usual, I really hope I’m wrong about all this.

Please. Prove me wrong.