Listening to Charlie Kirk
This past week has been exhausting.
There are a lot of things you could say about Charlie Kirk. I’m sure everything has already been said, so I have nothing more to add. However, in the wake of seeing someone like Charlie being gunned down—while, mind you, exercising his right to freedom of speech on a university campus—I realized that in our present age, in the economy of ever shrinking margins of personal time, we’ve turned to pundits to “tell us what we need to know,” as opposed to just doing our own research.
The immensity and interconnectedness of the world in the 21st century has forced humanity into a troubling position: we are forced to “care” about everything. This isn’t a dig against organizations like the American Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders, where the outreach and activism is desperately warranted. Far from it. The “dig” is against those who put an imposition on others to shoulder their own burdens of conscience. It is very important to validate and be present with those who are suffering, even going as far to live alongside them, but it is an impossible task to do this for all people, of all tribes, of all nations, all by one’s self. And when outrage and death and famine and toil is thrust in front of us every single day and waking hour, it depletes our ability to care about the very things right in front of us.
I needed to say the above to illustrate the frustration I’ve felt hearing all the takes on Charlie and his activism. If I need a throw away quote of some insane shit that he’s said, then I need look no further a simple google search to a news outlet that has curated for me a plethora of outrage tapas for me to distribute among my fellow friends at the local echo chamber. The same I’m sure the same could be said of those rushing to his defense, offering personal anecdotes, emphasizing his positive impacts made upon their lives, all easily available from some other diametrically opposed source. During the week, a really good friend of mine challenged me to watch a youtube video featuring a gay, black PragerU influencer describe his relationship with Charlie. But even before I watched it, the very same cycle of researching the influencer for his bias quickly kicked off and I was right back to it, looking at tertiary sources (on a secondary source, no less) to confirm my own bias.
So, I decided to actually listen to Charlie in his own words. I found “Understanding The President’s Epstein Reaction” (7/16/25) on Charlie’s podcast and gave it a listen on my way home. And, honestly, I would like to listen to more of his content and retroactively add to this entry. I understand that what is contained in just this episode alone is probably a tiny piece of what made up Charlie as a whole person. It would be myopic to gather everything from just this and run with it. That said, I have a busy life and not unlimited time to dedicate to listen to podcasts, so this is what you get. For now…
The gist of the episode was attempting to interpret the frustration of Trump’s base in lieu of the so-called “Epstein files” not being released, as well as defend Trump’s reactions on social media. Charlie’s defense was that simply the person of Epstein, was not the focus of their (ie.Trump’s base) outrage, so much as the construed intent behind Epstein’s operations. He was described as a “fixer” for the deep state, and that getting to the bottom of his involvement will expose the insidious plots behind the deep state trying to have Trump assassinated last year, among other plots waged against Trump and his political career. The experience was kind of like being waterboarded with a variety of vague, sinister schemes, all being described with conspiratorial language. Despite not agreeing with any of it, I did see a common theme: the mistrust and speculation toward institutions that supposedly ran the world.
The idea that a “deep state” exists, is kind of self-fulfilling. One can’t prove it exists, and yet frustratingly enough, one can’t provide that it doesn’t exist. Ideas like the deep state are hardly new either. There has always existed the idea of a deep state throughout history. One needs only to look at antisemitism and the Jewish banking conspiracy, or the Rosicrucians, or the Freemasons to see that we have always suspected something lurking insidiously in the shadows, just waiting to take advantage of those that have been disenfranchised by “the system”. While I am certain that there is very likely no end of bad actors in the world, I am encouraged by the Gospel, which plainly states that Jesus has secured victory on the cross against the powers and oppressors. The world is not being run by these supposed organizations. Jesus is running the world. Period. It is sinful to think otherwise.
There was an earnestness in Charlie’s voice that I must acknowledge, however. It was very clear that he truly believed what he was saying. At least as far as I have listened, he didn’t reek of the cynicism of Ted Cruz or the performative exploitation of Alex Jones. Unfortunately, it is possible to earnestly believe something and yet, so tragically, be profoundly wrong. My initial impression of Charlie is one of someone who dug for buried treasure until he found something that looked like it, then advocated for it, then built a platform to support it, despite it all the while being nothing but fools gold.
