Michael Knowles on Charlie Kirk's Murder and the Elite Celebration of Political Violence
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
George Abaraonye Confronts His Controversial Reaction to the Charlie Kirk Assassination and the Backlash That Followed
43:14
Michael Knowles Exposes Virginia Attorney General Candidate Jay Jones Wishing Death on Republican Opponent and His Children
41:48
The Left's Response to Charlie Kirk's Death Reveals Their True Nature and Values
12:41
Michael Knowles on Charlie Kirk's Murder and the Elite Celebration of Political Violence
Michael Knowles confronts the jarring reality of Charlie Kirk's assassination and the elite response that followed. George Abaraonye, president of the Oxford Union, publicly celebrated Kirk's death and had previously advocated for violent retaliation against institutions he deemed too broken to reform. Knowles argues that this isn't merely about disagreement but represents a fundamental threat to civil society. When half the country openly celebrates the murder of someone for expressing moderate, mainstream conservative views, the social trust necessary for a functioning nation disintegrates. The response from major corporations, Microsoft, Delta Airlines, NASDAQ, and others, firing employees who celebrated the violence offers a glimmer of hope. Knowles makes the case that preserving liberty requires reasserting order, not through oppression, but by ostracizing those who undermine the very foundations of civil discourse.
Charlie Kirk had been invited to speak at the Oxford Union not long before his death. The Oxford Union, similar to debate societies like the Yale Political Union, is supposed to be a forum for civilized debate following formal rules of order. Kirk performed admirably during his appearance there. But the response from Oxford Union president George Abaraonye following Kirk's assassination revealed something deeply disturbing about the state of elite institutions.
Abarani posted in all caps: "Charlie Kirk got shot. Let's effing go. Prayers up." These weren't prayers for Kirk's protection or recovery, but prayers of thanksgiving that he had been shot. To remove any ambiguity about his views on political violence, there exists footage of Abarani at the Oxford Union articulating his position in extreme detail.
"To effectively create change in the world we desire, side prop will argue that at times there is simply nothing else that can be required other than violent retaliation, and this is a view I wholeheartedly agree with," Abarani stated. "The view that some institutions are too broken, too aggressive, too oppressive to be reformed—like cancers of our society, they must and they should be taken down by any means necessary."
This isn't ambiguous language. The president of the Oxford Union wholeheartedly supports political violence against people on the right. What makes this particularly jarring is that this man is technically part of the elite—despite showing up to the Oxford Union wearing a do-rag and debating in what resembled a sweatsuit. He was admitted to Oxford, he became president of the Oxford Union, and he is tolerated in polite society while defending calls for violence against ordinary conservatives and celebrating when the most mainstream right-wing debater in the world was murdered.
The Personal Nature of the Threat
What strikes many people particularly hard is that Abarani knew Charlie Kirk personally. He had shown up to debate Kirk, possibly at the Cambridge Union. He met the man, knew who he was, and still celebrated his murder.
For those who knew Charlie as a friend, this has been tremendously difficult. But the reaction goes deeper than personal grief. The real trauma comes from a stark realization: people we know—family members, friends, people we grew up with, people we work with—do not merely disagree with the way we vote. They don't just say nasty things or use hyperbolic terms like "Nazis" and "Hitler." They want us dead. They're saying they want us dead. The message is not ambiguous. They would be happy if we were murdered. They would actually celebrate it.
Many of them may not even realize what they've done. Some might realize it and not care, but others seem genuinely oblivious to the implications of their rhetoric. Years ago, when Ann Coulter came to campus, friends would go off about how much they hated her, calling her evil and terrible names. The response to pointing out that there wasn't much difference between Coulter's views and those of an ordinary conservative was dismissive laughter—they simply wouldn't confront that fact.
With Charlie Kirk, who was much more moderate and measured than Coulter or really anybody else on the right, the left has no answer. Your friends, family, and coworkers cannot say "we're happy this guy got murdered, but we wouldn't want you to be murdered" when the only difference between Charlie Kirk and half the country is that he had the guts to say his moderate, normal, common sense views out loud.
The Implicit Threat
They murdered him for stating his beliefs publicly. Implicit in the broad public elite attempt to justify, explain away, shrug off, and even celebrate his murder is a threat: shut your mouth or you're next, and we'll cheer it on. We'll dance on your grave.
This represents about 60% of the national trauma around Charlie Kirk's death—the undeniable realization that the New York Times, CNN, The Nation, Reuters, the head of the Oxford Union, and countless others are really saying "we want you dead." What he said does justify his death, they suggest. He was divisive. He was controversial. You better not be.
Order as the Prerequisite for Liberty
What should be done in the face of all this? The answer is common sense and generally popular, though some disagree: it is not possible to have an open marketplace of ideas when people shoot up the marketplace.
This is not a particularly radical opinion. It has been the standard understanding of politics for a very long time, though it seems lost on some people now—perhaps because they're too ideological in their thinking or have been caught up in empty slogans.
Healthy and robust debate is a good thing. America has a wonderful tradition of it. The phrase "marketplace of ideas" is an apt analogy because marketplaces are great—they enable wonderful exchange and can lead to flourishing and mutual enrichment. But marketplaces have to have rules. You need common media of exchange, trust, security, and regulations that govern commerce. When people undermine all of that, you cannot have a marketplace.
To use a phrase from G.K. Chesterton, you cannot have "the thought that stops thought." America has a wonderfully open and healthy society, at least in principle, but that society is circumscribed by things like the Constitution, the ideas articulated in the Declaration of Independence, and morality and religion—as the Framers told us explicitly and repeatedly, the Constitution does not work to govern an immoral and irreligious people.
Yes, we have a relatively open society, but it can only remain open within certain constraints. If you undermine those constraints, your society commits suicide. That's what we're seeing in the marketplace of ideas. If you enter that marketplace and say "we're going to shoot all of you if you disagree with me," you have not expanded or contributed to the marketplace of ideas—you have fundamentally undermined it.
Even if you are a defender of the free marketplace of ideas, it is fundamentally incoherent to say that we should tolerate this kind of behavior. As a purely practical political matter, we cannot continue as a country if half the country openly wants to murder the other half and openly celebrates that murder merely for expressing opinions—especially very moderate and centrist opinions. You will not have the social trust requisite to have a country. This is an urgent, existential problem. Something must be done.
The Practical Impossibility of Normal Life
You cannot go into a restaurant if you believe the kitchen staff wants to murder you for holding normal ideas. You can't have restaurants under those conditions. If you believe your coworker is salivating at the prospect of murdering everyone to the right of Hillary Clinton and celebrating, threatening, and calling for that violence, you can't have workplaces. You can't have a country, much less a free marketplace of ideas.
What must be done first is not, as some are calling for, merely to redouble our devotion to the free marketplace of ideas. Maybe you can get to that eventually. But what must be done now is to reassert order.
Order is not contrary to liberty, freedom, or the exchange of ideas. It is the prerequisite for those things. Liberty requires order. You cannot simultaneously be free and ignorant. You cannot simultaneously be free and undisciplined. This is why we do not let toddlers vote. Every semi-reasonable person recognizes this. We behave as though it is true all day long.
Consequences for Undermining Society
There need to be consequences for undermining the whole system. People who go out and say that ordinary normal conservatives should be murdered wholesale and the streets should soak in their blood need to be ostracized from society. They should be corrected first in charity and graciousness, but if they refuse to behave as they ought in the most basic ways that civilized people must behave—if they persist in particularly antisocial behaviors and particularly suicidal ideologies—they need to be ostracized.
More practically: they need to lose their social standing. They should not be welcome in polite society. In some cases, they should lose their jobs.
There are already some hopeful signs. Companies are firing people for celebrating Kirk's murder, and they need to continue doing it. With any political reform, one should err on the side of caution and restraint, but a good place to start would be with people who are openly celebrating the murder of an innocent man whose only offense was expressing his opinion.
This is beginning to happen. Microsoft has said comments celebrating violence against anyone are unacceptable and do not align with their values. Office Depot said much the same. NASDAQ and Perkins Coie, a prominent law firm, stated "this is not who we are" and separated from individuals who celebrated the murder. The Carolina Panthers and Delta Airlines have suspended employees over these kinds of social media posts. A teacher in Canada who showed the assassination video in 4K to a classroom of 10 and 11-year-olds and then justified and celebrated it needs to lose their job. These people need to face severe consequences.
Understanding the Purpose of Free Exchange
Don't be confused by liberal ideologues or squishes on this point. Ask yourself: what is the purpose of the open marketplace of ideas? People who promoted this very idea going back to the Enlightenment, the early days of liberalism, and writers like John Milton and John Locke tell you the answer: to arrive at the truth.
The argument for the open marketplace of ideas is not just to amuse ourselves, threaten everybody, or post funny memes. It's to arrive at the truth. The argument—whatever its merits—is that by having more voices in the public square, eventually good ideas will win out over bad ideas, and we'll arrive at the truth. The means by which this occurs in the open marketplace of ideas is through debate.
If you tolerate or even celebrate murder for debate, you have fundamentally undermined the entire open marketplace of ideas. This is what Chesterton means by "the thought that stops thought." This is what the squishes and very shallow people, even on the putative right, don't seem to understand. The whole idea of the open marketplace of ideas is that we arrive at the truth through debate. If you tolerate celebrating murder for debate, you've undermined the whole thing. You haven't expanded anything—you've committed ideological suicide.
Law Enforcement and Organized Terror
Law enforcement must play a role. President Trump, through Stephen Miller, wisely stated that the government will go after left-wing terror organizations. Antifa is an organized terror organization. They have anarchist bookshops. They make bombs. They practice shooting at conservatives. They attack regularly, and in Charlie's case, they succeeded.
They need to be vigorously prosecuted, vigorously suppressed, and run out of society—not to undermine our liberty, as some ridiculous people are suggesting, but to preserve it. The only way to possibly preserve liberty, the only way to preserve a healthy exchange of ideas, the only way to preserve a flourishing society is by suppressing the elements that undermine it. Antisocial, suicidal elements must be confronted and removed to maintain the order necessary for freedom to exist.
