Charlie Kirk’s death divides USA: of conspiracies and weapon debates

Charlie Kirk’s trademark was the provocation. Hardly any influencer in the USA split the audience as much as that Christian-nationalist activist. He was a revelation for his fans: rhetorically brilliant, quick -witted, young and tight to the right. He was a stimulus figure for his opponents: racist, xenophobic, trans- and homophobic. If you had to come up with a right cultural fighter, it would probably look like Kirk. On Wednesday, the 31-year-old spoke at a rally at the Utah Valley University about gun violence by trans people when he was shot.

The violent death of the right opinion maker is a new low in the politically so unforgettable USA. The moment of a common solidarity of fans and opponents Kirks only lasted a first short shock moment. At the latest when the news of his death spread, the cultural struggle that Kirk previously dominated so playfully. Only now without him in the front row.

Many celebrities commented shortly after the attack on social media. Okto their condolences, their malice or their horror, only to be roared in the comment columns from one or the other camp.

Ex-President Barack Obama, for example: “We still don’t know what the person has motivated that Charlie Kirk shot, but this kind of hideous violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will pray for Charlie’s family tonight, especially for his wife Erika and her two small children. ”

What actually sounds like solidarity apparently appealed to many users to the blood. “They started violence against Republicans! They would have to sit in prison,” commented one user on X. “Democrats are domestic terrorists”, another.

Kirk’s death left a virtual battlefield of accusations, conspiracy theories and fantasies of violence on social media. The conspiracy theorist Alex Jones posted a video of himself in which he breaks out several times into tears and pays homage to Kirk. At the end of the clip, he explains: “This bastards from the lies media also cover up death! But we will get our country back!” An absurd accusation, no newspaper in the United States was not fully reporting on the attack on this day. Jones apparently speaks from his soul to his followers. You are already seeing a civil war: “That was the left! Charlie found supporters on universities, that is the last bastion of the left. They couldn’t allow that.”

Author Stephen King used the situation to draw attention to one of his heart’s topics. On X he wrote: “The motif of the man who shot Charlie Kirk is unclear (although he is probably mentally unstable). However, it is clear that it was another example of American weapons. “King has been campaigning for stricter weapons laws in the USA for years. However, his post hit a nerve, especially among Kirk’s followers. More than 30,000 (!) Comments gained under his lines. Among them.

But many people also out of stock on the left -liberal side. Matthew Dowd, TV commentator of the more left-handed broadcaster MSNBC, explained in a switching on Kirk shortly after the assassination attempt: “He was one of the most controversial recent personalities who constantly spread this type of hate speech. You cannot have these thoughts, do not speak the words and then assume that no bad act is followed. Unfortunately, this is our reality.”

Dowd’s statement triggered a wave of outrage among the spectators. The station apologized without further ado, according to several media, DowD was released with immediate effect. Later he also asked personally for his tone.

Charlie Kirk was an important mouthpiece for young people for the Maga movement around Donald Trump. He became famous with his video series “Prove Me Wrong” (German: “prove the opposite”), in which he set up provocative theses and discussed with people who had a fundamental opinion than he did. Through his rhetorical talent and his quick wit, he also managed to bring arch -conservative and right -wing positions closer to a young audience.

Kirk also lost himself again and again in racism and conspiracy theories. For example, he explained in such a he believed that black people were better than they were slaves. And “justified” this with the crime statistics before 1940, in which violent acts of black people were supposedly much less common.