By: Luis López Valpuesta
In memory of Charlie Kirk (1993-2025).
Given my scant presence on social media, I admit with regret that, until the very day of his death, I had no idea who Charlie Kirk was. Upon seeing the news of his assassination on Antena 3 (a presumably moderate television station that from the outset disqualified him as «a far-right activist»), I asked my son out of curiosity. And he, somewhat shocked by the news despite his progressive ideas (sins of youth), told me that his more conservative friends were in shock because they used to follow him on social media. He also told me that he was someone very close to Trump. I frowned: I immediately thought I was dealing with one of those many weirdos who sprout and wither alongside the unclassifiable forty-seventh leader of the free world.
Shortly afterward, I turned to the internet, and it seemed to confirm that negative perception. The first references I found about Charlie Kirk online presented him as an utterly sinister being: an «ultra,» an «ultraconservative,» a «despicable fascist who despised blacks and trans people,» in short, «a provocateur»; someone who had bought many tickets to be shot; «a fanatic—in short—to whom they’ve put a bullet.» In other words, regarding his person, a judgment was poured out much worse than that which those respectable cowards (intellectuals, university professors…) used to make in the past about terrorism victims, that abject «he must have done something»; a miserable phrase we heard too many times where ETA’s murderers imposed their terror. In Charlie Kirk’s case, the left knew perfectly well what he had done, and it was evident, therefore, the reason why he had been taken out: simply, he was a fascist, and we know that the best fascist is a dead one. The left, always so subtle.
Honestly, that dirty way of referring to a young man, married and with small children, a disseminator of ideas who was shot and murdered while debating with young people on a university campus, seemed despicable and disgusting to me. Even if those insults had precisely matched the reality of his actions and words, even if he had been more racist than Sabino Arana, for example. I recall, in this regard, that when the kidnapper of Ortega Lara died of cancer—the one who tortured him for nearly two years in a hole, that is, a real fascist—journalists crowded around his victim to extract a headline. But he disappointed them and, with elegance, simply replied: «May he rest in peace.» «Class,» «category,» «honor» is either always something inherent to the soul or it isn’t.
Fortunately, many videos of his interventions began to emerge (and always in front of plural audiences, not like those on «La revuelta»). And since prudence demands always going to primary sources, I spent time calmly watching many of them. As I intuited, a crude caricature had been made of a man with very solid and well-founded ideas, which had absolutely nothing to do with fascism or racism, and a lot to do with Christianity (in fact, almost everything he spoke about had a Christian imprint). In such a way that I gradually became moved by the lucidity, clarity, goodness, and courage of that man (and his patience and respect when debating face-to-face with guys and gals, creeps and creepesses who truly hated him, for the worst hatred is the odium fidei). With what intelligence and heart he defended the homeland, the family, and all the non-negotiable principles of a Christian civilization, besieged on all fronts by the error of a progressivism as impious as it is totalitarian and criminal. Specifically, his condemnation of abortion was as forceful as it was well-founded. And, above all, what absolute love for Christ, whom he acknowledged as his redeemer, without being ashamed of Our Lord as so many intimidated Christians of our time do! His Christian faith—Protestant, although his wife was Catholic—impregnated every word that came out of his mouth, so that, in addition to feeling immense sorrow for his unjust death, I was indignant with religious zeal at the way he was insulted, even in media outlets that were—principally—not radical.
It was then—meditating on that universal disqualification of the character by the left, the center, and even the cowardly little right that judged him as radical or ultra—that, thanks to an immediate intuition, I was able to understand why I had perceived no trace of humanity in so many people who were supposed to be temperate (including the European and US parliaments, which boycotted the acts in his memory). A chilling intuition, as I will explain below.
We all know—Charlie Kirk first—that the left has imposed its totalitarian (and pseudo-religious) worldview of reality today, in almost all spheres of information, general politics, and university life. And there was no progressive dogma that Charlie Kirk did not combat with «the double-edged sword of his word» (which was inspired by the Word of God). The entire artillery of the divine Word was nobly employed against the errors and moral and intellectual misfocuses of our time: gender, feminism, homosexuality, abortion and the culture of death, neomalthusianism, anthropogenic climate change (and the nefarious policies that have been implemented), scientific materialism as the only paradigm of knowledge, Agenda 2030… In short, a modern dogmatic that has settled in general in all public spheres, and assaults the souls of our children in schools. But they have not been imposed precisely by the strength of their rational conviction, by their indisputable fit to the reality of things, or by their evidence, in short. Not at all. They have been implemented thanks to the greater shrewdness of the sons of darkness (Lk. 16:8), who have followed with unwavering will the well-known Marxist sentence that «the past must be smashed to pieces,» a past built by the values of Christian civilization. Communist maxim that in the end is nothing more than a variant of that most primitive rule given at the beginning of the human adventure by the greatest liar, murderer, and totalitarian who exists: «you will be like gods.»
Well then, without the slightest complex, Charlie Kirk debated with anyone who dared to contrast ideas, to prove to them the scant consistency of such progressive fallacies, manufactured expressly to destroy any hint of Christian civilization. And as a good connoisseur of the Scriptures, Charlie Kirk knew that it was foreseeable that the degeneration of the intellectual world would reach this unbearable point in which we live today. In fact, a careful reading of the Bible is enough to realize that what we palpate today with clarity and lucidity fits to the millimeter with what the Lord warned us about when the last times arrive:
«because of my name many will be offended, and they will betray one another and hate one another, and many false prophets will arise and lead many astray, and because of the increase of wickedness the love of many will grow cold.»
Thus says the Evangelist Matthew. And Luke, with great sorrow, will put in Christ’s mouth this reflection:
«When the Son of man comes. Will he find faith on the earth?»
The Lord speaks of an «increase of wickedness,» an environment so unbearable and suffocating that it will make many throw in the towel («the love will grow cold»). In relation to «the good ones,» some will capitulate out of cowardice, retreating to winter quarters that no longer exist; others will assume the inevitability of the proposed progress (even recognizing its evil root), and will try to channel it by making Christ compatible with Belial (2 Cor. 6:15), but ultimately being devoured by the latter.
And it is that, as Chesterton said, «the conservative is a progressive who walks slowly.» And given that in our time vertiginous ideological and social changes are taking place (and in geometric progression, increasingly immediate, radical, and rupturist), today’s poor conservatives are breathless from following such a whirlwind of changes; they behave like schizophrenics by trying to reconcile them with their old ideas in which they no longer believe, and sometimes struggle to introduce minimal and useless corrections to those monumental basic errors. And when the error is consolidated, those endearing yet pathetic right-wingers sometimes become the first and most energetic defenders of such aberrations, like those unfortunates whom Stalin executed and who died shouting vivas to Stalin.
But there are others—like Charlie Kirk—who refuse to swallow camels and openly combat that kingdom, antechamber of hell, that seeks to replace the genuine Kingdom of God. And these heroic men reap the hatred of all, from left-wing radicals of course, but also from moderates (from the right and the left), who will accuse them of extremists, ultras….
The next step is none other than the odium fidei. That is, hatred of the Truth, hatred of Christ, the only Way, Truth, and Life, and of whom Charlie Kirk was a fabulous propagandist. Because in the end, cowardice, indifferentism, or the vain pretense of appeasement typical of the conservative world of our days will dig its own grave one day, like those centrist experiments that lit a candle to God and another to the devil. I cannot contain my disgust for those people with principles, Christians who are not stupid and perceive the evil of the left’s dogmas, and who still feel more contempt than admiration for people like Charlie Kirk because he is very extremist, for God’s sake, for God’s sake!
This mealy-mouthed and sacristy little right, without the balls to repeal even with an absolute majority the most criminal laws of the left, forgets what people like Charlie Kirk understood and many today grasp/capture with clarity. That the war they call cultural is not such, that it is a truly supernatural war, because never as today can we affirm with certainty that «the whole world is under the power of the evil one» (1 Jn. 5:19).
Charlie Kirk chose the only possible path, unreserved combat against evil. And he did it with a force as brave as if it were a «double-edged sword» (Heb. 4:12); with the same «sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God» (Eph. 6:17). In short, with Christ, who is the Word made flesh, who dwelt among us (Jn. 1:1-14); Word that will come out of the mouth of the King of Kings when he returns with such power that he will subdue the forces of evil and establish his Kingdom (Rev. 19:15).
Then he will severely punish those who hated Charlie Kirk. But also, just like the lukewarm of the Church of Laodicea (Rev. 3:16), he will vomit out of his mouth, for the same reason, those orderly people who, to be forgiven by the haters, judged him as ultra, extremist, or radical.
May the Lord you loved reward you for the good you have done. Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk. We will never forget you.