Mystics & Artist-Prophets:

.

---

.

Superpowers – A Nation Trapped in its own Creation: As we continue to grasp the fundamental question of evacuation, or rather evacuating the middle (either in politics & corporations, ideologies & religion, and scepticism & truth), where the middle has become monstrous – yet it’s ephemeral. Meaning its form can change, and as such, we can reassemble that form alongside conserving things that are good, ethical and moral. The semantic religious variation of this fundamental question regarding Christianity is: how do you evacuate fundamentalism from Christendom as these Christian adjacent cult groups of power grow and metastasise into something else as it engulfs into (nationalism) politics and conspiracy theory.  

Recent data indicate that 47% of MAGA supporters do not care about the scandal involving Trump and Epstein, and it would not influence their voting decision even if Trump were found guilty. This suggests that if he runs again, they would still vote for him. This translates to approximately 36 million people who previously voted for Trump, raising significant concerns about their judgments and values. This situation underscores a fundamental question regarding true Christian principles. MAGA Christians often grandstand about protecting children, but their selective focus on specific issues reveals a double standard, as they tend to ignore many other vital concerns. Despite this, following the election and nearly a year into their term, 8% of voters regret their choice, which still leaves a base of around 30 million supporters.

Trump may not be an actual NAZI, but presents himself as a racist-fascist; he’s more of a tuning fork for others to pitch their policies and legislation, and when it strikes, a vibration of apocalyptic end advances towards the people, affecting his loyal MAGA populist base. Its frequency affects the young and the lonely, who, for the most part, are mere LARPer-Nazis or 4Channers. If there is a time to revaluate whom you dislike, whether it should lean more towards Trump or Hillary? Now is the moment. While both have their flaws, neither Hillary Clinton nor Kamala Harris has ever been president. On the other hand, Trump’s numerous questionable executive orders and policies should warrant a strong sense of disdain. He has evolved from being a low-rent gangster from Queens to becoming more diabolical and increasingly lacking empathy.

Their bloodlust grows ever more fervent as they post memes about alligators eating immigrants in detention centres. Laura Loomer even suggested wanting to have 65 million alligators in this country to prey on people of colour. Conservatives often view death as a form of retribution. Still, this perspective, combined with their fascist inclinations and historical actions—such as lynching or the brutality seen in ancient Rome during gladiatorial events—reveals a troubling mindset. They see punishment as a means of supporting capital punishment, but it is deeply one-sided and unjust. Their interpretation of Christianity appears more rooted in power, grievance, and retribution than in the teachings of Christ. The weight of their hypocrisy has become unbalanced, resulting in a palpable disconnection from humanity.

The history of the United States is rooted in an origin story marked by original sins of slavery and exclusion. The first republic, born from a revolution led by white patriots, was designed to exclude and oppress. Its structure was meant to protect exploitation, which was not seen as a sin but rather as a goal. No divine presence guided the Constitution; instead, the founders preserved slavery because it served their political and economic interests. It’s no wonder they parallel NAZI mythology; a match made in hell, as it affords the same attributes and the same mythology of supreme Übermensch. Myths of men equal in stature to gods collectivised, ready to fight the impure so-called enemy.

.

Countries that are newly established as federations often lack a strong sense of identity, leading to a void that needs to be filled. For many young, uneducated white men, this absence can drive a tendency to gravitate towards reactionary movements like Nazism and extreme subcultures. Without a tangible history or identity, they project their emotions onto myths and fandoms, rather than engaging in introspection or seeking genuine community connections.

This phenomenon reflects a parallel between para-social relationships and the descent into incel ideology, mental health struggles, and extreme beliefs. When pop culture and music fail to provide solace or manage the chaos of pent-up hate and darkness, it becomes evident that the source of frustration is not solely on immigrants, the transgender community, or LGBTQ+ individuals. Instead, the discontent may stem from within, with movements like MAGA serving as a collective outlet for these internal conflicts.

There is a distinct parallel between far-right white men, including political leaders, who see themselves as a sort of Übermensch messiah while presenting themselves as underdogs. They consider themselves anti-establishment, despite the fact that they are the establishment. They control the GOP, the Supreme Court, and a significant portion of both traditional (legacy) and social media. This perspective is so skewed that they fail to recognise the vital difference between Homelander and Superman. The MAGA movement represents the establishment while perceiving itself as revolutionary and rebellious, all the while ironically supporting capitalism, corporations, fascism, and religiosity. They go so far as to say, “The country needs a dictator.”

The real collapse and betrayal occurred after the Civil War, when the United States had the opportunity to replace its first republic with something new and better. This period in history was crucial; it was essential to establish the proper framework from the beginning to avoid future radicalisation. During this era of Radical Reconstruction, there was a chance to eradicate the legal remnants of slavery as well as the entire ideology of white supremacy embedded in the country’s governance, law, and culture. However, the founders retained power and influence, and by merely supporting this new direction, they could have demonstrated their disdain for the old ways and embraced the emergence of a second republic.

The real collapse and betrayal occurred after the Civil War, when the United States had the opportunity to replace its first republic with something new and better. This period in history was crucial; it was essential to establish the proper framework from the beginning to avoid future radicalisation. During this era of Radical Reconstruction, there was a chance to eradicate the legal remnants of slavery as well as the entire ideology of white supremacy embedded in the country’s governance, law, and culture. However, the founders retained power and influence, and by merely supporting this new direction, they could have demonstrated their disdain for the old ways and embraced the emergence of a second republic.

This new, or second, republic is founded on principles of multi-racial democracy, constitutional equality, and direct accountability of power. It acknowledges the sacrifices made by soldiers who lost their lives in the Civil War, as their sacrifices provided the opportunity for a new birth of freedom. However, this vision of a just republic never fully materialised, as the Supreme Court dismantled the Reconstruction efforts, various amendments, and the Civil Rights Act. Instead of being defeated, the Confederacy and the First Republic were reintegrated, and the consequences of that integration continue to influence modern American politics.

The Supreme Courts of both the past and present share a troubling pattern of making wrongful judgments. For instance, the Supreme Court granted Trump immunity, fully aware of the consequences that would unfold during his administration. While executive orders are issued, they often serve an ultranationalist agenda rather than the common good. This narrative is intertwined with the “Lost Cause” ideology that’s being incorporated into the America 250 celebration.

Trump’s administration persuaded the public to equate rebellion with patriotism, suggesting that it is possible to frame oppression as a traditional value. They manipulated individuals into believing that resisting equality was equivalent to defending freedom and that denying history somehow preserved national unity. By presenting facts devoid of their context, they aimed to foster togetherness, arguing that justice threatened the nation rather than recognising what truly constitutes a great nation. The push for “patriotic education” under Trump’s administration is, in reality, an attempt to suppress historical truths under the guise of unity.

How do we begin to answer the fundamental question of evacuation and reassembly when nationalists are setting the terms of memory, and liberal nationalists or other institutions are busy laundering that violence through centrist respectability? We cannot see the field as performativity neutral. To begin, you must acknowledge or confront the concept of the lost cause and the patriot myth, not merely as nostalgia, but as the ideological foundations of the modern American nationalist state. If you don’t, addressing that fundamental question will be as impossible as being trapped in a nation of its own making.

Superpowers – The Spirit Logos [Holy Ghost] is not an Instrument for Reason: In Pascal’s Wisdom, he discusses the limitations of reason, emphasising that reason alone cannot lead us to divinity or reveal the ultimate truth about the existence of God. So, he concluded that it’s possible to simultaneously believe and disbelieve, making both positions equally rational or irrational in a sense. This gave us the dilemma of choice (or a wager) in this dilemma: one either believes in God and risks a small potential loss, or does not believe and risks a potentially infinite loss if God exists.

The question of consciousness ventures into metaphysics, suggesting that it can exist outside the body. This idea was popularised by Jung’s concepts of collective consciousness and unconsciousness. Viewing consciousness, spirit, and morality solely as reflections of the brain—according to materialism—offers a limited perspective. This viewpoint overlooks the significance of progress and the intuitive capabilities of the imagination and spirit. It allows reason to become fixated on itself, failing to recognise that history and time are dynamic and constantly in motion.  History has also shown us that society can be threatened by an either/or mentality, which is often fueled by the darker aspects of reason—whether that reasoning is instrumental or pure. Therefore, it may be easier to dismiss these concepts entirely; however, it is often wiser to acknowledge and manage the inherent irrationality found within both pure and instrumental reasoning.

Accepting that they do not exist is where atheist (& Nu-atheist) dwells in – alongside the contradiction that insofar as managing hyperrealism space cosmology as an instrumental – when in reality it’s really irrational. Also Christian fundamentalism inclusive brand to perpetuate their truth and no one else. We already understand that the phrase “scientist says” is purely self-referential and stems from scientism that lacks validity. Additionally, we recognise that certain groups, such as those associated with MAGA, are not representative of actual Christian values. Instead, they function as cults that disrupt the standard fabric of society. In this context, we can only manage their irrational behaviour, which often overshadows any semblance of rationality they might claim to possess.

In its irrationality, religion often serves as a form of restraint in civilisation, but inevitably become too flagitious as it tends to revert to theocratic politics and fascistic regimes. Hyperrealism, which pretends to be factual even when it is purely irrational, serves as a representation of purity in this context. However, it is the final element that hinders a populist cult’s tendency to foster extreme ideological rhetoric. The cult itself does not inspire this rhetoric but is rather shaped by the narratives constructed by elites, corporate think tanks, and Christian conspiracy theorists. We understand what absolute facts are, yet many facts are amorphous. These are constructed through rationalism and can shift over time and history, becoming self-referential in a way that parallels religion and its dogmatism. When examined through the lens of hyperrealism, which masquerades as fact, we find that what is revealed is actually ritualization, magic, symbolic rituals, and a hyper-ritualised form of occultism and technocracy.

Nonetheless, pretending that the hyperrealism of science is a reality or a confirmed fact can be considered a reasonable gamble. This pragmatic choice yields tangible outcomes that have yet to collapse. We are aware of the potential consequences, as well as what has already occurred, with post-truth ideologies and conspiracy theories undermining accepted facts. This issue is explored in the paradoxical nature of hyperrealist absolutes (as in “or scientists say”), which becomes increasingly questionable in light of our current state, characterised by alarming apocalyptic sentiments. Some flat-earth proponents also support ‘white replacement theories’ and go so far as to claim that death camps are fabrications.

Ultra-nationalists have taken control of the USA, supported by corporate and capitalist oligarchs and elites, as well as a populist base consisting of fundamentalist and MAGA cult groups. The UK faces challenges stemming from a failed post-Brexit endeavour, which has been turned into an anti-immigration uproar. Meanwhile, in Australia, a small populist leader struggled to recognise the propagandised discourse surrounding mass migration and failed to acknowledge the facts about migration in front of them. These three situations share a common thread; they focus primarily on an irrational sense of victimhood and negative nationalism.

These examples illustrate the fascist and white supremacist ideals that have re-emerged in the West. Evangelical fundamentalists navigate two realities—rational and irrational—where critical thinking and understanding are typically seen as normal behaviour. Analysing how social systems function involves recognising the presence of systemic racism within institutions and culture. This understanding contrasts sharply with the perspective of a white evangelical, which encompasses a specific set of beliefs. In this context, Jesus serves as a symbol for an idea reinforced by biblical rhetoric, emphasising self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. Meanwhile, so-called “imperfect” individuals are exploited to promote the gospel of Christ. Figures like Trump and Charlie Kirk often go unchallenged by white audiences, as their words and actions are subsumed under the broader narratives of white evangelical Christianity, white supremacy, and white nationalism. At the same time, the Holy Scriptures portray Christians as victims, suggesting that “you will be hated for standing up for Christ.” This narrative has been used to justify some of the most heinous acts both historically and in contemporary society.

They view this as a rational approach for the greater good, even though it may seem irrational when considered through the lens of morality and reason. A white evangelical person can act as a leader of moral and ethical truth while simultaneously positioning themselves as a victim of those who hold different beliefs. This perspective is packaged as unconditional love, yet it also asserts that people will go to hell if they do not share these beliefs. It creates a narcissistic cycle where sins can be overlooked as long as one asks for forgiveness, with the greatest sin being the denial of Christ.

It is a fact that most violence in America is committed by white people associated with white supremacist organisations. For these individuals, such actions are justified because they are unable to see others as fully human unless those individuals align with their beliefs. Anyone who perpetuates this bigotry only reinforces their views and sense of victimisation, believing they will be oppressed for standing up for morality and ethics. This, in turn, feeds the cycle of white supremacy, influencing how they express themselves through writing and speech. These individuals operate in a different reality shaped by narcissism, where they can carry out acts of, support them, repent, and continue their lives without consequence. Any belief that deviates from their ideology is seen as a threat to their existence.

Twenty-three per cent of the U.S. population identifies as evangelical, which constitutes the majority of the MAGA movement. In the biblical context, the idea of laying down one’s life for others is often seen as a justification for martyrdom, much like figures such as Charlie Kirk-k-k. His own bigotry—including racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia—is overlooked if he claims to speak the truth in a way that models Jesus as an instrument for change. In this view, it is believed that God uses imperfect people to fulfil His purposes.

Holding them accountable for their bigotry is often dismissed as they will ironically equate it to hate launched on them because humanity in a eugenic sense, only belongs to white people—especially evangelical white men. When a figure like Kirk, who is revered as a central figure akin to a deity, is killed, it is perceived as an attack on their entire identity. For them, having an identity rooted in hate and bigotry being challenged is demoralising, as it serves as a reminder of life’s fragility, pushing them toward a form of narcissistic rage. They are often blind to the atrocities associated with Zionist Christendom and its part on the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, and refuse to acknowledge that the gunman responsible for killing Kirk is at least linked to right-wing ideologues. However, since Kirk represented their ideals and spoke their harmful narratives, his death reveals the true nature of their beliefs. By choosing to mourn this man, they inadvertently expose themselves as white supremacists, which something they cannot reconcile with or even put back in the box.

This nationalist cult group’s fate is sealed within its walls of inclusivity and narcissism, and it’s a pointless endeavour trying to disenchant them from their demoralisation. It’s a lost island that some must navigate into, and hopes they make it out unscathed from the bloodsuckers that dwell in it. You would achieve better results on the fundamental aspect of evacuation and its form by appealing to non-voters and fence-sitters.

Fence sitters or outsiders looking in have all but given up advocating for a specific side of a polarised government, and also dismissing any centrist appeal. The late George Carlin describes left-wing and right-wing as metaphors for bird wings and that both sides of politics are equally part of the same bird, a corporate vulture that steals your wealth. There is an unspoken truism that polarised sides exist. With a wing on the left and a wing on the right, the bird soars in the delusion of democracy, but a bird with only one wing can be disastrous.

He also expressed that he feels too old to care and plans to observe the apocalypse from a distance. This nihilistic viewpoint is more characteristic of seniors, solitary introverts, or individuals, rather than those who are part of a shared community with collective knowledge and legacies—especially those with children who have a stake in shaping the future. They are fighting for a world where their children can live safely and fairly.

Chris Hedges, a journalist and fence sitter, has a nihilistic worldview shaped by his firsthand experiences of the nightmare in Palestine. He believes that no resolution will emerge from the powers on both sides that claim to uphold democracy. This parallel can be drawn to Sartre’s idea of the absurdity of dying for Danzig; it may seem reasonable to sacrifice oneself for democracy, knowing that it is indeed democracy one is fighting for. Sartre recognised the futility of nationalist ideals and the illogical nature of such causes. He understood that Danzig was not merely about territory; it represented the suppression of human freedom and dignity. As a result, fighting for democracy—defined as the freedom to choose and act authentically—became a reasonable and necessary cause. This aligns with Sartre’s philosophy, which emphasises individual freedom and responsibility. It suggests that we are free to choose our actions and commit to causes that promote human liberation. This commitment is what gives our lives meaning.

Pascal’s wager is set upon the rational and irrational and fence-sitting is merely sitting on the comet with a good view, waiting for it to hit Earth, meeting its apocalyptic end. As the wager’s pragmatic decisions fail to provide a definitive answer, a decision must be made, weighing the potential consequences of each possibility. Stand for something; pick a side and choose democracy, given what is happening to the US’s democracy; their freedoms are being choked by a fascist regime of the extreme right-wing, it’s easy to figure out which side still has democracy, or at the very least it stems from left of centre.

Pascal’s wager highlights the tension between rationality and irrationality. Sitting on the fence is like watching a comet approach Earth, ultimately leading to a catastrophic outcome. Since the pragmatic choices offered by the wager do not yield a definitive answer, a decision must be made that weighs the potential consequences of each option. It’s important to stand for something; choose a side, particularly in light of the current state of democracy in the United States. A fascist regime stemming from the extreme right is stifling the freedoms of the US’s citizens. It’s clear which side still supports democracy, or at least upholds principles that align with the left-centre.

In the TV show Family Ties, the episode titled “Little Man on Campus” features a conversation between Alex, a student, and his professor, focusing on free speech in relation to Eugene Debs’s anti-war speech. The key takeaway here is the importance of choice and opinion. A political scientist named Holmes posits, though his view is an opinion rather than an absolute fact, that Debs posed a clear and present danger to the country. What’s particularly interesting is that Alex, who is a profoundly conservative character who idolises capitalism and hero-worships Nixon and Reagan, is beginning to grapple with the positive aspects of socialist ideologies.

Am I to believe that you feel Debs had a right to make that
anti-war speech?
 
Yeah. Yeah, I do. I mean, the guy was not
blowing up factories. He…
He made a speech. You know, he…
He was presenting ideas.

Ideas incite people.

Of course ideas incite people. Ideas are supposed
to incite people.

Isn’t that the whole reason we have the First Amendment? So that people can be exposed to different ideas and then act on the ones
they agree with?

In other words, you feel that Debs’ case was decided wrongly. You disagree with, Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the most brilliant
legal minds in history.

No.

Yes, you do! You just said so! You disagree with him!

All right! I disagree with him. What do you want from me?

What I want from you, Mr Keaton is for you to put some of that kind of analysis, some of that kind of meaningful insight into your essays.
I want you to stand up for what you believe to be true, even if it conflicts with Oliver Wendell Holmes or with the Framers of the Constitution, or even with me.

Republicanism in the 1980s was distinct; it had not yet been entirely overtaken by corporatism and the alt-right. Before the rise of the neoconservative movement, there was still an expectation to uphold ethical standards, and a genuine awareness of the working class existed. However, amidst the daily grind of work, professional responsibilities often overshadow ethical considerations. This creates an unspoken understanding that conformity is necessary when confronted with ethical dilemmas, ultimately leading to a sense of loyalty. The struggles of the working class are inextricably linked to ethics, as they necessitate ongoing effort and introspection. Today’s Republicanism shows a diminished awareness of loyalty. When it does acknowledge loyalty; it does so only by tunnelling through the structural denial of the central role of ethics.

Remember our examination of rationalism, which posits that facts are supposed to be absolute. In contrast, hyperrealism, scientism, and cult religions are all about building facts based on irrationality being perceived as rational. This non-absolute fact by Debs, which is really reason acting as fact being a danger to the country, is a promulgation of the existential death of ethics and just like dying for Danzig, the phrase “if I want to die for democracy I need to know I live on one” is a hypothetical statement that reflects a philosophical concern about the nature of freedom.

So, we know that reason alone cannot lead us into divinity. In a logical sense, it could lead us into existentialism and its propositions concerning truth and reality, where perennialism imparts a simulacrum of reality. In the post-9/11 era, constructed fictions, such as false flags and hoaxes, indeed lend themselves to an either/or approach. Pascal’s limits of reason (the wager) suggest that both belief and disbelief are equally possible, but throughout this discourse concerning politics, it’s better to make a choice. In this rational choice, it intersects with goodness and godliness, aligning with choice towards God, and despite the inherent uncertainty for God; it’s the most rational course of action.

Superpowers – The Existential Death and no Re-birth: The state of being before making a choice—where both belief and disbelief are possible—is sufficient in itself for a meaningful existence. It was Kant who expanded on Pascal’s wager by introducing the categorical imperative, which suggests that rational action involves adhering to universal moral laws. This holds even when confronted with irrational, personal desires that might suggest a different course of action. In today’s modern world, conspiracy theories play a significant role in people’s lives, and they tend not to linger in the either/or; instead, they prompt quick choices that align with their political side. And as such, conspiracy theory, along with political assassinations, goes hand in hand; it’s an existential dilemma surrounding death.

The events following the assassination of Charlie Kirk generated scepticism about the validity and motives of the shooter. Questions arose regarding whether the shooter’s actions were influenced by their environment or if they were simply a pawn manipulated by intelligence agencies. This divisiveness is indicative of the complex situation; it can be viewed from both perspectives. More importantly, the incident highlighted the existence of subcultures within the right-wing community—essentially a “cult within a cult.” There are factions with opposing views, particularly regarding Israel. Those who oppose Israel often stem from a culture influenced by internet forums, which leads into to a kind of ideological “brain rot” with the rapid spread of meme-driven propaganda. Alongside, gamer chat rooms, crypto-cynicism, edge-lord comedy and online irony—they have come to despise Charlie Kirk because to them he was too liberal

Fence sitters, characterised by their parallel to black pillars, represent a nihilistic perspective that views humanity’s improvement as impossible, leading to the belief that despair is rational. However, they differ in recognising that an inevitable end waits. Unlike black-pillar nihilists, who seek to fuel hopelessness and chaos, fence sitters refrain from exacerbating the situation.

They share some rhetoric with nationalist right-wingers but differ in their vision for the future. This is a youth-driven movement that promotes the “America First” brand. The term “Black pill” originates from Incel forums and reflects a sense of fatalism, suggesting a bleak outlook on the future, where no improvement is possible and despair is seen as rational. For these individuals, accelerationism is viewed as a means to hasten societal collapse.

The concept of evacuation and its various forms is complex, as it encompasses a mix of opposing ideologies, with some aspects representing leftist perspectives. This reflects the essence of polarisation and the Hegelian trap, emphasising the need for a defragmentation of ideas. I have mentioned before that the polarisation between left and right is a central component of both sides of the Shekinah, or the Tree of Life. A state of normal behaviour or equilibrium exists at the centre, sliding between the left and right scales; it waxes and wanes.

In addition to the much-needed overhaul of evacuation strategies, Christian nationalism continues to prioritise hierarchy and order, striving to return to established social norms. Their approach remains institutional, even if it might be perceived as a façade. Despite their tendency to manipulate voters, they remain focused on winning elections. This enables them to enact laws, influence the judiciary, advance Project 2025, and promote a revival of philosophical ideals related to restoration, sovereignty, and biblical virtue. Such actions may temporarily ease the ethical concerns surrounding state power, even as we recognise, in Solon’s terms, that public evils have taken over.

A podcaster in the line of fire becomes a posthumous hero; an instrument for reason; a martyr distributing lies and engendering their own crisis of ethics generated by his cult followers and alt-right politicians. There are great heroes and great artist-prophets who exist; their existence reminds us of the ultimate cost of consciousness. Charlie Kirk is not one of them, even if his cult followers and the nationalist state have fashioned him that way. He may have garnered attention from Gen Z by utilising the importance of a nuclear family, a concept he has made to appear as if he invented it, but merely reminding us that it’s the standard for normalcy, which is politically neutral.

You must remove the false illusions of heroic appeal and recognise the true heroes of history, whose dignified martyrdoms are etched in stone and whose stories embody symbols of sacrifice. However, the crucial point is that these acts of heroism often occur in silence, without an audience. Take, for example, Jean Moulin, who Nazi officers captured during World War II. They pressured him to countersign a propaganda statement claiming that French troops had massacred nine French women and children. The officers argued that they needed his signature to ensure that justice was served. On one level, they were showing respect for his position while simultaneously entangling him in their policies. This tactic was designed to manipulate a linear rational process where responsibility could lead other French prefects in different regions to collaborate with the Nazis.

He refused to sign, but not before enduring torture and imprisonment and being forced to witness massacres and mutilated rotting bodies. The soldiers insisted that he must sign the document the next day. As he contemplated his situation, he realised that he would likely succumb to their demands and sign it. One can imagine the rational thoughts racing through his mind. By refusing to sign, he believed he was saving the French soldiers who were probably dead anyway. Moreover, the absence of his signature served to keep him alive. From a utilitarian perspective, he might see himself as valuable; his death would represent a loss to others. Could it be that a populist leader could gain more support if his allies believe that, after the war and during the rebuilding phase, his talents would be necessary? In his absence, who would fight against racism?

He weighed compromise as a necessary characteristic of civilisation alongside his own utility and realised the difference between talent and the marginalisation of ethics. He faced the choice between compromise and making an ethical decision. Ultimately, he concluded that he must remain loyal to his own ethical sense. He attempted to take his own life by cutting his neck with a glass, preferring to die rather than give in. He survived his suicide attempt, but two years later, he was killed by the Gestapo.

After being tortured and killed by the Gestapo, Moulin’s death became a symbol of the ultimate sacrifice. Although he was tortured in private, it was nonetheless a public act. This grand tradition of public mythology characterised his heroic martyrdom. This act would secure him a place in the imaginations of millions of people, including those yet to be born. His death marked him as a martyr, but he attempted to take his own life, which demonstrated his existential purity—a man confronting only himself. At the same time, he co-founded a tidal wave of public events with his own ethical bridge.

.

When comparing what a real Martyr represents, Charlie Kirk has nothing on Jean Moulin. At best, Kirk is an inversion of heroic ethics, where heroes are reduced to fame and glory. The act of Banalising sports stars, actors, and podcasters, as it seems. However, honour is transformed into recognition of loyalty to a group—the expression of conformity—the precise opposite of the uncertainty which ethics requires.

Ken Wiwa, struggling with the reality of an executed father whose name is Saro-Wiwa, a Nigerian writer who opposed the military dictatorship in his country, found himself questioning his ethical obligation. He stood firm on his ethical belief, but later the generals had him hanged. His son points out that “there is a fine line between martyrdom and suicide, and this is one of the most troubling aspects about martyrs.” Charlie Kirk didn’t kill himself in the hard, unromantic edge of ethics, holding on through torture like Moulin.

He made himself a target through his rhetoric, not as a politician, but as a podcaster, by advocating violence and inciting the January 6 riots. He called for televised executions and practised McCarthyism on college campuses. This behaviour does not align with the principles of free speech, and his death does not change the fact that he was an opponent of it. He created watch-lists to intimidate teachers and school board members, aiming to control what educators could teach. He claimed that violence related to gun crime and school shootings was a necessary cost to uphold the Second Amendment in the United States. He described Islam as the “sword with which the left slits the throat of America,” labelling Muslims as conquerors and invaders, which confirms his anti-Muslim stance. He also promoted Nazi ideologies, such as the “white replacement theory,” a debunked claim that obscures the economic factors at play. Additionally, he espoused racist eugenics discussions regarding Black women, suggesting they have an inferior ability to process information compared to white people. He also said the civil right was a mistake as it to modern problems surrounding DEI.

The idea that these are merely sound-bites taken out of context, it does nothing to mitigate the reality of how deeply problematic this man was; it only underscores it further. Some might argue that through our digital collective, we have crossed a Rubicon into a non-empathic kingdom, as some celebrated his death instead of condemning political violence. Alternatively, could it be that rationality is asserting itself based on morality, where Kirk’s death represents a false categorical imperative? Morality is not based on faith but on reason.

To put it simply: “It’s impossible to love a narcissist.” In this context, people merely demonstrated that impossibility. They could have kept their lack of remorse to themselves, but we are living in apocalyptic times. It’s not that they lost their morality; rather, the supreme principle surrounding death—empathy for the death of a person—is not a rationally necessary command that individuals must follow unconditionally. This is particularly true if the person in question is unforgivable to begin with.

Moreover, it’s important to distinguish between crimes, such as assassinations, and the act of dying, as they are two separate matters. The confusion arises when empathy for the death of a person is conflated with the nature of the crime itself.