I think the elite liberal instinct to valorize Charlie Kirk based on the idea that he somehow supported the liberal ideal of free speech makes it clear how important the anarchist idea of unity of means and ends is.
Normally, when the unity of means and ends is brought up, its to counter the idea of ends justifying the means. An authoritarian state can not lead to freedom, because the use of authoritarian means leads to authoritarian ends.
In this case, though, liberal journalists are ignoring the ends, and only focusing on the means. In their view, as long as somebody is using "liberal" means such as free speech and debate, then no matter the content of their speech, it supports liberal ends.
This is obviously nonsense. Any anarchist knows that the content and context of an act is important. The use of violence to create freedom is completely different than to cause oppression. Speech in the service of liberation is completely different than speech in the service of domination.
Sep 12, 2025 23:47But liberals have developed their rhetoric to chastise the left rather than fight the right, so they have developed a culture that holds working within the system or within "liberal norms" to be righteous no matter what.
This has made them completely unprepared to fight fascists who are completely willing to use the systems liberals have developed until they can gain power and burn it all down.
