The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10th, 2025, was an act of brutal finality aimed at a man known for his calm and reasoned demeanor. Yet, to see it merely as the tragic end of a single life is to miss its far more sinister implication. The bullet that struck his throat was not just a physical assault; it was a profoundly symbolic one. It was an attack on the very instrument of dialogue, a violent declaration against the principle of free expression itself, and a chilling message to all who dare to cultivate a unique, sovereign voice.
This symbolism resonates with a mythological theme. In the classic tale The Little Mermaid, the mermaid Ariel surrenders her voice for the chance to walk on land. This bargain is a powerful metaphor for a trade many are pressured to make: sacrificing their unique, individual expression to fit into the collective’s will, to walk among the masses without making waves. The attack on Kirk represents the violent enforcement of this trade, a brutal reminder that the powers that be often prefer silent subjects to vocal citizens.
If I can’t say what I think, then I don’t get to think. ~Jordan Peterson
The human voice, in its truest sense, is far more than the sound produced by vocal cords. It is the external manifestation of an internal, reasoning mind. It is the tool of negotiation, the medium of persuasion, and the ultimate symbol of consent. A voice that is distinct, nuanced, and rooted in independent thought is the hallmark of a sovereign individual, one who can engage with the world not as a passive recipient of commands, but as an active participant in the great dialogue of society.
Voluntary consent is the freely given agreement to an action or decision, made without coercion, fear, or undue influence, rooted in rational autonomy and mutual understanding. It requires individuals to have the capacity and freedom to choose based on clear, truthful information, aligning with their reasoned judgment and respect for others’ rights.
Without this developed voice, an individual remains in a state of arrested development, akin to a child who lacks the capacity to grant or withhold meaningful consent. Consent is not a mere utterance of “yes”; it is a voluntary agreement born from rational autonomy, clear understanding, and the freedom from coercion. It requires the ability to reason, to weigh options, and to articulate one’s own will. A person without a voice is, for all intents and purposes, incapable of this fundamental act of self-governance.
John Locke’s age of reason refers to the developmental stage when an individual gains the capacity for rational thought and self-governance, marking their emancipation from parental authority, as outlined in his Two Treatises of Government. This milestone, typically emerging in adolescence around the mid-to-late teens, enables individuals to make independent, reasoned decisions, distinguishing human adulthood from mere biological maturity, though Locke emphasizes individual development over a fixed age.
John Locke argued that parental authority isn’t absolute but terminates when children develop the capacity to reason independently. He believed parents should guide children towards reason and self-governance, rather than exert control based on arbitrary power. Once a child demonstrates the ability to understand and follow the law of reason, they are emancipated from parental control and become fully responsible for their own actions, essentially entering into the self-governing state of adulthood.
This brings us to the crucial concept of the “age of reason,” a term articulated by philosopher John Locke. He argued that this is not a fixed chronological age, but the developmental milestone at which an individual acquires the capacity for rational thought and becomes responsible for their own life. Upon reaching this point, a person is emancipated from parental authority because they can now self-govern, enter into agreements, and take accountability for their choices. The age of reason is, therefore, the true age of consent.
The Prussian education system was a highly centralized, standardized model designed not to cultivate independent thinkers but to create obedient, efficient workers and loyal citizens for the state. Created in the early 19th century, it prioritized rote memorization, discipline, and conformity over creativity and critical thinking, functioning as a system of social control rather than genuine education.
This process of social engineering has been greatly aided by educational models designed not to liberate the mind, but to domesticate it. The Prussian education system of the 19th century serves as a stark blueprint. It prioritized rote memorization, strict discipline, and conformity over critical thinking, intellectual courage, and creativity. Its purpose was not to cultivate independent thinkers, but to produce obedient workers and loyal subjects for the state—cogs for a machine, not sovereign individuals.
The Purpose of Force: Force, when rightly understood, serves as a corrective mechanism to realign subjective perceptions with objective truth by disrupting illusions that obscure reality. It acts not as a weapon of control, but as a firm guide, nudging individuals away from self-deception and toward a clearer recognition of what is, rather than what they wish to see. In this role, force is a tool of restoration, applied with precision and restraint, to break through the noise of personal bias and conform the mind to the unyielding contours of truth.
This engineered childhood provides the perfect justification for the misuse of force. Within a family structure, empathetically led force can be a necessary corrective tool for a child who, lacking reason, cannot be persuaded by logic alone. It is a loving guide away from harm and toward understanding. However, when the state claims a monopoly on force and applies this same logic to an entire populace it has intentionally kept in a dependent state, force ceases to be corrective and restorative, and becomes purely coercive and punitive.
The rational adult, who has done the painstaking work to develop their own mind and voice, is thus recast as the disobedient child. The state’s monopoly on force ceases to be a shield for the innocent and becomes a disciplinary rod for the autonomous. This is where the insidious loophole of childhood is exploited on a societal scale. The state assumes the role of the permanent parent, justifying its coercion as benevolent guidance for a populace it intentionally keeps dependent and stripped of its rational faculties. The physical body, susceptible to this “discipline,” becomes the tragic point of leverage, allowing the raw power of the state to override the moral authority of the reasoned individual who dares to think for themselves.
This exploitation of the childhood model is tyranny’s masterstroke because it surgically removes the concept of consent from the political equation. A child, by definition, lacks the developed reason to grant or withhold meaningful consent; they can only obey or disobey. When a state successfully infantilizes its populace, it absolves itself of the need to seek genuine agreement from the governed. Governance is no longer a contract between sovereign equals but a matter of administration over dependents. In this twisted framework, dissent is not a legitimate withdrawal of consent but a childish tantrum, and a sovereign voice is not a tool for negotiation but a cry of defiance to be silenced “for its own good.” Tyranny, therefore, thrives not by defeating reasoned adults, but by ensuring they never fully come into being.
Charlie Kirk represented the living antithesis of this system of control. His work was an act of profound faith in the individual mind, operating on the conviction that people are reachable through reason. He championed rational dialogue and intellectual engagement as the primary tools to de-escalate conflict, consistently meeting opposing ideas with better ideas, not with force. In a world that encourages perpetual childhood, he personified the emancipated adult—the individual who has fully reached the age of reason and courageously exercises his capacity for free speech.
Therefore, his assassination was not merely a crime against a person; it was a crime against the very possibility of a civil, rational society. It was a violent attempt to prove that the voice is powerless against the fist, that reason must yield to brute force. It was an act of intimidation aimed at anyone who believes in the power of their own mind and has the courage to speak it.
The proper response to such an act is not to retreat into silence. To do so would be to grant the assassin a posthumous victory and to accept the grim terms of the mermaid’s bargain. The only fitting tribute, the only true path forward, is to defy the silencers by doing the very thing they fear most: to cultivate our reason, to find our own unique voices, and to speak with clarity, courage, and unwavering confidence in the power of the free mind.
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:
Bitcoin: bc1qmevs7evjxx2f3asapytt8jv8vt0et5q0tkct32
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.
