Jarga Kebba Gigo’s Full Argument: “Both Mainstream and Social Media Dangerously Misrepresent Charlie Kirk”

Jarga Kebba Gigo’s Full Argument: “Both Mainstream and Social Media Dangerously Misrepresent Charlie Kirk”

Jarga begins by situating the killing of Charlie Kirk not as an isolated tragedy but as a kind of “test” for larger societal values. He asserts that such events expose deeper truths about what people believe, about what is normalized, about the standards by which we judge morality, speech, justice, and power. The killing, and its handling by media, public reaction, discourse, and law, reveals much about what people in the U.S. and beyond accept or reject—even beyond what they explicitly say.

From there, his criticism is multilayered. Below I restate the premises and arguments in the logical order in which he seems to present them (though he moves back and forth sometimes between themes).

---

Premises / Underlying Assumptions

1. Freedom of speech is a fundamental, God-given right, but in practice it is continually constrained, misapplied, or defended selectively.
   • He believes that many people who claim to defend free speech are not consistent—they defend it for some but not for others.
   • He places moral weight on how speech is regulated (by law, by social pressure, by threat of punishment, etc.).
2. Deceptive capitalism and sensationalism are widespread, and many public figures gain influence, attention, and wealth by means that may be misleading, inflaming, or prioritizing profits (or clicks/views) over truth or kindness.
3. Punishing, excluding or threatening people for speech (or reacting to killing) has broad consequences, socially, legally, morally — including chilling effects, normalization of unjust punishments, or degradation of rights.
4. Character and morality matter, not just popularity, not just effectiveness, not just “winning” or having many followers. Positive impact must be measured not just by size but by ethics: truth, kindness, inclusion, consistency, etc.
5. Inequality, discrimination, and injustice (race, class, citizenship status, political speech, drug law etc.) are real and interwoven. One cannot abstract freedom, speech, punishment etc., from how these inequalities affect whose rights are protected or violated.
6. There is danger in glorifying someone (as martyr, champion etc.) simply because they were killed or assaulted, without critically assessing their life, stands, consistency, hypocrisy, and the injustice they may have supported.

---

Key Claims / Arguments

Here are the major claims Jarga Kebba Gigo makes, along with the reasoning and illustrations he uses.

---

1. Charlie Kirk has been misrepresented as a “Champion of Free Speech.”

• Many people are hailing him as someone who embodied free speech. But Jarga argues that this title is not merited.
• He admits Kirk may be “better than” people like Hillary Clinton in certain free speech respects, but argues that comparison to the worst does not justify crowning someone a champion. One must assess by standards—not by what is “less bad.”
• He gives examples:
  • Kirk once called for the deportation of Mehdi Hassan over something Hassan said—the implication being that this is a form of suppressing speech or punishing speech by expelling the speaker.
  • Kirk also supported the attempted deportation of Mahmoud Khalil over “speech or standing.”
  • Jarga points out that imposing punishment (deportation, threat of deportation, or firing people, or denying rights) because of speech—even if the person is a non-citizen—counts as censorship.
• Therefore, to call someone who has supported deportations over speech a “Champion of Free Speech” is dangerous—it sends a signal: maybe it’s ok to punish speech, depending on who the speaker is (citizen vs. non-citizen, born vs. not born in country, etc.). It lowers the standard and shifts ground.

---

2. There are multiple levels of censorship; many are overlooked.

• Jarga distinguishes between active punishment and passive punishment over speech.
  • Active punishment includes deportation, firing, jailing, threats of punishment.
  • Passive punishment includes social or indirect consequences; loss of job or opportunity; limiting one’s ability to work.
• Even threats or calls for punishment are a form of censorship (because they intimidate).
• He argues that censorship is more than just “violence over speech” — there are subtler, legal, structural, social forms.
• Because Kirk opposes violence over speech (which is one relatively obvious censorship form) does not mean he is consistent in defending all forms. Jarga suspects or shows that Kirk does not defend the speech rights of non-citizens or underprivileged people equally.

---

3. Kirk opposed personal freedom in certain domains (notably, cannabis legalization).

• Even as a strong majority of Americans reportedly favor cannabis legalization (~67% in some surveys), Kirk has opposed legalization—or moderated positions (e.g. reclassification but not full legalization).
• Jarga holds that the harms of cannabis criminalization (prison, denied jobs, fear, marginalization) are real, vivid, and affect many, especially marginalized people.
• He criticizes Kirk’s “gateway drug” rhetoric: it exaggerates or misrepresents the risk, and he claims that comparable arguments are not pressed equally for alcohol or cigarettes.
• By failing to support personal freedoms like cannabis legalization, Kirk is complicit in injustices and laws that disproportionately harm some.

---

4. Kirk is a deceptive bigot (especially around race), using rhetoric and dog whistles.

• Jarga claims that Kirk has made statements such as: “when I see a black pilot, I wonder if he is qualified…” — a statement which he interprets as racially prejudiced, because such suspicion is not applied to other groups (e.g. female pilots).
• Jarga emphasizes that although he is not a fan of DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) per se, he believes that many of Kirk’s public uses of “race talk” are exploitative: using fears or stereotypes about black people (or minorities) to rally an audience.
• He argues this is misleading: that the use of race-based rhetoric may be profitable (in views, donations, brand) rather than sincerely about equality or justice.

---

5. Kirk’s rise (and possibly fall) is tied to opportunism, ambiguity, selective principles, and alliances.

• According to Jarga, Kirk started gaining political/ideological prominence around 2012 during Obama’s presidency, especially via college circuits.
• He alleges Kirk “refused” to debate people like Mehdi Hassan or Jarga Kebba Gigo—suggesting that he picks opponents for convenience, or avoids more challenging ones.
• He suggests his financial, political, or ideological alliances (with things like Christian organizations, conservative donors, Trump, etc.) influenced his public stances, sometimes retracting or modifying criticism in order to avoid offending powerful figures or financial backers.
• He argues Kirk often supported or acquiesced to Trump in certain controversies (including election lies, etc.) possibly for strategic or financial reasons, even when truth or consistency would demand otherwise.

---

6. Martyrdom, memory, and legacy must be honestly evaluated.

• Jarga resists facile use of the term “martyr.” He argues that being killed does not automatically make someone a martyr in the morally positive sense.
• For him, martyrdom implies sacrificing for truth / God / conscience, not merely because one suffered a violent death.
• He suggests that Kirk was “more focused on money than anything,” that his “power to influence” was real but also “very exaggerated.”
• Therefore, while people might rightly grieve, remember, etc., to elevate Kirk to martyr status without critical scrutiny is problematic.

---

7. Misleading or dangerous narratives by mainstream and social media

• Jarga is critical of how media portrays public figures, especially after violent events. He claims mainstream and social media often oversimplify, lionize, or misrepresent persons like Kirk.
• He is particularly concerned that the media (and public social media reaction) tends toward:
  1. Celebration: Some people reflexively celebrate the killing—not on the basis of a thoughtful choice, but as a knee-jerk reaction.
  2. Threats to those who do not conform: People are losing jobs, being threatened, or being silenced over how they respond to Kirk’s killing (how they speak or what side they take).
  3. Black and non-citizen voices being unprotected or punished: The media often fails to note the double standards in who is allowed to speak freely, who is punished or silenced.
• Jarga thinks such misrepresentations hurt public discourse; they promote simplifications, false hero narratives, and encourage people to reduce complex moral issues to moralistic binaries.

---

8. On violence, political violence, and religious violence

• Jarga acknowledges that violence is bad; political violence is bad. But he wants attention to how other sins between creatures—especially deception, misuse of speech, injustice—are connected to violence, perhaps even fueling it.
• He points out that laws like the Second Amendment (in U.S.) have historical roots in maintaining power, control, including to suppress, oppress or control slaves.
• He suggests that while gestures like “political violence” are highlighted heavily in public discourse (e.g. school shootings, mass shootings), other systemic forms of violence (poverty, discrimination, criminalisation of drug use, etc.) get less attention but arguably cause or underlie more harm.
• On religious violence, Jarga warns against misusing or misquoting religious texts or sentiments to claim persecution unjustly. He mentions that the alleged killer of Kirk is reportedly a Christian; and he cautions people against immediate claims that “Christians are being persecuted,” which may inflame tensions.

---

9. Replacement Theory and Identity Politics Critique

• Jarga argues that Kirk has “echoed” or flirted with replacement theory (the idea that one group is being replaced by another in society), which he views as dangerous because it can fuel fear, division, racial animosity, and even violence.
• He suggests this kind of narrative (who will “replace” you and how) distracts from more meaningful moral concerns (character, conscience, justice).
• He believes that many people, including political / religious leaders, focus too much on race, religion, identity rather than moral character, conscience, universal rights, common goods.

---

10. What should be done: Remedies / Concluding Proposals

While much of his piece is critique, Jarga also suggests how we should respond, or what norms we should aspire to. These include:

• Consistent standards: When judging someone’s claims to free speech, to character, to martyrdom, apply consistent, principled standards—not just comparing with a worse alternative.
• Tolerance, especially of minor wrongs: He argues that reflexive anger or demands for punishment are often unhelpful. That people are at different levels of evolution, reflexes exist, and some mistakes or misdeeds should be met with repentance, teaching, apology rather than punishment.
• Protect speech even of persons or views we dislike, understanding that speech of even hate or wrong opinion might contribute to growth or at least help expose truth. This includes protecting non-citizens and marginalized voices.
• Avoid elevation of individuals without considering their full record, motives, inconsistencies. Grief is appropriate, but heroification (or martyrdom) should be tempered with honesty.
• Focus on conscience, character over identity and immediate emotional reactions.
• Law and policy changes: While not always spelled out in detail, he indicates that protections for speech should be real and broad; criminalization policies (e.g. cannabis laws) should be reformed; social media / media should practice more responsible reporting; people should refrain from threats of punishment over speech.

---

Critical Objections / Warnings That Jarga Raises

• He warns that labeling everything “free speech champion” dilutes what free speech means; it allows exceptions to become normative.
• He cautions that celebrating someone’s death as a response to their speech issues sets a dangerous precedent.
• He notes that media pressure (mainstream + social) tends to punish or ostracize people who do not conform to certain narratives (e.g., about Kirk): you either have to hate him, or defend him, or be excoriated for being insufficiently “on one side.”
• He fears that definitions of speech punishments (what is acceptable or not) are being made by politicians or biased judges rather than consistent principles.
• He is concerned with how narratives around race, religion, identity often become tools of manipulation, rather than reflections of justice or equality.

---

Key Conclusions / Final Position

• Jarga Kebba Gigo’s position is that Charlie Kirk was not a champion of free speech in any full sense: Kirk supported punitive measures over speech, especially for people who are not born U.S. citizens; he did not consistently oppose censorship beyond very visible or symbolic cases.
• Kirk’s stances on personal freedom (especially cannabis), on race, and on identity politics are morally flawed, opportunistic, inconsistent, and sometimes harmful.
• While the killing of Charlie Kirk is tragic and merits condemnation, the way many people or institutions are framing him (as martyr, hero, or ultimate free speech defender) is dangerously misleading.
• Jarga does not assert that all of Kirk’s stands are evil, or that he had no positive impact; but, relatively, many stands are negative or at least mixed; many of his “powers” are exaggerated.
• Memory, legacy, and moral evaluation must go beyond superficial celebration: truthfulness, kindness, consistency, inclusivity, courage.
• Jarga ends with a call for people (including himself) to center conscience and moral character, to work, to learn, to have fun—but not to lose sight of justice, truth, humility, and responsibility.

---

Peruse Jarga Kebba Gigo’s Write up Below:

Both Mainstream and Social Media Dangerously Misrepresent Charlie Kirk.

Events like the killing of Charlie Kirk are often like a test for the world, not just the two families directly involved or even a country. Such events tend to reveal something much bigger and the discussions of our age will then affect mindsets, new personal principles, and sometimes even lead to new laws and policies. Kirk was influential in deceptive ways under deceptive Capitalism. Amassing wealth deceptively or having millions of views through sensational takes are sadly celebrated as ‘intelligent’ in the sick u.s and big chunk of the world. I think it represents people are largely stupid more than such people as intelligent, before ever gauging whether they are truthful and/or kind. Most people rightly condemn the killing, a much smaller group celebrated his killing in reflex than choice, then a third group are almost indifferent. Kirk is dangerously called a champion of free speech among other things. People are losing jobs and threatened over how they react to his killing.

Kirk was not a Champion of Free Speech: Almost everyone can have evidence of promoting free speech, but that cannot amount to being called Champion of free speech or ignoring where the person blatantly disrespected free speech rights. Kirk may be better than folks like Ms. Clinton on some aspects of free speech, but assessment should be based on standards first, then you compare to the best or worse. There is video evidence of kirk calling for the deportation of Mehdi Hassan over speech. If you call such a person ‘a Champion of free speech’, then we are dangerously signalling if you oppose violence over speech, you can proceed to condone other forms of punishment over free speech and still deserves the title ‘Champion of free speech’?

Freedom of speech is a God given right, so the good religions or states are just reaffirming it in our man made constitutions as agreements. Unfortunately, people like Kirk want Freedom of speech for only born Americans or born white Americans? Kirk is not alone in this weird belief and that was why many argued Julian Assange will not be protected under u.s Freedom of speech. Kirk further agreed with the attempted deportation of Mahmoud Khalil over speech or standing.

Censorship has Levels: If you are struggling to understand how wide Freedom of speech is, then skip to study the different levels of censorship in reciprocal-law before re-studying the purpose of Freedom of speech. Kirk was against violence over speech, but that is just one level of Censorship. He may also oppose the jailing of born Americans over speech, but that can be called level two. Considering he supported the jailing of Mahmoud Khalil (a green card holder) before the courts decide, we cannot guess if he would have supported the jailing of other non-born citizens like Mehdi Hassan before the deportation he clearly called for. Censorship is just any form of active punishment over speech. People like me consider even the calling (threat) for punishment over speech as a form of Censorship, because you are likely trying to intimidate the person or other people through such callings. Since active punishment is very broad, we can reduce the discussion to the popular ones like deportation and firing. Although a different right, the right to work is fundamental in Showlove Trinity and Lovism, but Capitalism tends to weaponize even access to learning and working over speech, cannabis, etc.

Denying people working opportunities over disagreed speech can certainly lead to violence or how do you expect people to survive? Yes! I will be very angry if my employee celebrated the killing of Kirk or anyone, but you and I have many other options. You can address the employee towards repentance or even understand the employee will less likely celebrate it long. We must agree humans are at different levels of evolution and reflex are part of life. Many of those who may seemingly celebrate such killings in reflex are not as evil as some claim, without justifying or praying to celebrate such killings. They are just short sighted people who may not necessarily be celebrating the death, but that no more new ‘bullshit’ from the person as example. They may be under the illusion that no one else will replace what they hate to hear. Like we are trained to tolerate and fight against ignorant speech, we must learn how to tolerate certain minor negative actions and fight it smartly, measurably.

Passive punishment is also broad and debatable if we can use it as humans to contain leadership blunders as example. By and large, I think teaching and apology are enough on mistaken speech.

Revisiting Freedom of speech: The purpose of protecting speech should not be confused with encouraging. For example, even hate speech is protected speech, but not necessarily encouraged. It will be extremely dangerous to allow revolving politicians or even biassed judges to determine what is ignorant speech versus hate speech. We allow different questionable speech to help people grow and to avoid censoring unknown or unpopular truth. By assuring people you will not be punished over speech, it allows expressing thoughts that may be questionable or exceptionally helpful in both personal and societal growth. We believe truth can conquer both ignorance and lies. By allowing truth as choice, those who choose lies cannot totally blame the liar(s).

Kirk was Against Personal Freedom: Even after most Americans, about 67 %, are reportedly for Cannabis legalization, Kirk was cowardly against cannabis legalization, which affects millions of people. From prison to job denials, from gangs to living in fear, Kirk was blind or indifferent to millions of people. Among his most recent cannabis comments was like a toady in regards to Trump reclassifying cannabis. Although his comments are clear indications that even crazy opponents like Kirk will bow to Trump on legalization, it reveals both Trump and Kirk are deceptive on and beyond cannabis, but will Trump repent by when? Trump promised legalization, not reclassifying. Well, the article is about Kirk, so let us focus more on Kirk. Among his deceptive or illusory echoing is ‘cannabis is a gateway drug’, but how many millions are on the gateway for years or decades and not using hard or harder drugs? Even if ten percent of cannabis users proceed to use other drugs, it is absurd to claim legalization causes it or will worsen it by how much. Does ten percent of alcohol or cigarette users proceed to use drugs, and should they be labelled as gateway drug/products? In our present age, no government injustice is as terrible as cannabis criminalisation, so if Kirk is blind to the most vivid injustices, then history will harshly judge him and his blind followers.

The way to measure government wrong must include the lies and cruelties in regards to a law, policy, or system. He was born while the government was lying and raising their cruelty against cannabis folks. While growing, God is slowly exposing and defeating state by state, ironically including his born state of Illinois and his adopted state of Arizona. Apparently, no need to kill Kirk to help legalize cannabis, but he may have contributed to the first defeat of cannabis legalization in Arizona and Florida+. So his so-called power to influence was both real and very exaggerated. He certainly does not dare debate my type on cannabis and many issues.

Kirk was Deceptively a Bigot: When folks like Kirk claimed: ‘when I see a black pilot, I wonder if he is qualified…’. They are deceptively misleading people, arousing fear, and dangerously seeding racial hatred. DEI is like a tolerable ‘injustice’ to minimise or rectify much bigger injustices. You can clearly tell I am not a big fan of DEI, but there is a reason why racial bigots like Kirk and Musk often use race and more specifically black to rally around ignorant angry victims of Capitalism. You may never hear them saying: ‘when I see a female pilot, I wonder if she is qualified…’ My point is, they will use blacks in the world of words to avoid backlash, but they will use actions even on women when they attain power. Females fight back a lot harder than blacks, and they are more numerous in the u.s. So they understand blacks may never run ads like: I flew with black pilots countless times in the u.s without incidents, so are Nigerian or xyz black pilots qualified…? Females would have fought back much harder. It is also very insulting, because piloting an aircraft is not close to as hard as many think. Countless females, Arabs, and blacks+ can certainly build aircrafts if they are trained or try enough. We know they do not fear neither black nor female pilots, they just want to mislead and make millions through questionable victims of Capitalism.

Kirk’s Rising and Fall: Since Kirk was a probable racist, his opposition to Obama may play a huge role. It was around 2012 Kirk openly entered politics, when Obama was the president. Mind you, I am not a big fan of Obama, but we love and ‘hate’ people differently or for different reasons. Going around colleges is where such a weak mind can survive. He can debate such kids, but why did he refuse to say I can debate Mehdi Hassan or Jarga kebba Gigo? So college was a perfect ground for him to start and ironically end. The questionable Jews understood funding such a kid is not much different from Epstein fooling barely legal women in a capitalist world. So the millions and Christianity made him friends of Jews; Trump was his resort support in 2016; he had to support even the election lies of 2020, including potential violence. As he grew balls on things like the Epstein files, a phone call with Trump or money made him retract to shameful submission. He was a kid focused on money more than anything and almost never risked offending Trump. He may have enjoyed the earth more than Jesus Christ (pbuh), but his killing will not make him a martyr in the most positive sense.

Was He a Martyr: The word martyr is sadly now used to mean even suffering over a thought or even dying over a cause, as dictionaries questionably evolve or devolve. Well, from secular grounds and questionable religious grounds, we may use the word to appease each other. I however do not think the word is rightly used or should be seen as great. Personally, I do not prefer to die through the hands of my enemies, which does not mean I looked down on those killed. I prefer to change or kill my enemies through words+. Kirk was likely there to make money than truth for God. So he may or may not be a martyr, thus I won’t declare such a coward as a martyr. Similarly, the Gazans who are killed are often labelled martyrs, but I am not the type to use that word. I do believe many Gazans are victims, but that is just a belief, and for the Gazans who want to kill even good Jews, I am not sure if they qualify as martyrs. They use the term to appease their emotions, but it is less likely that all are martyred. Likewise, I am fairly certain that the few Israelis that died are called martyrs, but are they truly martyred in the sight of God? Both teams claiming and attaining martyrdom with God? The term martyr from the Quhr-aahn was similarly to largely appease emotions. While fighting back, it is almost impossible not to lose a few soldiers; so rather than crying over such losses, the Quhr-aahn declared their souls as martyred. However, there is evidence in the Quhr-aahn of questionable folks fighting for money even in Muhammad’s days, so will half of such die and be called or rewarded as martyred by God? The other portion of such scolded the prophet for wealth after the wars. So only God knows. Best is humans to avoid wars or nasty conflicts.

The actual motive of the alleged killer is unknown. Even if the killer declares the motive, we will take it, but remember killers do lie. I happen to oppose LGBTQ+ as an illusion, disposition, but I do not think humans should deny them working opportunities like Trump+ does and Kirk may support. Believers like me may sometimes have patience, wait for God on differences, but atheists and even some believers may fight back. Some of these policies by Trump and his cohorts may contribute to such killings more than the words of ‘radical left’ as Trump suggests. Our minimal trust in the government means we proceed to believe Robinson is the killer and that he is gay, even with one sided evidence or claims. When Gays or trans happen to over like the questionable military and unnecessarily denied access, they may react with such killings. It is not to justify, but we simply failed to understand humans should not and cannot police every wrong.

‘Political Violence’ versus Sins Between creatures, especially deceptions: like domestic violence, they have carved out political violence as a special type of violence we should abhor more than others? I happen to be a writer, a public figure, and we all have those who love and hate us to death. So I am by no means belittling political violence. However, we must be very careful of thinking we can sacrifice others and be safe. Charlie Kirk seemed to have normalised at least some gun deaths. The honest reality is the cowardly second amendment was primarily meant to have a ‘free army’ that will deter the British army. The second purpose was to keep slaves in check. The third purpose was the questionable defence that was forwarded. Our age perhaps needs responsibility based ‘amendments’ like owning cameras, including body cameras for civilians. Thanks to cameras and more cameras may prevent abuse and help solve abuse where the FBI steals credits. If we look at gun deaths in the u.s, you can divide it as offense versus defense. Or you can further divide them into many categories, but political violence against the elite may not constitute even five percent of gun deaths. It is people like Trump and Kirk who support bad systems like heartless Capitalism and bad laws like cannabis criminalisation to contribute to huge gang violence, including stray bullets. Suicide by gun. School shootings never get this amount of coverage.

Yes violence is bad and part of sins between creatures, but we must understand until we address many different types of sins between creatures, especially deception, we will likely inadvertently have violence.

Religious Violence: Even though Kirk reportedly feared to debate even Nick Fuentes, Nick was insinuating it is religious violence or persecution, without providing evidence. He just quoted a verse:’ You will be persecuted over Christ’. Another illusory belief. Yes, Christ may have said that, but that does not mean eternal or even five percent of Christians will suffer persecution. That probably meant how Jews persecuted Christians right after Jesus. For the past five hundred years, bad Christians persecuted others due to faith more than Christians are persecuted. In this case, the alleged shooter was also a Christian. It is dangerous to make such claims, because if the shooter was of a different faith, his fans may wrongly conclude it as another persecution of Christian(s), even though that may be far from the truth. So you put one misinterpretation of a verse with an assumption or lie to potentially seed a lot more violence between religious folks.

Replacement Theory: Kirk sadly echoed the cowardly replacement theory that both some Christians and Jews believe in. In which year was that claimed and who will replace you by when and how may lead too many unnecessary mental fights (deceptions+) that may lead to real physical fights or wars. The whole human race may be in varying levels of trouble, considering climate change and other ills. We reportedly replaced the dinosaurs. This earth is not worth fighting for, except to establish conscience. You as a person will likely live under 100 years, so worry about where your soul will go, not who will replace you on earth. As for the Christians, if Jesus was more concerned with his soul than to quickly have a child, then you should guess character matters most, with or without children. Someone will likely marry Kirk’s wife and his children will hopefully be above race and religion than Kirk was. If some of our questionable political leaders evolved to see character more than race and religion, I am fairly certain that the prophets will prefer humankind to embrace conscience above race, religion, gender, etc. All the so-called good values you attribute to your religions or Western+ world existed before your religions and the west. Yes! People were varyingly guilty in different places, but good values always existed, evolving in numbers or stems, but the main branches always existed.

Like most young activists, we do not expect Kirk to be perfect, but was he tolerably imperfect? There is a huge difference when you fail a whole section versus a sub-section or versus few questions within a section or sections of life (test). Kirk was known to question Martin Luther King, who was also murdered, so how can it be wrong to question Kirk because he was murdered. Needless to admit Kirk was not even 25% positively impactful compared to MLK, despite the one-eye assessment of folks like Cenk of The Young Turks/Valuitainment. Cenk claims are based on numbers, ignoring lying, pornography, etc can give you numbers higher than Jesus, Muhammad, and MLK in their lifetime. Say what you want to, but remember impact can be positive or negative, while alive or after death. I am not saying people may not quote Kirk, but his major stands will fail. People will not see black pilots and fear, and may God help black+ people own personal aircrafts more than we own land vehicles. His stand on cannabis will fail, even lying Trump cannot delay legalization forever. His stand on freedom of speech for only born Americans or born white Americans will fail. These are good earthly examples. On life after death, I am not qualified to guess, but even Jesus admits evil will not last on earth. So slavery to segregation, Kirk and his type are angry that blacks are rising. Yes he made millions above my type, but who knows what God may give me even here on earth. His own children will have no option but to renounce some of his stands or suffer.

When his widow, Erika claims he will be remembered forever, but how matters and where each spirit goes matter even more. Like Trump, Erika wrongly blamed many, instead of one shooter. Jesus was not willing or able to save him from my truth+, so let us all wait. When she cries about what to say to the child who asked about Kirk, it saddens me, but cannabis+ said: how about the countless children and mothers who saw, not just hear, the unjust killings in Gaza that Kirk indifferently supported for money or illusions. Yes! I am aware of his comments if Israel allowed it… the truth remains, many young people do not understand religion has both a good and dangerous part. Religion exists only to help us discover conscience. Anyone who thinks religion can be bigger than conscience is in illusions and prone to fail. The Jews and Christians that hold religion above conscience are dangerously in bed; but the Muslims who also think religion is above conscience may suffer and fail, plus they ignore ch.91, ch.4, and Ch.103.
So feel free to lie for a dead person, but truth will always resurface to totally conquer the world. May God bless me and my fans. May God bless us through Showlove Trinity: let’s learn, let’s work, let’s have fun.

By Jarga kebba Gigo
An Activist and Transformer
Author of Juts Quhr-aahn.