The Decline of the West: From the Murder of Charlie Kirk to Your Freedom

Today we are going to start with a philosophical and moral reflection, and from there we will see what it can mean for you, the conclusions we should draw, and how we can prepare ourselves.

The West has crossed an invisible line. It is no longer a question of left or right, but of a civilization that has lost its way. Today, the same people who preach tolerance celebrate censorship, those who declare themselves lovers of freedom justify its repression, and those who claim to defend justice and oppose the death penalty rejoice at the death of those who think differently.

The murder of Charlie Kirk is not just a tragedy. It is a symbol. It reflects the drift of a world that has turned hatred of dissenters into a virtue and submission to dogma into a sign of moral virtue. What was once dialogue is now a crime. What was once freedom is now a risk.

And although many believe that this is a distant episode, its meaning hits us hard: because the same spirit that celebrates the death of dissenters is the one that governs your taxes, your laws, and your daily life. This article is not just about a crime, but about what that crime reveals about the modern West and about the only sensible response: start creating your Plan B, regain control, and protect your freedom.

The death of Charlie Kirk and its significance

I know, I know, many of you are thinking, okay, a gringo has died and that’s a shame, but why should I care?

Well, I assure you that it affects you much more than most people think.

It is important to clarify here: the issue is not the death of this particular man itself; most Spanish speakers had never seen a video of Charlie Kirk and, of course, it is not news that a madman goes out and kills another person or that, in general, a person dies (in the US, there was one murder every 31.1 minutes in 2024, according to the FBI).

What we do find shocking is its significance: one more step towards civil war, towards a war of cultures, and the reversal of concepts, as described in Orwell’s 1984.

They have killed a person wearing a white T-shirt that stated “freedom,” who sought dialogue and made it his mission to go to universities to discuss with others and give them the opportunity to convince him that his opinions were wrong.

But as I said, that’s not what has impacted us the most.

The most shocking thing has been to see the reactions of many people, in this case the progressive, the woke, the Democrats, those who consider themselves to be in favor of good and against evil, people who, for whatever reason, did not agree with what Kirk was saying. (And yes, I am aware that if we were talking about the murder of a left-wing figure, the same thing would probably have happened on the other side).

People saying that if Charlie supported gun ownership, they thought it was fair that he was shot dead (so, if you like to go cycling on the weekends, is it fair that you should be killed in a car accident? Or if you like to go out partying, is it fair that you should be raped or beaten up on your way out of the club?).

Crazy people who thought it was funny that in his last moments this man was choking, that he couldn’t say anything (because of the shot to the neck) when, in life, he had dedicated himself to talking and debating with others.

People saying that he brought it on himself or making things up about Charlie to justify his murder. Calling him a fascist for being in favor of freedom of expression and verbally defending his ideas on university campuses across the country.

It’s crazy, the world turned upside down.

In the end, all this has led us to understand that, for many of these people, disagreeing with them is a reason to wish you dead, to rejoice in your death and, ultimately, to consider you unworthy of living.

Of course, this is not a problem limited to one sector of the population; radicalization is found on both the right and the left, but the funny thing is that the former are reputed to be the bad guys, the intransigent, the troglodytes, while many on the left consider themselves to be the future, the dialoguers who are in favor of what is good and who represent the best values of humanity.

1984 was not a novel, it was a manual, and it is in the wrong hands.

 

The death of Charlie Kirk and, above all, the reaction of his detractors or opponents, in our opinion, can only be interpreted as the death of dialogue, the end of coexistence, of understanding between people who think differently or oppositely.

This may seem like an extreme interpretation, but given the context, I believe it is justified.

Because the reaction of a part of Western society makes it clear that, for them, disagreeing is reason enough to wish you dead… and to celebrate when it happens.

Now, let’s delve a little deeper into why I think Western society is becoming increasingly sick and how we are getting more and more into George Orwell’s dystopia of 1984.

One part of that novel that always struck me is how Big Brother was able to change reality at will.

Well, notice that the same thing is happening today. A part of Western society has begun to pick all kinds of concepts at random and twist them until they mean whatever they want them to mean, even if it’s the opposite of their original meaning.

In Orwell’s 1984, we’ve learnt that:

WAR IS PEACE.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Today’s “progressives,” those people who seem to be in charge and who rejoiced or justified Kirk’s death, people who would possibly do the same to you if they identified you as a businessman, man, investor, liberal, libertarian, or, in general, capitalist, have also learned to change reality. They proclaim that:

• Dissidents endanger others.
• Freedom is only freedom if it forces others to give me what I need.
• Democracy must be protected by excluding those who hold different opinions.
• Tolerance is dangerous and leads to totalitarianism.
• Women are not women, men are not men, everyone decides what they are.
• Justice is only fair if it treats men and women differently.
• Talking and arguing with others is being a Nazi.
• Disagreeing with others is fascism.
• Free speech is aggression.
• Indoctrination is education.
• Information is disinformation.
• Disinformation is information.

These are not just random phrases. They are symptoms of a process of reversing meaning that has one goal: to nullify critical thinking and eliminate dissent.

Dissent is dangerous: Anyone who questions the ideological status quo is automatically labeled a threat to the physical or emotional security of the group, justifying their exclusion or silencing.

Dialogue is aggression: Disagreement is confused with harm in such a way that we eliminate the space for rational debate. Discussion becomes a crime or harassment, so that dominant ideas can continue to exist.

Disagreement is attack: Uniformity of thought is imposed by forcing silent obedience and criminalizing difference of opinion, reinforcing the feeling that there is only one acceptable truth.

Free speech is violence: To protect the “victims,” the offended listeners, freedom must be suppressed.

Indoctrination is education: Education is no longer a process for developing critical thinking skills, encouraging independent reasoning, and exposing students to multiple perspectives, but rather for forming conformity and ending dissent.

Democracy is only democracy if my side wins: To protect democracy, I must prevent others from governing, regardless of what the majority wants.

Freedom is coercion: The concept of freedom is twisted and exploited to force the redistribution of resources. Freedom is no longer autonomy (freedom from coercion), but dependence (freedom to demand and do what you want at the expense of others).

Knowledge is a lie: Truth does not depend on objective criteria, but on who affirms something, therefore information is disinformation and disinformation is information. All knowledge outside of ideological control is understood as disinformation so that the public rejects it without examining it. The ideological narrative is the only reliable information.

Tolerance is a threat: To avoid “fascism,” active intolerance toward the ideological enemy must be practiced. Totalitarianism is justified as a defense of democracy (and remember, totalitarianism in this sense would be democracy).

Reality is dogma: Objective reality is replaced by imposed subjective reality. Identity and language are required to conform to the ideological definition.

If Orwell were alive today, he would not need to write 1984: it would suffice to open any social network or watch a newscast.

The irony is that you continue to participate and pay for all this. You continue to support with your tax money the state that promotes these ideas and maintains the system.

Think about it: you are financing with your taxes those who think you should be silenced for disagreeing. You pay for the machinery that indoctrinates your children, that criminalizes your ideas, that tries to control you and legislates against your freedom.

Do you really not care about continuing like this? Don’t you think it’s time to take off?

Really, the question is not whether you can afford to leave, the question is: how can you afford to continue participating in it?

But this cultural disease does not arise in a vacuum. It has historical precedents that can help us understand what is coming.

Is the European Union the new Rome of the West?

In the minds of some, an uncomfortable question often echoes: Is the West in decline? Voices comparing today’s Europe (especially the European Union) to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire are growing louder, pointing to immigration as the new “barbarian” scourge.

I am no expert in Roman history, but I do believe I have a reasonable understanding of the politics and economics of today’s world, so, without wanting to lecture anyone on history, here is my interpretation.

I don’t think immigration is (or was) the biggest problem today. I think the real lesson from Rome is not that we should prevent people from crossing the border. What we must learn and bear in mind is that societies can become diseased, and if they do, they fall.

Of course, you have to control who enters your territory; it makes no sense to let in criminals or people who are not open to living according to the rules of the place they are moving to, but contrary to what seems to be happening among nationalist political parties, I don’t think that’s the most important point. I don’t believe that the collapse of Rome in 476 AD was due to an invasion, but rather to the end of a system exhausted by its own flaws.

Be that as it may, I would like to take a look at the parallels (and differences) that might concern us. The greatest similarity between the late Roman Empire and the European Union is not external pressure, but the deterioration of its internal pillars.

Fiscal fracture and the rise of debt

Late Rome: The state destroyed its own currency (devaluation) and increased the tax burden on the productive class, leading to revolts and a loss of faith in the government. The aristocracy, of course, evaded the burden.

Today’s Europe: Runaway public debt mortgages the future, while bureaucratic and fiscal rigidity stifle dynamism. The widespread perception is that there is a lack of control over finances, eroding intergenerational trust.

Social resentment and elitism

Late Rome: Society became rigid with legal and fiscal privileges for an elite (senators and the court), generating deep resentment among the rest of the population.

Today’s Europe: The growing feeling that a political and technocratic class (often symbolized by “Brussels”) lives under a different “yardstick” has created unprecedented political polarization and widespread distrust of institutions.

Civic apathy and loss of resilience (the “born rich” syndrome)

Late Rome: Once the conquests ceased, society fell into civic apathy centered on leisure (panem et circenses) rather than service or sacrifice.

Today’s Europe: We have developed the born-rich symptom: a belief that well-being (shelter, food, leisure) is a right guaranteed by the system, rather than the result of continuous effort. This mentality undermines resilience and the will to defend the status quo. Europe and the West have forgotten that what we need is “capitalism, savings, and hard work,” as Miguel Anxo Bastos reminds us.

Structural military weakness

Late Rome: The Empire lost interest in its own defense, becoming overly dependent on disloyal external forces (foederati and mercenaries) to protect its borders.

Today’s Europe: Europe is (still) an economic power, but a sleeping military giant. Its historical dependence on NATO (the US) and disinvestment in defense make it vulnerable and unable to secure its geopolitical interests and borders on its own.

Immigration and the clash of principles

In this regard, I see a big difference between then and now.

Late Rome: The barbarians integrated into the religious fabric (many were Christians, albeit Arians). It seems that most barbarians aspired to live under Rome’s authority, not to destroy it. Many admired Roman culture and assimilated it. In fact, after the empire’s demise, the European religion was Christianity, the language was Latin, and many aspects of Roman culture were preserved.

Europe Today: European culture is based on individual human rights, freedom, and the protection of minorities. However, migrant cultures (especially Muslim and African) often have social values (differences in the status of men and women, homophobia, racism, authoritarianism, violence accepted in many cases, etc.) that conflict directly with the European legal and ethical core.

This is not a clash over who owns the land, but over what principles govern society. This is a challenge of integration that Rome never had to face. Immigrants from barbarian cultures admired Roman culture, yet a large proportion of immigrants to the European Union consider Western culture to be decadent, weak, and misguided (why might that be?).

 

What you do to ensure your freedom, security, and well-being

All of this brings us to the final point of this article: what we could do, the options we have left.

 

In general, we have four options for dealing with the situation: fight to introduce change from above, fight to introduce change from below, flee, or learn to live with this situation. There would also be a fifth option, to ignore everything and go with the flow, but we are not going to consider that a way of dealing with the situation.

1. Introduce change from above: You get involved in politics with the aim of changing things, you influence politicians who have power, you create pressure groups to force certain changes, or you directly launch a revolution.
2. Fight to introduce change from below: You wage cultural warfare and try to convince the people around you that your values are better and more desirable than theirs. Something similar to what Charlie Kirk did.
3. Run away: You go somewhere where you can live the way you want or where you are bothered and interfered with as little as possible.
4. Learn to live with the situation: You stay where you are, but you look for solutions to what bothers you most. If you are underpaid in your country, you look for foreign clients; if you fear an economic crisis, you invest abroad; if you are heavily taxed, you look for ways to evade taxes; if they try to take away your freedom, you create an exit plan…

Everyone will have to choose their own path and, of course, no one is stopping you from trying a combination of the four options, but in general:

I don’t think the option of introducing change from above is effective, and often it is not very desirable either (it is generally not positive for the freedom of others).

The path of cultural struggle is fine, it’s something we actively do at Denationalize.me (with articles like this one), but it’s very slow and it’s not always the one with the best arguments who wins.

The most interesting options are to flee (following our maxim of “go where you are treated best”) and to learn to live with the situation (“free yourself from the burden of the state”).

So, what is our advice?

It’s time to take flight or, at the very least, start creating a good plan B.

Where are you going to invest? In what type of assets? Which foreign banks and brokers are you going to use to move your money? Will you start investing and using crypto?

You could get a residence permit, perhaps one in Paraguay, Panama, or Costa Rica? Or a visa in Thailand, the Emirates, or Georgia.

Perhaps the time has come to obtain a second citizenship. In Vanuatu, Argentina, Paraguay, Peru, or even Nauru…

What if you set up your business abroad? We recently talked about Serbia, but there are also other options such as Dubai, Hong Kong, the United States, Lithuania, or Bulgaria.

The world is very big, and nowadays, we have to start looking beyond the Western world.

To stay informed and start breaking free from the system, sign up to our newsletter.

And if you want more direct help, schedule a consultation so we can analyze your options and create your escape plan.