The State of the (Oxford) Union
One Black Student’s Gloating Reaction to Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

1,774 words

Charlie Kirk in debate with George Abaraoyne in May 2025.

The shooting of Charlie Kirk seemed to provide the final clinching piece of evidence that all possibility of fruitful debate between the two opposing sides in the West’s ongoing internal civilizational war of survival is now, like Charlie himself, stone cold dead. The fact the fatal bullet tore through his throat, and thus his larynx, looked highly symbolic to me.

Equally symbolic were events which quickly followed on from Kirk’s death at the Oxford Union, supposedly Great Britain’s premier debating outlet, which suffered perhaps its greatest public controversy since its student members had voted “Yes” to the proposition “This House would not fight for King and Country” back in 1933. Given the current dismal state of both Britain’s current King and Country ninety years later, I wouldn’t be willing to fight for them anymore, either.

Beyond All Possible Debate

The current president-elect of the Oxford Union is a chip-on-his-shoulder 20-year-old black man with longer dreadlocks than The Predator named George Abaraonye, a genuinely bizarre-looking individual with elongated mutant hands whom academic robes make resemble Baron Samedi.

Despite having held a man-on-man debate in the Union’s hallowed chambers with the visiting Kirk only a few short months ago, once he heard of Charlie’s death, Abaraonye went immediately online to celebrate. Evidently more of a masturbator than a master-debater, George sent celebratory Demosthenes-worthy messages in a WhatsApp chat group. “CHARLIE KIRK GOT SHOT, LET’S FUCKING GO!” was one, and “CHARLIE KIRK GOT SHOT, LOOOL”, the latter of which indicates he can’t even spell the word “LOL”, even though it is an acronym and thus quite literally spelled out loud as letters.

Investigating how such an eldritch entity could possibly have gained a place at Oxford University, UK tabloid The Daily Mail conducted a character assassination, rather than the literal kind which Abaraoyne applauds, uncovering how an entrant usually needs prior exam grades of AAA to gain entry, but that George had strangely been let in with grades of ABB – or grades of DEI, as that perhaps should have been written. No wonder he can’t spell LOL.

At Oxford, rather than punting down the river or making good use of the libraries, Abaraonye had focused on the truly important things in life, such as sitting on the Oxford African and Caribbean Society’s Race Equality Task Force, in order to “engage in conversations on racial diversity” as well as having “encouraged the creation of forums for the expression of Black [sic] identity in Britain”, as if there aren’t more than enough of those kinds of things in place here already.

From a “disadvantaged background” and eager to show Britain’s oppressed non-white inner-city youth that Oxford was “not all posh, rich, Eton twats drinking wine”, but also uncultured, poor, sink-school twats smoking weed, Abaraonye founded the HipHopSoc, where he became known as “the headphone guy.” Whether because he liked listening to music or because he used such devices to systematically block out all opinions of those lesser beings he disagreed with is not known.

According to one account, Abaraonye had only decided to run for President of the Oxford Union two days prior to standing, and was basically styling himself as a joke candidate – but a joke candidate who then surprisingly won. Or was it all that surprising? A current Oxford student named Joseph Rodgers, who formerly edited the university’s Isis Magazine (nothing to do with Islam, Isis is the name of a local river), explained why he thought Abaraonye had won:

This President-Elect hails from a very recognisable cohort within the Union: the shitposter. These are members who’ve grown up in political meme culture, and whose level of seriousness is difficult to work out […] The Union has long been made up by members who don’t treat it seriously. That same unseriousness is mirrored in the online political culture that shaped Abaraonye. The Union, then, has become a training ground not for leaders, but for edgelords.

This implies that the Oxford Union had perhaps elected as their leader someone who had seemingly worked out one of the best ways for a non-white person to get noticed and get on in life in Britain these days was to go around making edgy insulting statements about non-protected classes like white people and conservatives, and then get praised for it by a masochistic, self-flagellating established white governing class. And, indeed, such a strategy did work: he got himself elected, did he not?

So, given the usual action-reward mechanism at play in such matters – i.e., black man insults Whitey, black man gets rewarded for it – Abaraonye’s tasteless messages about Kirk may not actually have seemed all that irrational to him, whether he genuinely meant them or not. It was just that, in this particular instance, he was deemed to have gone too far, leading to mass public condemnation and calls for university administrators to strip him of his newly-elected post before he had even officially taken it up. Faced with such a prospect, Abaraonye did something which, once again, given all the Pavlovian race-conditioning he had been subjected to since birth, must have seemed the only rational response to pursue: he began crying “racism!”

George of the Bungle

Contacted by journalists for comment, George explained that he had simply “reacted impulsively” and in actual fact, “Those words did not reflect my values.” Why did he type them out, then? Does he have text message Tourette’s?

To student newspaper Cherwell, Abaraonye clarified his actions further, noting how, when you really stopped to think about it, he was the true victim in all this here, not dead Charlie Kirk:

Last night I received the shocking news about a shooting at Charlie Kirk’s event. In that moment of shock, I reacted impulsively and made comments prior to Charlie being pronounced dead that I quickly deleted upon learning of his passing … At the same time, my reaction was shaped by the context of Mr Kirk’s own rhetoric – words that often dismissed or mocked the suffering of others. He described the deaths of American children from school shootings as an acceptable ‘cost’ of protecting gun rights. [Would you describe the death of Iryna Zarutska as the acceptable ‘cost’ of diversity, I wonder?] He justified the killing of civilians in Gaza, including women and children, by blaming them collectively for Hamas. [Do you collectively blame white people, including women and children, for slavery and colonialism, perchance?] He called for the retraction of the Civil Rights Act, and repeatedly spread harmful stereotypes about LGBTQ and trans communities. These were horrific and dehumanising statements. My reaction was not a call for violence, but a raw, unprocessed response to what felt like a painful irony. I retracted those words almost immediately, yet I’ve been troubled to see some in the media ignore my retraction while amplifying my deleted comments.

How can the media report on an apology for something without also simultaneously mentioning what is being apologized for? A headline simply saying “Man Says Sorry” without explaining what he was actually saying sorry about, would be rather an incomplete story, would it not? Abaraonye continued justifying himself anyway, bemoaning:

A standard of behaviour that is now leading to racist comments and a myriad of threats and discrimination made towards me. It is right to call out my insensitivity, but the same scrutiny must be applied to rhetoric that has caused real harm and continues to do so.

Caused “real harm” to what? Your future career prospects? To credulous left-wing journal The New Statesman, Abaraonye then further expounded the following:

The irony is not lost on me that many of those now threatening violence and hurling abuse toward me, and toward people who look like me, [nobody else on planet Earth looks like you!] have shown no interest in holding Charlie Kirk to the same standard when he mocked children killed by gun violence or excused the deaths of women and children abroad.

When did Charlie Kirk write “THE SANDY HOOK KIDS GOT SHOT, LET’S FUCKING GO!” or “ANOTHER GAZA HOSPITAL BOMBED, LOOOL”? Never. And yet, says George:

My words were no less insensitive than his—arguably less so; the difference is that I had the humility to recognise when I strayed from my core values, and I addressed it immediately upon reflection.

Said “reflection” no doubt running something along the lines of “Oh shit, I’m going to get chucked out of university if I don’t apologize. I know: I’ll just accuse everyone who dares criticize me of racism, that’ll shut them up immediately.”

Price of Liberty

Did Abaraonye really mean his apology here? Not according to former Oxford Union President James Price, who recalled Abaraonye once arguing this during a previous in-house debate:

To effectively create change in the world we desire … at times there is simply nothing else that can be required other than violent retaliation. And this is a view I wholeheartedly agree with: the view that some institutions are too broken, too oppressive to be reformed. Like cancers of our society, they must, and they should, be taken down by any means necessary.

Including by shooting them dead through the throat in front of their watching wife and children? Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Price declared that, upon reading Abaraonye’s words, he had resigned his membership of the Union on the following grounds:

As I said in my resignation letter, radical groupings [like today’s left] ‘merely wear our precious freedoms as a costume until they can use them to attack that which is sacred to us.’ You believe in freedom of assembly, don’t you? So you cannot object to Gaza marches spewing hate clogging our streets every Saturday. You believe in free speech? So you must allow someone justifying ‘violent retaliation’ and glorying in assassination to remain President of a debate club. You believe in democracy? So you must allow for recent arrivals [i.e., Muslim immigrants] to vote en masse for [Islamist] Members of Parliament who care exclusively about Palestine and similar causes.

Price is correct. Any “debate” with these people is just a prelude to an ultimate shooting. As was recently observed by this site’s editor in the immediate aftermath of Kirk’s slaying, we just can’t live with these people any longer.

George Abaraonye’s initial entrance to the political world came when, as a schoolboy, he was run over and injured by a car whilst riding his bike down a shared public road, leading him to campaign for what he called “segregated cycling lanes” so that he wouldn’t “always have to look over my shoulder and worry” about being killed by a stranger in the future. On precisely identical grounds, he makes me want to campaign for segregated everything.