In my last post about the killing of Charlie Kirk I said I’d written as much as I wanted to about him and he would now take up zero amounts of my emotional energy going forward.
Yes, yes, yes, Nate. I have said in several of my own community’s rather unsettling posts that some call the topics that Kirk spoke about “controversial” - when we not so long ago would mostly have agreed these topics are simply racist, homophobic or misogynistic, for example.
Adding to this overall issue, of course, is the push of “both-sidesism” in discourse, media reporting, etc. There was a time when we understood that just because someone had an opinion that was socially understood to be hateful, harmful, unsupported, and so on, it didn’t mean it needed to be heard or explored and definitely not invited in on large platforms just to try to show we were “fair and open-minded”. Some boundaries and some standards are worthy of holding on to.
Speaking of normative values, the Federal Communications Commission used to have a Fairness Doctrine that dictated balanced reporting by the broadcasters they regulated. Ronald Reagan gutted that dictate. Large media concentration has now left us wallowing in self serving right wing diatribes about anything other than the essential fact that billionaires are opening screwing our prospects 24/7.
So pervasive is the sour discourse that in the Democratic response to Trump's State of the Union address, the speaker spoke admirably of, get this, Ronald Reagan.
I bring this up because charlatans and their crusades have multiplied like invasive weeds ever since the abandonment of any regulation protecting fairness.
In practice this simply means that a common set of ideas and practices about fairness, respect and rights sit at the centre of our shared cultural understanding. For example, we agree, broadly, that marginalising people who are openly racist is an important societal firewall. Because we don’t want society run by racists. We agree that a person’s gender, race, religion or sexual orientation shouldn’t affect their public standing or life chances. Because we don’t want bigots to run society. We extend legal protections to a broad range of identities, from gay people to immigrants, because we want the engine of society, in broad terms, to be fairness, not bigotry."
So, that was the ruling class narrative, never a reality. Under all that idpol dressing was simply a reverse hierarchy placing petty bourgeois minorities, women and gays over the white working class. It never was meant to aid the minority, female or gay working class and it never did, regardless of what these workers may have thought. Naturally the white working class, suffering tremendously in the US, would react to this injustice. But, you underestimate, virtually ignire, the support of black and Hispanic workers for Trump. That reflects the false consciousness promoted by the Dem/Labour "good cops".
The truth behind the idpol has been revealed in Gaza. The Democratic party pushing the oh so virtuous idpol divide and conquer tactic, oversaw a genocide of an entire ethic minority including women and gays and even little children. That idpol fraud is now exposed. No section of ruling class or their political parties could care less about racism sexism or homophobia.
As to Kirk and the Trump folks, you are dead wrong to buy into the Democratic party's campaign of making everything a racial struggle. The Trump movement is arguably not racist. It is nationalist and classist. Trump has no problem with wealthy foreign nationals, wealthy gays, black or women, so long as they support him or stay out of his way. And a great number of them do just that!
Kirk and Trump were able to push a nationalist line of all identities subordinate to the nation, God and Trump because the Democratic Party's reverse hierarchy idpol was so anti worker, so unhinged that the population was broadly revolted by it, especially after the disgusting racist excesses of the Democratic party's agency BLM.
But the classist nationalism of Trump obscures a devotion to the most sacred identity of all: the Zionists. Trump is a devotee of the billionaires Oligarchs but the Zionists are holy to him.
Kirk is being lionized to justify a deeper speech crackdown on left wing criticism of Israel above all. Kirk himself, what he stood for, is totally irrelevant to this endeavor. You waste your energy and alienated readers by devotiing any time to Kirk as an individual.
Also, the term fascist has been reduced to an epithet of the Democratic Party (Kamala used it against Trump!) with increasingly no historical meaning. If you are going to use the term and still be taken seriously you must define it historically and then explain why the object of your critique merits the description.
1/-On one hand this guy is being made into a deity of a sort because he seemingly was murdered and his organisation TPUSA happened to have 40 million+ $ in its coffers that the Joos purchased him with. On the other hand, the bodies of those who were murdered with the Covid-19 biological weapon are still warm, yet ALREADY, completely eradicated outta the American Psyche!! ...Christmases, Easters, New Year's Eve celebrations, July 4ths came and gone, etc. and no one did so much as observe one minute of silence to remember those Americans as well as World citizens who were Cruely as well as Criminally butchered. Among whom were Pilots, US soldiers, medical Doctors, city counsel men, cops, state troopers, college students, children and babies, mothers, fathers, blue collar workers etc. UNJUSTLY eliminated by the 1000's if not the millions under false criminal pretenses. From as high as CDC. to the bottom of society. No one cared to remember them beside their families and close ones, as if they have never existed. I find that to be extremely disturbing as well as frightening.
2/- Several videos have been made that give a reason that the entire murder scene is a hoax and that the guy walked out. Videos that are very credible.
So what gives.
Charlie Kirk was very afraid of the Joos after they found out that he was attempting to appeal to his base out of which only 25% still supported the Joos in regard to the Genocide. He also spoke up against continuing to give money/weapons to Ukraine and RT produced an article that documented credible threat which gives a reason that not only the Joos but also the Ukrainians had good reason to murder him.
The fact of the matter is that, his murder did not call for the Hype & Hysteria generated by his death. 100's or 1000's get killed in this country, innocent or not, yet no one cares about them in any way shape or form. This guy is not different. He took chance getting at first lavishly financed by some of the most murderous people in the world. Came to a point where he thought he can just walk away unsynched. He lost. That is if he actually was murdered.
Don't you know, when We do it, it's only self-defense, a response to outrageous provocation, or at worst a measured and justified preemptive strike.
When they do it, it's pure hate and aggression.
That applies, regardless of your tribe. Less than a year ago, the right were bewailing cancel culture and championing freedom of speech. Now they are demanding censorship and that anyone not sufficiently reverent towards St. Charlie be fired. Were the left to have the whip hand, they'd be doing the same, but with a different friend/victim - enemy/oppressor distinction.
Anyway, start liking it. As the middle class is picked clean and discarded like the poors were, as every would be savior proves to be a self-serving fraud, as the United States starts to resemble Brazil (albeit with less attractive women and a more hyperbellgerent foreign policy), we will only see more and more young men lashing out in all kinds of wild ways.
Yes, yes, yes, Nate. I have said in several of my own community’s rather unsettling posts that some call the topics that Kirk spoke about “controversial” - when we not so long ago would mostly have agreed these topics are simply racist, homophobic or misogynistic, for example.
Adding to this overall issue, of course, is the push of “both-sidesism” in discourse, media reporting, etc. There was a time when we understood that just because someone had an opinion that was socially understood to be hateful, harmful, unsupported, and so on, it didn’t mean it needed to be heard or explored and definitely not invited in on large platforms just to try to show we were “fair and open-minded”. Some boundaries and some standards are worthy of holding on to.
Thanks. Absolutely right
Agreed. We need to allow for free speech, but if things are said that are proven to hurt society, then they should be barred.
Speaking of normative values, the Federal Communications Commission used to have a Fairness Doctrine that dictated balanced reporting by the broadcasters they regulated. Ronald Reagan gutted that dictate. Large media concentration has now left us wallowing in self serving right wing diatribes about anything other than the essential fact that billionaires are opening screwing our prospects 24/7.
So pervasive is the sour discourse that in the Democratic response to Trump's State of the Union address, the speaker spoke admirably of, get this, Ronald Reagan.
I bring this up because charlatans and their crusades have multiplied like invasive weeds ever since the abandonment of any regulation protecting fairness.
Thank you for this piece, wish I had read it before I talked with my brother.
While we did land on these pertinent statements:
"The biggest lie of this whole affair is that it is all just a question of free speech.
It is in fact a question of norms, and attempts to create new, more hateful ones."
You would have saved us quite a few minutes, if I had read your piece prior.
In practice this simply means that a common set of ideas and practices about fairness, respect and rights sit at the centre of our shared cultural understanding. For example, we agree, broadly, that marginalising people who are openly racist is an important societal firewall. Because we don’t want society run by racists. We agree that a person’s gender, race, religion or sexual orientation shouldn’t affect their public standing or life chances. Because we don’t want bigots to run society. We extend legal protections to a broad range of identities, from gay people to immigrants, because we want the engine of society, in broad terms, to be fairness, not bigotry."
So, that was the ruling class narrative, never a reality. Under all that idpol dressing was simply a reverse hierarchy placing petty bourgeois minorities, women and gays over the white working class. It never was meant to aid the minority, female or gay working class and it never did, regardless of what these workers may have thought. Naturally the white working class, suffering tremendously in the US, would react to this injustice. But, you underestimate, virtually ignire, the support of black and Hispanic workers for Trump. That reflects the false consciousness promoted by the Dem/Labour "good cops".
The truth behind the idpol has been revealed in Gaza. The Democratic party pushing the oh so virtuous idpol divide and conquer tactic, oversaw a genocide of an entire ethic minority including women and gays and even little children. That idpol fraud is now exposed. No section of ruling class or their political parties could care less about racism sexism or homophobia.
As to Kirk and the Trump folks, you are dead wrong to buy into the Democratic party's campaign of making everything a racial struggle. The Trump movement is arguably not racist. It is nationalist and classist. Trump has no problem with wealthy foreign nationals, wealthy gays, black or women, so long as they support him or stay out of his way. And a great number of them do just that!
Kirk and Trump were able to push a nationalist line of all identities subordinate to the nation, God and Trump because the Democratic Party's reverse hierarchy idpol was so anti worker, so unhinged that the population was broadly revolted by it, especially after the disgusting racist excesses of the Democratic party's agency BLM.
But the classist nationalism of Trump obscures a devotion to the most sacred identity of all: the Zionists. Trump is a devotee of the billionaires Oligarchs but the Zionists are holy to him.
Kirk is being lionized to justify a deeper speech crackdown on left wing criticism of Israel above all. Kirk himself, what he stood for, is totally irrelevant to this endeavor. You waste your energy and alienated readers by devotiing any time to Kirk as an individual.
Also, the term fascist has been reduced to an epithet of the Democratic Party (Kamala used it against Trump!) with increasingly no historical meaning. If you are going to use the term and still be taken seriously you must define it historically and then explain why the object of your critique merits the description.
I basically agree with all that, thanks
1/-On one hand this guy is being made into a deity of a sort because he seemingly was murdered and his organisation TPUSA happened to have 40 million+ $ in its coffers that the Joos purchased him with. On the other hand, the bodies of those who were murdered with the Covid-19 biological weapon are still warm, yet ALREADY, completely eradicated outta the American Psyche!! ...Christmases, Easters, New Year's Eve celebrations, July 4ths came and gone, etc. and no one did so much as observe one minute of silence to remember those Americans as well as World citizens who were Cruely as well as Criminally butchered. Among whom were Pilots, US soldiers, medical Doctors, city counsel men, cops, state troopers, college students, children and babies, mothers, fathers, blue collar workers etc. UNJUSTLY eliminated by the 1000's if not the millions under false criminal pretenses. From as high as CDC. to the bottom of society. No one cared to remember them beside their families and close ones, as if they have never existed. I find that to be extremely disturbing as well as frightening.
2/- Several videos have been made that give a reason that the entire murder scene is a hoax and that the guy walked out. Videos that are very credible.
So what gives.
Charlie Kirk was very afraid of the Joos after they found out that he was attempting to appeal to his base out of which only 25% still supported the Joos in regard to the Genocide. He also spoke up against continuing to give money/weapons to Ukraine and RT produced an article that documented credible threat which gives a reason that not only the Joos but also the Ukrainians had good reason to murder him.
The fact of the matter is that, his murder did not call for the Hype & Hysteria generated by his death. 100's or 1000's get killed in this country, innocent or not, yet no one cares about them in any way shape or form. This guy is not different. He took chance getting at first lavishly financed by some of the most murderous people in the world. Came to a point where he thought he can just walk away unsynched. He lost. That is if he actually was murdered.
Here's what TikTok said about Charlie Kirk and Erika Kirk: On Wednesday, 17 September 2025 at 16:54, Kat Hawkins <kathawkins0852@ wrote:
Charlie was and she was very involved with trafficking, Trump and Epstein. No clue if it's true but seeing more and more on it.
On Wednesday, 17 September 2025 at 16:05, Kat Hawkins <kathawkins0852@ wrote:
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTM1oHTqb/
If it's true that the good die young, then this axiom is false.
Don't you know, when We do it, it's only self-defense, a response to outrageous provocation, or at worst a measured and justified preemptive strike.
When they do it, it's pure hate and aggression.
That applies, regardless of your tribe. Less than a year ago, the right were bewailing cancel culture and championing freedom of speech. Now they are demanding censorship and that anyone not sufficiently reverent towards St. Charlie be fired. Were the left to have the whip hand, they'd be doing the same, but with a different friend/victim - enemy/oppressor distinction.
Anyway, start liking it. As the middle class is picked clean and discarded like the poors were, as every would be savior proves to be a self-serving fraud, as the United States starts to resemble Brazil (albeit with less attractive women and a more hyperbellgerent foreign policy), we will only see more and more young men lashing out in all kinds of wild ways.
Hear what you're saying but personally never been convinced that cancelling a fascist is the same as cancelling an anti fascist
friend/victim - enemy/oppressor