This goes to show how damaging and corrosive Postmodernism has done to the modern world. In the absence of truth, there is only power, and the pursuit of power inevitably leads to authoritarian violence. It shouldn't be surprising that according to a study that you are more likely to hold authoritarian views if you hold postmodernists views of the world. It's time to move away from that, and if academia refuses, then the university system needs to be severely punished.
The bullets DID NOT have engravings about transgender rights. “‘Notices bulge’ owo whats this?” Has absolutely nothing to do with trans rights. Everything on those bullets, including the “antifascist” messaging is meme lord gamer speak.
We do not yet know if this guy was motivated by left wing or far right ideology, or maybe even some third option.
Governor Cox just confirmed that the alleged shooter in custody was romantically involved with a transwoman.
The battle over whatever ideology shaped this killing doesn’t negate the fact that this was an act of terrorism that should be universally condemned. Two children lost their father and a woman lost her husband.
Correct. Their neighbor says they held hands and kissed, so they weren't just roommates. And Ciao Bella is an Antifa meme, not a gamer meme. It is absurd to continue asserting, as the person you're responding to does, that "we don't know yet" what motivated the assassin. He took the trouble to engrave his bullets; he wanted us to know.
All that is also still highly contested. Turns out the “transwoman” in question appears to be a roommate, not necessarily a lover, and also isn’t necessarily trans. There is so much conflicting information around this roommate. Initial sources stated that Robinson’s father turned him in to police, but then articles about the roommate stated that he turned him in. They cannot both be true.
Yes, it was an act of terrorism. But it DOES matter that so many people are chomping at the bit to shoehorn this into being a left-wing radical act. This promotes division, subsumes truth and reality in favor of preferred narrative, and leads us toward spiraling down the drain.
Why, if truly conservative or right leaning would he assassinate the conservative, right-leaning, Charlie Kirk? His family has confirmed at least one dinner conversation where the killer admitted he hated Kirk. He has Antifa connections and is romantically involved with his trans roommate. Maybe stick to objective facts and stop clutching that gender ideology junk.
Far righters like Nick Funetes also absolutely hate Kirk. He was pretty moderate by far right standards. Killer had no ANTIFA connections as far as anything actually established thus far.
Fuck no. Fuentes did not absolutely hate Kirk, but Fuentes is a liberal dog whistle 2 bit nothing. And yes, Antifa etchings on the bullet rounds and he has social media evidence and also trans ideology evidence. Big ass leftist.
The bullet rounds were literally gaming shitposting. This dude was more aligned with 4chan than antifa.
And yes, Nick Fuentes absolutely did hate Charlie Kirk, Fuentes’ groyper ‘soldiers’ have literally raided at and heckled his events multiple times before.
Haidt told us what we need to understand in his book The Righteous Mind... how left-liberals around the globe are a unique species of human that owns a truncated set of moral filters. Liberals see almost everything through a filter of care/harm. This makes them dangerous in power in that that they will ignore almost every other moral consideration, like Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, Liberty/Oppression. And also consider that the human psychological egoism is prevalent and thus the behavior of a liberal is to put their own harm mitigation of care as a first priority.
Liberals believe they are righteous in this pursuit... but from the outside it is clearly selfish... the proxy of victim groups is subordinate to their own need to feel cared for and safe from harm. They always prioritize their own situation, but they bring in other victims to help mitigate the obvious selfishness. It is also why they brand conservatives as uncaring brutes... when the truth is that conservatives just consider all the moral criteria instead of just Care/Harm.
This is why all Democrat-dominated states and cities are in a downward trajectory of social and economic decay... because liberals make policy decisions on immediate Care/Harm considerations and ignore all the long-term logical consequences.
This is also why liberals would tend to agree that violence is justified against people that would say words that would be hurtful to them... to feel like people don't care enough for them or would hurt them.
But this is really a psychological dysfunction. Words don't cause pain; the cause is the lack of control of the emotional response when hearing words. The lack of emotional regulation capability is another scientifically confirmed malady of liberal people. They are more easily put into emotional turmoil hearing words that seem critical of them and feel like it isn't caring enough and causing them harm. Liberals are poor coping skill people. They feel so strongly that they often cannot think critically.
Our societal approach to these more thin-skinned, hypersensitive, liberal people is to coddle them... to recognize that our thick skin and much more diverse set of moral filters enables us to be charitable and empathetic (conservatives also own the care/harm moral filter). Well, it turns out that this has been a big mistake. We have frankly enabled a mass psychosis of low coping skills that has turned into a mob of resentful and angry people committed to force society to provide them more care and harm reduction to supplement their own emotional and psychological defects.
What they need instead is a mass of cognitive behavior therapy.
Can we please end the fiction of referring to Charlie Kirk as “far right”? His political beliefs were right of center, and his religious beliefs were Traditionalist Christian.
If he is someone’s idea of “far right”, they need to get out more.
Kirk is literally a dude that called gay people an abomination; said if his daughter got raped she shouldn’t get an abortion; was a clear race-baiter and race realist; spread the very division he whined about and called for the death of Joe Biden. How is he not far-right? The man spread violent rhetoric wherever he went, he was giddy at those Minnesota lawmakers getting killed and now karma strikes back at him. I have empathy for his young children but none for him.
If you want to make allegations, I will not consider paraphrasing. You might as well be belching.
Actual quotes in full context are the only honest way to make arguments. It is just too easy to misrepresent someone by selectively editing their words or rephrasing them.
We all need to be patient. It takes a lot of time to fully understand any crime, and , right now, most of social media is posting wild speculation. I could easily come up with a dozen reasons that the assassin acted - all based loosely on some information out there that may or may not be true. I considered posting a list, but I’m afraid that some idiot would clip it and post it as truth.
What concerns me are those posting freely as they celebrate this action, that they want his family, including his children to suffer, and that we need more of this. These are vile thoughts. Humans have always had such thought, but that expressing them is acceptable is a return to barbarism.
i still think your work benefits from more consideration and less of the moment responsiveness. i disagree with your inference that political extremists on the left are a real growing menace. whatever "leftist" terrorist activity ocurring seems so much less organized and propeled by group think compared to the "far right" armed militias. on balance, i think the greater threat to american democratic republicanism is a christian-nationalist/theocratic fascist group taking over by force and media control, reordering our system. ugh.
You embrace/foster further division in your defense of the left as somehow less a threat than the right. In the same week that a man on the right was assassinated in front of thousands, including his wife and children. A man whose entire stock in trade was use of words rather than violence. You do not even pause long enough to acknowledge his death.
This would have been terrific satire in the context of the real world, but your campus and social media brainwashing is complete Ronny. I hope you don’t own and guns or knives.
This was a brilliant post until you started to bandy about statistics, starting just above this paragraph.
"The breakdown is alarming: 41 per cent of Democrats said assassinating a political leader could be at least somewhat justified. Only 29 per cent of Republicans said the same. That means Democrats were roughly 40 per cent more likely to endorse political assassinations"
Can you please make this make sense for me?
The reasons why I am requesting this is because
A) I'm not particularly good at math
&
B) I find it irresponsible that you can so flippantly write something like this, without breaking down how you came to that conclusion.
c) On a more personal note, I think it's ridiculous that you have a need to pander to a certain audience, which in my view seems indicative of the hard right turn your post just made after you so eloquently spoke as a champion of free speech.
For what my two cents are worth, you are a great writer when you don't put your own political biases into your work. Not sure if that is a serious blind spot for you, or you just are acutely aware of who is buttering your bread, and I'm just the random outlier paying for your subscription (even if for only one month).
The talking head class you're a part of are converging on your position in some form or another.
I suspect a solution would be to have more talking heads go to campuses and public spaces to engage in discourse, with the explicit goal of *not* steering towards a particular political end goal, but to normalize civic confrontation.
He was instrumentalizing his faith to push a political viewpoint, then making a call to action to join a particular political party.
More talking heads going to campuses and arguing without the call to action to join a political party will create better civic discourse as an instrument of its own ends.
Civility would certainly be an output of that kind of intervention, provided folks were training for it (see Street Epistemology) instead of training for the spectacle.
No suprise, the main stream media isn't covering trans activist Tyler Robinson's politics or pretending it's a mystery; although by now everyone knows he's a Trans Activist, that his live-in boyfriend Lance/Luna, Twiggs (gamers, Discord, 4Chan, and Reddit habituaes) is transing to impersonate a female and seems to be a "furrie" as well, viewing the outfits he dons. (Remember Sam Brinton, the head of government Nuclear Waste Management who was stealing women's clothes from airport luggage and was posting pictures of himself and partners as "puppies" on leashes?*) Lance/Luna Twiggs complains about how painful his hormone injections to develop some secondary female sexual appearances are. Only Andy Ngo (who was almost beaten to death by the Trans Taliban) mentioned this on his Substack. Unfortunately for us Leftists, who are not fooled by the covert-right like the Antifa and Trantifa masquerading as left, we often have to go to conservative websites for coverage of news the mainstream media suppresses. For decades, women's rights advocates and leftist feminists have been threatened, murdered, harassed, raped and silenced * by Trans and their allies without a peep from the legacy media; although numerous women have submitted articles and evidence of Trans Drag hatred of women who they often refer to as "bleeders, breeders and b*tches".
Had no idea the two sides views were so askew. That is a problem indeed. How does one get each side to either take off their glasses or put on ones that will clear up the view?
You write, “ free society depends on all of us having the courage to speak and to defend the right of others to speak, even when we disagree.” And this is true. But how true can it actually be in an environment where children and young people have been and are being “educated” by schools and media to be essentially brainwashed repeaters of post modern dogma? How many of them defend the right of others to speak? How many of those in positions of power are unwilling or unable because of employment/financial/social pressures to disagree IN GOOD FAITH?
It is the radical, malcontent, power hungry, bitter, 3rd wave postmodernist feminists that have infested education and other institutions that create non-thinking human clones to go forth and do their killing. I never thought I might agree with the early Puritans on the risk of witches and what to do about them.
The breakdown is alarming: 41 per cent of Democrats said assassinating a political leader could be at least somewhat justified. Only 29 per cent of Republicans said the same. That means Democrats were roughly 40 per cent more likely to endorse political assassinations.
Far be it from me to correct anyone’s math but wouldn’t this be 12% greater? Not 40%?
Using the “only” before the 29% (of conservatives think political violence is acceptable)doesn’t seem like a good choice of words. 29% is a lot!
Rob writes: "This killing reflects a broader pattern: men between the ages of 18 and 24 are the most likely to commit murder, while their victims are most often slightly older men, typically between 25 and 34."
Do Oedipal impulses drive the 18-24 year old murderous men? Are they trying to prove their "worthiness" when other options are too remote or difficult?
This goes to show how damaging and corrosive Postmodernism has done to the modern world. In the absence of truth, there is only power, and the pursuit of power inevitably leads to authoritarian violence. It shouldn't be surprising that according to a study that you are more likely to hold authoritarian views if you hold postmodernists views of the world. It's time to move away from that, and if academia refuses, then the university system needs to be severely punished.
Hear hear
The bullets DID NOT have engravings about transgender rights. “‘Notices bulge’ owo whats this?” Has absolutely nothing to do with trans rights. Everything on those bullets, including the “antifascist” messaging is meme lord gamer speak.
We do not yet know if this guy was motivated by left wing or far right ideology, or maybe even some third option.
Governor Cox just confirmed that the alleged shooter in custody was romantically involved with a transwoman.
The battle over whatever ideology shaped this killing doesn’t negate the fact that this was an act of terrorism that should be universally condemned. Two children lost their father and a woman lost her husband.
Correct. Their neighbor says they held hands and kissed, so they weren't just roommates. And Ciao Bella is an Antifa meme, not a gamer meme. It is absurd to continue asserting, as the person you're responding to does, that "we don't know yet" what motivated the assassin. He took the trouble to engrave his bullets; he wanted us to know.
Bella, Ciao has actually become a groyper song, as they love the irony. Its literally on the Spotify Groyper playlist.
Its also a song featured in the game that the “catch fascist, up arrow, right arrow, down arrow, down arrow, down arrow” bullet is referencing.
All that is also still highly contested. Turns out the “transwoman” in question appears to be a roommate, not necessarily a lover, and also isn’t necessarily trans. There is so much conflicting information around this roommate. Initial sources stated that Robinson’s father turned him in to police, but then articles about the roommate stated that he turned him in. They cannot both be true.
Yes, it was an act of terrorism. But it DOES matter that so many people are chomping at the bit to shoehorn this into being a left-wing radical act. This promotes division, subsumes truth and reality in favor of preferred narrative, and leads us toward spiraling down the drain.
Why, if truly conservative or right leaning would he assassinate the conservative, right-leaning, Charlie Kirk? His family has confirmed at least one dinner conversation where the killer admitted he hated Kirk. He has Antifa connections and is romantically involved with his trans roommate. Maybe stick to objective facts and stop clutching that gender ideology junk.
Have you literally never heard of Groypers? Even Ben Shapiro admitted that it’s probably those goons could have done it.
Far righters like Nick Funetes also absolutely hate Kirk. He was pretty moderate by far right standards. Killer had no ANTIFA connections as far as anything actually established thus far.
Fuck no. Fuentes did not absolutely hate Kirk, but Fuentes is a liberal dog whistle 2 bit nothing. And yes, Antifa etchings on the bullet rounds and he has social media evidence and also trans ideology evidence. Big ass leftist.
The bullet rounds were literally gaming shitposting. This dude was more aligned with 4chan than antifa.
And yes, Nick Fuentes absolutely did hate Charlie Kirk, Fuentes’ groyper ‘soldiers’ have literally raided at and heckled his events multiple times before.
Fuentes has poured vitriol over Trump and Kirk repeatedly. What ANTIFA etchings on the bullet rounds? What trans ideology evidence?
This guy dressed up like Pepe for Halloween.
You’re absolutely right, the other dude we’re replying to is absolutely delusional about this.
Haidt told us what we need to understand in his book The Righteous Mind... how left-liberals around the globe are a unique species of human that owns a truncated set of moral filters. Liberals see almost everything through a filter of care/harm. This makes them dangerous in power in that that they will ignore almost every other moral consideration, like Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, Liberty/Oppression. And also consider that the human psychological egoism is prevalent and thus the behavior of a liberal is to put their own harm mitigation of care as a first priority.
Liberals believe they are righteous in this pursuit... but from the outside it is clearly selfish... the proxy of victim groups is subordinate to their own need to feel cared for and safe from harm. They always prioritize their own situation, but they bring in other victims to help mitigate the obvious selfishness. It is also why they brand conservatives as uncaring brutes... when the truth is that conservatives just consider all the moral criteria instead of just Care/Harm.
This is why all Democrat-dominated states and cities are in a downward trajectory of social and economic decay... because liberals make policy decisions on immediate Care/Harm considerations and ignore all the long-term logical consequences.
This is also why liberals would tend to agree that violence is justified against people that would say words that would be hurtful to them... to feel like people don't care enough for them or would hurt them.
But this is really a psychological dysfunction. Words don't cause pain; the cause is the lack of control of the emotional response when hearing words. The lack of emotional regulation capability is another scientifically confirmed malady of liberal people. They are more easily put into emotional turmoil hearing words that seem critical of them and feel like it isn't caring enough and causing them harm. Liberals are poor coping skill people. They feel so strongly that they often cannot think critically.
Our societal approach to these more thin-skinned, hypersensitive, liberal people is to coddle them... to recognize that our thick skin and much more diverse set of moral filters enables us to be charitable and empathetic (conservatives also own the care/harm moral filter). Well, it turns out that this has been a big mistake. We have frankly enabled a mass psychosis of low coping skills that has turned into a mob of resentful and angry people committed to force society to provide them more care and harm reduction to supplement their own emotional and psychological defects.
What they need instead is a mass of cognitive behavior therapy.
Well said!
Can we please end the fiction of referring to Charlie Kirk as “far right”? His political beliefs were right of center, and his religious beliefs were Traditionalist Christian.
If he is someone’s idea of “far right”, they need to get out more.
Kirk is literally a dude that called gay people an abomination; said if his daughter got raped she shouldn’t get an abortion; was a clear race-baiter and race realist; spread the very division he whined about and called for the death of Joe Biden. How is he not far-right? The man spread violent rhetoric wherever he went, he was giddy at those Minnesota lawmakers getting killed and now karma strikes back at him. I have empathy for his young children but none for him.
No quotes. No context.
If you want to make allegations, I will not consider paraphrasing. You might as well be belching.
Actual quotes in full context are the only honest way to make arguments. It is just too easy to misrepresent someone by selectively editing their words or rephrasing them.
Agreed.
We all need to be patient. It takes a lot of time to fully understand any crime, and , right now, most of social media is posting wild speculation. I could easily come up with a dozen reasons that the assassin acted - all based loosely on some information out there that may or may not be true. I considered posting a list, but I’m afraid that some idiot would clip it and post it as truth.
What concerns me are those posting freely as they celebrate this action, that they want his family, including his children to suffer, and that we need more of this. These are vile thoughts. Humans have always had such thought, but that expressing them is acceptable is a return to barbarism.
i still think your work benefits from more consideration and less of the moment responsiveness. i disagree with your inference that political extremists on the left are a real growing menace. whatever "leftist" terrorist activity ocurring seems so much less organized and propeled by group think compared to the "far right" armed militias. on balance, i think the greater threat to american democratic republicanism is a christian-nationalist/theocratic fascist group taking over by force and media control, reordering our system. ugh.
You illustrate Mr. Henderson's points beautifully.
please elaborate
You embrace/foster further division in your defense of the left as somehow less a threat than the right. In the same week that a man on the right was assassinated in front of thousands, including his wife and children. A man whose entire stock in trade was use of words rather than violence. You do not even pause long enough to acknowledge his death.
This would have been terrific satire in the context of the real world, but your campus and social media brainwashing is complete Ronny. I hope you don’t own and guns or knives.
Who do you see committing conference in the streets more often, armed far right militias, or antifa? Who gets more institutional tolerance?
This was a brilliant post until you started to bandy about statistics, starting just above this paragraph.
"The breakdown is alarming: 41 per cent of Democrats said assassinating a political leader could be at least somewhat justified. Only 29 per cent of Republicans said the same. That means Democrats were roughly 40 per cent more likely to endorse political assassinations"
Can you please make this make sense for me?
The reasons why I am requesting this is because
A) I'm not particularly good at math
&
B) I find it irresponsible that you can so flippantly write something like this, without breaking down how you came to that conclusion.
c) On a more personal note, I think it's ridiculous that you have a need to pander to a certain audience, which in my view seems indicative of the hard right turn your post just made after you so eloquently spoke as a champion of free speech.
For what my two cents are worth, you are a great writer when you don't put your own political biases into your work. Not sure if that is a serious blind spot for you, or you just are acutely aware of who is buttering your bread, and I'm just the random outlier paying for your subscription (even if for only one month).
The talking head class you're a part of are converging on your position in some form or another.
I suspect a solution would be to have more talking heads go to campuses and public spaces to engage in discourse, with the explicit goal of *not* steering towards a particular political end goal, but to normalize civic confrontation.
Would be a great idea, if the one person doing that didn't just get assassinated.
His explicit goal was steering towards a particular political end goal.
By normalizing civic confirmation to advocate for it. You can't have one without the other.
Yes you can.
Check out Street Epistemology.
He could have advocated for his church instead of joining a particular political party.
He could have fought for greater religiosity as its own instrument instead of leveraging religion for secular power.
Lots of ends could have been pursued with the means he selected.
He was advocating for political points of view. OK, you want civil civic discourse, without the politics?
He was instrumentalizing his faith to push a political viewpoint, then making a call to action to join a particular political party.
More talking heads going to campuses and arguing without the call to action to join a political party will create better civic discourse as an instrument of its own ends.
Civility would certainly be an output of that kind of intervention, provided folks were training for it (see Street Epistemology) instead of training for the spectacle.
No suprise, the main stream media isn't covering trans activist Tyler Robinson's politics or pretending it's a mystery; although by now everyone knows he's a Trans Activist, that his live-in boyfriend Lance/Luna, Twiggs (gamers, Discord, 4Chan, and Reddit habituaes) is transing to impersonate a female and seems to be a "furrie" as well, viewing the outfits he dons. (Remember Sam Brinton, the head of government Nuclear Waste Management who was stealing women's clothes from airport luggage and was posting pictures of himself and partners as "puppies" on leashes?*) Lance/Luna Twiggs complains about how painful his hormone injections to develop some secondary female sexual appearances are. Only Andy Ngo (who was almost beaten to death by the Trans Taliban) mentioned this on his Substack. Unfortunately for us Leftists, who are not fooled by the covert-right like the Antifa and Trantifa masquerading as left, we often have to go to conservative websites for coverage of news the mainstream media suppresses. For decades, women's rights advocates and leftist feminists have been threatened, murdered, harassed, raped and silenced * by Trans and their allies without a peep from the legacy media; although numerous women have submitted articles and evidence of Trans Drag hatred of women who they often refer to as "bleeders, breeders and b*tches".
*
Governor confirms Charlie Kirk assassin's romantic relationship with a transgender lover being probed for motive https://share.google/qazFIn0CmXVdz22lO
*
Biden taps non-binary drag queen to look after nuclear waste https://share.google/O7MQkB5FIcPrscHX1
*
She gained fame as an early transgender advocate. Now, she’s charged with triple homicide. - The Washington Post https://share.google/WEQRzbuvPuj7qh45S
*
https://le.utah.gov/interim/2024/pdf/00000577.pdf
*
https://www.foxnews.com/us/third-strike-trans-rape-suspect-prompts-rebellion-against-ca-law-after-attack-womens-prison
*
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/man-posing-as-transgender-woman-raped-female-prisoner-at-rikers-lawsuit-says/5067904/
*
https://nypost.com/2025/02/15/us-news/trans-migrant-arrested-for-raping-boy-in-nyc-park-bathroom/
*
https://legislature.maine.gov/testimony/resources/CJPS20210518Gingrich132664242197478414.pdf
*
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13955045/trans-gatecrash-womens-rally-home-suffragette-emily-davison.html
Also unreported in mainstream press there has been an explosion of transgender joy on the internet over Charlie Kirk's death.
Bravo RH
Had no idea the two sides views were so askew. That is a problem indeed. How does one get each side to either take off their glasses or put on ones that will clear up the view?
You write, “ free society depends on all of us having the courage to speak and to defend the right of others to speak, even when we disagree.” And this is true. But how true can it actually be in an environment where children and young people have been and are being “educated” by schools and media to be essentially brainwashed repeaters of post modern dogma? How many of them defend the right of others to speak? How many of those in positions of power are unwilling or unable because of employment/financial/social pressures to disagree IN GOOD FAITH?
It is the radical, malcontent, power hungry, bitter, 3rd wave postmodernist feminists that have infested education and other institutions that create non-thinking human clones to go forth and do their killing. I never thought I might agree with the early Puritans on the risk of witches and what to do about them.
Great article!
Only, please help with this:
The breakdown is alarming: 41 per cent of Democrats said assassinating a political leader could be at least somewhat justified. Only 29 per cent of Republicans said the same. That means Democrats were roughly 40 per cent more likely to endorse political assassinations.
Far be it from me to correct anyone’s math but wouldn’t this be 12% greater? Not 40%?
Using the “only” before the 29% (of conservatives think political violence is acceptable)doesn’t seem like a good choice of words. 29% is a lot!
Just substitute Progressive where you say Liberal. Then, yes.
Rob writes: "This killing reflects a broader pattern: men between the ages of 18 and 24 are the most likely to commit murder, while their victims are most often slightly older men, typically between 25 and 34."
Do Oedipal impulses drive the 18-24 year old murderous men? Are they trying to prove their "worthiness" when other options are too remote or difficult?