It wasn't said to be a text it was said to be a discord chat, and discord has says it's not on any discord servers. Did you read the full thing? Do you think it sounds like a real 22 year old online zoomer wrote any of it?
It reads like the narrator's introduction before the episode begins.
Yes it sure does! It's badly written yet necessary. Otherwise, Trump Jr would have had no reason to call trans people more dangerous than Al-Quaeda. And the FBI would have no reason to characterize trans people as nihilist violent extremists. And the agenda to curtail rights and freedoms couldn't move forward yet another step.
Yes, and this sort of statement from the OP "joint effort" 🤔is just propaganda thinking. We don't have to believe what we are told, just because someone is now dead
"If we take the words of the accused killer both seriously and literally—which we must, a man is dead"
That’s right - we cannot know whether or not the accused killer actually wrote that much less shot Kirk. But there’s one way to tell if the words and deeds attributed to him serve an agenda. And that’s to watch how they are used to widen the political divide and justify curtailing rights such as free speech. “You will know them by their fruits” is among the best advice I’ve ever heard. And given how easy it is to look back on recent history and see how we’ve been manipulated into believing narratives that resulted in us willingly giving up rights and freedoms, it would be naive to assume that either the correspondence or the murderer are actually as presented.
*I want to mention, I have encountered trans violence myself and it is like other forms of narcissistic abuse and violence. AGP is a narcissistic disorder. A difference between that group and, say, regular family man domestic abuse is that there is not a subculture that winds each other up on twitter and reddit (can't speak to discord), and another difference is that the regular family guy isn't injecting hormones which are known to destabilize the emotions even in temporary but widely experienced states of being, such as adolescence, PMS, testosterone responses to acute threat, etc. Although, they may mess with their endocrine systems in other ways, such as with heavy drinking, SSRIs, and similar.
SSRIs are another factor for people who are distressed or fixated enough to want to alter their sex characteristics.
We shouldn't ignore the existence of the subculture or its profoundly antisocial tenor. But that doesn't mean it should be used as a scapegoat, either. The cynicism and selfish destructiveness of this administration is just as bad as the Biden administration before it, and worse in certain ways. The Israeli influence has, after an initial stutter, regained its footing and increased its power over our treasonous president and his cabinet and the alphabet agencies. And this nonsense scapegoat construct is part of that.
The problem is, there's always a grain of truth behind narratives. That's why they're at all believable. I'm just not sure how profiling various groups ends other than with pretending it's possible to predict behaviour with enough accuracy to warrant pre-crime arrests. And that's a scary thing to imagine. Under that kind of police state, anyone can be detained for any reason. Just like under hate speech laws, anything can be designated hateful. It leaves the state with too much power and the public with not enough recourse.
100%. I was going to go into some thoughts about medical conditions and the vast knowledge difference between statistical tendencies (eg emotional side effects of SSRIs) and established attributes, but even that's too easily misinterpreted. Profiling based on assumptions and mind-reading and then "pre-crime" isn't just a misty dream of authoritarians, it's a hubristic fantasy that many in the tech industry believe is possible. They are so very wrong; their lack of understanding of 'how people are' is breathtaking, but they are impermeable on this, probably because they really don't understand what they don't understand. It's incredibly dangerous that we have that gang, snuggled up against a religious ideology that loves to demonize.
I think the tech bros "believe" in pre-crime because it moves them closer to the technocracy that puts them in control of programming the AI that decides our fate. And most seem to have bought into an ideology whereby democracy is ineffective and must be replaced.
Yes religious dogma can be dangerous and, if you look around at how many of the well-funded new media have recently converted, you can tell that dogma will be used in some way to further the agenda. I seems to me that all ideology loves to demonize. Otherwise there would be no "us" and "them" and how would we know we're better than them?!
Yes I agree, all ideology loves to demonize, on the (D) and (Prog) sides as well as the (R). About the only one that is limited in that regard is some types of Libertarian but it still bundles and sanctifies human behavior-- irrational but in the opposite way--while demonizing government...
I think I know where a number of the tech types got their ideas about government and it's so dumb: science fiction. I have read a good chunk of the stuff, excepting only the tedious "hard sci-fi" as it's largely robot-porn. It's largely a doomer, politically superficial genre but dang it carries a lot of ideology in its shootemups.
The Biden Administration’s use of “debanking” to try and cartelise AI made a lot of the techbros hopping mad and had a lot to do with driving them towards Trump.
The social imperialism of the unaccountable classes (those paid to turn up) creates coalitions against them. The question is how successful those coalitions are: until recently, not very has been the answer.
In law enforcement and border management, profiling is typically not used for arrests, but for searches. Using for more than searches is … problematic.
I can see why you're not sure what I'm talking about...I didn't realize my comments would go the very end of this long thread, as I tried to comment much farther up the thread. Anyway, you started out with: "It wasn't said to be a text it was said to be a discord chat..." so I'm wondering if you're referring to the conversation between Tyler Robinson and his lover, in which Robinson explains why he shot Charlie Kirk. Are you saying that this conversation supposedly happened on Discord, but that Discord itself denies it? Or are you referring to something else that I don't know about. Thanks for answering when you're able.
Oh yes thanks for clarifying I never would've guessed. I might have been mistaken about the lover-chat vs the discord confession-to-group. There were supposedly both. The discord group discussion was supposedly a confession to online associates (friends?) and the lover-chat, that I don't know if it was said to be within discord or via messaging. Not sure I've heard anything about a platform. Discord said, in re the purported group chat, "don't know where you got that but it wasn't a discord server", and also, "there's nothing about planning or confession at all" which takes care of the lover-chat if and only if that's where they said that one took place, too.
The meta-reason for Charlie's assassination was not due to his debating people who won't be changing their mind. His goal was to give some of those listening the tools to help push back from the ideological capture (Critical Constructivism) taking place in the university/academy.
Many if not most of those that were debating Charlie were not going to change their minds (there were some that did or at least looked as if they might). There is something that closes the door on thought that is a particular strength of the far left. At times it seems their minions almost act like drones, repeating what has been told but cannot explain why they believe that way. In fact, some even take the position that they should not explain their thinking. These people are lost and cannot be reasoned with (literally).
Kirk was talking to others in the audience and he was making good headway.
This must have enraged the vanguard of far left and relates to Lorenzo's comment about blocking correctives. Charles Kirk was a very effective corrective.
2nd point (sorry for long comment):
Major difference between traditional religion and woke-as-religion is that actual religion is based on a subjective and immaterial question: what happens to the soul?
Whereas woke-as-a-religion is based on materializing subjectivity (a form of fetish), where someone's subjectivity alters material existence (e.g., men are women based on feels).
Final point:
FWIW, I believe that AG Bondi's statements (she is not a very good public speaker) was meant more as a warning: those who engage in "hate speech" are potentially subject to government investigation. As they should be. She should have phrased it differently and did walk it back a bit the next day.
Of course government investigating those making inflammatory statements has been going on forever in the US, so maybe it was an unnecessary statement. But the US administration is extremely upset and rattled by this murder, so I give her a pass. Certainly do not expect the AG to start rounding people up for hate speech.
Unfortunately, as the quote about dehumanization suggests, if AG said this—and a couple of Republican politicians made similarly foolish remarks—Demxxs tend to portray it as if all conservatives, or as they label them the “far-right,” said it. Meanwhile, mainstream media immediately screams about censorship by the right, even though none of that has actually happened. A handful of individuals simply exercised their free speech right to make mistaken statements, that’s all.
The left's reaction to Charlie Kirk's murder caught even me by surprise. But, as Lorenzo quoted: "whereas liberals overestimated how much they were dehumanized, conservatives underestimated how much they were dehumanized." Yes, underestimated again.
Thank you for this very in-depth analysis. One thing I found particularly valuable is your explanation of how the progressives root their worldview in a mythical future utopia, which leads them to a feeling of owning the moral high ground, even though it’s based on a complete illusion. I had never seen that so clearly explained before. Thank you.
Tactical morality, in action...
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/tactical-morality
It wasn't said to be a text it was said to be a discord chat, and discord has says it's not on any discord servers. Did you read the full thing? Do you think it sounds like a real 22 year old online zoomer wrote any of it?
It reads like the narrator's introduction before the episode begins.
Yes it sure does! It's badly written yet necessary. Otherwise, Trump Jr would have had no reason to call trans people more dangerous than Al-Quaeda. And the FBI would have no reason to characterize trans people as nihilist violent extremists. And the agenda to curtail rights and freedoms couldn't move forward yet another step.
Yes, and this sort of statement from the OP "joint effort" 🤔is just propaganda thinking. We don't have to believe what we are told, just because someone is now dead
"If we take the words of the accused killer both seriously and literally—which we must, a man is dead"
That’s right - we cannot know whether or not the accused killer actually wrote that much less shot Kirk. But there’s one way to tell if the words and deeds attributed to him serve an agenda. And that’s to watch how they are used to widen the political divide and justify curtailing rights such as free speech. “You will know them by their fruits” is among the best advice I’ve ever heard. And given how easy it is to look back on recent history and see how we’ve been manipulated into believing narratives that resulted in us willingly giving up rights and freedoms, it would be naive to assume that either the correspondence or the murderer are actually as presented.
*I want to mention, I have encountered trans violence myself and it is like other forms of narcissistic abuse and violence. AGP is a narcissistic disorder. A difference between that group and, say, regular family man domestic abuse is that there is not a subculture that winds each other up on twitter and reddit (can't speak to discord), and another difference is that the regular family guy isn't injecting hormones which are known to destabilize the emotions even in temporary but widely experienced states of being, such as adolescence, PMS, testosterone responses to acute threat, etc. Although, they may mess with their endocrine systems in other ways, such as with heavy drinking, SSRIs, and similar.
SSRIs are another factor for people who are distressed or fixated enough to want to alter their sex characteristics.
We shouldn't ignore the existence of the subculture or its profoundly antisocial tenor. But that doesn't mean it should be used as a scapegoat, either. The cynicism and selfish destructiveness of this administration is just as bad as the Biden administration before it, and worse in certain ways. The Israeli influence has, after an initial stutter, regained its footing and increased its power over our treasonous president and his cabinet and the alphabet agencies. And this nonsense scapegoat construct is part of that.
The problem is, there's always a grain of truth behind narratives. That's why they're at all believable. I'm just not sure how profiling various groups ends other than with pretending it's possible to predict behaviour with enough accuracy to warrant pre-crime arrests. And that's a scary thing to imagine. Under that kind of police state, anyone can be detained for any reason. Just like under hate speech laws, anything can be designated hateful. It leaves the state with too much power and the public with not enough recourse.
100%. I was going to go into some thoughts about medical conditions and the vast knowledge difference between statistical tendencies (eg emotional side effects of SSRIs) and established attributes, but even that's too easily misinterpreted. Profiling based on assumptions and mind-reading and then "pre-crime" isn't just a misty dream of authoritarians, it's a hubristic fantasy that many in the tech industry believe is possible. They are so very wrong; their lack of understanding of 'how people are' is breathtaking, but they are impermeable on this, probably because they really don't understand what they don't understand. It's incredibly dangerous that we have that gang, snuggled up against a religious ideology that loves to demonize.
I think the tech bros "believe" in pre-crime because it moves them closer to the technocracy that puts them in control of programming the AI that decides our fate. And most seem to have bought into an ideology whereby democracy is ineffective and must be replaced.
Yes religious dogma can be dangerous and, if you look around at how many of the well-funded new media have recently converted, you can tell that dogma will be used in some way to further the agenda. I seems to me that all ideology loves to demonize. Otherwise there would be no "us" and "them" and how would we know we're better than them?!
Yes I agree, all ideology loves to demonize, on the (D) and (Prog) sides as well as the (R). About the only one that is limited in that regard is some types of Libertarian but it still bundles and sanctifies human behavior-- irrational but in the opposite way--while demonizing government...
I think I know where a number of the tech types got their ideas about government and it's so dumb: science fiction. I have read a good chunk of the stuff, excepting only the tedious "hard sci-fi" as it's largely robot-porn. It's largely a doomer, politically superficial genre but dang it carries a lot of ideology in its shootemups.
The Biden Administration’s use of “debanking” to try and cartelise AI made a lot of the techbros hopping mad and had a lot to do with driving them towards Trump.
The social imperialism of the unaccountable classes (those paid to turn up) creates coalitions against them. The question is how successful those coalitions are: until recently, not very has been the answer.
In law enforcement and border management, profiling is typically not used for arrests, but for searches. Using for more than searches is … problematic.
Can you please let the rest of us in on what you’re talking about?
What is the “it” that you are referring to?
what "it" are you even referring to? Can you quote a few more words?
also i am busy right now so you don't have to rush because I am not available for a while.
I can see why you're not sure what I'm talking about...I didn't realize my comments would go the very end of this long thread, as I tried to comment much farther up the thread. Anyway, you started out with: "It wasn't said to be a text it was said to be a discord chat..." so I'm wondering if you're referring to the conversation between Tyler Robinson and his lover, in which Robinson explains why he shot Charlie Kirk. Are you saying that this conversation supposedly happened on Discord, but that Discord itself denies it? Or are you referring to something else that I don't know about. Thanks for answering when you're able.
Oh yes thanks for clarifying I never would've guessed. I might have been mistaken about the lover-chat vs the discord confession-to-group. There were supposedly both. The discord group discussion was supposedly a confession to online associates (friends?) and the lover-chat, that I don't know if it was said to be within discord or via messaging. Not sure I've heard anything about a platform. Discord said, in re the purported group chat, "don't know where you got that but it wasn't a discord server", and also, "there's nothing about planning or confession at all" which takes care of the lover-chat if and only if that's where they said that one took place, too.
Thanks, letterwriter!
An excellent article - thank you very much indeed...
☝️😎
Great post.
The meta-reason for Charlie's assassination was not due to his debating people who won't be changing their mind. His goal was to give some of those listening the tools to help push back from the ideological capture (Critical Constructivism) taking place in the university/academy.
Many if not most of those that were debating Charlie were not going to change their minds (there were some that did or at least looked as if they might). There is something that closes the door on thought that is a particular strength of the far left. At times it seems their minions almost act like drones, repeating what has been told but cannot explain why they believe that way. In fact, some even take the position that they should not explain their thinking. These people are lost and cannot be reasoned with (literally).
Kirk was talking to others in the audience and he was making good headway.
This must have enraged the vanguard of far left and relates to Lorenzo's comment about blocking correctives. Charles Kirk was a very effective corrective.
2nd point (sorry for long comment):
Major difference between traditional religion and woke-as-religion is that actual religion is based on a subjective and immaterial question: what happens to the soul?
Whereas woke-as-a-religion is based on materializing subjectivity (a form of fetish), where someone's subjectivity alters material existence (e.g., men are women based on feels).
Final point:
FWIW, I believe that AG Bondi's statements (she is not a very good public speaker) was meant more as a warning: those who engage in "hate speech" are potentially subject to government investigation. As they should be. She should have phrased it differently and did walk it back a bit the next day.
Of course government investigating those making inflammatory statements has been going on forever in the US, so maybe it was an unnecessary statement. But the US administration is extremely upset and rattled by this murder, so I give her a pass. Certainly do not expect the AG to start rounding people up for hate speech.
All good points!
Unfortunately, as the quote about dehumanization suggests, if AG said this—and a couple of Republican politicians made similarly foolish remarks—Demxxs tend to portray it as if all conservatives, or as they label them the “far-right,” said it. Meanwhile, mainstream media immediately screams about censorship by the right, even though none of that has actually happened. A handful of individuals simply exercised their free speech right to make mistaken statements, that’s all.
I appreciated the logical take on hate speech in this article.
Good and timely article!
The left's reaction to Charlie Kirk's murder caught even me by surprise. But, as Lorenzo quoted: "whereas liberals overestimated how much they were dehumanized, conservatives underestimated how much they were dehumanized." Yes, underestimated again.
May Charlie Kirk rest in peace.
The Killing: it’s not Left or Right, it’s Young “Males” who are now MEN ready or not.
Meet human nature for HE has returned.
Apparently we just all can’t be educated into being eunuchs.
I agree with Charlie Kirk’s cause, on the question of proof he is proved wrong.
May he rest in peace, may America do what is necessary to survive.
Like Mom said to my sister when I got her a Pistol: Don’t Talk.
Shoot.
Thank you for this very in-depth analysis. One thing I found particularly valuable is your explanation of how the progressives root their worldview in a mythical future utopia, which leads them to a feeling of owning the moral high ground, even though it’s based on a complete illusion. I had never seen that so clearly explained before. Thank you.