Do Not Go Silent! by Todd R. Maxwell

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

Do Not Go Silent! by Todd R. Maxwell

Charlie Kirk’s courage demands our own

Charlie Kirk was murdered over words.

That is unacceptable, and that should be all there is to say.

Sadly, it’s not.

Political violence is indefensible. Full stop. No matter the ideology, no matter the target, no matter the moment—murder is not debate. Assassination is not argument. And silencing a voice with a bullet is not winning. But let’s be equally clear: political violence cannot be met with political silence.

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, calls to “tone down the rhetoric” are predictable. They’re also misguided. Charlie wasn’t a provocateur. He was a rhetorician—sharp, composed, and relentlessly logical. He invited questions, answered critics, and modeled rare restraint. To say his death should prompt a softening of speech is to misread both the man and the moment.

Some have called Charlie a grifter and a liar. But faking belief is psychologically grueling—especially when your brand hinges on your opinions. You may not have shared or even understood Charlie’s views, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t sincere. He didn’t posture. He believed. And that belief made him dangerous to those who prefer silence over disagreement.

Let’s be clear: the assassin didn’t want softer speech. He wanted silence. He wanted Charlie gone. It’s hauntingly symbolic that a man who believed dialogue could prevent violence was silenced by a bullet to the throat. If our response is to mute ourselves—to retreat from conviction, to dilute our public voice—then that bullet may as well hit every one of us. That’s not healing. That’s surrender.

Political violence thrives on the illusion that speech is the problem.

It isn’t.

The problem is the belief that disagreement justifies violence.

One way that justification rears up is through what I call bothsidesism. Both-siding tragic events has always bothered me, but it took this moment for me to finally figure out why. It’s not the above-it-all smugness of the gesture, or even the unjust spreading-around of blame. Short-skirt logic at least blames the victim for their own actions. Bothsides admits innocence, but dismisses it as balancing some cosmic scales.

But contrary to bothsides, there exists a real asymmetry when it comes to both speech and action. It starts, as always, with finger wagging directed at the right for objecting to leftist behavior. In the present moment, we are sternly reminded that the shooter and his beliefs haven’t been identified yet. Well, we may not know who the shooter is yet, but we already know who is celebrating.

It follows with accusations that the right is looking for a pretext to shut down opposing voices while ignoring that the left has hardly considered a pretext for censorship, cancellation, assaults, and even bloodshed apart from “racist, bigot, homophobe, sexist, fascist!” Right wing warnings that, should violence begin, they are prepared, are held as equal to left wing cheers when the violence erupts.

Some will point to the recent murders of a Minnesota Democratic politician and her husband as evidence of equivalency. Again: no one should be murdered for their views. But in this case, the shooter’s own statements explicitly reject “Trump stuff” as motive. And while it may seem distasteful to compare tragedies, one great distinction matters. Killing a politician in her home is a different kind of violence from publicly executing an activist in front of a crowd. The former is skulking evil. The latter is a terroristic spectacle meant to intimidate not just officeholders, but an entire political side. Equating the two—pretending the spectacle wasn’t part of the point—is terror working its will.

And then there’s the most glaring asymmetry: If the right were as violent as the left, every downtown business would be smoldering this morning.

So don’t go quiet. Speak your mind—even to those who disagree. I’m more hard-nosed than most about this, even if I don’t always go there myself, but the legal lines are clear: threats, incitement, defamation, solicitation. Everything else is protected. So protect it. Say your piece. Say it plainly. Say it while you still can.

Also, speak to each other. Now would be a good time to unblock those former mutuals who didn’t see eye-to-eye on how best to win the last election or oppose lockdowns or whatever. You’re going to need them. Iron sharpens iron.

The antidote isn’t rhetorical retreat—it’s rhetorical courage. More clarity. More conviction. More Charlie.

Todd’s Twitter.

163 thoughts on “Do Not Go Silent! by Todd R. Maxwell”

  2. Please allow me to paraphrase Young Guns:

    Charley Kirk tried to show us a better way.

    The left buried him the old-fashioned Irish way.

    Discourse is certainly preferable to violence and killing, and killing someone doesn’t make you right.

    It does, however, make you the only one left who is speaking.

    The other side to discourse is this: What happens when you are trying to speak, but the other side is only interested in violence and silencing you?

    You get a genocide, that’s what you get. I know that you know that. We may prefer discourse to violence, but the other side gets a vote, too.

    There is a line in the sand that cannot be crossed. Has it been crossed yet? I don’t think so, but I also think that we are perilously close.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I agree—there’s a line from which there’s no going back. We’re not there yet, but we’re close enough that every move matters. The way forward is multiplication. If someone like Charlie gets taken down, a thousand more stand up.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. The good thing here is: the US doesn’t react like most of the rest of the world when something like this happens. We *don’t* go silent, we start speaking louder (and we’re already seeing this).

      I do agree though that, unfortunately, we are that much closer to the right’s switch being flipped. (And the (sane)* right doesn’t want that, and will fight it happening until there is literally NO other choice.)

      *and thankfully, we have far, FAR fewer nutjobs on our side than the left. And they’re more likely to be restrained/turned in/outed by friends or family before they can do anything.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Note the shooter (by current evidence) was turned in by his relatives (some suggestion his father) after confessing to them. In addition, the Feds talked to his roommate, who shared some of his Discord messages. Including one that suggests at least one accomplice.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I kinda hope that there was no accomplice, and no incitement.

          University is not a very healthy environment for a lot of people. I would like to hope that such would change for the better in the future.

          I’m hopeful that we will be able to replace a lot of course work, going forward, with online stuff, or with ‘pick and choose’ selection that includes community colleges and bible schools.

          I think we may be in a situation where drastically reducing on campus residential enrollments might diminish some of the worse critical masses.

          Good tertiary instructors can still save a lot of pain and time compared to self study, where a subset of academic fields which are still ‘good’ are concerned.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Critical mass is definitely a thing. When I attended my college, nobody had ever heard of it. My senior year, the basketball team did an NCAA run that got to the Elite Eight, and the celebration for winning the Sweet Sixteen was pretty intense. Our broadcasting department head got contacted to ask if there were any riots, and apparently the national news was a bit surprised to hear that there weren’t.

            At the time, the campus was fewer than 4000 undergrads. Now it’s bigger, but still under 6000. It’s kind of hard to start a riot when you don’t have enough idiots around, just saying.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The evidence is a message his roommate shared from Discord, where he said he was going to,pick up a weapon left for him in the woods, wrapped in a towel.

            And now I wonder if instead of zealot or pro, it’s embrace the power of “and”: a pro (or pros) arming and aiming a zealot at a target.

            Like

        2. His father, via their “minister” who is also a US Marshal (and dad is or was a deputy sheriff). Reading between the lines there, and given the location, my guess is the the “minister” is actually a LDS bishop (since our clergy outside of those who are called to serve full time aren’t paid and still have to have a day job; the full time ones, like our First Presidency, the various Quorums, and mission presidents, get a living stipend, but most who get called to those positions are also already retired from their secular career), and it was ultimately the minister/bishop who called the police to come arrest the shooter. Which…I appreciate the man for taking on that burden. The father clearly knew that his son needed to be turned in and arrested–but I could also understand him finding that hard to do by himself since it had already been stated that the state would seek the death penalty. (And he did make sure his son was arrested anyway–but man, that had to be hard, knowing your son could be executed.)

          Liked by 1 person

          1. @ sarathered

            (1) Agree that the minister was very likely his bishop.

            (2) Disagree on the death penalty. Yes, it is possible, but because of his youth and surrendering without additional violence, I suspect a Utah jury and judge will cut him some slack. Life imprisonment with parole, especially if he shows repentance in court, and lives up to it in prison. However, that is still an excruciating decision his parents had to make.

            @ Dorothydimmock > IF there was a professional (killer? activist?) who arranged and incited Tyler, I think he might have a harder time getting any mercy from the court system.

            In re other accomplices, or at least people aware of his intentions, I don’t know what their legal position is. There may be no legal duty to report (although there is certainly a moral one, outside the clerical confessional), but that would depend on their degree of culpability.

            See this report today (h/t TJ at TheNewNeo, who has posted several insightful analyses of the situation):

            https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/breaking-investigation-charlie-kirk-assassination-attempt-widens-probe/

            “The investigation into the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has expanded to scrutinize pro-trans online communities, including the Steam group that The Gateway Pundit reported on early Sunday morning, to determine if others were aware of or involved with the plan to kill the conservative icon.”

            Like

    4. “It does, however, make you the only one left who is speaking.”

      Only if you kill everybody else. The left did not just silence a young man. They created a martyr. Do not discount the significance of that, either.

      The last thing we need is some dumb Bubba going out and offing lefties- are there prominent lefties? Really? Mostly they seem rather… unpalatable. I do not think Charlie Kirk has an equivalent on the left, and more than El Rushbo did back in the days of the golden EIB microphone. Anyway.

      The left wants violence. They think they can control it, control the spin, use it as pretext for a Kristallnacht and something something Underpants Gnome style instantly achieve power forever and ever without the amen. Obviously they can’t. And disappointing leftys is something of a hobby of mine. And pissing them off. Let’s do that instead.

      Look, I know it sounds krule and unyoosual, but I’d rather they live and suffer for a bit rather than killing them all off. Even if it were possible. With life there is hope. And the hope of redemption springs eternal.

      I don’t even think all the little doomer goblins on twatter or whatever social cesspit they are figuratively fornicating in now, I don’t think they are each and every one hip deep in it, either. For some, it’s the endorphin rush of the likes and whatnot. For others, necessary to stay with the in- group. I do think that each and every one is potentially redeemable.

      So long as there is life, there is hope. Really. Yes, that hope gets slapped down like an overeager teenager after his first crush time and time again. But each and every one of them is a son, a daughter. A sister, brother, mother, father, cousin and so on. Every one of them, I do hope, has a family that loves them, or at the very least a cat or a dog or even a fish that thinks they are awesome. Yes, even those ones.

      I believe that we still need more speech, freely given. It works. And the left is terrified of it. They had (what they thought was) a lock on power, back in the days before the ‘net. Broadcast media, Hollywood, the social elite, the works- even if old Ronnie Raygun was a bit of a fly in the ointment later on, they still had nigh unquestioned control of Teh Narrative.

      El Rushbo hammered in the cracks. The internet was straight nitroglycerine. They CAN’T have that sort of power anymore. Can not. Not even China can keep their dissidents in complete control. Free speech is powerful. Especially now.

      Let’s not get too hung up on chum bucket and his violent temper tantrum. The boy wouldn’t like that. Let’s keep pissing off the leftys in the bestest of ways. By living good lives, being happy, and speaking the kind of truth that makes heads explode. It’s kind of fun. I highly suggest you try it.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Look, I know it sounds krule and unyoosual, but I’d rather they live and suffer for a bit rather than killing them all off. 

        You and I are of a similar mind.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. I was given this poem in 6th grade but, in all candor, I didn’t really appreciate it until last week.

        Like

  4. Compare and contrast:

    Charlie Kirk. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Reverend King was, of course, a minister of his Christian church. Kirk was not a minister, but he was outspoken, even evangelical, about his Christian faith. And “kirk” is the old Scottish word for “church”.

    King famously advocated non-violence. Kirk said the same thing in different words. Both lived the philosophy of non-violent persuasion until their voices were silenced by violence.

    Both preached a vision of America true to its ideals, as reflected in its founding documents. And both were killed for that vision.

    King was killed by a Democrat who hated him and everything he stood for. Kirk—we don’t know yet, but that’s the way to bet.

    King’s murder was the most prominent assassination of a non-politician in living memory. Until Wednesday.

    Some of the changes King hoped for were in progress at the moment he was killed. Most of the rest were accomplished in his memory. Some of the changes Kirk hoped for were in progress at the moment he was killed. The rest—well, it’s up to us.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Of course, much of MLK’s work has been undone over the past 30 years by race hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson. Along with Mad Maxine, Whoopie and Sunny (what inappropriate names those are), Cory Booker and the fire alarm puller…

      Liked by 1 person

    2. I can’t say with any authority what Kirk advocated–I never even heard of him until he was killed–but I’m seeing lefty posts that quote him as saying “gun violence is an acceptable price to pay for gun freedom.” By their lights, that means he got what he asked for.

      (Of course, they’re also calling him the usual epithets–racist, misogynist, homophobic, hate-spewing, etc.–so I’m sure I’d have been a fan if I ever had heard him speak.)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Charlie Kirk’s remarks on the 2nd Amendment are being deliberately taken out of context to justify his shooting. What he said compared gun deaths to deaths from car accidents, saying that if we banned all cars there would be zero deaths. Since society finds these deaths acceptable to allow the use of automobiles, then a few gun deaths must be accepted to preserve the 2nd Amendment. I’m paraphrasing, but clips of his actual statements can be found online.

        Liked by 5 people

        1. @ Clark in re taking Kirk’s comments out of context.

          That is a well-known characteristic of the Left and Democrats in general (and conservatives and Republicans but less often, because so much of it is down by the press and broadcast media, which the Right does not control).

          Snopes did a fact check (yeah, right) of 6 of the most commonly made claims about Kirk’s statements and concluded they were True: that is, he really did say that (usually) one sentence or phrase. They then belabor the point for many screens.

          If you hold on until the end, they finally give the quote in context, which (as Clark said about the cars and guns) completely reverses the alleged meaning of that excerpted sentence, and thus the imputations of the complaints are invalid. (Think: “Romney keeps women in binders” for a particularly egregious example.)

          Another thing I’ve noticed is that the anti-Kirk postings repeat the same claims ad nauseum, often in the same words (except for one which expanded on them with absolutely no backing). The indication to me is that they are repeating boilerplate they obtained second-, third-, or fourth-hand and have never read or listened to anything Kirk said.

          This is also a well-known characteristic of internet communications (a much too dignified name) from all but a few distinguished bloggers and their commenters (ahem).

          Liked by 1 person

        1. He was a university reformer, from outside the universities, who thought that there remained something worth reforming of the established universities in America.

          Look, traditionally, the idea of the universities (as they understood it), was always that the PhDs made the choices on their own, and that the rest of the world could go frustrate itself.

          Maybe that was never absolutely true.

          There are reasons for people already invested in the idea of a university to resent any claim that the outside has to regulate the university.

          I basically have serious doubts about salvaging anything from a university, and have often imagined that the future of tertiary education in America might involve a much more complete break with the status quo.

          I have no idea how to evaluate the question of where I am with where Charlie Kirk was, politically. I think that might be a fun and interesting question of purely academic interest.

          There is no Full Bob School of Law. I am not competent to teach those courses, and I absolutely do not want the responsibility for the quality of any law courses that I could hypothetically teach. If I had any sort of ability to issue a doctorate, even an purely imaginary one, I would give Charlie Kirk an honorary doctorate.

          He got at least one of the key theoretical questions about the future of university education exactly correct.

          He was inside of the finest traditions of what the American universities used to be. (Though C. P. Schoefield might remind us that the ivory tower has never been a perfect institution, and often medicore and consensus seeking even during its good times. )

          Conforming to MAGA is no better scholarship than conforming to any other worldly entity, and yet MAGA is often better informed about certain questions than many specialist scholars.

          The history of the university and of the western tradition of scholarship maybe can speak for itself, but it is maybe remarkable how much good came from some intensively bitter and petty bitching over minor and unimportant points.

          The scale of requested funds for universities, and the scale of requested funds for public primary and secondary education makes these larger questions, that we cannot fairly and justly exclude people outside our own group of cronies from.

          Like

        2. Yes, pretty much right-of-center moderate, at least in the “old” coordinate system most of us still use, as far as I’d ever noticed. And very committed (deeds and words) to civil, rational dialogue.

          Interesting how that’s the position, and the person, the triggerman decided to (literally) attack.

          The (usually short, see Stephen King) “things he supposedly said” posts are a weird combination of sly innuendo / character assassination, and Bond-villain-esque boldly self-identifying evil.

          “Let the new de-Nazification begin.”

          Liked by 2 people

  5. It is definitely a time not to be silent, but to act. Here are two articles on how to approach it in a positive fashion. The first suggests what leaders should do and the second says what we can do. 1) https://pjmedia.com/jamie-wilson/2025/09/11/two-paths-before-us-americas-future-is-still-ours-to-choose-n4943557; 2) https://pjmedia.com/jamie-wilson/2025/09/11/bless-our-nation-a-path-forward-after-charlie-kirk-n4943580. (Full disclosure: These were written my my brilliant wife Jamie.)

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Classic Westerns like Shane and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence make the dilemma clear. The man who stood up to the villain in peace was not enough. He was going to die. But the man who killed the villain didn’t get the girl, didn’t get the happy ending. He had to bury his own dreams along with the villain so that others could have their dream of peace and freedom. The writers and directors that lived through WWII understood this.

    Liked by 7 people

  8. The shooter has been caught. According to what I’m hearing, his “minister” (likely an LDS bishop, given it’s Utah) recognized him from the video, and contacted his father. His father got a confession from the suspect, and then contacted law enforcement.

    Liked by 6 people

  9. We’ve crossed the line as a Republic. It’s up to us to stand firm and be bolder, braver, and more ourselves than ever before.

    No mercy for those on the other side.

    Like Andrew Breitbart says years ago: “War.”

    (And I don’t mean the shooting kind.)

    Liked by 3 people

        1. More shooting? You condemn to death a bunch on your own side, including the innocent.

          Still want that war? I do not. I will do just fine. I will count plenty coup. Plenty. I would rather not.

          Lets find a non-ballistic way to settle this, eh? They -want- armed struggle. They crave it, and plan to make it a bloody slog. We cannot make it quick and neat. To expect them tot just roll over and quit is … unwise and not based on historical norms. What does the USA look like after another 4-5 years of fratricide, this time house by house, and often family members against same. There is no recognizable “USA” after that. We barely survived the last such go-round. (Hostess off limits topic, so I am dropping.)

          No. Got to be smarter than that. At least let us treat this like cancer, and target specific bad actors, not treat it like eugenics and crank up the abattoir.

          Liked by 5 people

          1. Some of our deepFed internet ops are prolly still running (hi Feds!), but it could also be any of the various commie foreign IC folks doing $#|+-stirring foreign ops. Heck, it could easily be frelling MI6 given their current government.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Pretty much nobody else culturally understands us in this respect.

              This is not one of the parts of our culture that we notice, or that we go around explaining to people very loudly, except sometimes in the rare case that we realize that we would need to warn someone off of making a lethally foolish mistake.

              Nobody’s intelligence service has senior officials with the background to entirely understand and follow these idiosyncracies of American culture. We don’t know, for sure, because we are basically individually making up some of the doctrine and analysis as we play along from home.

              So UK’s government maybe does not matter where MI6 choices are concerned. Their mid level officials also do not understand, and frankly are probably also from their university culture, and precisely blind about us in important ways.

              If the Japanese had the fluent English speakers, and if they had the manpower in their relevant slice of security or foreign affairs ministry, and if they had the institutional confidence, they would absolutely absolutely be trying to fuck with us in this way. They don’t understand our political situation, and it makes them fairly uncomfortable.

              India, depending on how you interpret Bangladesh and Nepal, could have the institutional cofnidence now. They certainly seem to have had operational confidence closer to home, decades ago. India definitely does not understand us.

              The main reason to doubt that the Indians are stirring the pot is that I do not think I have had some rando I don’t know from Adam doing the ‘what a tragic state American politics are now’ routine, and then suggest that I ‘do the needful’.

              I would be surprised if it was as few as half a dozen, or a dozen countries with security services who thought it wise and produce to screw with us in this way. There are around two hundred countries in the world, and almost all of them, or maybe even all of them, are run by idiots.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I admit I am biased because I read the Epoch Times, but why no mention of Communist China? If you were able to follow the links in Antifa, and we may well have some opportunity because we have the alleged assassin in custody, I would not be surprised, ultimately, by the PLA supporting Antifa with training and supplies (rifles, bullets, plastique?). The Communist Chinese are part of the fentanyl smuggling ring, why wouldn’t they do this too? (And how many young men of fighting age are already in this country from mainland China, and how many of those are also trained PLA insurgents?).

                Liked by 1 person

                1. I might have forgotten.

                  I think there is a good chance that I thought the PRC was obvious, or that it went without saying.

                  My position around 2021 was that the Democrats were looking and acting an awful lot like a proxy organization of the PRC would.

                  Some of the unwillingness to accuse the PRC from 2017 through 2022 or so feels very diagnostic. I do not think that the Democrats felt like they could afford to have people talking about PRC proxies in the US, and also like they could not afford to offend Jinpeng Xi on any allegations about diseases and vectors.

                  I’m not necessarily worried about infiltration fighters from the PRC. Which is half that there are probably other things going on, and half doubting that they have fighting power worth much.

                  I dunno how to handicap things, my brains have gone to cheese this evening.

                  Like

        3. Tommy,

          No.

          We can continue to expose, constrict and isolate the “Left” through legal means and shame especially now that more of the public realizes how truly depraved and evil they are. We will speak up, we vote and we will work to fix the “system”. We will shun those that celebrate evil. We will spur any bloodlust.

          War is the very last thing any honest, experienced, moral adult/leader/warrior wants. And civil war is the worst sort of hellscape that occurs on Earth.

          Go talk to us veterans. Or an EMT. Or someone that has lost a child. Or some of those that survived or fled a war. Or any of us that has had to point a firearm at another human. Go look at the videos of skeletons of the cities in the Ukraine.

          And don’t think the all firearms, intelligence, and expertise are on the “right” side of the spectrum. That’s some stupid hubris.

          I know I can end a life. I pray I never have to due so in the future. I want to be the warrior in the garden.

          Liked by 4 people

          2. As things stand others are off to a good start naming and shaming the ghouls dancing on his grave and making sure their employers find out as well. If I have to choose between strapping the cancel boot on the right food and applying liberally until consequences are felt or the Balkans? The long unemployment line of disgrace it is.

            Liked by 3 people

            1. And even then those who are fired for their glee over CK’s death are still getting a better deal than he got.

              Those who’ve been fired can get another job. Charlie Kirk can’t get his life back, Mrs. Kirk can’t get her husband back, and the kids can’t get their father back.

              I know where my sympathy goes, and it’s not to the grave-dancers.

              Like

        4. civil wars tend to end when all the true believers on both sides are dead. Sadly, they usually kill a third of the population, most of whom don’t really care but that’s the thing you don’t get to choose whether you’re in or out nor what side you’re on once the killing starts

          so, Tommy Bhoy. Are you ignorant, or evil, or a Fed?

          Liked by 1 person

            1. Actually he’s none of those. I’ve known him over ten years and he’s always been like this. Doesn’t mean he’s smart, or temperate, but not a rooski, chicom or fed.

              Under the circumstances he’s also being an idiot.

              Like

          2. Those are not mutually exclusive, I would be surprised if there were no ignorant evil feds.

            Generally speaking, there are a lot of people stressed and in mental health difficulties. We do not help them by saying exciting things to them, or by badly analyzing the situation for them.

            Right now, we are maybe only seeing results of unwell people, and can maybe chill things way the back down, in a way that is advantageous for ‘our’ side to boot.

            The agent provacetuer logic maybe no longer holds, and it definitely does not hold when idiotically saying stuff in public on the internet.

            If you do not know who is listening, you have no idea who is on the edge of being unwell, and you do not know enough to be ready to arrest anyone who gets pushed over the edge.

            The people in the federally run agent provaceteur programs who are still a) entirely trusting the assumptions of their initial briefing b) still by rote doing the same sorts of statements over and over again were maybe not very gifted by God when it comes to wisdom and to intelligence.

            Their supervisors likewise are maybe not very gifted in that way either.

            It has basically been thrust upon us ordinary randos, without that law enforcement experience, and without necessarily having any real mental health background, to try to help people fix various institutional mistakes. (Beyond mental health, the topic of this post is a little bit the institutional mistakes of PhDs at universities, and how those of us who are not of the elect are having a productive voice in helping address those serious problems of institutional blindness.)

            The actual Russians have a little bit better excuse, and are maybe not as uniformly badly informed and unthinking. (Though, lots and lots of the Russians trying to play the game are badly informed and unthinking.)

            Definitely, the ill people who are very unstable probably need some confinement to help their safety.

            However, lots of law enforcement programs that might pursue that goal seem to instead be very badly malformed.

            There are a lot of reasons to think that the future is actually going to be fairly boring, on a short term scale, and on a long term scale. Also, some people have impaired judgement, and can safely eat a cost in not personally acting, even if the time has come for someone else to act in some narrow way.

            It does sometimes need to be reiterated in careful detail, with step by step proofs, why the glowies are not correct, and why it is correct to filter them out, and to disagree with them.

            Like

          3. The biggest miracle of the American Civil War Between the States, to me (and I’ve studied it for an alternate-history version of it, which allows one few to no illusions or self-congratulatory fables) at least, is the simple but amazing fact it had a more-or-less well defined “off switch.”

            Exactly as you point out, that was and is never a guarantee.

            While the famous surrender at Appomattox was more or less militarily forced, the less well known surrender at Bennett Place (near Durham Station in central NC) was not, far more of a courtship than a shotgun wedding. And in the middle of that, an artilleryman faced down a gaggle of angry troops who wanted to go burn Raleigh in retaliation for Lincoln’s assassination. With cannons full of ready-to-go case shot, which General Sherman (!) happily endorsed. Other stories abound.

            Many point out the “War Between the States” wasn’t a full-fledged classic civil war, and to a degree they’re right. But try telling that to Bleeding Kansas, or much of Missouri (that sent representatives to both USA and CSA legislatures); or west NC / east Tenn / SW Virginia etc., where you could go a dozen miles and be in a fatally-different Bloods-vs-Crips territory.

            “The only way to win is not to play.” No, morons, we actually mean that. May Heaven forfend!

            Like

        5. Giving the benefit of the doubt, I’d say they already are getting way more than they bargained for.

          Several hundred leftist idiots (I think…no way to know exactly) have already been publicly fired for their vile celebration of murder because conservatives and people with a conscience have gone out of their way to let employers know it’s unacceptable. A whole bunch of petty little monsters fucked around and are now finding out.

          The left sponsored and cheered the cold-blooded murder of a guy the president knew and loved; I’ve heard that Charlie Kirk was duct-tape family. A personal friend of the VP and the FBI director, neither of whom are known for ineffectively messing around. A guy who only ever wanted to have a fair conversation with the other side. If Trump had any reservations about bringing the hammer down on the whole corrupt leftist edifice, he won’t have any now.

          FAFO, motherfuckers, and may the FO be exponentially worse than you ever thought possible.

          And the great thing is that their finding-out and getting so much more than they bargained for doesn’t have to involve any shooting or killing at all if it’s done thoroughly and done right.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. The Reader hopes that the consequences being reaped for the insane celebrations of Charlie’s death are enough to keep the switch from moving. We need to push this as hard as we can. And we need to keep track to make sure they are not rehired into the education system elsewhere. The Reader’s county had 2 in the public school system – the board has been bombarded with criticism. The Reader’s email to the board promised to do his best to remove them at the next election if they don’t act.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. And I hope they fire DOGE back up and make use of Datarepublican and similar people as well. Even if this particular tragedy wasn’t funded by someone they can touch as long as the blue mirage is solid enough the left will still be able to apply enough social pressure to keep some people who are privately horrified but unable to speak up for whatever reason cowed. Take out enough smoke machines and mirrors to where people can see not just the horror, but the fact that so much of it was done purely for pay? They won’t be getting up from that one for a long, long time. That, and I can’t wait for the day when a prog smugly expresses a lunatic opinion nobody asked for in polite company and instead of agreement and praise he gets a round of derisive laughter and someone asking “Who’s paying you to say that?”

            Liked by 2 people

        6. Nope. That’s dumb. We defend what is ours. We don’t spring to violence, eager to count coup and collect skulls. Chum bucket shot a guy talking. That tells me we need more talking.

          If and when (and I hope the when is never) the stupid stupid ACW2 kicks off, EVERYBODY LOSES. Should it ever happen, you won’t be able to hide in your basement and pretend it isn’t happening. Should it ever happen, like as not there will be atrocities that make the cannibals go vegan and scare the cultist to the straight and narrow.

          Let’s not. War is bad, m’kay? Very very bad. We are better than that.

          And lastly? The boy wouldn’t like it. He was a good talker. We need more of that.

          Like

        7. As I said on another site earlier today, if it must come to violence, let it be orderly and under a firm and lawful command. We cannot stoop to the methods of anarchists. As Tolkien said in The Silmarillion, ‘Those who will defend authority against rebellion must not themselves rebel.’

          We need to bring murderers to justice, not become murderers ourselves.

          Like

      1. That is one reason the Left has worked so assiduously at reversing history so as to leave people with the impression that the Republicans were the Evil Slavers (despite all actual evidence to the contrary) and the Democrats (coasting on LBJ’s support for the Civil Rights Act) the party of emancipation.

        Despite all evidence to the contrary, including the Congressional voting record on the CRA.

        And because academia has been so thoroughly corrupted, many people believe that alternate-history.

        I don’t think they are ever told that Lincoln was a Republican.

        Like

        1. LBJ did not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and only signed it because the Republicans had lined up enough support to override a veto and make him look weak and stupid. Grinning on the outside, snarling on the inside.

          Liked by 1 person

    3. It’s interesting how we (or at least me and some others) are finding out it’s not a single ‘switch’ to flip or a single ‘line’ to cross — it’s a whole row of ’em. “The” switch is the one at the end of the line, The one no sane person wants to hit until there’s no other real choice.

      But one of those switches has indeed been flipped. Hey, scumbags? You killed moderation and civil debate? Well, no, you didn’t, we’ll see to that. Rational discourse and the “marketplace of ideas” have not yet begun to fight.

      But it is time we stopped coddling plain, obvious evil. (“Leftism is stupid, and evil, and hurts people whenever it’s tried.” Not 100% perfectly true but covers 90% of the territory before we get to any of the ifs, ands, or buts.) You’re glad somebody got shot to death for disagreeing? You’re evil. Evil is as evil does, and would do. We’re not even a little bit okay with that.

      Enough of letting mad dogs run wild. Unchallenged.

      And, quite as you say, I don’t see that particular switch being flipped to “off” anytime soon. Likely not in my lifetime or yours. Which is actually fine. “Be the change you want to see in the world.”

      And especially what you want to see, and hear, in our America.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. I have slapped down one scumbag on PJ Media who was calling for (hypothetical) rape/murder of the wife and children of the guy who was asking Charlie a question when he was shot, because the guy (who by all appearances is truly horrified) believes (or believed) the left was peaceful. I also more than half suspect–and told him so–that he was a scummy leftist pretending to be a conservative, because that’s the kind of crap the left does.

      However, he is the only one I personally have seen so far. Seen some “next lefty that tries to start something nasty with me in person is gonna get punched in the mouth” and of course there was the moron in Idaho who thought going to a vigil for Kirk and shouting “F**k Charlie Kirk” over and over was a good idea, and got bruisingly disabused of that notion–but he’s still alive. Even in that case, the mob of grieving and angry people showed restraint. If the places had been reversed, the left would have beat the guy to death, and probably started a riot (if they weren’t already holding one).

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The questioner, who got his answer, may have been genuine. I would make it a fair good odds they rethink their views on their fellow lefty.

        Like

          1. Yeah. It was the RedState version of this story where we had the commenter hoping the guy’s wife and kids got raped or killed to “show him” the left isn’t peaceful.

            Funnily enough, after I told him I was pretty sure he was a lefty because only leftists spew that kind of hate and wished violence and horror on innocents, he vanished from the discussion (or at least has so far)

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The Left, just by being its normal self, often causes its members to rethink and depart. That person may not leave the left, but I doubt he will ever again believe his side is “peaceful”. But he might just step away.

            I am a living example of that migration occurring.

            Liked by 3 people

            2. Yep, same. The leftists, progressives, and proto-SJWs in my grad-school cohort did a great job (unwittingly) of showing me why I didn’t want to be among them after all.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Poul Anderson. It’s not just the contrast in his very earliest stories vs. his later ones, he’s said as much here-and-there in story introductions, etc.

              I ought to be able to think of more examples, but that’s a big one by itself. The one advantage of mistaken thought is that it can be identified and corrected… if you let it be.

              Liked by 1 person

              2. When David Mamet announced that he was a conservative, he related what had caused the announcement. He’d been talking with his rabbi about various things. His rabbi pointed out that while Mamet considered himself a Democrat, nearly all of his views were conservative ones. Mamet went home, thought about it, and realized that his rabbi was right.

                We never know what will trigger someone’s change of heart.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. The Mamet became known publicly as conservative, he was blacklisted by the same movie and theater industry that had until that moment considered him to be on of America’s greatest playwrights, writers and directors.

                  Perfect example of how utterly intolerant the left is and how anyone who does not march in lockstep with the left is cast out.

                  Liked by 1 person

            4. Even now, I still see Yahoos on the Right (Lord knows we have some) who want to treat all Democrats as the enemy and see them destroyed. I always mention the same names to them: Elon Musk, Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Donald Trump – all former Democrats.

              Sadly, this seldom makes an impression. They seem to think that this time, no further defections from the Left can possibly occur.

              Liked by 2 people

                1. Ah, but to the Left, their idiots aren’t really part of them when it comes to committing Violence toward us.

                  Like

                  1. Well, no, they disown them as soon as THAT happens (usually by trying the pretzel-twist things so they can claim they were “ackshually” right wing), but up to that point boy are they cheering ’em on. And clutching pearls–especially this week–at HOW ABSOLUTE DARE and people demand firings of those who are gloating in public forums about someone getting murdered for having an opinion. Lots of “But muh free speech!” as if they weren’t also the ones in the not so distant past smugly informing conservatives they got fired–for having an opinion that *didn’t* involve cheering for an encouraging actually criminal acts, mind–that “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences!”

                    They really are NOT happy that particular chicken has come home and pecked them in the butt.

                    Like

                    1. Nod, they pretend that those types weren’t “really part of them” while saying nothing to condemn them.

                      Like

                    1. One Idiot Lefty claimed that Antifa were Anarchists (not Lefties or Liberals).

                      Mind you, I’m not sure if the goons that attacked Rittenhouse were Antifa or BLMs.

                      Like

                    2. The thing is that the very people who lamented those violent people using their peaceful protests insisted that the attackers were protesters and that the verdict would quell free speech.

                      Like

        2. I hope he does. From my own experiences with left-leaning friends, though, odds are high that after the shock has worn off he will bury his head back in the sand and convince himself it was an outlier.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. A lot of people have been noting the cheers from people on the left. It’s one thing to just have the shooter. The cheering over it is another matter. That’s not an outlier.

            Similar cheering after 9/11 brought a lot of people over to the right, including bloggers Roger L. Simon, and Neoneocon.

            Liked by 3 people

              1. Neoneocon still has her conservative blog. She’s stated that the response from the left to 9/11 sped up a process away from the left that was already ongoing

                As for Roger L. Simon, he started PJ Media, which is now a good-sized blogging conglomerate that includes Instapundit.

                Liked by 1 person

            2. The fact that they got applications for 18 THOUSAND new Turning Point chapters the night after Erika Kirk’s speech (and I gather as of yesterday the website is *still* crashing on account of the traffic) I am hopeful that not only is this the case, but that it really is a MASSIVE turning point.

              Liked by 2 people

          2. They’re now trying to claim the shooter is a right-wing extremist/Trump supporter. Of course. Maybe a day before they beging frothing, “The JOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!”

            Like

            1. Apparently his parents were Republicans.

              There’s a reason the Constitution doesn’t approve of “laws that work Corruption of Blood”.

              Liked by 1 person

                2. Yeah, something more right-leaning folks, especially in the commentator-sphere, could stand to learn is that even kids that come from loving, stable homes sometimes still go bad–because they are still individual beings with their own free will, not extensions of their parents, and not always the product of abuse. Because I’ve seen several baffled head-scratching remarks or attempts to find some way to blame the parents at least in part coming from more conservatives folks (and I turned off one independent commentator on YT altogether because she started declaring a Halloween costume the guy wore back during Trump’s first presidency (a rather vulgar one of him “riding” a Trump dummy) meant SEE HIS MOTHER SHOULD HAVE KNOWN HE WAS GOING TO KILL SOMEONE! REEE!! IT WAS SO OBVIOUS!)

                  I do understand being baffled. I am as well, to some degree. But at the same time: still an independent human being with free will, and ultimately he chose to do it (and I very much doubt he meets the requirements of not guilty by reason of insanity, since even many very crazy people do still know that killing someone is wrong. And some of them do it anyway.)

                  Liked by 1 person

              2. The foundation of all Western ethics is to be found in Ezekiel 18:20:

                ‘The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.’

                Naturally, the people calling the assassin a Republican because his parents were Republicans, or blaming Republicans in general because the parents were Republicans even though the son was not, have never heard of this verse; and would scream in hatred if they did hear it.

                Like

              3. Which is why the left’s push to prosecute the parents of school shooters–even when there is no evidence the parents materially ASSISTED the shooter (beyond owning guns that were stolen) is so horrifying. They love them some “sins of the father” nonsense.

                Like

                1. “If the parents didn’t own that gun, it couldn’t have been stolen! It’s all their fault!”

                  Couldn’t have anything to do with the government-education complex filling their heads full of nonsense, naw, no way… 😡

                  Liked by 1 person

            3. His parents were Republicans, so *obviously* he must be. Friends and family have both come out and said that he was left-wing.

              Also, there’s apparently someone with the same name in the same zip code who donated to Trump. But the donor lives on a different street, and is also older.

              Liked by 2 people

            5. Oh, they are already frothing about “the JOOOOS.” I have seen several comments out in the wild of “Israel/Mossad/the Jooos killed him.” Because he was either a threat to their plans for world domination, or because he “hated” Jews. (Which he emphatically did *not*)

              And the funniest (in a not very funny way) attempts to twist the shooter into a right winger? “His parents are REPUBLICANS !!” So of course that means he can’t be anything but republican. (If that was the case, there would BE no democrat party…) And they are ignoring (or deleting, in the case of at least one news article–not a retraction mind you, they just “pulled” it, and lefties are claiming that’s only because they “got it wrong”–which would be a first) all the mountains and mountains of evidence from the guy’s former friends, roommates, etc going “Uh, no he hated his parents politics and was hard left.”

              And they’re still trying, even though we now have learned that his boyfriend is a trans-woman (and apparently a furry as well?).

              Liked by 1 person

          3. Depends on the kind of man he is. And who he wants to be. That will be his problem to solve- and a problem it will be. Even if he buries his head in the sand. The unconscious mind tends to worry at such things.

            Like

  11. The brain has been nagging at me ever since yesterday morning. I would have written something anyway, but this post caused me to do it this morning.

    I considered sending it to Sarah as a guest post – then decided that it might be too harsh even for here. Over on my much neglected blog.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I don’t think we should give then the validity of labeling them the Left, rather call a spade a spade, or in Raymond Ibrahim’s case, calling the Left what they really are, Evil.

    https://pjmedia.com/raymond-ibrahim/2025/09/11/charlie-kirks-murder-stop-calling-evil-the-left-n4943572

    And that in a nutshell is true. The Left are evil, or support evil. And the proper response to evil is to stomp it out wherever it rears its ugly head. Now I’m not recommending you take your town voter rolls and start killing all the registered Democrats in your municipality, however satisfying that might be to contemplate. After all, cougars, grizzlies and rattlesnakes are just as lethal, but I don’t go out of my way to seek them out for termination. No, I go about my own business and only if attacked by them would I remove them from my misery.
    Charlie Kirk DID go out seeking those critters, not to exterminate them per se, but with the intent to domesticate their young into not being the rabid predators. He was highly effective. And right now, I don’t know anyone who has that clear vision, motivation, and ability to step into his shoes and take up his torch. (Or lantern as he searches for honest young conservatives.)

    Frank mentions “Shane”, and “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence”. Both of those are good examples of “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” We concentrate on the tyrants getting their due. We forget the price paid by the patriots. And perhaps many of us lack the courage of the Founders to risk “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

    But I’ll still risk my neck to speak my mind, even if I have to fight in the shade.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I disagree with Raymond Ibrahim in the matter of language here, because it’s important not to conflate things together. The Left is evil, all right, but not all evil comes from the Left. To break out the Scholastic terminology, if ‘evil’ is the genus, then ‘Leftist’ is a species within that genus. It’s important to have a generally understood word that we can use to refer to this specific and organized variety of evil.

      Like

      1. Yuup.

        We do the good of Civilization not because it is easy or because we can just coast forever on past habit or understanding, but because it is important.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Yes, agreed. This song actually does me a lot of good when I’m getting too angry. It’s an emotional outlet. Hard to describe, but it simultaneously inspires the will to fight and reminds me, even though it’s literally a song about bloodshed, that I don’t want any. I’d rather make peace. I pray the other side is capable of it. Maybe it’s a plea of sorts; I *can* go there…please don’t make me.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Eerie how closely “yet, we must try, lest civilization dissolve” is a one sentence summary of a whole possible guest-post I’m now finishing last edits on.

        Originally written between Election and Inauguration Days, as invited by A Certain Conservative Web Site; thrashed through several deep rewrites then rejected. (Most of the reason I’ve been nearly silent on X-Twitter most of this year, but now of course that’s changed. Sarah and/or others here might recognize me as @ConFedPatCats on X.)

        Now (again) rewriitten and updated to the current epoch, of course.

        So should I just send “Be Very Afraid, We Are Not of Faint Heart” on to the usual address when it’s done? (S A Hoyt, lowercase no spaces, at the not-cold mail service, right?)

        Nous sommes toutes Charlie, maintenant.

        Liked by 2 people

  14. The anger is real, its how we use it that will define us. Charlie was a man of peace and Ideas, not the first, won’t be the last. He wasn’t the first killed, he won’t be the last killed. Let them all expose who and what they really are. Just never forget, these evil people are exactly that, evil. You don’t accept evil, you don’t celebrate evil, you unmask it for all the world to see. Then you have nothing to do with those who are evil. Right now evil is unmasking itself, blinded by their own hatred. Schummer and those in the democrat party will face their judgement in hell, a hell they bound themselves too with their evil. Rage rage against the dying of the Light.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Here again, with Mrs. Hoyt’s permission, I want to reiterate something I said elsewhere today. I want these people to suffer – in this life – because they will not listen to reason, and pain is the only thing left that might change their minds.

        As C. S. Lewis said in The Problem of Pain:

        ‘No doubt Pain as God’s megaphone is a terrible instrument; it may lead to final and unrepented rebellion. But it gives the only opportunity the bad man can have for amendment. It removes the veil; it plants the flag of truth within the fortress of a rebel soul.’

        Better for them to suffer that pain now, while they can still repent and the pain is temporary, than to suffer it eternally in Hell when all chance of repentance is gone.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. Every society is one poke from awakening the vicious, angry beast. When it awakens, carnage is sure to come. Whether this event was the final poke is yet to be seen, but those that held the stick are closer to harm than anyone else.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. There are a number of tiktok/fb/instagram posters who are scouring the internet looking for those celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Reporting them to employers. Others even the comedian ones are flat out stating “if you condone the assassination unfollow/unsubscribe. Do not want you here.” The state department has stated they are scrubbing the internet to find those with visas posting celebratory posts. Visas are not a right, they are a privilege, and will be revoked.

    TPUSA college chapters have vowed to carry on Charlie Kirk’s message.

    Also while I’d heard Charlie Kirk short reels on FB, knew who he was, I had no clue about TPUSA. I do now.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. I’m a little bit too wired on this, and have had some good help on this by going radio silent, and by not seeking out news or information or activist noise.

    I may return to radio silent.

    I had heard of Kirk, but I had never looked into him, and had not known him. Seems to have been a good egg. (Wikipedia complained about covid-19 misinformation. I think every great and notable thinker of our era might have at some point a wikipedia page that complains that said thinker was speaking covid-19 misinformation in public. )

    I’m far from sure that one more lunatic shooter is that much of a change, we have had a lot of lunatic shooters already.

    It shakes me a bit to see a younger man shot, seemingly one merely pursuing what was a road not taken by me.

    I was already struggling a lot with my emotional reactions to problems I see in how the modern American university at times conducts itself.

    I remain resolved in perceiving hope. This still has the caveat of how deeply I have been hiding with my head under a rock.

    Trying to tune to default mellow, combined with ‘autistic mode’ filtering out of noise and information warfare, is expected to have a significant false negative rate in rare circumstances of some relevance. It can still be the correct choice for me to make.

    America still has a lot of people who are paying close measured attention, who are keeping calm, and keeping their evaluation on the major and key points of importance.

    Like

  19. https://babylonbee.com/news/12-million-charlie-kirks-created-overnight

    Factcheck: Misinformation! There’s this one guy Bob, who has not become Charlie Kirk, and is merely affirming that Kirk was correct to criticize Critical Theory, but who is personally narrowly incensed at the Critical Theorists for preemptively declaring war on pure Mathematics by saying that logic is the patriarchy.

    By doing so, and by being so prominent, the critical theorists made a lot of trouble for anyone inside academia trying to figure out if there are any true things within mathematics, despite all of the consensus following rampant inside modern scholarship. (The vicious fights seem to be within the fields, the people that one is competing against for promotions, not between the fields, the people one has to obtain political consensus with for internal funding decisions.)

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Well done and well said, old friend! I’m glad you contributed this and hope you’ve got more for Sarah to run later. Also, glad to be on another blog with you, even if my appearances here are sporadic.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Yesterday I wrote my annual 9/11 memorial post, and related those events to Wednesday’s, and how in both cases someone turned to violence to silence someone who disagreed with them, and to terrify other people into silence about their own dissent.

    Today I got a comment about how political assassination in the US goes back at least to Lincoln and Booth, and that freedom is in jeopardy. I responded that freedom is always in jeopardy, that the natural state of humanity is tribalism, and that every new generation must be taught to value discussion and freedom to dissent.

    I don’t know how much difference it’ll make in the long run, but it was my small effort to light one more candle in the gathering darkness.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. And now for something completely different — 2 current stories out of Kalifornia:

    Santa Monica is about to declare bankruptcy. Hundreds of businesses closed in 2020-2021 due to idiotic COVID19 shutdowns and the riots after George Floyd OD’d, the place is swarming with illegal aliens and ‘homeless’ vagabonds, they had to pay $130 million after a scandal involving child abuse in an ‘after-school outreach program’, but they’re blaming all of their troubles on Trump’s tariffs, deregulation, deportations and other policies.

    Meanwhile, the state government just passed a bill prohibiting I.C.E. agents from wearing masks. That is apparently their highest priority. Never mind that a state government has zero authority over federal law enforcement officers, They Passed A Law! So there!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. They ‘passed a law’ because that is how politicians measure their productivity. Newsom wants to cement his status as the biggest voice kvetching about Trump, so he can get the inside track on the Democrat nomination for President in 2028.

      In reality, this bill will have exactly the same effect as all those left-wing city councils that declared themselves ‘nuclear free’ in the 1980s. Like, if an H-bomb dares to go off within city limits and destroy the place, the survivors (if any) will give the bomb a ticket! That’ll show ’em!

      Like

      1. I’ve always wondered how those cities that have declared themselves nuclear free will remove the sun and it’s affects from their cities? Because, face it, the sun is the biggest nuclear furnace around and it powers the whole world, it powers the whole solar system. Coal, stored sunlight, oil the same, if you believe oil is fossil remains, that was also produced by sunlight. The weather, produced by sunlight, that same nuclear furnace we call the sun. Even gravity and magnetics is produced by that same star we call the sun. So what are they saying is they want to remove all life from earth. Makes sense if you think about it.

        Liked by 2 people

  27. I’ve been reading this blog for a long time, but haven’t ever posted. Usually I find it a steadying influence when I’m feeling crazy with rage or anxiety, but today the posts and comments just hit me wrong. I don’t agree that it is a time for discourse or toning things down. I think it is a time to take things to a radical extreme, but not with violence. I think it is the time to start calling for a radical dismantlement of the federal government. Any institution that has been infected with leftist extremism should be demanded to be dismantled. It is the time for rabid antigovernment protesters to surge, and treat the government as the rabid tick that it is. Any institution that has been compromised should be treated like it is mandatory to get rid of. The IRS, the CDC, FDA, ATF…universities, the telecom companies, everything. If leftists can use it to hurt us, we should demand the institution be destroyed. 

    Let’s take universities. The host here, the wonderful Sarah, has suggested we should take loan forgiveness seriously. Ok, but what can we get out of that? The complete and utter destruction of the university system. Universities have been bankrupting a generation in return for …leftwing brainwashing. That sounds like a good use of time and resources. The university system should 100% be defunded. Eliminate student loans. Eliminate bankruptcy protection. Eliminate federal funding. Add regulations for interest rates and return on investment. Break the monopoly. Don’t act like this is optional. Don’t discuss it with the left. 100%, the destruction of the status quo is necessary. 

    We need to get implacable. Don’t act like this is business as usual. We need to treat it like the existential crisis that it is. Borrow the tactics of the left, and start screaming how they are Hitler if they don’t give us what we think is right. Combine libertarian ideals with leftist urgency, and scream at the top of our lungs. Stop acting like kicked dogs, and start acting like guard dogs. 

    Taxes need to go. No income taxes. No property taxes. We are NOT slaves of the state. The leftist thieves are evil, and need to be stopped. Be implacable. Don’t bother arguing with them, there isn’t any point discussing ANYTHING. They don’t debate in good faith, and they kill us if we try to debate in good faith. The left is evil. Period. End of story. Who tried so reason with evil? Morons and chameleons pretending to be on our side. What we want doesn’t have to make complete ideological sense. We just need to know what we want and what we need to do to get there. Then go for it, by any non-violent means necessary. Ignore the screaming coming from the enemy. Their opinions don’t matter. It is the non-evil opinions that matter. We can police ourselves for extremism without their help. 

    Liked by 1 person

    1. In order to accomplish this constitutionally, you’d need a solid majority of the US House and 60+ members of the Senate. Plus a solid bloc of state legislatures. Will these tactics accomplish this task? And there is the complication of recruiting or convincing congressfolks that drastically reducing their influence is in their interest.

      Not impossible, but definitely a challenge.

      You also have a situation in the current Administration where the overall tone is anti-regulatory, but where Cabinet-level secretaries are micromanaging local issues simply to score political points, unfortunately in the field in which I work. So it could be even messier.

      Like

      1. Again, it is not necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment allows the government to collect income tax; it does not require it. All they’d have to do is repeal the federal laws that established taxation and abolish the IRS. (Yeah, all. Riiight.)

        Of course that would leave the 16th still in place, like a bomb waiting for somebody to set it off again, but federal income tax could be eliminated in a month.

        Like

        1. “…could be eliminated in a month.”

          And that’s where you need the Senate and House blocs.

          Does the originally described strategy get there?

          Like

  28. A lot of quiet-looking Americans remind me of a description of William Cornelius Van Horne, the principal builder of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Try this description on for size:

    ‘Van Horne is calm and harmless looking. So is a she mule, and so is a buzz saw. You don’t know their true inwardness till you go up and feel of them.’

    Another incident from the building of that railway reminds me a good deal of the Democrats and their puppets in social media right now. The route for the road had to be blasted through the Precambrian rock of Northern Ontario, and most of the blasting was done with nitroglycerine. One navvy poured a charge of nitro into a drill hole in the rock, then noticed he had spilled a drop. Without thinking, he tried to scrape that drop of explosive off the rock surface – and blew off his hand.

    George Orwell said, ‘So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.’ Well, the same grade of people are playing with nitroglycerine now, and they will be lucky if they only lose their hands.

    Like

  29. Charlie believed we could talk it out with the left and that logic and facts could overcome the dogma and indoctrination of the left. The truth is he was effective, but only with the moderates, the people who were not yet radicalized by evil. He made millions of them look more closely at their own beliefs and the beliefs of their party; and millions of young men left the democrats after listening to Charlie.

    The left wanted him silenced because he was hurting their movement and they are justifying it using the ‘words are violence’. I see a lot of people claiming that doxxing them for their evil comments is the path forward. I’m not sure I agree, yes it gets them out of places they can be dangerous and hurt people (teachers, military, medical, politics etc) but it will radicalize them even more and they will use it to justify more violence.

    Personally I think this assassination is likely to backfire on them.

    Exile1981

    Like

  30. I think that Professor Reynolds is worried about the same things I am.

    https://instapundit.substack.com/p/when-the-preference-cascade-becomes

    These aren’t just a few wackos. These are large numbers of people in professional and managerial jobs — mostly government employees of some sort, it seems — who genuinely believe that holding ideas they don’t like should carry the death penalty.

    These people are everywhere. They might be teaching your kids. They might be the face looking down at you as you’re wheeled into the E.R. They might be the guy who approves your building permit, or not. It’s an Army Of Haters.

    Trump is the Great Clarifier, and here’s another thing that’s become clear in his second term.

    They’re there, they hate you, and they’re not going anywhere. So what to do about it?

    Like

    1. I’m sensing more and more people might be realizing that what I’ve been saying about not being able to live with the Left was nothing but factual.

      https://thelawdogfiles.substack.com/p/meditations-on-threats

      Then I saw the reaction to the Charlie Kirk murder. I’m seeing glee from those who take of our most vulnerable — from teachers, counsellors, and school administrators. I see celebration from those who take care of us at our most vulnerable — from nurses, therapists, and doctors.

      Not from wheezing beanbag-ridden trolls, furiously typing out their delusions of adequacy with one hand while the other crumb-snatcher is … occupied under the desk, but from everyday, trained professionals.

      So, I’ve got to ask: If you hate conservatives so much that you will brazenly post videos of you dancing, singing, and celebrating the death of a young conservative father .. what are you doing — either consciously or unconsciously — to conservatives in your care?

      Now maybe I’m just a little more sensitive than most; having a wife whose late father was a well enough known Brooklyn rabbi to have his name show up in the “check your ancestry” thing at Medieval Times in Orlando FL in 2008, and relatives in Israel, will cause you to watch a little closer when Islamic named medical personnel are treating her. But maybe not.

      Like

  31. “King’s murder was the most prominent assassination of a non-politician in living memory …. until Wednesday”

    Followed very closely by the John Lennon murder, which is often described as an “assassination” but I dunno that it qualifies as such. Wasn’t Mark David Chapman basically just a deranged fan looking for attention, he wasn’t targeting Lennon for his song lyrics or peace activism?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yes, it was a deranged fan. Although I was entirely too small to recall any coverage at the time (let alone know who Lennon was), my guess would be that the lefties even then framed it as an assassination so they could use it in their “Seeee??? The right wing is VIOLENT!” arguments.

      Note that they frame the guy who tried to kill Reagan as “just a lone wolf lunatic,” too–and I will grant the dude was a nutjob. But I’m also pretty sure the left’s rhetoric about Reagan then contributed more than a fair bit. They have been pulling this s*it for a long, LONG time.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.