fox files

Charlie Kirk is dead. He was a father, son, husband, citizen, speaker, pundit, commentator.

Social Engineering has taught us it is fine to demonize anyone, ANYONE, who disagrees with us. Disagree strongly enough and it’s OK to kill them. The cure? Encourage vigorous discord as a social good.

Here is Charlie’s audience just before he was assassinated:

He was being listened to by a throng of students who wanted to hear, challenge, interact with, debate, agree with, contend with, uphold what he had to say. But someone thought that they had the right (maybe they thought they had the duty) to protect people from whatever it was that he hated in what Charlie had to say.

Charlie Kirk was not shot because he was a father, son, husband, citizen. He was shot because he dared to say something that another person disagreed with. He was shot because some loon with a gun in his hand (and I am a firm upholder of the second amendment – the gun could just as well have been a cross bow or a sling shot) believed that his disagreement is the same as a justly delivered death sentence, issued by the Lord God Jehova or a Court of Comepetent Jurisdiction or the little green men from Mars who have been giving him directions since he was 12 and wanted to masturbate. It does not matter what the rationale he gives himself might be. The fact is that this particular loon has been intentionally engineered as the rest of us have been: we have been falsely led to believe that differing with us is the same as threatening us, that coming to different conclusions from the same or a similar set of facts (or beliefs or prejudices or fears or illusions) is a social crime for which any punishment is justified. That punishment can be social iosolation (shunning, excommunication, banishment, etc.), imprisonment, or, as in this case, execution by firing squad [of one].

Your husband/wife/son/daughter/mother/father/pediatrician/neighbor/boss/landlord/taxi driver took the jab and you didn’t? Then it makes sense to them, previously loving and compassionate, to cut you out of their life or shun you, call for your imprisonment or never let you darken their doorstep again. Or maybe it makes sense to kill you. It did to the Utah loon who executed Charlie Kirk.

We have been falsely led to believe that whatever offends us is automatically wrong. Whatever is wrong is automatically unscientific or unsupported by facts. Whatever is unscientific or unsupported by facts is automatically bad. Whatever is automatically bad must be silenced. Whatever must be silenced is our right to silence., Whatever is our right to silence can, may, must and should be sileneced by any means since it is to the mythical and elusive “greater good” to silence that which is bad and that, since we are serving the greater good in some way, the ends automatically justify the means.

Paul Alexander writes a substack in which he regularly 1. supports Donald J. Trump, excusing anything he does which is bad (such as Operation Warp Speed and the mRNA bioweapons) as mistakes that other people lied and misled him in to doing and supporting and 2. rales against people who commit vile acts against others who happen to also be Muslim and illegal immigrants. He regularly calls for them to be executed without a jury trial or any other due process. We have, he says, the video surveillance footage that shows the guy on the Light Rail in Charlotte, NC, plunging a knife repeatedly into the body of a nearby woman and continuing until he has killed her. Then he mutters that he got the White girl. String him up, Paul says, hang him high. Kill the feral beast without a trial or a judge. Just kill him.

Well, Paul, that is precisely the reasoning that the Utah loon used to kill Charlie Kirk, who was also the innocent victim: Hang him high. Just kill him.

And you, Paul, and those like you who believe that the very real and perfectly justified outrage we feel when violence and wrong erupts authorizes us to become savage beasts of equal lawlessness and brutality. You seem to adhere to the notion that law and justice are only for the easy times, the simple times, the low-emotion times, that once our ire is raised, we are justified in anything we want to do, but because it is us, not them, doing that “anything”, somehow that is just fine. Somehow that is even virtuous because we justified our brutality by the metric of our passion.

Bullshit.

The path back to some sort of civil society is not to call for more murder because murder was committed unless you are the top dog in a dog eat dog, eye for an eye world. And if you are, I am buying a ticket on the first transportation out because that is not a world in which I want to live. Enjoy your brutal cave world, Brother. I’ll opt for regularly applied, fair handed and predictable justice, thank you ever so much.

The way back requires us to call for more justice because murder was committed not less justice because murder was committed. I used to be opposed to the death penalty. But I have lived through decades in which the magnitude of Crimes Against Humanity past and those in the works are monstrous enough for me to have abandoned that stance. I now believe firmly in a real trial and a death penalty, executed [sic] publicly and with world-wide dissemination for the grand masters of grand crime. I believe that there are cases where real justice may well call for execution.

But we cannot have a just and civil society without a welcome attitude to discord, to disagreement, to difficult conversations.

No one ever died from listening to the other side of a conversation that you do not want to listen to.

When conversations are difficult and emotions are running high, certainty is evident (on both sides) and the points of view are apparently irreconcilable, the continuation of a sane society (or the acheivement of that lofty goal) can only be attained by re-engaging, often after some time to cool off, in fact, usually from a different angle or at a different level of abstraction or engagement.

Civil society cannot be built when disagreement means you whip out your hand gun and I whip out mine and we have a shoot ‘em out at the OK Corral to prove whose point was best fitted for survival. The Utah loon is insane (or government mind-controlled, which would put him in much the same category). It is even more importantly to call for the rational welcome of, not destruction of, discord, real, solid, tough, tangledly messy and difficult discord.