sofiechan home

What We Owe Charlie Kirk

wolftivy said in #4451 3w ago: received

As you've all seen by now, Charlie Kirk was martyred for having the courage to openly proclaim the ideals and realities this country was built on. I didn't agree with him about many things, but I find that I agree with him a lot more now that I've watched him take a bullet for me. He took a bullet for all of us, and I am compelled to reflect on what we owe him for that.

He was not killed for being a radical, spreading hatred or lies, or any other imagined crime or shortcoming. There is no justice here. He was killed for being honest, courageous, sincere, and effective. He was killed for being better than the rest of us, and for beliefs most of us hold and all of us depend on. That's what hits close to home for me. Losing him sets this country back in a big way, and makes clear that the rest of us, who have even less of a claim on legitimacy than he did, are next. The people who did this and wanted this would round us up and kill us all if we let them. Charlie wasn't letting them, and now we've lost him and its up to the rest of us. I'll be damned if we're going to let him down.

First of all Trump needs to act decisively to dismantle the established networks of leftist radicalism that caused this. There are a lot more guilty parties here than one freak with a gun, and a lot more crimes than just one assassination. I'm not a legal or political expert, but RICO comes to mind here, as do the many laws on the books against exactly this kind of agitation. All that is needed is the will. That's the first kind of justice we owe to Charlie: to have the will to prosecute all of his murderers, and execute the worst, before they get the chance to murder any more of us.

But we also need to continue his legacy, and that's something the rest of us need to do. What Charlie showed was the unreasonable effectiveness of open, courageous, sincere, reasonable debate. He got out there and made people account for why they disagreed with normal conservative ideas of what this country is about. We might see things differently than he did, but his method was necessary and good. It is in open debate that truth can be found, lies deconstructed, and collective interests decided. There is no free marketplace of ideas and no republic without guys like Charlie, only whispering fearfully in private while his murderers terrorize and brainwash the public and pick us off one by one.

This is not an isolated case. The people who killed Charlie are the same people who killed Iryna Zarutska and many others, who trashed our cities, sold out our country, and turned our own institutions into weapons against us. We don't have to live like this. Charlie showed us a way out at the cost of his life: open courageous peaceful debate in support of normal common sense Americanism.

They can't kill us all. It took them years of effort to radicalize thousands against Charlie so that one would kill him. Their tyranny depends on there only being one or two guys like Charlie, with everyone else being cowards. We need to show them that there are many. We need to become many guys like Charlie, as fearless and levelheaded as he was. We need to pick up his flag.

I don't know yet what that looks like. It starts with not self censoring, with seeking out debate and dialog with people who disagree, being courageously willing to defend our nation in rhetoric and organizing. If you had asked me a year ago, I would have said that was stupidly naive, you would be killed for your efforts, and no one would even be persuaded. But Charlie proved me wrong. He was killed, but millions were persuaded. There are far worse fates than martyrdom, when the alternative is slavery born of cowardice. The rest of us should feel infinitely blessed if we could achieve a hundredth of what he did with our lives and deaths.

So let's start with that: Charlie Kirk died a patriot and a martyr, and we must honor his legacy by being much bolder in defending the truth in public. Debate me.

referenced by: >>4480

As you've all seen b received

anon_humy said in #4455 2w ago: received

By all means don't self censor, I think its always good to speak honestly about ones beliefs.

I do think that what is emerging on the right, however, is the perfect mirror image of all the problems with the SJW left during the 2010s. As we speak the right is going on a moralizing crusade top get tens of thousands of people fired from their jobs for online speech. Is a lot of that speech ugly? Sure. So was a lot of the speech that got the SJWs riled up. And they too were preoccupied with alleged crimes like targeted harassment and linked their opponents to violence such as mass shootings to justify how they feared for their lives. So too did the SJW left use the coercive power of the state where it suited them. I don't think there'd be much difference between using RICO to go after Soros than how SJWs used the department of education to remove due process on campuses and ban fraternities.

You may claim that this would be hypocrisy for many people to oppose the firing campaigns and using the shooting as a Reichstag fire moment to crackdown, but some people were always principly against these things from the beginning.

referenced by: >>4458 >>4476 >>4486

By all means don't s received

anon_meco said in #4457 2w ago: received

I think the campaign to get people fired is the white people version of george floyd-style rioting... it's "doing something fun with your friends." RW White people know that: they can't protest, they can't hold rallies, all the normal channels of political organization are closed off to them, so they make a big fuss out of nurses and teachers being retarded on Facebook.

The goal of JD and Miller should be to expunge the antifa networks and their NGO backers from society. If they do anything less than that our goal should be putting the people into power who will.

referenced by: >>4459

I think the campaign received

xenophon said in #4458 2w ago: received

>>4455
> what is emerging on the right, however, is the perfect mirror image of all the problems with the SJW left during the 2010s

No, effective exercises of power are Good Actually.

• On getting people fired: Randos on Instagram or Facebook don't matter much, but removing military officers or federal bureaucrats who openly express sympathy for the murder is entirely appropriate and useful.

• On going after antifa networks and their NGO financial backers using RICO: This is long overdue on its own merits. It is exactly what the Trump administration should do.

• On the argument that these things are analogous to bad things that SJWs and Biden did: I can see how from a libertard perspective it might look like that. But I'm not a libertard, so that's irrelevant. The relevant questions are: Are these actions justified on their own merits, and are they effective and useful? The answer is yes.

referenced by: >>4459

No, effective exerci received

anon_humy said in #4459 2w ago: received

>>4457
RW white people very much do protests and political organization. And I'm very much sure it is fun! So were the left cancelation campaigns which satisfied a deep superegoic pleasure and felt like doing something meaningful for the ppl involved.

>>4458
I'm not going to say there isn't a point of view from which those things will seem justified. I just happen to think that this point of view was not the primary point of opposition to SJWs. Rather that opposition came from a defense of freedom and rational public discourse as such, which is where my sympathies lie. The current right's pursuit of strongman politics has shown the limitations of the sort of things you suggest, which is you empower a single retard to do whatever he wants without limits.

referenced by: >>4460

RW white people very received

xenophon said in #4460 2w ago: received

>>4459
> ... this point of view was not the primary point of opposition to SJWs. Rather that opposition came from a defense of freedom and rational public discourse as such ...

It's not interesting or important what the more libertarian opponents of SJWs were thinking 10 years ago.

> The current right's pursuit of strongman politics has shown the limitations of the sort of things you suggest, which is you empower a single retard ...

I don't think Trump is perfect. Far from it. But this isn't about Trump. The relevant question is: Are there effective and useful measures that can be taken against organized support for violence, within the bounds of existing law? If so, we should identify and support the federal government taking those measures.

referenced by: >>4461

It's not interesting received

anon_humy said in #4461 2w ago: received

>>4460
>It's not interesting or important what the more libertarian opponents of SJWs were thinking 10 years ago.
Perhaps not literally what they were thinking, but some of us still believe in those principles. The question of how to follow through on the promises of liberalism despite its failings is an important one.

>But this isn't about Trump. The relevant question is: Are there effective and useful measures that can be taken against organized support for violence, within the bounds of existing law? If so, we should identify and support the federal government taking those measures.
Not very different from the sort of thinking that brought us the patriot act and the modern day national security state.

referenced by: >>4464

Perhaps not literall received

anon_qura said in #4462 2w ago: received

> That's the first kind of justice we owe to Charlie: to have the will to prosecute all of his murderers, and execute the worst

Who do you think his murderers were, beyond the obvious one? Which of the rest deserve execution?

I suggest we proceed with heads screwed on straight.

Who do you think his received

xenophon said in #4464 2w ago: received

>>4461
> Not very different from the sort of thinking that brought us the patriot act and the modern day national security state.

It's not really relevant to this thread, but I'll state for the record that I do not and have never supported the Patriot Act. But RICO has been federal law since 1970. If you oppose even the use of pre-9/11 federal law to prosecute organized support for violent crime, then we have very different perspectives indeed.

referenced by: >>4507

It's not really rele received

anon_zyva said in #4476 2w ago: received

>>4455
Don't be ridiculous. What happened in the 2010s was not right-wingers being cancelled for loudly proclaiming under their real names that THOSE YIDS HAD IT COMING!! JK after Patrick Little or whoever shot up that synagogue. Or Dylan Roof shooting up the black church. What happened was people, explicitly right-wing or not, being cancelled left and right for a long list of ambiguous, changing, and often microscopically minor infractions and non-infractions alike. You would, and still would, get cancelled for merely stating, in any context, with any level of decorum or apologetics, statements like "I think black people are not as smart as Chinese people," "I think transgender 'women' are men," or "we need to stop immigration to developed countries." It'll be the "mirror image" when you can get fired for saying a transgender "woman" is a woman, or that black people are equally as smart as Chinese people.

referenced by: >>4508

Don't be ridiculous. received

db said in #4480 2w ago: received

>>4451
Amen to the sentiment that the only thing they fear is truly open and free speech, of the kind that Kirk exemplified and that we all should strive to exemplify. They can kill one man but they cannot kill a million.

Go to your local town square, street corner, bus stop, mall, gas station, church steps or wherever people around you gather. Set up two folding chairs and a cardboard box with the words "debate me" sharpied on the side. Strike up a civil but unflinching conversation about something on your mind or theirs. Try to ask more questions than the other guy. Learn why they think what they think. If things overheat, put out your hand, say "let's cool off and pick this up another day". Shake on it. Don't win arguments - win respect, understanding, allies, friends. Man to man, person to person, local, mutual, unregulated, unauthorized, undetected, unexpected. And when they come for you, they will find an army against them.

A house divided unto itself cannot stand. A people bound together cannot fall.

Amen to the sentimen received

vespasian said in #4486 2w ago: received

>>4455

"As we speak the right is going on a moralizing crusade top get tens of thousands of people fired from their jobs for online speech. Is a lot of that speech ugly? Sure. So was a lot of the speech that got the SJWs riled up."

The difference is the effectively terroristic ferment that these countless voices of support are creating. The "SJW" (weird typing that past 2019) parallel there doesn't exist. It's creating a perverted system of glory in the wake of Mangione et al. — both the explicit celebration from the excitable and feminine with their knowingly-nodding, refined rear-guard tranquilizing demands for justice.

We need immense social taboo against this wretched, filthy mentality. It cannot stand in an actual society. The soft powers of cancellation and firing (not new to the SJWs of the teens) are not new or ineffective or illegitimate methods in themselves.

referenced by: >>4509

"As we speak the rig received

anon_caho said in #4503 5d ago: received

Eric S. Raymond of the Cathedral and Bazaar fame highlights how has Charlie Kirk drawn a rift between the Antifa and Gramscians in this remarkable X post:
--

One of Antifa's strategic problems in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk is that there's an inherent tension between its goals and those of its aboveground allies.

Both networks want a Communist revolution, but by different paths. Antifa is running the classic Castroite/Maoist playbook: direct action and terrorism escalating to armed insurrection. Their road to victory runs through chaos and a weakened government that eventually suffers a general legitimacy collapse.

The aboveground allies are Gramscians who have committed to a long march through the institutions. The last thing they want is a weakened government and a legitimacy collapse. They aim to take over the state machinery and totalitarianize it, gradually replacing the American civic religion with some variant of Marxist ideology (see "social justice" and wokeism).

Gramscian capture of some portions of the US government made it easier for Antifa to operate almost openly, which is why we're now seeing semi-militarized attacks on ICE facilities. But the assassination of Charlie Kirk changed the game again, leaving the Gramscians with a dilemma about how to manage Antifa.

(I say "manage" because the way the Communist network is structured for deniability means none of the aboveground leaders are able to give the entire Antifa portion of it direct orders. They have to nudge it via propaganda and suggestions through cutouts. And they have to deal with the possibility that some cells will not get the message, or will misinterpret it.)

As Antifa grows more violent and overt, the avoidance strategy of claiming it doesn't exist is doomed. Gramscian leaders will have to choose whether to embrace Antifa's revolutionary violence or repudiate it.

One of the impacts of the assassination of Charlie Kirk is that it makes this choice very difficult to defer. If you're willing to say that he deserved it, you're endorsing assassination and revolutionary violence. Condemning it makes the opposite choice.

The political stakes are obvious. The Right is successfully mobilizing to dox Left allies who endorsed Kirk's assassination and force them out of their jobs. What's more worrying, from any Gramscian's point of view, is that this is a grassroots effort, not something the partially co-opted government is organizing.

For the first time since Joe McCarthy was discredited in 1954, the Communist program of gradual institutional capture is being reversed. To save it, the Gramscians might have to disavow assassinations and Antifa, allowing the un-captured parts of the US government to take Antifa down.

Antifa, of course, is going to resist this. And it's an open question whether disavowal is a move that the Gramscians are ideologically capable of making. Like religious fanatics of other kinds, their capability to make rational strategic choices is constrained by their belief system.

Of course they'll use the institutional leverage they have to sabotage and obstruct government action against Antifa as much as they can. But it's not government that's holding candlelight vigils for Charlie Kirk and pressuring school boards all over the US to fire Communist tools in teaching positions. And victory feeds victory; there's a real risk that the popular backlash will become even stronger from its successes, especially as Antifa ratchets up the violence level.

I don't know which way the Gramscians are going to break. It's not likely all of them will make the same choice, and there isn't any one leader who can enforce that.

But they can't avoid choosing much longer. In retrospect, the crisis point might have been something other than the assassination of Charlie Kirk...but here we are.

https://x.com/esrtweet/status/1970957236546498863

Eric S. Raymond of t received

anon_humy said in #4507 2d ago: received

>>4464
Returning to this now that we know what the trump admin is doing, they're planning on explicitly expanding the patriot act by creating a list of domestic terrorist organizations. Probably the most blatantly illegal and unconstitutional route they could have taken.

Returning to this no received

anon_humy said in #4508 2d ago: received

>>4476
>What happened in the 2010s was not right-wingers being cancelled for loudly proclaiming under their real names that THOSE YIDS HAD IT COMING!! JK after Patrick Little or whoever shot up that synagogue. Or Dylan Roof shooting up the black church.
If the anonymous right wingers who did post that sort of thing were doxed and prosecuted, do you think that would be either legal or good.

>What happened was people, explicitly right-wing or not, being cancelled left and right for a long list of ambiguous, changing, and often microscopically minor infractions and non-infractions alike. You would, and still would, get cancelled for merely stating, in any context, with any level of decorum or apologetics, statements like "I think black people are not as smart as Chinese people,"
How is this different from Jimmy Kimmel getting taken off the air for being wrong about the shooter? Or Trump making a whole list of isms like anti-capitalist and anti-americanism that can now get you deemed a domestic terrorist?

If the anonymous rig received

anon_humy said in #4509 2d ago: received

>>4486
There very much were right wing people in anonymous accounts and on image boards cheering on acts of violence, terrorism, mass shootings in the 2010s.

There very much were received

anon_zyso said in #4512 16h ago: received

Really goofy thread all around. Charlie Kirk's murder is the best living proof that anyone could ask for of how futile and even counter-productive good faith "debate" with our enemies is. He was literally killed for it, and after he was killed for engaging in good faith debate, he was slandered in dishonest bad faith and his killing was lied about.

The way we can "honor Kirk's legacy" is by harming and ultimately eliminating our enemies who murdered him, and who continue to slander him and celebrate his death. Personally, I find doxxing and snitching distasteful, but I can appreciate that the people who have been doing this to "libs" have actually achieved some measure of revenge for Kirk's death: they have harmed our enemies, in at least some way. That's more than can be said for everyone else on our side.

Meanwhile, the people on "our side" who are nominally in power and nominally "control the government" have done absolutely nothing to harm our enemies in response to this act of flagrant, hostile aggression. And I'm not just talking about Kirk's murder itself - I'm including the response at large from our enemies: deliberately lying in bad faith about Kirk himself, and about the circumstances and motivations and actor(s) surrounding his murder, in order to cover up this murder and to facilitate future persecutions and murders of people on our side.

What we as individuals can do to honor Kirk is to harm our enemies. That is what Kirk himself was trying to do. There's a clip that circulated on Twitter of him talking to a small audience about how we're at war, an existential war, and he treated it as such. Kirk was never out there trying to "debate" or "convert" our enemies - this was just theater, a means to an end. The "debates" were performative, for the benefit of potentially sympathetic spectators. He was out there recruiting more soldiers for the war. And he was very good at it, probably the best we had.

Honor his legacy by following his example. Recruit more friends, hurt more enemies.

Really goofy thread received

You must login to post.