Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre led the bloody terror of the French Revolution until his fall from power in 1794, a turning point that historians refer to as the Thermidor. No revolution ever reaches its Thermidor phase without consuming its revolutionary vanguard first. Those who had ruled by the guillotine had to die by the guillotine before the tumbrils could stop rolling.
Mao’s Red Guards had his sanction to terrorize their perceived enemies in the name of defeating the ‘Four Olds’ until they became factional and violent, whereupon the PLA shut down the Red Guards and sent them off to reeducation camps. Mao had to expire before Deng Xiaoping could open the economy even a crack. China remains in thrall to its revolutionary regime, therefore unable to liberalize any further. Iran has never experienced a Thermidor because the supreme leader is one of the last of the revolutionaries, while the regime got rid of their leftist radicals during the 1980s. I could go on, but let these examples suffice.
This time, the revolutionary regime has been cancel culture. Social media celebrations of the assassination of Charlie Kirk have engendered a backlash that will culminate on the Monday morning that this essay is being published. As the first readers see these words, thousands of people are likely receiving pink slips all across America. They are the revolutionaries who took over our institutions, companies, and organizations, the vanguard of the woke revolution, who used cancelation instead of a guillotine to clear a path to power.
Today, they are whining on social media at the unfairness of being held responsible for whatever they believed were reasonable words about the most prominent political figure to be assassinated since Martin Luther King, Jr. Expect ‘Charlie Kirk Avenue’ to happen in a town near you, soon.
In every case, these bad takes were based on what opinion-news consumers have been told Charlie Kirk said, rather than any words he ever actually said. Over the weekend, as the shooter was arrested and details emerged that he had a transgender partner, the activist mystics of the left did their very best to convince us, and themselves, that Tyler Robinson is somehow a card-carrying member of the right wing, possibly a part of the Nick Fuentes subculture known as the ‘groypers’.
When these flailing attempts at damage control failed, ‘the left’ demanded proof that Robinson’s transgender-identifying boyfriend really, truly identifies as transgender, for they were unable to accept the word of the governor of Utah that it is true. For the first time in recorded history, ‘the left’ needed proof that someone was really transgender. Then neighbors started telling reporters that Robinson’s boyfriend is transgender, so the denialists had to find a whole new conspiracy theory. “Random guys don’t hold hands, and definitely don’t kiss,” this eyewitness says. Because he knows they are both men.
Occam’s razor suggests that Tyler Robinson may be a gynandromorphophile, or GAMP, a man attracted to feminine men. This witness reports that a “doctor” was involved, which could mean anything. The reporter is clearly confused in her thinking, imagining that ‘real transgender women’ are men who have genital surgery, when in reality, only a small minority of men who call themselves transgender ever have ‘nullo’ surgery (removal of the penis) or vaginoplasty (reconstruction of a neovagina from a shredded penis). The very vast majority of such men will use hormones, perhaps get breast augmentation and even facial feminization, before they ever let a surgeon touch their penis.
However, Tyler Robinson’s relationship with a homosexual transsexual also smacks of political romance. He was brilliant, a 4.0 student in high school who developed a coherent ideology after leaving home to attend a few semesters of college. This is hardly surprising. Rather than a university campus, Charlie Kirk’s assassin radicalized online. At 22 years old, Robinson falls into the most dangerous demographic for male violence in general and ideological violence in particular. To be clear, Tyler Robinson’s boyfriend did nothing wrong, at least not that know about yet. He has reportedly cooperated fully with the FBI thus far. The point here is that we do not know what all this meant to Robinson, yet, though it clearly meant enough to kill Charlie Kirk.
Thus the extreme efforts to paint the victim of an assassination as an extremist worthy of death, first, and then treat his killer as right-coded, second. Reporter Jemele Hill, for example, has suggested that “Charlie Kirk was the victim of a white supremacist gang hit.” If you were wondering how the assassination of John F. Kennedy by a confirmed communist resulted in decades of ridiculous fables assigning blame to the CIA and a murky conspiracy of Vietnam warmongers, this is how. ‘The left’ cannot accept that it was one of their ideological own, so they have spent decades making up fanciful stories to disconnect Lee Harvey Oswald’s committed communist ideology from the bullets that killed the president in Dallas.
They will do the same for the assassination of Charlie Kirk, if they can, and in so doing, help elevate him to mythic status for everyone. They will do it because that is easier than confronting the inherent violence of their gnostic world-view.
The celebrants for the assassination of Charlie Kirk are the same people who celebrated Luigi Mangione. People who celebrate political assassinations are not doing politics. Such people are the end of politics and the beginning of terrorism, a key tool of communist radicalism since time immemorial. If professors, politicians, administrators, teachers, nurses, and even the people making your food lose their jobs en masse right now for celebrating terrorism, how is that a bad thing? If Hasan gets banned from Twitch, how is that a bad thing?
These are the same people who counted on their positions in academia, corporations, and professional associations to aid their comeback as a cultural and political force after the second Trump administration. ‘Influencers’ who influence people towards murder and political violence must lose their influence. If Destiny wants to advocate the “genocide” of his political enemies, then he can do Radio Rwanda without a corporate platform. The more of these people get removed from their roles in society right now, the safer we will all be in the long run.
To cite one example of why this must happen now, the last time American politics corrected after a period of leftist violence, the violent leftists entered academia, where they laundered their reputations while America forgot the 1970s. The easiest way to prevent this from happening is demonstrative firings. On that note, Clemson University trustees are meeting today to deal with the emergency of woke assassination celebrants. There will never be a better opportunity to push forward with removing the woke from their positions of power and influence.
One major factor in what happens today, and throughout this week as the consequences ensue, is the poor reputation of young, woke employees these days. The 20-year-old barista with the septum piercing and the pink and purple pastel hair who insisted on getting rid of plastic straws, the 25-year-old techbro with the visible hand and face tattoos who wanted pronouns in the billion-dollar game development project, and more importantly for our purposes, the man who started showing up to the office in a skirt two years ago and made all the women uncomfortable: all of these people are prone to Charlie Kirk derangement syndrome, therefore many of them are vulnerable to consequences right now.
There will not be a better time, so companies and managers who are not themselves woke will naturally take advantage of the opportunity to get rid of a problem employee. Karma is a bitch. Before we shed any tears for the newly-jobless, let us also remember that this is the softest solution to the problem of the gnostic genderwoo death cult in our midst.
Charlie Kirk warned against “assassination culture”, a lethal manifestation of cancel culture, and became proof that it exists. Turning Point was an electoral force last November and a key reason why the youth voters swung for Trump. Tyler Robinson’s politics led him to pursue a violent end to all debate about ‘transgender rights’ as a civil rights project: his actions are ‘no debate’ as terrorism rather than an activist mantra. Robinson will undoubtedly fail to end that debate. He may instead inspire a million new debates.
It is long past time for those debates. We must discuss the role of gay shame (‘internalized homophobia’) in transgender identification, particularly in males. We must discuss the inherent contradiction in maintaining a civil right to same-sex attraction while simultaneously maintaining a totalizing, belief-based ‘civil right’ that presumes human sex is no longer binary. We must talk about GAMPs, and also discuss radicalizing online echo chambers, especially in regards to transgender ideation. We must have all of these conversations before the silence imposed over them by genderwoo activists kills all of us. That’s what cancel culture did, and with cancel culture canceled, those debates at last become possible.
On that note, here is how the late Charlie Kirk actually spoke to a young gay man. As I wrote on Friday at Osborne Ink, people who lie and say that Charlie Kirk hated gay people are not to be trusted. Assume instead that those people are capable of tremendous violence against anyone who disagrees with them. Assume they are dangerously pathological. They have told us what they are and we should believe them.
Any person or organization who says that Charlie Kirk “spread infinite amounts of disinformation about LGBTQ people”, like GLAAD does, is spreading infinite amounts of disinformation about him, and probably you, too. Assume they will lie to you about absolutely anything. Assume they will lie about you, too, when it is time to justify your murder.
All notable deaths result in somebody’s happiness, for anyone who rises will make enemies along the way. “All men have an emotion to kill,” Clarence Darrow wrote, for “when they strongly dislike some one they involuntarily wish he was dead.” Mastering such impulses is part of becoming an adult. Right now, there are many dangerously overgrown children who need to grow up, fast. We should let them. It will be good for them.
Male Socialization And The Warrior Path To Enlightenment In 'Circle of Iron'
Cross-posted from Polemology.net
I have the feeling Lance's cooperation with the authorities is out of self-preservation than anything else: he really doesn't want to be fingered as a co-conspirator.
Quite eloquent.
Here’s a progression: if you can’t understand reality about male/female than you probably can’t be trusted about any reality.
This is because once you’ve left reality, you question the judgement of everyone, and you begin to be unable to tell the difference between real and fantasy.
This is what seems to have been the actual “progressive” flow.