- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
Charlie Kirk: Aftermath, Gravedancing, and Manhunt
- Thread starter Amelia Troonheart
- Start date
-
🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2023
It is depressing to see people you would not expect getting sucked into the internet commentary sphere. The moralizing of "silence is violence" is what broke society AGF (after George Floyd). This mad frenzy of "it is not enough to not be racist, you need to actively be anti-racist".
The George Floyd incident, I believe, was the one that conditioned many people that you have to say something.
Regarding Kirk, everyone has to express an opinion; the amount of non-political (eg) youtubers who felt the need to comment is astounding (all with some message of "violence is bad"). This then trickled down to everyday people, as you feel the need to say something after a week.
In terms of the "cancellation" of Kimmel - it is interesting that actors were bullied if they did not post the BLM black square on their social media. (Fun fat: it was copied from the orange square used to promote Fyre festival).
I don't think the majority of people cared, but it is always about the vocal minority.
Whenever I see politicians or other people with power try to appease the twitter mob, I wonder why they do that.
However, there is now an evil, retarded, vicious loop between the vocal minority and the MSM.
We are really not meant to be able to have access to every tragedy happening in the world. We could start to not have news channel run 24/7. Uncle Ted was right on the dangers of being oversocialized.
Last edited:
>IMPLYING
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
In the Communist Manifesto Marx posits that individuality doesn't really exist anymore outside the bourgeoisie because society has been reduced to simply act as labour for the parallel, bourgeois society to live out their lives.
Communist Manifesto
It's contradictory to your comment so I apologise (and it's possible the translation was bad) but what I got from Mussolini was him dismissing the Communist idea of individuality being erased under the toil of the bourgeoisie and instead asking for people to be aware of their individuality and get rid of it, since care for individuality was effectively selfishness.
The Doctrine of Fascism (I find Mussolini's matter of fact remark on Liberalism being only useful for 15 years really funny)
There's a similar theme in "For my Legionnaires" by Codreanu in the shunning of individuality.
The intensity of individualism depends on the source however and I'm not familiar with every Fascist. I mention this because British fascism had by far the most dystopian-sounding terminology (lifts corporate titles and inserts them straight into government positions) but it was probably the nicest of the lot. If there was some overlap with Marx he proposes the same premise about current society not really being "free," although he mostly places it on the government catering to minorities over the majority; the people won't truly be free until the government represents them whilst also giving the people economic freedom, which is very reminiscent of Marx as well but Mosley's idea of freedom is far more in line with what many contemporary Conservatives/Libertarians argue.
Fascism: 100 questions asked and answered by Oswald Mosley
Anyway, both were rejections of Liberalism in a sense, but Mussolini did to Marxism what Marx did to Hegel, "flipped on his head," basically. "Class emancipation" for "Spiritual unification" – a complete switch from grounded to spirituality to harness the Geist spoken of by Hegel, with a state collectivised and organised under syndicalism in subservience to the state for the benefit of all. Which makes it a double flip because his end goal was arguably more grounded in realism than Marx's.
Marx's definition of what constituted "good" was essentially taken from the French, and despite criticising German philosophers for "emasculating" their work (socialism, abolishment of private property, abandonment of God, etcetera – pretty much all French (and one Swiss - Rousseau) he then combined their ideas with typical German attempts to make sense of anything –
This is all to say: Liberalism has its roots in Christianity. Communism would represent Atheism/Anti-theism, attempts to create a moral foundation based strictly on material reality (usually on the conceit Christianity/religion have been destroyed already). Fascism is highly dependent on where it's located, but it attempts to assert a moral code separate from religion without demoting it for the most part – Agnostic/Deist/Theist?
(Left Mussolini, Right 2 Marx & Engels)
That's not to say automatically that Liberal = Good just because Christianity = Good.
Socialism is actually kind of difficult, either sharing the same foundation as Communism or finding inspiration from pre-existing institutions (as French philosophy often did) at which point you could point to Christian monasteries and the idea of Christian/Church "Community" and source it from Catholicism/Christianity – but that's contrived so I'll just stick to Atheism.
The Liberalism created by Locke is not the same Liberalism many so-called Liberals today claim to be. Locke's Liberalism is basically most preserved in contemporary, non-insane varients Libertarianism, which itself has a bizarre history of changing definitions and having some possibly suspect intrinsic aspects (You may be surprised when you see what Joseph Dejacque, anarchist communist, coined as a term), but it's basically a synonym for classical Liberalism. For instance: when you hear the term, "God given rights," it's rooted in concepts that free will wasn't merely a by-product of God, but a privilege granted by God, and to violate free will is to commit a crime against God since it's overruling him in a sense. The moral duty of government is to preserve this free will, encroach on it as little as possible, and make sure to excise those who would threaten it.
TLDR: Communists are just Fascists without God; Fascists are Communists without a deigned care for individualism.
Liberal democracy =/= "Liberal" democracy – the latter is a state where God/objective morals have been replaced by popularity-based morals.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2024
I'll do you one better:
There are people in the Nick Fuentes thread acting like Antifa is being overblown or doesn't exist.
Because that would make it so Israel did it
Super-Chevy454
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
They only care when it's convinient for them like a detail who fit their agendas.
There's one staff member who's seem to be optimistic about Gen Z in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk them.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
He peaceful loving ones can't help themselves, can they.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2016
And what was Colbert's reaction to ABC firing Roseanne over her joke?
Yemeni Wedding Crasher
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2025
The ANTIFA doesn't exist bullshit is ridiculous, they are playing semantics to muddy the waters. Is there some national ANTIFA headquarters like it's Johnson&Johnson? No, but there are dozens of local/city ANTIFA groups around the US with anywhere from dozens to hundreds of members each. What ties all these groups together is the somewhat guerilla structure and core ideology of ANTIFA. ANTIFA groups openly advertised on social media and had shit like blogs for years now.
Nobody would argue that there aren't white nationalist extremist groups around the US. There is no national headquarters for these groups either. There are city/regional groups with entirely different command structures that are all tied together by white nationalist ideology.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2022
I've been reading a bit about Communism and Fascism lately given all this current drama and communism sounds like it was written by a genuine schizophrenic, fascism by some friendly autist. One is gonna be an easy sell to normies, the other not so much.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2024
I request you forgive the Gen Z (And Alpha) Democrats, and see things from their perspective. They have been primarily raised into political consciousness by TDS-infected single parents and mothers. The parent comes home from their publicly funded job to complain to their children, instead of their spouse, that Trump tweeted something mean on Twitter. She then tunes into Samantha Bee™ Full Frontal™ where they talk more about how Trump is the devil and evil incarnate. They're probably subscribed to the New York Times or MS
And these are all positions her mother supports and reiterates and reinforces.
This is the age of Trump. Gen Alpha has never known anything other than Trump, and half of Gen Z has never known anything other than Trump. (Autopen Biden doesn't count, since everyone on the left still spent those 4 years talking 24/7 about Trump)
Is it any wonder she holds these positions her mother and the news and teachers and "comedy" shows have programmed her to believe are not only correct, but morally good?
There's been a lot of focus on the news and I think this is over the target. We can't allow the belief that Charlie was in some way a fascist white supremacist who deserved it to become acceptable maonstrea
Penguin Soldier
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 30, 2025
Out of pure curiosity, since you have to be a bumbling retard to not see the irony of posting this in this thread, do you think the assassination of Charlie was going to have no consequences?
The left has started violently going after it's opposition and encouraging it. This thread is full of examples of leftists encouraging it too, which has only escalated tensions and hasn't fixed anything. The right has become more radical after the assassination because we watched an innocent man killed in front of his children, while the otherside either held their nose and half ass condemned it or were outright gravedancing.
It's not the right's job to condemn violence because it's not us who started committing it, It's not the right's job to beg for peace because we weren't the ones who started killing people, and it's not the right's job to ask for civil discussions with our opposition when they killed the last nigga who tried that.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2025
Fuck those little faggots.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2023
Do democrats and leftists not understand the irony in decrying Charlie's joke about bailing out Pelosi's attacker, given that they are the ones who support bail reforms? They are the ones that say that it is poor mental health services and poverty only that cause crime. So, just bail out this guy, who was just a victim of society. I am pretty sure that was Charlie's joke anyway?
I think AOC and other black/latino women are also mad about Charlie's remarks about some prominent black women as dumb DEI hires.
Listening to that clip I am not sure why he included Michelle Obama there. I like her to some degree, and DEI is not responsible for her specifically to be there where she is? I think she has said herself that DEI helped her, but that is politically point scoring, to defend DEI. Also, she is where she is because she married a lawyer who became the US president. So, not really DEI, but not of her own merit, just by circumnstances.
Beside Michelle Obama, there was also Ketanji Brown-Jackson in Charlie's list, for whom the criticism is fully deserved. Was it not Sotomayor went out of her way to say how dumb KBJ opinion was? (Something about giving too much power to the judiciary, in the attempt to balance the power of the executive. It was in the injuction against deportations iirc)
Beside Michelle Obama, there was also Ketanji Brown-Jackson in Charlie's list, for whom the criticism is fully deserved. Was it not Sotomayor went out of her way to say how dumb KBJ opinion was? (Something about giving too much power to the judiciary, in the attempt to balance the power of the executive. It was in the injuction against deportations iirc)
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2020
The upper-midwitted among them have been intentionally doing "Will no one rid me of this heckin' Fashist?" for years. Their low-IQ golems are impulsive enough to scream "Kill dem White babies!" any time they're given a microphone.
What's unique here is that the "normal" (functionally employed) felt so comfortable and Establishment-backed that they decided to shriek like obese Womyn of Calories, under their full names and school/hospital/government employment.
Hell I'd forgotten about that guy...he basically went after every vaguely conservative (or just White/Christian) personality he could, and then turned out to be some assistant librarian using University resources to run his doxx campaigns, right? Update: looks like he was fired and sued.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2024
Children raised by their single mothers
Children raised by their single fathers
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2024
I don't get it, i never watched Andor.
>IMPLYING
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2023
I want to answer this
The response from the right to Pam Bondi regarding "hate speech" is the right approach. Words are not violence, beside for the specific circumnstances in which they are, but we should not fight to expand the limits.
I don't agree that the left has started anything. Small detour. How far back do you want to go to see who started it? French revolution? Do we look at communists and fascists/nazis beating each other in the 20s? Do we look at the Black Panthers? The Summer of Love hippies of '67? Or the Summer of Love of the 2020s? Who started "it" and when?
We need to accept that the extremist of political ideologies will always beat each other up. There will always be some violence. The issue is how big the section of this extremism is in the left nowadays.
For now Bernie and the establishment dems seem to have taken the right approach. It will be interesting to see what they do about AOC and the other "progressives".
I understand that it is not the right's job to ask for civil discussion. But, where do we go next? How do we move on?
These are questions that need to be answered. I think the best solution would be for some Dems and some Republicans (hopefully not just establishment personalities, but some MAGA and progressives) to agree that
1) The rethoric needs to be less emotionally charged. We need to value truth and use language accordingly, calling people nazis or marxists is inflamatory and not helpful.
2) Cancel culture is powerful, and helps to silence people from expressing their opinions, even if we personally find them distasteful or we think they are wrong. For example, we should debate whether children can have puberty blockers, not demand people to be fired for even asking a question.
...
I think the right can now demand for this to happen, rather than ask. It is now winning regarding cancellation. It is time to think of how to end the war, rather than planning for the next battle. Set your terms and give them to the loser. If they don't accept, then we can see what to do.
The democrats are losing hard. This assassination has soured a lot of normal people towards the left.
Democrats still don't have anyone they can run in 2028, or anyone who has wide appeal.
You are conflating two things: violence and encouraging violence. With the high tension and all the emotions around the assassination, it is important to go back to the first principles of free speech and what is criminal incitement and what it is not. I don't think stochastic terrorism should be something defined as a crime in itself, and that is what many in this thread are advocating for.
The response from the right to Pam Bondi regarding "hate speech" is the right approach. Words are not violence, beside for the specific circumnstances in which they are, but we should not fight to expand the limits.
I don't agree that the left has started anything. Small detour. How far back do you want to go to see who started it? French revolution? Do we look at communists and fascists/nazis beating each other in the 20s? Do we look at the Black Panthers? The Summer of Love hippies of '67? Or the Summer of Love of the 2020s? Who started "it" and when?
We need to accept that the extremist of political ideologies will always beat each other up. There will always be some violence. The issue is how big the section of this extremism is in the left nowadays.
As usual, it is not the crime itself, but the cover up. People accept that there will be a crazy person who shoots someone. The issue is the thousands supporting it.
For now Bernie and the establishment dems seem to have taken the right approach. It will be interesting to see what they do about AOC and the other "progressives".
I don't think they have become more radical in terms of their beliefs, they have become more resentful and more active. This is also working in the rights favour by looking more sensible than the opposition who is showing how insane they are.
The right has committed violence in the past, it is dishonest to say otherwise. The difference is that when they do, it is not supported by multiple TV channels and the most respected newspapers. I don't think even Fox News has ever said anything positive or joked about neo-nazi killers?
I understand that it is not the right's job to ask for civil discussion. But, where do we go next? How do we move on?
These are questions that need to be answered. I think the best solution would be for some Dems and some Republicans (hopefully not just establishment personalities, but some MAGA and progressives) to agree that
1) The rethoric needs to be less emotionally charged. We need to value truth and use language accordingly, calling people nazis or marxists is inflamatory and not helpful.
2) Cancel culture is powerful, and helps to silence people from expressing their opinions, even if we personally find them distasteful or we think they are wrong. For example, we should debate whether children can have puberty blockers, not demand people to be fired for even asking a question.
...
I think the right can now demand for this to happen, rather than ask. It is now winning regarding cancellation. It is time to think of how to end the war, rather than planning for the next battle. Set your terms and give them to the loser. If they don't accept, then we can see what to do.
The democrats are losing hard. This assassination has soured a lot of normal people towards the left.
Democrats still don't have anyone they can run in 2028, or anyone who has wide appeal.