Signs of a ‘Total Systems Collapse’ Are Everywhere—Are You Paying Attention?

 

I’d like to talk about a concept called “systems collapse.” Anthropologists use it. Historians use it.

It refers to complex societies that suddenly implode because the level of sophistication and intricacy, bureaucracies become such that it’s very vulnerable if some little quirk appears and the society no longer operates on empiricism, meritocracy, but it’s governed by ideology or superstition.

And we usually look at systems collapse in terms of the Mycenaean Greeks, to take one example. Very sophisticated, Linear B tablets, palatial culture, and yet, something went wrong in that concentrated structure of the palace and the entire society collapsed.

We are a very sophisticated society. We require meritocracy, empiricism, credentials. And we have very sophisticated transportation, education, health care, etc. And if we don’t follow the norms that gave us that prosperity, security, and freedom, then the system starts to break down. And we’ve seen the indices of that.

The Pacific Palisades fire didn’t have to happen. It didn’t have to destroy the entire beautiful and ancient neighborhood of Palisades. And it didn’t have to mean that they haven’t even started rebuilding. But when you operate on anti-meritocratic DEI orthodoxies and you have ideologies that overrule common sense and tradition, then you get something like a total systems collapse.

So, the mayor knew it was fire season. She knew that the Santa Ana winds were approaching. She knew that the hills were dry. But she was in Ghana. Why is Ghana important? I guess it has some DEI connection to her.

We know that the hillsides need to be gleaned of brush and cleaned. Green orthodoxy says you can’t do that, global warming.

We know that the head of Los Angeles power and water came from PG&E. She was a DEI appointment. And the result was there were fire hydrants that didn’t work and there was a reservoir critical to the survival of the Palisades that had been empty for months.

We know that the fire chief herself had her budget cut by Karen Bass, the mayor. But we also know that she kept haranguing people about DEI rather than prioritizing—at least, publicly and in her communiques—the need for preventative fire protection. I could go on about the zoning.

But what I’m getting at is, when you have a sophisticated society living in a fire-prone area with a known two-century history of Santa Ana winds in the late fall and early winter, then nothing can go wrong. It’s an unnatural habitat.

And yet, what happened? DEI and green orthodoxy overruled traditions of trial and error, empirical knowledge about how to treat fires, how to prevent them, how to get water to parched areas, how to glean hillsides, why the mayor has to be there, why the deputy mayor—he was under house arrest for phoning in a bomb threat. Why was he even a deputy mayor, someone of that caliber?

Finally, we saw that same systems collapse with the tragic killing of Iryna Zarutska. And everything went wrong.

First of all, why would you enter a light-rail car without having to have a ticket? This was an honor system. It encouraged people to abuse the system—to think that you really don’t have to pay anything for a free ride. It said you couldn’t have a concealed weapon, but what does that mean when you don’t even have security to check people? You can’t stop and frisk people, apparently, anymore.

She came in there and there were four people around her, including the assailant. He killed her. But what kind of society is it where the four people adjacent, behind her just walk by her—watch the killer commit this horrific act of cutting her throat. And then after he leaves and he mutters, “Got the white girl,” then they don’t do anything. They didn’t do anything to stop it. They didn’t do anything, just to walk a few feet over, a foot over, and try to help her in her death throes.

What ideology is that that allows that to happen?

Why would Van Jones say that this has nothing to do with race when 80% of the people around the killer were African American, as he was, but he selected the one person who was white, and the people around didn’t do anything to help her?

Why did the mayor, Vi Lyles, almost immediately say arresting our way out of this won’t work, we can’t demonize the homeless, we can’t show this video?

Why didn’t she say, instead—as we know from the history of criminal justice—“We’ve got to find this perpetrator immediately. We’ve got to make sure that he faces stiff sentences. We can’t let people who are 14-time felons out. This was a mistake. And I promise that won’t happen”—why didn’t she do it? She didn’t do it because she knew that message would not appeal to the constituencies that had elected her. Because it was a total systems collapse.

And finally, Teresa Stokes, the magistrate, why did she let Decarlos Brown Jr., the killer, out? He had 14 felonies. He had just committed a felony. Why did she let him out? And the answer is, the systems collapse.

Why would you have Teresa Stokes, who had never passed the North Carolina bar, as a magistrate? She really had no credentials, in that sense, as a legal expert. More disturbingly, she co-owned an alternate treatment center. So, when she was sentencing felons, convicted felons or felons that were up for trial, she was, in some cases, what? Directing them to a center in which she had a profit motive.

Why did all this happen? Why did the media suppress it, suffocate it? Because it disturbed the narrative.

The narrative was that there is no such thing as inordinate black crime, and to talk about it violates the cannons of unempirical or nonempirical critical race theory, critical legal theory, the new anti-racism of professor Ibram X. Kendi.

And the result is that no one wanted to cover the story, even though, had the roles been reversed racially, it would’ve been a George Floyd moment.

What am I getting at? I’m getting at that in a sophisticated society like the United States, where we have complexities of travel and power and construction and safety and we have a diverse population from all over the world, and we have 55 million people who were not born in the United States residing here, you don’t have a margin of error. And the only way you can succeed, in the way that prior generations have, is to insist on common sense, knowledge of what worked in the past, and meritocracy and empiricism.

But if you throw all that away and you go the superstitious route and adopt diversity, equity, inclusion mandates in place of meritocracy, or you say that those hillsides are ready to go up in flames, but I can’t do anything about them because green orthodoxy says it would be contrary to nature, then you’re gonna have a systems collapse. And we saw that in both cases.

Only in America Do We Blame Victims Like Iryna Zarutska

 

I’d like to return, if I could, to the brutal murder of the Ukrainian immigrant, Ms. Iryna Zarutska, who was killed on a light rail, as we saw from the video, in Charlotte, North Carolina.

I think the way to look at this, this was a horrible scab—this incident—but once it was pulled off, we saw a putrid wound underneath. And all of our pathologies that we really have to deal with were apparent and led to her death.

The first thing, of course, is she was blamed—I could not believe it—in some of the videos that she was not situationally aware. That she walked into an area where there was a suspicious-looking individual with a hoodie on—black Americans, that maybe they meant by their analyses that they have, statistically, higher propensity in that particular demographic to commit violent crimes.

But wait a minute. Why should she have to worry? This is the United States. She’s a Ukrainian immigrant. She’s a young woman. She doesn’t know the customs and traditions as we do. She should have an expectation that when she comes here, that she will be safe. That’s our job as Americans. The public officials of Charlotte have to ensure the safety. They didn’t do it. They didn’t even charge admission. They did it by an honor system. They had no security.

More importantly, then we were told, “Well, we can’t really blame the three or four bystanders that didn’t jump to her aid because, you know, I mean, how did they know that they wouldn’t be stabbed?”

Well, if you look at the video very carefully, they looked at Mr. Decarlos Brown Jr., and they, in the corner of their eye, saw what he was doing. There were three or four of them. I think if Daniel Penny can stop one person from harassing and probably violently attacking others, four people, together, could have stopped him.

But put that aside. He walked out, Mr. Decarlos Brown, after he executed her. And in her death throes, he wasn’t there. All they had to do was step aside. I don’t know if they could have staunched such a horrific wound and saved her life, but they made no effort. In fact, they looked out of the corner of their eye and they walked by. What callousness in the country have we inculcated?

Now there’s a big controversy over whether he said, “I got the white girl” or “Got the white girl.” He said it twice on the video. I don’t know if the video was doctored or not, but if it was not doctored, it hasn’t been in the mainstream press because there’s another pathology that people do not want to talk about the truth.

The truth is that we have a crime problem in the United States in the African-American inner city. Not in rural African-American communities. Not in African-American women. Not necessarily in African-American men over 40 or 50. But from 15 to 40, that demographic comprises about 3% of the country, and they’re committing about 50% of the violent crimes, as we saw with Iryna. And yet, we didn’t talk about it.

In fact, we were told by the mayor not to politicize this. She politicized this by saying that arresting people would not solve the problem. Had you arrested Mr. Decarlos Brown, it would’ve solved the problem. She said, “We can’t demonize the homelessness.” If demonizing the homelessness means that they’re not going to slit somebody’s throat, I will prefer that Iryna be alive and I will demonize Mr. Decarlos Brown for having 14 felonies.

And finally, another pathology or another wound was revealed. The magistrate, Teresa Stokes, allowed him, with 14 felonies, up on another felony of misusing the 911 system. That in itself may not have been an existential crime, but given his record of violence, why didn’t she keep him in jail? Why wasn’t there an indictment and a trial and conviction?

You know why there wasn’t? Because Teresa Stokes herself was a magistrate. And what place in America allows a judge to have a courtroom and adjudicate guilt or innocence or sentencing when she has no law degree? She never even passed the bar. She didn’t take the bar. She just had a bachelor’s degree.

More importantly, when in America does a judge who sentenced criminals to various treatment programs, alternative sentencing, jail have a vested financial interest in a particular alternate treatment? She did both in, allegedly, in Charlotte, North Carolina, and she had one in Michigan.

So, you had a judge without a legal degree who would not pass the bar, had not taken the bar, letting out a career felon and sentencing him to alternate treatments, of which, in the past, she’s had a financial interest. Only in America, today, could that happen.

Why did it happen? Because apparently, people feel that it’s somewhat not diverse or not equal or it’s not inclusive to require someone to have a law degree to be a judge. And therefore, you have Teresa Stokes. And therefore, you have no sentencing, no confinement for Decarlos Brown.

And therefore, you have him not having to pay anything to get onto the light-rail car with no security there. And then he comes in with a knife. You’re not supposed to have a hidden weapon, but who cares in America? And he mutters as he walks out that he, supposedly—it’s not proven, but you can hear it on the video—that he “got the white girl.”

And then only in America will the commentary say, “Don’t mention race, don’t mention homelessness, don’t mention having people arrested. That wouldn’t make any difference.” It made all the difference.

Why 118 Congressional Democrats Snubbed Charlie Kirk

 

Not long ago, the House of Representatives passed a resolution commemorating the tragic shooting of the speaker of the Minnesota State Legislature and her husband and the wounding of another representative and his spouse. And it was unanimous.

All, I think it was 425 votes of the 436 or 437 representatives that were present, voted unanimously. It was nonpartisan.

The shooter was a fanatic anti-abortionist, but he also had been appointed to, I think, a board by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. So, nobody really quite knew what his politics were, other than he was violent.

So, this time there was another resolution to honor the life and legacy of Charlie Kirk. But this time there was no such bipartisanship. One hundred and eighteen of the Democratic members of the House either voted “no” or voted to abstain from voting “yes” by voting “present,” or just wouldn’t vote or didn’t show up. That was a majority of all the Democrats.

It did pass, but 118 Democrats wished that it hadn’t. In other words, they didn’t even want to have the courtesy, after a man had been assassinated, who had such a wide influence on youth of this country, to honor what he had done.

And this brings up a greater question: Why?

Well, if you listen to what Rep. Ilhan Omar said about him, that he was a racist and he was a racist every day of his life. And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she was not going to honor him.

And Rep. Jasmine Crockett said Caucasians, only two Caucasians—that was not true, by the way, as everything she says is almost not true. She was angry because only two Caucasians, she said, had voted “no.” In fact, if you include the presents and those who didn’t vote, there were quite a lot of proverbial white people that did not want to honor him.

But all three of those representatives that are often mentioned as the future of the new Democratic Party had one thing in common. They either did not quote or cite evidence that Charlie Kirk was a racist or, to the degree they tried to quote or refer to something he said, they did it inaccurately. Because he was not a racist.

In fact, there are plenty of clips when he is the master of ceremonies, and someone in the audience says he is a racist, a white supremacist, Charlie Kirk gets very angry and debates him and refutes him. So, it was just the opposite.

What they’re angry about was—what was Charlie Kirk?

I said in an earlier video, he was very successful in channeling the natural rebelliousness of youth to focus against the establishment. He’s saying to young people: The establishment are baby boomer leftists, and these are the people who are responsible for a lot of our unhappiness. And that’s why they’re angry. And he was also angry at racialists, tribalists—like Jasmine Crockett, like AOC, like Ilhan Omar—who self-identify, essentially, by their skin color or appearance rather than incidentally.

You got to collate when this event, this callousness took place. This is at a time when Tyler Robinson just simply killed Charlie Kirk, murdered him, and was a hardcore leftist, and had trans issues.

This was at a time when, we talked about earlier, Iryna Zarutska had been murdered by a 14-time released felon.

This was a time when Luigi Mangione assassinated a UnitedHealthcare executive and was canonized by the Left.

This is a time when my governor, Gavin Newsom, in a series of tweets, just recently said to Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, who oversees the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, that you’re going to have a bad day.

In fact, just today, as I am speaking, a left-wing gunman who engraved his bullets with “Get ICE” or “Hate ICE,” or something to that effect, started shooting at an ICE detention center in Dallas, Texas. Killed one and severely injured two. And these were probably detainees.

So, in addition to that, Gavin Newsom, in August, had said that he wants to take on the bully president and beat him up, smash him “in the mouth.” Then he said, to half the country, I want to take these SOBs and hit “them in the mouth.” This was a governor of a state.

Collate it all. I have a final question, for all of us. Does this hatred that manifests itself among the Left, is it top-down? Does it trickle down from Gavin Newsom? Does it trickle down from Jasmine Crockett? And it goes all the way down and then we see people like Tyler Robinson absorb it? Or Luigi Mangione absorb it? Or Antifa absorb it? Is that what’s happening? Or is it bottom-up?

In other words, the Black Lives Matters of the world, the Antifas of the world, the shooters of the world, the crazy trans shooters, lately, they are the shock troops and their attack on Tesla or their attack on ICE facilities, that filters up. And then the politicians are in panic, start to reflect those views and amplify them, so that they don’t feel they’ve lost their base.

What’s the answer? I don’t care. I don’t care if it’s top-down or bottom-up, or both, or neither. Something is very wrong with the Left. They have embraced violence. And they have justified it. They feel that their superiority, in terms of morality and wisdom, justifies any means necessary. And they become very dangerous people.

Democrats, Tell Your Perverted Allies to Stop Murdering People

 

There’s a famous clip of the late, great Andrew Breitbart confronting a crowd of leftist weirdos, losers, and mutations – but I repeat myself – and shouting “Stop raping people!” Leftists were, in fact, raping people, just as leftists are now, in fact, murdering people – specifically us conservatives. The biggest free speech atrocity in recent memory is not the sidelining of some late-night leftist hack who is as funny as an anal abscess; it's a leftist shooting Charlie Kirk. A Democrat ally killed him to shut him up, and thereby shut us up, and many Democrats cheered. That’s the point. That’s the narrative, and we have to remember it, highlight it, and never let anyone forget it.

Bloody public assassinations of civil rights leaders being a bad look – at least to normal people – Democrats are doing everything they can to obscure the fact that they and their pet psychopathic demons want us disarmed, disenfranchised, and/or dead. Even< the Fredocons who used to tut-tut at us when we pointed out the murderous fantasies and aspirations of these creeps – “Stop saying they want us dead, you big meanies.

That’s not who we are. Oh well, I never!” – have had to concede that yes, that is exactly what the left wants. Now we need to transmit this truth to normal people. And we need to make sure that the left does not somehow muddy the waters with their “What about muh conservatives!” crap.

We need to keep telling them to stop murdering people.

Stop murdering people, you sociopaths.

When they weren’t outright cheering Charlie’s murder, they were covering it up. Well, they can’t cover up the killing itself, but they can try to change the subject. Once the initial celebrations died down – another bad look – it’s been nothing but dissembling, distraction, and outright deceit since the gun smoke cleared. First, they tried to shift the blame. When their “Charlie was asking for it by speaking freely” flex fell flat, they decided to go with trying to pin it on Charlie’s own people. Who would kill a conservative icon? A conservative, of course, because reasons and you’re fascists.

Then, when it turned out the leftist killer was hooked up in a human centipede with some trans furry pervert, well, that clinched it, because nothing says “MAGA” like hooking up in a human centipede with some trans furry pervert. His own words and actions demonstrating his allegiance to the chosen ideology of the Democrat Party were, in fact, a clever ruse to throw us off the scent. And his admission that he killed Charlie Kirk because he was mad that Charlie Kirk refused to validate the forbidden – for good reason – love between he and She-Ra the Anime Anteater was incomprehensible. Why, who can really say what a direct confession of the act and his motivation really means? It’s obscure. You can’t really tell. Occam’s Razor is, of course, racist.

The criminal charges blew that whole charade out of the water like a Venezuelan fentanyl ferry – but not for everyone. There remain a bunch of leftists still giving the “He was ackshally right-wing” narrative a good, old-fashioned college try – that is, trying the commie agitation and propaganda tactics the practitioners learned in college. But most of Team Goebbels took the hint and pivoted to something new.

They became freshly minted free speech absolutists, though, in reality, the only thing absolute about them is their absolute shamelessness. These are the same lil’ stormtroopers who were gleefully cheering on the wholesale censorship of conservatives by the Biden administration and its corporate cronies. Kick the leader of the opposition party off social media? Yes, please! It was especially remarkable when they howled that the removal of Jimmy Kimmel was an unprecedented attack on free speech. I guess they forgot about what happened a week before, when one of their fellow travelers shot Charlie Kirk while and for speaking.

They saw their chance to grab the spotlight by canonizing St. Jimmy, the patron saint of hack insights and flop sweat. ABC’s rural affiliates decided their audience did not want to watch that late-night ratings black hole slime the dead and slander the living, and revolted. ABC was probably delighted to unload its dead-weight host. His viewership had shrunk smaller than Robert Reich after a cold swim; even without his obnoxious behavior, Kimmel would have lasted in that money pit of a gig about as long as a glazed doughnut in the vicinity of JB Pritzker. This crisis was an opportunity to punt that loser, and ABC took it.

The left ran with the opportunity to change the subject. Instantly, the memo went out.

ABC firing its failed stuporstar was the Alien and Sedition Acts times McCarthyism plus Al Gore’s ex-wife’s (Tipper was so uptight and uncool about those massages!) campaign against 2 Live Crew – suddenly, as far as the First Amendment went, the left was “Me love you long time.” (No, I am not linking it!)

Yes, the left suddenly rediscovered its love affair with the 1A right then and there, declaring their commitment to free speech in terms almost as cringe as the declarations of unnatural love in their ally the killer’s text chain to his furry with benefits. Why, how dare you fire a comedian for the crime of doing comedy? Well, apparently, a comedian not named Roseanne.

Of course, Jimmy Kimmel does not do comedy; he does political schtick to impotent boomers with nothing better to do in bed at 11:30 p.m. than watch political diatribes broken up by occasional animal acts, crank calls, and appearances from the geriatric cast pimping the 73rd season of Grey’s Anatomy. But that’s not the issue. The issue is that they want to find the best ground to defend in the wake of their freak friend’s despicable murder and the blowback from the ugly women, femmy dudes, and gender-indeterminate strange-os who could not keep their fat, pierced traps shut. Turns out normal people think it’s bad to cheer on a public assassination.

Well, we can’t let them change the narrative. Our narrative has the formidable advantage of being objectively true. It’s a simple narrative, the best kind.

Democrats need to tell their perverted allies to stop murdering people.

The Democratic Party Is Becoming the Manson Family

 

I’m just going to say it.  The Democratic Party seems to be turning into a death cult. It reminds me increasingly of the murderous following that developed around the 1960s psychopath, Charles Manson, which came to be known as the Manson Family.

For those too young to remember, or need a short refresher, Charles Manson was a career criminal and amateur musician and songwriter. He lived on the fringes of Los Angeles in the 1960s after spending much of his youth in Ohio and West Virginia committing petty crimes and being incarcerated. He eventually wound up in California and spent time in prison, and then in Washington state, where a fellow inmate taught him to play guitar.

Manson became involved in drug experimentation, including LSD (reportedly as part of a CIA program). While living in the Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco in the late 1960s, he began to preach his own brand of philosophy that married up scientology, Dale Carnegie, and the Beatles. He attracted a following of mostly female fans, largely by manipulating troubled personalities with drugs and his strange proselytizing. They lived in a communal house in Topanga Canyon near Los Angeles. Combining LSD and mind-control, Manson sought to have all his “family” completely submit to his will.

Beginning in 1969, Manson and his followers committed a series of murders in California, the most notorious of which were the Tate-LaBianca murders. Manson ordered four of his followers, three female and one male, to go to a luxurious home near Beverly Hills that was occupied by 26-year-old film actress Sharon Tate, who was 8 ½ months pregnant, and three of her friends. Manson told his four disciples to “totally destroy” everyone in the house “as gruesome as you can.” Manson’s followers didn’t disappoint.  

The mayhem and murders of the home’s occupants after the Manson followers broke in were incredibly brutal. They were shot, stabbed, beaten and hung.  In addition to Tate and her three friends, the baby in Tate’s womb died, as did a hapless friend of the home’s caretaker who happened to drive up to the property shortly before the start of the rampage.

The following night, Manson ordered his followers to murder supermarket executive Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, in their Los Angeles area estate. Their murders were equally gruesome.

The perpetrators were soon identified and apprehended, and their trials became a spectacle. Manson would carve an ‘X’ into his forehead, while the female defendants in the murder trials would duplicate the mark on their own foreheads, followed by other members of the Manson Family who were not on trial, but were holding vigils outside the courthouse. (Manson, with his penchant for theatricality, would later turn the ‘X’ into a swastika.)

In August 1969, President Richard Nixon complained that the media were trying to glamorize the Manson Family members, which resonates today, as we see the media glamorize Luigi Mangione, the killer of a healthcare executive. Charles Manson tried to physically attack Judge Charles Older, overseeing his trial, in the courtroom, prompting the judge to arm himself subsequently. Eventually all those charged were convicted and incarcerated for the murders. Manson would die in prison in 2017.

The cultural phenomenon that followed the Manson killings was shocking. Former Weather Underground member, Bernadine Dohrn, who later became a law professor and wife of Barack Obama’s pal, Bill Ayres, said of the murders: “Dig it, first they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into the pig Tate's stomach! Wild!"

We are now witnessing a shocking celebratory reaction of Charlie Kirk’s horrifying public assassination among many on America’s left and in the Democratic Party.  Teachers, professors, physicians, lawyers, and corporate executives have mocked or praised Kirk’s murder. Indeed, the No. 1 demographic celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder is reportedly professors and teachers. One can find countless videos posted to social media of disgusting displays of individuals celebrating the brutal slaying of this man, whose uniquely effective debating skills were too much for them to bear.

New polling data reveals a stunning level of acceptance of political violence on the part of American liberals. The question, “Do you generally consider it to be acceptable or unacceptable for a person to be happy about the death of a public figure they oppose?” was met with nearly a quarter of individuals who identified as “very liberal” – 24 percent – responding that it was “always or usually acceptable.” Three percent of those who identified as “very conservative” agreed with that sentiment.

Some Republicans have expressed concern about the potential development on the American left of an “assassination culture” in America.

Just as Charles Manson’s “family” of drug-addled psychopaths had been conditioned to completely submit to the will of their leader, too many Democrats seem to have lost their humanity and have been conditioned to embrace or accept homicide as a tactic in realizing their goals. The same penchants for narcissism, nihilism and public spectacle that drove Manson are what we are witnessing among much of America’s left today.  

Advertisement

Charlie Kirk was the nice guy on the conservative side who thought that his political opponents could be reasoned with by using logical arguments.  It cost him his life. My fervent hope is that the Democratic Party does not continue its descent into Manson-like psychopathy. Better yet, maybe many of its members will wake up and leave that party altogether.

Charlie Kirk’s Fight to Rescue a Generation From University Indoctrination

 

I think we all want to put the passing of Charlie Kirk in perspective. And it’s been a terrible week. And what are we to make sense of this terrible incident? One thing is to remember what Charlie Kirk did.

He was a political organizer. He was a media figure. But he was not trying to persuade people on the basis solely of politics. He didn’t go to the campuses and say, “This is the conservative agenda. This is the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill.’ This is the immigration. And I want you to vote along this ticket.” That’s what a traditional politician does. He wasn’t.

What he was trying to do was address root causes that make people vote in a particular way. So, he was saying to the Republican Party: We’ve got to address this existential crisis of young people—that was his forte—on campuses and off campuses that can’t afford to buy a car, that can’t afford to buy a home, that can’t afford, right away, to have children.

And that has enormous consequences, not just for the Republican Party—this alienation of the youth and its flirtation with socialisms and its false answers to these real problems. But more importantly, it’s creating a social, cultural problem called ”prolonged adolescence.”

People are not getting married at the age they used to. They’re not having as many children or as early in their lives as they used to. They’re not buying homes in their late 20s or early 30s. They’re going to school, not for four years, but for six or eight years. They’re not going and graduating after four years and getting a good job. They’re graduating at six, eight years with a quarter million dollars—in some cases—in student loans.

So, he was trying to address the cultural, the economic, the social maladies of this country that expressed themselves in politics. And he thought if he took care of that, then he would be successful elsewhere. And so, he was.

So, if you look at 2020, why Donald Trump lost, one of the reasons was that the youth vote that traditionally goes to Democrats really went to Democrats, Joe Biden in 2020. That key demographic of 19- to 40-year-olds. However, in 2024, Donald Trump made amazing rebounds. He got, nationwide, 6% to 8%, about 8% higher of that youth vote than he did in 2020.

But more importantly, in the key swing states—that would be places like Michigan, like Wisconsin, like North Carolina, like Arizona and Georgia—in some cases, he got up to 18% to 19%, flipping a greater margin in 2024 than he did 2020. And that ensured him an Electoral College.

And that was largely, not exclusively, due to Charlie Kirk’s efforts at addressing the real issues that young people were worried about.

There’s a couple of other things about him that were unusual. He was the most successful political activist under 40 of either party, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. And one of the reasons is it’s very hard for someone coming out of college to be a political organizer, a political activist, to create a business-like organization, although it was a 501(c)(3), it was nonprofit. But it was huge, with $100 million budget.

He was a writer. He was a podcaster. Part of that was because he did not go in the traditional academic pathway. He dropped out of college at 18. And he had to live by his wits, not in the artificial bubble of academia or the la-la land of the campus, where there are no consequences to behavior. But he had to earn a living. And he had to form an organization. And he had to appeal to people.

So, pragmatism was his benchmark. And so, he learned to speak to people in a practical way. He learned to write with people in a pragmatic way. He learned to organize and galvanize people in a practical way.

And he said, “The universities are training generation after generation after generation in this seriously dangerous leftist dogma.”

In other words, if you’re worried about this bizarre transgender movement, this cult-like effort to have biological men compete in women’s sports, to take one example; or you’re worried about the idea that you can steal $950 and not be prosecuted; or if you think that race is essential and not incidental to who you are—where did these things come from?

And he said they came from the campus. “And therefore, I’m going to the campus and trying to stop this indoctrination by offering a different pathway.”

You put it all together and if people want to remember Charles Kirk’s legacy, I think the best thing they could do is register, according to your station. Get as many people as you can to register to vote. And try to upset the historical law that says a president will lose and lose badly in his first midterm. If that should happen, President Donald Trump will have an agenda that will be derailed, and he will not be able to fulfill the promises that he made. And the Democratic House, in its lunatic fashion, will try to impeach him.

But if you do go out and register and you show the same energy and creativity that Charlie Kirk did, then you can pull off a historical upset and defeat the out party and ensure a large Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. And that will force multiply the Trump agenda.

The Left Can’t Handle Cancel Culture After Charlie Kirk Assassination

 

We’ve had a culture of about five years of what I would call cancel culture, deplatforming, doxing, blacklisting, using all sorts of methods to suppress free speech. That was one of the reasons why Elon Musk paid such an exorbitant sum for the old Twitter: to allow free speech.

And cancel culture said that if you voice something that was considered illiberal, you were gonna lose your job. We saw that through #MeToo, when a number of Hollywood luminaries and professors were fired because they had said or done something considered sexist or ill-advised. We saw that on matters of race after George Floyd.

But what’s happened now is the death of Charlie Kirk has kind of turned the tables. People who are using that death to comment in criticism of him before he is even buried are now facing, not censorship, but certain platforms, media platforms especially, are saying, “We just don’t want you to be here anymore. It’s not that we don’t like you. We’re not trying to censor you. We’re just giving you the Joy Reid treatment.”

Joy Reid, remember, was the cable media commentator who, night after night, could not finish a sentence without talking about “white people,” as her ratings went down and down. And she was finally let go. It wasn’t that people said that they were trying to silence her. They just said, “You can go do your own podcast.” In fact, she did her own podcast. I’ve watched one of them. And you can see why she was, indeed, fired. All she can talk about is “white people.” And people don’t want to hear that.

Recently, Karen Attiah, a columnist for The Washington Post, is very furious because, in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, she talked about him being a racist white man. And they felt, you know—Jeff Bezos is the owner. They just felt, you know, we’ve had enough of that. We saw a lot of that with Don Lemon. We see that with Al Sharpton. People are just tired of “race, race, race, race, race.”

Charlie Kirk had said something—he didn’t talk about black women, pejoratives, as a collective. He said that Ketanji Brown Jackson, a justice, and Joy Reid, in particular, a couple of other women—I think Michelle Obama—were not qualified, according to meritocratic standards. I don’t know if that’s true or not. But he said that DEI considerations had been used for their elevation or prominence.

In a way, I suppose he would say, why is Melania Trump not on Vogue but Michelle Obama was? I would say, I don’t know if it has anything to do with race or not, but it might have just as much to do with left-wing politics.

But nevertheless, they have been canceled and they’re very, very angry. And they feel that the Charles Kirk death/assassination has opened the gates of censorship. No, it hasn’t. It’s making a larger point, that when somebody dies, there’s a period, traditionally, of grace.

They’re also very angry because the murder of Iryna Zarutska opened the gates, they feel, of collectivizing, stereotyping black crime in a way that’s unfair. And they kind of say the Right wants a George Floyd moment.

But remember one thing, it’s very, very important about this dichotomy, this dialogue back and forth: When George Floyd died under police custody, he was used by the Left to advance a larger agenda, based on a premise. And we were told that George Floyd died violently while in police custody because this was a normal event in the United States, where police systematically killed suspect, unarmed black males. That was not true. That was not true.

The Washington Post found that of all the people who come in contact with the police—that’s a very important qualifier—black suspects who are unarmed are killed by police no more than their percentage in the demographic. Roland Fryer pointed that out, at his expense because, of course, he was criticized for doing it. He was the Harvard economist who did a study on it.

That’s very different than Iryna Zarutska because conservatives, like the late Charlie Kirk and others, were making a point that that represents a phenomenon that people are not talking about. Is it true or not? In the case of George Floyd, it prompted a conversation that the Left used when they knew the data was wrong. They knew that police were not shooting inordinate black, unarmed suspects, but they said they were. And the rest is history: defund the police, cashless bail, etc.

But in this case, it is true that Decarlos Brown and African American males between the ages of 15 to 40 compose a demographic of about 3% of the general population, and yet, they account for about half of all violent crimes and rare interracial crimes, such as we saw on the light rail in North Carolina. They are six to 10 times, depending on the nature of the violent crime, more likely to attack a white victim than a white victimizer is a black victim. That’s just a fact.

And that horrific death on the light rail brought attention to that reality in a way that conservatives wanted to point out that this was a national crisis.

But on the other hand, when liberals and leftists tried to say that George Floyd needed our attention to a national crisis, there was no empirical information, there was no data, there was no research that supported that position. And that was the difference.

And so, I think it’s very important—a final note—that when people want to comment on the death of Charlie Kirk, there’s two issues involved.

All of us, traditionally, in Judeo-Christian society, feel that there’s a grace period. That we do not attack people who have recently been dead. “Don’t speak ill of the dead.” It’s a famous Latin phrase.

Second, if you are going to speak ill of the dead and violate that canon, then you have to be accurate and not just—you have to point out that this represents something that is supported by evidence.

And in the case of George Floyd, there was no evidence for police overrepresentation of black suspects as victims. In the case of the Ukrainian immigrant, there was a lot of evidence that Decarlos Brown was not unusual, that he represented a particular demographic that inordinately was responsible for crime, and in rare cases of interracial crime, was inordinately represented as the victimizer class.

When people pointed that out, as Charlie Kirk did, he was not wrong for doing that. And it was wrong, in the wake of his death, to criticize him as a white man. And people lost their jobs, accordingly.

Debunking the Left’s Series of Lies Following Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

 

We’re now approaching the first week of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And the Left has put out, I would call them, a series of lies or untruths that are trying to confuse the American people about what happened on that Utah campus.

Let’s do No. 1. They say this is the “conservatives’ George Floyd moment.”

It is not a George Floyd moment. In 2020, after the death of George Floyd, Antifa and Black Lives Matter led five months of violent protests: 35 people killed; 1,500 police officers injured; historic church, torched; police precinct, torched; federal courthouse, torched. In addition to that, we had 1,500 officers injured, $2 billion of property damage, arson, looting, violence. Tried to rush President Donald Trump in the White House and tried to get him on the grounds and sent him to the White House bunker.

That didn’t happen after the death of Charlie Kirk. All people did was try to double down on his efforts. They tried to subscribe, in great numbers, to Turning Point USA. They talked about registering to vote. But it was all peaceful and calm. It was not anything like George Floyd.

No. 2: George Floyd should not have died in police custody.

I’m not going to assess that blame one way or the other. And that was a tragedy that he died. But Charlie Kirk was not anything like George Floyd.

George Floyd was an eight-time career criminal. Eight times he had been convicted of crimes. He was a prison convict. He staged a home invasion robbery and put a knife at the abdomen of the occupant, a young woman.

George Floyd would’ve been fine if he had not been trying to pass counterfeit currency. That’s the only reason he had the encounter with the police. The store owner was scared that this stranger came in, was passing fake bills. They called the police.

He had a second chance. All he had to do was obey the police and get in the car and go to the police station. There would’ve been no problem. He was on amphetamines. He was on fentanyl. He had a COVID-19 disease. He had not been a good father.

Charlie Kirk had never been involved with law enforcement in a negative fashion. He had two kids. He had a wonderful wife. He had a stable family. He was just the antithesis of George Floyd. There was nothing at all similar.

A third lie about the passing of Charlie Kirk as well: This was a Right-on-Right violence because Tyler Robinson, the assassin, came from a Mormon family. And even his trans, transitioning boyfriend/girlfriend that he lived with, he too/she too was from a Mormon—that’s about as close as you can get to that untruth.

In fact, he took the effort to scrawl on the cartridges of the shells that he intended to kill Charlie Kirk—and one did. He had—what did he have on it? He had Antifa logos. Both in Italian and English. He had trans messaging. He was, on record, on a trans chat site, a group of radical people talking about—people were talking about, joking about killing Charlie Kirk.

People who knew him said that he was obsessed with the upcoming arrival of Charlie Kirk, that he damned him at a family dinner. People who knew him said that he was bragging what a great shot he was and how far Left he was.

That was a proven fact, that the person who killed Charlie Kirk was a member of the Left. Just exactly like Luigi Mangione or the Tsarnaev brothers, and a whole list of people who’ve tried to take out people as varied as the Jewish couple that was killed and butchered at the Jewish museum in Washington, D.C., or the former Bernie Sanders activist who tried to kill some of the Republican leadership and almost killed Rep. Steve Scalise.

So, that was untrue.

And finally, it’s very important to see that, as a reaction to the death of Charlie Kirk, there’s nobody going out and threatening everybody. There’s nobody saying that we have to go after this particular person on the Left, we have to do this particular person, we have to have vast new laws to protect Charlie Kirk.

There’s anger that the Left has been promiscuous in the use of Nazi and fascism that lowered the bar of the acceptable. But it’s not like George Floyd, where all of a sudden, people on the Left—remember they were kneeling in the Rotunda, Rep. Nancy Pelosi. And immediately, immediately, the bureaucracy—then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin—they used that occasion to mandate radical DEI transformations in our society.

The University of Chicago, to take one example, announced that their English department would take no applicants unless they were black studies concentrators.

So, the Left seized that moment and tried to push through agendas—and were successful—that otherwise would not have happened. Nobody’s trying to do that now.

They’re trying to commemorate Charlie Kirk by one positive way, and that is everybody go out and register to vote. Register as many people as you have. Register more people that are young and conservative than has ever been registered before. And then turn out in the November midterms in one year. And then do the impossible. Overturn historical precedent and elect a conservative House and Senate to empower a conservative Charlie Kirk agenda.

Charlie Kirk’s Bold Mission to Rescue a Lost Generation

 I

’d like to comment on the legacy of the late Charlie Kirk and why he is going to be remembered and what he accomplished.

There’s been a lot of encomia about him, but I think one of the most unusual things that he did was he changed politics, but he didn’t address political issues first. In other words, he saw politics as a reflection of deeper social, economic, and cultural issues.

I talked to him in late August, and what he was intent on was trying to tell a new generation of Americans that they were suffering from prolonged adolescence, and part of that wasn’t their fault.

He was arguing that the Republican Party cannot empower people like [New York City mayoral candidate] Zohran Mamdani and the socialist Left, who have no solutions and will make things worse, but they have to address why they are popular.

Some of it, of course, is ignorance, but what he was trying to say is that people who cannot afford a home, they cannot afford energy, they cannot afford gasoline, they can’t afford to buy a car, they prolong their adolescence. They do not get married, or they’ve been indoctrinated in college that the nuclear family is toxic, or they don’t understand the beauty of child raising or raising children. And in a larger sense, these personal decisions they’re making are not only making them unhappy, but they’re hurting the country.

In other words, we’re suffering from 1.6 fertility, a radical drop in the last quarter century from 2.0 at the turn of the millennium.

And what he was also trying to say is that there were solutions to these problems in sort of the red state paradigm in places like Florida, in places like Texas, in places like Arizona, in places somewhat like Nevada, where people were moving to—4 million, 6 million people a year—and they felt they could afford insurance, they could buy a car, it was safe, homes were affordable, they could get married at an earlier age, they could rediscover traditional norms of their grandparents.

So, he was concentrated, not in those areas, but in the swing states, especially in the 2024 election—Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, not Minnesota so much, but Michigan, somewhat Minnesota—and then blue states because he thought the battle had been won.

We turned to common sense in half the country, but he was going as an emissary into hostile territory and telling people:

There is a reason why you’re leaving in the millions. There is a reason why you’re not buying houses. We have to look at zoning laws. We have to look at energy production. We have to unleash people’s individual talent to produce more goods and services at an affordable price.

We have to champion the idea that a two-parent family is not aberrant. It was the historical norm for 2,500 years. It’s a good thing to have two or three children. It’s a good thing to be a young person and wanna buy a house in your 20s and not in your 40s, or to have a child in your 20s and not in your late 30s.

Nothing wrong with the latter, but he was trying to offer a different paradigm that had proved successful.

The second thing, very quickly, about him is his methodology was as varied as his message. In other words, to get that message across that there were cultural, social, economic factors that reflected one’s political view, and if you’re gonna win people over to the conservative politics, you have to explain socially, culturally, and economically why they’re not receptive at first and what can be done about it. But he also was a good orator.

He spoke extemporaneously. He had one year of college, and he waded into Oxford and Cambridge and took on people at, supposedly, the most prestigious universities in the English-speaking world. He could write. He created this huge organization, $100 million budget, somebody—we don’t do that in America without an MBA or a B.A. So, he was a multitalented figure.

And then, finally, as Aristotle said, courage is the most important of all virtues. And he was not afraid of his person. He was not afraid of getting into arguments with people. He was not intimidated by Ph.D.s, J.D.s, MBAs.

So, he was a rare individual. And I don’t think we’re gonna see anybody like him. I can’t think of anybody on the conservative or the Left that has that many skills and that many talents and that much energy, and more importantly, saw that the problem with America is not whether you’re conservative or liberal per se, not necessarily, but why you are.

And people who have some faith and some vision of being economically viable, and they can marry at an age at which they want to, they can have as many children as they please, they can buy a home, they are happier people. And the Republican Party in the past has not always ensured that they have that opportunity, and he was trying to address it.

A new install of Batocera Linux 41 over 33 would erase everything

 

I have Batocera Linux 33 with linux kernel 5.15 from 2022 and everything seems to work great except for Wii U emulator of Mario Kart 8. Off the Batocera Linux website, it said it would reformat the hard drive and I would loose all the ISOs and Roms on the hard drive meaning I can’t update to Batocera 41 with Linux Kernel 6.11 and lots of upgrades. The roms pretty much work from 2022 up to PS3 playing Ridge Racer 7 and Castlevania for PS3. Its already playable on Batocera 33. It beat theres a frame rate increase with Linux kernel 6.11 over 5.15. I can’t do it.

memories of a Previous adult life

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20060316031232/http://www.catharton.net/electronica/index.php?action=profile;u=424

https://web.archive.org/web/20040509101251/http://www.catharton.net/electronica/index.php

Pilots, Other Professionals Who Mocked Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Get Grounded

A number of commercial pilots and other professionals who cheered or mocked the assassination of Charlie Kirk have been fired. 

Those pilots worked for American Air and Delta.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy posted: 

"American Airlines pilots who were caught celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk have been immediately grounded and removed from service by @AmericanAir.

This behavior is disgusting and they should be fired.

Any company responsible for the safety of the traveling public cannot tolerate that behavior.

We heal as a country when we send the message that glorifying political violence is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!

A Delta pilot was also fired.

Kirk came to the college campus to debate. He'd been debating since he started Turning Point USA at age 18 in a garage. He skipped college and grew that company to found chapters on college campuses nationwide. 

Only hours and days after the public assassination of Kirk by an extremists, many sprinted to social media to declare a political win or chase clout using Kirk's murder. 

A Financial aid advisor at Iowa State University responded to Kirk's muder, saying  “This jackass got what was coming and I’m happy he’s rotting in hell”.

Your Firefox settings blocked this content from tracking you across sites or being used for ads.

Iowa State University hasn't responded to a request for comment. 

Also this weekend, a Michigan Office Depot refused to print posters for a Charlie Kirk vigil. The employees called the poster "propaganda."

Those employees were fired after the viral video, Office Depot told Townhall in an email. 

Your Firefox settings blocked this content from tracking you across sites or being used for ads.

"As confirmed in our public statement, we are deeply concerned by the unfortunate customer experience that occurred at Store 3382 in Portage, Michigan. The behavior displayed by our associate is completely unacceptable and insensitive, violates our company policies, and does not reflect the values we uphold at Office Depot. On behalf of the Company, we sincerely apologize for this regrettable situation.

"Upon learning of the incident, we immediately reached out to the customer to address their concerns and seek to fulfill their order to their satisfaction. We also launched an immediate internal review and, as a result, the associate involved is no longer with the organization.  We continue to aggressively investigate the matter and will take action where appropriate."

"We are committed to reinforcing training with all team members to ensure our standards of respect, integrity, and customer service are upheld at every location. Our customers and communities deserve nothing less."

Some people who posted hateful things about Kirk work or worked for hospitals. 

Your Firefox settings blocked this content from tracking you across sites or being used for ads.

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Archaeology Proves King David a Historical Figure at Bible Museum in D.C.

 

A secular news article prompted those studies. But today’s was inspired by a press release headlined: “Museum of the Bible to Display Earliest Historical Reference to King David, the Tel Dan Stele.”

Note a crucial archaeological difference between the Jesus boat and the Tel Dan Stele. The “Jesus boat” is unproven to be the exact boat mentioned in the Gospel accounts, but it COULD BE based on its first-century date, size, and location. However, the Tel Dan Stele is authentic—a 3,000-year-old basalt fragment with inscriptions that reference Old Testament accounts of biblical characters. But both discoveries explain why I am such a huge fan of biblical archaeology.

This exciting field consistently confirms or aligns with God’s Word. My previous studies discussed evidence for Noah’s Ark in Vol. 259 and burnt offerings in Vol. 126. Best of all, we can expect new technologies and changing climate conditions to facilitate the discovery of more ancient artifacts and ruins, keeping the Bible alive, relevant, and real. 

Now, let’s return to the Museum of the Bible’s new exhibit and its significance for faith readers. The press release quotes Chief Curatorial Officer Bobby Duke: 

“The Tel Dan Stele is one of the most significant discoveries made in biblical archaeology. Until its discovery, some academics questioned the validity of King David as a historical figure. For the first time in history, we have an inscription outside of the Bible that directly references the dynasty of David and confirms Old Testament accounts.” 

After inquiring about the newly opened exhibit, a museum spokesperson said that “feedback for the House of David exhibit has been positive so far. Guests are delighted by the Tel Dan Stele’s authenticity and how it represents an important figure in the Bible.”

My loyal readers know that I frequently write about King David and have a special affinity for his Psalms. Check out the recent second annual “Psalm Summer” series featuring Volumes 274, 275, 281, and 282.

David connected with God through genuine human emotions. Thus, I never thought he could be a fictional character. David was honest about his flaws. He was a talented sinner and leader who suffered and triumphed. No matter the circumstances, he loved the Lord and prophesied about the Messiah. Therefore, seeing physical proof of David’s existence can be a reason for doubters and non-believers to reconsider their stance; read the Bible to learn about him and his relationship with God.

Here is more about the Tel Dan Stele. It was discovered in 1993 and is owned by the Israel Antiquities Authority. They created an exhibit, which is on display at the Museum of the Bible at no charge, beginning this month and running through November 3, 2025.

Advertisement

Carved in Hebrew, the most prominent inscription on the Tel Dan Stele is “House of David,” a “Judahite title used 26 times in the Hebrew Bible” (Old Testament), according to the Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology.  The description continues:

“The wider inscription, describing the deaths of kings Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah during battle against Hazael, fits alongside the account in 2 Kings 9. Really, though, the details of the inscription are overshadowed by the single line, ‘House of David.’”

That leads me to ask a critical question: Why is King David’s proven existence important to your faith in Jesus Christ? Answer: Not only is David the second most influential person in the Old Testament (after Moses), but more importantly, he is a foundational link in the messianic lineage that concludes with Jesus Christ.   

It is by divine design that the first chapter in the first book of the New Testament is the Gospel of Matthew. The primary purpose of his Gospel was to convince Jewish readers that Jesus was their Messiah. So, no better way than to begin with “The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.” David’s part of the lineage reads: 

“..and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife..” (Matthew 1:6). Since David lived then, in all likelihood, so did all who followed him, ending with:

“..and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah” (Matthew 1:16).

I am well aware that “Joseph, the husband of Mary,” is not Jesus’s father by DNA. Still, many Old Testament messianic prophecies reference David or his lineage to Jesus. For example, Isaiah’s prophecy in Chapter 11 is subtitled “The branch of Jesse.” It begins with “a shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse” (Isaiah 11:1).  

Then the prophet Jeremiah wrote about the David-related Messiah in Chapter 23:

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The Lord Our Righteous Savior” (Jeremiah 23: 5-6).

Also, numerous times in the New Testament, Jesus was referred to as “Son of David.” Most prominently on Palm Sunday:

“The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David!’ ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ‘Hosanna in the highest heaven!’ When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, ‘Who is this?’ The crowds answered, ‘This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee’” (Matthew 21:9-11).

And now you know why physical proof of David is so compelling to your belief in and love for Jesus Christ.

If you live in or plan to visit Washington, D.C., before November 3, try to stop by the Museum of the Bible. Your faith will grow when you see 3,000-year-old evidence that King David, who established the House of David and fathered King Solomon, was a real person connected to Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, the Jewish Messiah. 

Hosanna to the Son of David!  Amen!

Maher Calls Bible 'Wicked'; Ben Shapiro Reminds Him He Was Born on Biblical Third Base

 

Just days after the assassination of conservative leader Charlie Kirk, comedian and atheist Bill Maher took aim at the Bible itself, calling it “full of nonsense and wickedness.” The timing of the remarks, coming amid a national outpouring of grief for a man who championed faith and virtue, didn’t go unnoticed.

Maher made the comments during a discussion with Ben Shapiro. When pressed on his sweeping condemnation of Scripture, Maher doubled down, claiming “the Bible’s for slavery.”

But Shapiro, in classic form, dismantled the argument—not with rage, but with reason.

“If that’s the case,” Shapiro asked, “then why do you and I agree on morality like 87.5 percent of the time? I’m a Jew; you’re an atheist.”

Maher had no clear answer.

Shapiro continued: “We grew up in a Western society that has several thousand years of Biblical history behind it. So you can think you hit that triple and you formed your own morality, but the reality is you were born morally on third base.”

The crowd erupted in applause, clearly siding with Shapiro's point.

And it’s a point that resonates even more now—after Kirk, a vocal advocate for the moral foundation of the West, was murdered in cold blood on a college campus while defending those very principles.

For years, the Left has mocked faith as outdated, oppressive, or irrelevant. But when morality unmoored from faith produces political violence, censorship, and moral confusion, even atheists like Maher end up relying on the very moral framework they claim to reject.

Charlie Kirk understood that Western civilization didn’t build itself—and it won’t defend itself if the next generation is taught that the Bible is “wicked.” That’s why he fought so hard to bring truth back to campuses.

And now, in a moment when his death should have prompted sober reflection, Maher chose instead to ridicule the very foundation that allowed him to sit comfortably in a free society, debating morality without fear. Shapiro’s response is a reminder: the freedoms we enjoy, the values we share, and even the moral instincts we take for granted—those didn’t come from nowhere. They came from somewhere. And they came at a cost.

The ‘Progressive’ Left – The ‘Democratic’ Party – Has Shown You Exactly Who They Are

 

When Andrew Breitbart died, someone I knew responded to my Facebook post about it with a nasty celebration of it. When I responded that he was actually a good friend of mine and told that person not only where they could go straight to, but what they could do to themselves on the way, I quickly received a phone call from them apologizing. They “hadn’t realized” that I was actually friends with him, as if that made them being a sociopathic asshole cheering someone’s death simply because they wouldn’t conform to the politics the “tolerant” left, somehow better. We’ve seen this again, but even more so, with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

I let it slide with Andrew, the guy was young and I’d never really experienced anything like that before, so I was forgiving and wrote it off as an anomaly. Plus, I think Andrew would’ve laughed at the idea that he was still exposing “tolerant leftists” for the intolerant pieces of garbage they are, even in death.

While Andrew being in a better place was a comfort, that never overrides the sadness of losing a friend. While I can’t say I was good friends with Charlie Kirk, there was very little daylight on policies between him, me and millions upon millions of Americans who mostly want to be lef alone by the vacuous left. But the nature of “progressivism” is to not leave anyone alone – it demands obedience, not only of actions but of thought.

We refuse to obey, we refuse to conform, and they killed Charlie for it.

Yes, the shooter pulled the trigger, but every MSNBC guest to called a conservative a fascist carved their letters into the bullet casing. Every elected and media Democrat who chose to dehumanize rather than debate, looked through that scope. Every single person on the left who knew better, who saw this coming but found the inciting rhetoric politically useful and easier than making an argument for their positions steadied that killer’s hand. They all did this because they knew this was down the road they were traveling and did nothing to stop it.

There isn’t a single Democrat, before Charlie’s assassination, who stood up to their party and said, “Hey, everyone who disagrees with you isn’t a fascist Nazi monster trying to kill people.” Not one. And there isn’t a conservative commentor, columnist or pundit who doesn’t get regular threats from these same, unhinged people. Those cheering Charlie’s murder would cheer yours too – you either have that in you or you do not.

I love the people who say things like “That’s what you get when you put hate in the world.” I shudder to think what their concept of love is if, in the aftermath of a murder of a human being who did nothing but speak words they didn’t like, they think they’re spreading anything close to love. From Eric Swalwell to Jasmine Crockett, Rachel Maddow to Joe Biden, there is enough blood for every leftist’s hands. Many of them have suffered losses – the despicable Jamie Raskin had a son who killed himself, and yet he’s out there cheerleading for violence and murder…right up until they got it.

Now they’re all, “This isn’t good” and “Political violence is wrong.” Too late. They did this.

Their army of drones are still celebrating Charlie’s killing and not one of them has forcefully called them; told the radicals to go to Hell and they aren’t welcome in their party. The closest thing to criticism of those ghouls you see is a lament that publicly celebrating is “bad for the party.”

“Don’t do that, it hurts the party” is a poor excuse for decency, but when you don’t have any in you a poor excuse is the best you can muster.

People I’ve known for years have exposed themselves as monsters it never occurred to me that they could be. There is something about the progressive ideology that perverts the mind. The father of 2 isn’t’ even in the ground yet and they’re writing pieces like, “If Kirk was a victim of a pernicious culture of violence in America, it also must be acknowledged he was an author of that culture.” (Don’t worry, you can click the link – it’s to a third-party paywall bypassing website that doesn’t give them any ad money.)

Advertisement

If the author of that piece were to be assassinated while pumping gas, is it cool if we cheer? I don’t know him, nor do I care that he exists, so the end of that existence on Earth doesn’t matter to me. Still, I wouldn’t because I’m not a piece of shit like he is. Nancy Pelosi will die, as will Joe Biden, should we be picking our musical selections to dance on their graves to? No. If someone pulled a Luigi Mangione on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the street one day, should people celebrate that “she had it coming” because she was different from us politically? Hell no.

Yet, these very same people and the people who follow them would do it to you, me and everyone on our side in a heartbeat. If you think your friend or family member who is glad Charlie is dead wouldn’t do the same if you were killed, you haven’t been paying attention. If they insist they wouldn’t because the “know you,” that makes it even worse – it shows them to be sociopaths who have to problem with the concept of murder over politics, they just don’t want it too close to home.

The concept is the problem. Their politics are the problem.

Have you noticed how all of these garbage people aren’t quoting Charlie Kirk’s actual words or posting videos of him engaging in debates, they simply declare him to be anti-this, that or the other thing. “He’s a this kind of -phobe,” or “that kind of -ist.” They don’t quote him because they never actually listened to him, they only heard him in quick MSNBC soundbites and half-quotes out of someone else’s mouth.

Advertisement

The New York Times exemplified this when they had to issue the following correction to an article trying to smear him. “A correction was made on Sept. 11, 2025: An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an antisemitic statement that Charlie Kirk had made on an episode of his podcast. He was quoting a statement from a post on social media and went on to critique it. It was not his own statement.”

They didn’t bother to look because they were told Charlie was an anti-Semite, just like all of those people were told he was some kind of monster or another and didn’t bother to check for themselves. Democrats are not known for verifying things…or thinking.

Democrats never bother to look, they simply obey. They outsource responsibility for their problems and the “solution” to them. And they create problems for everyone else because they insist others obey too. If they were only hell-bent on creating their hellscape world for themselves, no one would care. But like Harvey Weinstein, they insist on trying to force their desires on everyone.

A majority of Americans said no. Charlie Kirk said no and they murdered him for it. Will he be the last person murdered by a radicalized Democrat? Of course not.

I’ve been writing for the better part of a decade about how the Democratic Party establishment was walking a fine line between keeping their followers simmering in an emotional frenzy and hoping they didn’t boil over into a full blood thirty murder frenzy. That’s where they are now. Seemingly normal people cheering murder for the “crime” of thinking how you do; for voting how you do. Do you really think they’d act differently if it were you? How could you ever trust these people again? How could you trust them around your children knowing they’ve expressed joy over Charlie’s kids growing up without him?

The left is a cancer on the country, and cancer kills. We’ve always said that when someone

shows you who they are, believe them. They’ve shown you who they are, believe them. More importantly, beat them. At the ballot box and in life.

Someday they will wake up and realize the monsters they’ve become, and they’ll try to move past it. Never let them forget. The website CharliesMurderers.com is cataloging every sick thing they’ve put out in the world about this murder, complete with their faces, names and employers when they can find it. Make them famous, and make them unemployable.

If they wake up from their rage hangover and try to pretend they didn’t do something shameful, let that website be the herpes that follows them around. The “regrets” over consequences are already starting, may it haunt them until they truly know, accept and change from the horrors they are.

Unless and until then, and maybe even after that, to hell with them.

There’s much more to say on this, and this is probably horribly rambling and disorganized because of the rawness of it all. I just don’t care right now; there will be time for clarity of thought later. In the meantime, let’s win.

The ‘4 Horsemen of the Western Civilization Apocalypse’ Have Arrived

 

Europe is in a turmoil. The government of France fell in the sense that the prime minister was just relieved. There’s alternative governments from the mainstream socialist European model in most of Eastern Europe and Italy and the Netherlands. There’s political unrest in Ireland and Britain.

What’s going on?

The same thing is happening here. I would call it the “Four Horsemen of the Western Civilizational Apocalypse.” In other words, Europe and the United States, and kindred Western countries, are facing four self-inflicted wounds.

The first is what I would call green madness. That is, an elite in all of these Western countries felt that they were at the end of history, they were gonna create heaven on Earth, and they started to dismantle nuclear power, oil-generated power, coal power, and in substitution, subsidized very inefficient and unreliable solar and wind. They stopped producing oil and natural gas.

And the result of this is that their electricity and fuel costs skyrocketed, making them uncompetitive and destroying the viability of the middle classes that are now in revolt.

In the case of Germany, it’s a former shell of itself. It was once the powerhouse of Europe. Its energy costs are three to four times those of the United States.

A second horseman of this apocalypse are borders.

Remember, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “Yes we can. We can let in a million people from the Middle East.”

But in Britain, in France, in the Netherlands, in Italy, in Greece, and in Germany, the influx of millions of people from the Middle East—poor, often without language facility, coming illegally without legal sanction, without skills, without capital, and with ideas and values that are antithetical to the Western enlightenment—are not assimilating. They’re not acculturating. They’re not integrating at a sufficient pace to avoid social turmoil. The host has not been able or is unwilling to acculturate them into European values.

The result is the populations of these countries are almost 15% to 16% Islamic refugees that are not part of the body politic. And there is social tension, it’s unsustainable as far as the entitlement cost to these host countries, and it doesn’t bode well.

So, we have to restore borders in the West, so to speak.

There’s another problem, maybe even graver, and that’s—I would call it demographic suicide.

The fertility rate is only 1.4 in Europe, and it’s not much better here in the United States, 1.6. We have adopted a lifestyle that suggests that there’s nothing unique or it should not be privileged, that two-parent household with two to three children. That was the basis of Western civilization, and it was necessary for a 2.1 fertility rate to reproduce the culture.

But when you’re down to 1.4 or 1.6, the population is shrinking and ossifying and aging, and there’s not enough young people to support the older people in their retirement.

So, a pension crisis is looming in all these countries, and the result of it is they must, for sufficient labor needs, open their borders and bring in people—often with contrary values to their own—who don’t, as I said earlier, do not assimilate. But if these countries in the West do not reproduce themselves, then history suggests they’re doomed.

There’s a final one, and that is diversity, equity, inclusion. This is the idea that particular peoples, who identify tribally, should be given exemption or preferences from the body politic.

In other words, in the United States, if you claim you’re not white—and that’s a very problematic matter. That’s why I said “claim,” because of the rise of inner marriage and multiracialism. But nevertheless, it’s a very archaic idea that you identify by your superficial appearance rather than the content of your character.

But when you start to provide exemptions from people, or give them preferences and admissions and hiring and retention and tenure, or you suggest that people of a particular superficial appearance shall be given exemptions from law, the consequences of crime, or the consequences of failing to meet expectations of schools, then you’ve created—whether you like it or not—the beginnings of tribalism. And tribalism is inconsistent with the Western Enlightenment, as we see in Europe and as we see in the United States.

I’d like to finish by saying these can be corrected. These Four Horsemen of the Western Apocalypse can be driven out. It’s because they were self-inflicted in suicidal fashion.

All we have to say is: “We’re going to go back to a commonsense policy about energy. We’re gonna secure our borders and have legal-only immigration. We’re gonna encourage two-parent families, nuclear families, to have two children or three children. And we’re going to start to assess people not by their superficial appearance, but as individuals.”

Trump Must Protect His Wins Before the Midterms. Here’s How.

 

I’ve been a big supporter—as all of you have, in most cases—of what we’ve seen the first eight or nine months of the Trump administration. But we’re heading up with about a year—a little over a year—until the midterms. And although the Trump positives are still pretty good, I’d just like to outline two or three things the president, if he wanted to take my humble advice or your advice, might wanna watch out for.

The first is tariffs. What everybody said would happen didn’t happen. That we would have a stock market collapse. We’d be in a recession. Hyperinflation. But one of the strengths of his argument for tariffs was that there was a moral argument, that certain countries had asymmetrical—I shouldn’t say certain countries, the majority of countries were using the United States to expand their economies, while we offshored and outsourced. And the result was an unsustainable $1.2 trillion annual trade deficit that hemorrhaged a lot of jobs.

But there were some countries, not very many, that ran sizable surpluses. One was the U.K., one of our closest allies. Another was President [Javier] Milei of Argentina. We have a surplus in trade with Argentina. We have a surplus in trade with Brazil. And we have a surplus in trade with Australia. They’re not big surpluses, but they’re not deficits.

So, it would be wise, I think, to recalibrate our trade policies with our close friends that we are running surpluses with and they have small deficits with us. In other words, their systems are not manipulating the so-called free-trade protocols of the world in a way that China is, or Germany is, or Canada, or Mexico. I think that would help the president a great deal.

The second is that I don’t think it’s wise to go into Chicago. And I’ll tell you why. Everybody mourns for the loss of life, the hundreds of people who are slaughtered there every year, the inability of democratic-elected city councils, Mayor [Brandon] Johnson, etc. But if you go into Chicago, then the argument goes, you’ll go into Los Angeles, then you’ll go into Baltimore, or you’ll go into Detroit.

And there’s a logic to it that President Donald Trump has had phenomenal success in Washington, D.C., but here’s my concerns for the Trump administration. You have a federal mandate because Washington is not in a state. It’s in the District of Columbia, and it’s outlined as such in the Constitution. So, the president has a 30-day legal authorization.

And by placing the National Guard and federal troops there, he’s radically decreased crime and he has won over, sort of, a very liberal mayor, not the City Council. But he can expand on that in various ways and show everybody in the country what an activist president who’s worried about the loss of life can do for a city. And he has legal jurisdiction.

But I’m afraid that if he goes into Chicago, he is going to be ambushed by the City Council. He’s going to be ambushed by the mayor. He’s going to have all of this opposition. And I don’t think anybody is going to work with him. Even the police—while they would secretly side with Trump to stop the violence—they know that he might not be there. “He” being federal troops. And therefore, they would face retaliation when he left.

And so, I think it would be wiser to use Washington as an iconic example of what these other cities should do as they watch the effect of federal troops to lower these horrendous violence and murder rates.

And finally, there’s a third concern I have. And that is, while I think it’s important to stop all of the importation from Latin America into the United States—and Donald Trump has blown up a trafficker’s boat in international waters that killed 11 people. But they were obviously intent on bringing toxic fentanyl and other types of opiate drugs into the United States. He’s been doing a great job in jawboning China not to send fentanyl products into Mexico. He’s threatened the cartels. But we don’t have a good history, necessarily, of going into Latin America.

And again, it’s kind of a quagmire that if we go in to try to chase down narcotraffickers, most of them, not all, but most of them are synonymous with the governments there. And we’re not gonna get a lot of help. And they may say they will help us, but it’s a headache that he does not need right before the midterm.

Just let me recap. I’m not criticizing the administration. I’m just suggesting there’s two or three areas that I’d be very cautious. One is losing the moral argument for tariffs. Let’s not put tariffs on countries that run surpluses in our favor.

Let’s not, necessarily, go into these big cities—especially the Chicago of Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Mayor Johnson, an 80% left-wing city that is not going to cooperate and will resist, and a Democratic Party that would rather see crime increase rather than work with or support federal intervention by Donald Trump.

And finally, I think, while it’s wise to interdict drugs coming into the country, even in international waters, let’s not put U.S. troops anywhere in Latin America. We don’t have a good history there, and we don’t need an optional foreign intervention in the Western Hemisphere at this particular time.