The Motive Behind the Assassination of Charlie Kirk

I had been puzzled over the motive behind Charlie Kirk’s assassination. There was no sign of mental illness. There was no prior criminal record. The assassin was not some desperate loser like Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan whose only hope of fame was to kill someone famous. This guy had been an A student. Why did he kill Charlie Kirk?

Now it makes sense.

It turns out he had been living with a trans lover. Now it makes sense. He was necessarily part of the “LGBTQ community; although he was probably not sure himself which letter properly referred to himself. His “trans” “partner” initiated him into the trans ideology, and he had to embrace it to be in that relationship. And the trans ideology is in effect extreme narcissism: the idea that one’s personal will must override biology, mut override physical reality itself. This is in effect an assumption of godlike powers, the right to control reality. 

God naturally also has the right to kill; God kills all of us, after all, sooner or later. As God, the assassin could kill or destroy anyone who stood in his way.

Charlie Kirk denied he had the right or ability to control the world. So Charlie Kirk had to die.

Transgenderism is endemic in the culture now because he conviction that you are God is endemic in the culture now. A recent Facebook post--from a close acquaintance and in a sense a friend!-- expressed the common New Age sentiment. I encounter it at least monthly, it not daily, in Canada. I quote:

“We are divinity itself…we are here to take FULL responsibility for Ourselves, we are the ones we've been waiting for, we are here to save Ourselves…We are the manifestations of Source expressing and experiencing itself in the form of Infinite Many-ness. We are already ‘That.’ … There is no God outside of you. It is nonsense to worship that with you are a literal living, breathing expression of... It's a mind control program propagated to keep the masses feeling less then, keeping them disempowered and continuously beLIEving that ‘God’ or ‘the power’ is ‘out there’ - It's all nonsense, tools of control.”

Here is a whiff here of Advaita Vedanta Hinduism: “tat tvam asi,” “Brahman-atman.” But Vedantic Hinduism has been mostly superseded in India itself by devotional Hinduism: it has over the centuries lost the competition of ideas even there. It is of course incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, or Islam; and with Buddhism. 

And with Western paganism.

This is the sin the ancient Greeks called “hubris”: thinking you are a god. Bad news: it leads inevitably to madness and disaster on a social scale. It was also a crime in Athenian law; it was understood to lead automatically to the abuse of others. 

It is moreover the original sin with which Satan tempts Eve: “when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” And it is Lucifer’s own original sin. From this sin all other sin emerges.

It is also an untenable claim. As Descartes pointed out in his Meditations, it is immediately obvious to us that it is false.

“If I were independent of every other existence, and were myself the author of my being, I should doubt of nothing, I should desire nothing, and, in fine, no perfection would be wanting to me; for I should have bestowed upon myself every perfection of which I possess the idea, and I should thus be God.”

And this, however much the narcissist might wish it, is transparently not so. We know we do not know everything; we know we make mistakes. We know we cannot fly. We know things happen to us that are unexpected, even against our will. 

Hence the inevitable retreat into bitterness, anger, depression, and hostility towards the universe. And to violence towards others.

There is another emotional issue with the belief that we are God: it leaves us alone in the universe. I recall Ramakrishna’s emotional objection to monism: “I want to taste sugar. I don’t want to BE sugar.” There is no possibility of Martin Buber’s “I-Thou” relationship, which is the entire point of existence. God is love, and now there is no one to love, and so no love, and no God.

We must pull out of this tailspin. 

The Minneapolis Church Shootings

You have no doubt heard, read, and seen, about another mass shooting; at a church in Minneapolis. The shooter was “trans.”

There is some dispute, as there always is with statistics. Some are saying transvestites are disproportionately likely to engage in such mass shootings. Others insist this is a myth. I submit that they are, and it is predictable that they will be.

Let me explain why.

First, anyone declaring themselves “trans” is a narcissist. It is an ego claiming the right and the ability to overrule the physical world: to decide its own sex in defiance of biology. This is equivalent to declaring yourself God—extreme hubris. Acting as the other sex also attracts attention, which the narcissist craves.

This is why there are suddenly so many transgenders, when the tendency was almost unheard of in North America or Europe a hundred years ago. It is because our childrearing has shifted to “unconditional love” and building “self-esteem,” encouraging narcissism.

Inevitably, this narcissism involves a desire to dominate those around you. You will insist on others submitting to your imposed reality; they are not to be left alone, but must be made to assent publicly to your claimed reality. They must not, for example, “dead-name” you. They must use your preferred pronouns, even when you are not present. This also establishes your command over the English language.

This is necessarily a spiritual or psychic dead end. In the end, reality around you will not bend to your will. This causes built up anger, frustration, despair: the symptoms classified by current psychiatry as “depression.” 

Unfortunately, psychiatry and any therapist you go to will not recognize the problem, will not give any advice, but just prescribe you pills for the reported symptoms: SSRIs to dull the despair and anxiety.

SSRIs, like alcohol, deaden emotions, and this includes empathy. They reduce anxiety by silencing the voice of conscience. So, while arguably helpful for true depressives, they exacerbate narcissism.

So you are more likely to act out your anger and frustration on those around you. You will want to punish the world for not submitting to you. You will especially want to influence and to harm children, because they seem most innocent and vulnerable—the domination is most complete. But you will also want to lash out at God, as he is your obvious rival for complete dominance.

It is all perfectly predictable, and we are seeing it again and again.

It is a criminal misdirection to call for a ban on guns. And it is a well-meaning but disastrous error to call instead for more funding for “mental health.” The mental-health complex is causing the problem. The problem is not transgenderism, as such, but narcissism, which may or may not be expressed in transgenderism; and the problem is prescribing SSRIs for narcissists.

A more religious society is the ultimate solution.

Unicorns and Rainbows

 

Watching video of recent demonstrations in Ottawa for and against “LGBTQ rights,” there is no trouble distinguishing sides. I see that one of the pride protesters is dressed as a cartoonish furry pink unicorn, against the inevitable backdrop of rainbow flags and rainbow colours and pastel pink and blue trans flags. It looks a lot like Disneyland.

Which brings up an obvious thought, one I am amazed has not occurred to me before.

Before the era of trans and gay rights, what would be automatically evoked by cartoonish furry pink unicorns? By rainbows? By pastel pink and baby blue? For that matter, by men in whiteface painted extravagantly as women? Who would be the intended audience?

Children. Not knowing what it was all about, children would naturally be delighted, and drawn to such an exhibit. Clowns! Toys!

The whole gay thing has always been targeted at children. They have always been coming for the children, as the San Francisco Gay Choir recklessly blurted out in song some years ago.

Saudi Arabia has a reputation for suppressing gay rights. I lived there for some years, and a lot of foreign teachers I knew were there because it was a paradise for gay men. They could be open about it, find a partner every night, and nobody bothered them. One of my Arab students even did his class presentation on his gay lover. Nobody seemed to have any problem with it.

But one colleague was suddenly given 24 hours to leave the country. He had solicited a student.

In other words, the actual offense is not homosexual sex. It is grooming. This is no doubt why homosexuality has traditionally been banned in most cultures.

We have or some years been fed the fiction that people are born gay or trans. This is obviously untrue: if there were such a thing as a gay or trans gene, it would be bred out within a generation. Gays are made by sexual experiences in childhood or early adolescence; we are programmed to be deeply imprinted by our earliest sexual experiences. In ancient Greece, it went without saying that an adult gay man’s lover would be a “youth.”

It is only becoming more explicit that the fundamental “gay right” or “trans right” is pedophilia. Without this practice, given the natural operation of human sexuality, there will over time be no gay partners.

And finding partners is necessarily a grave problem for a gay.

It was all bound to come to a head, and now it has.

Stormtroopers

 

Punching Judy

 

Vancouver’s “Billboard Chris” is getting Canada international attention by being assaulted by a trans in front of police. 

This is an illustration of how most people do not act morally. The police stand by, then blame him for the assault. Why? Because it is easier and personally safer than challenging the power of the trans crowd.

We have governments is to protect the weak against the strong. But in practice, the police, like everyone else, are inclined to take the path of least resistance, to get back to their own concerns. Meaning they, and society as a whole, will generally back a bully. Until and unless the bullies become so demanding they feel they will be allowed, personally, no peace.

Women have been able to make demands for over a century, and governments will quickly comply. Beginning with issues like prohibition. They have the power. Not because they have the votes—although they do have a majority of the votes; this is relatively trivial. They were just as powerful before they were generally enfranchised. Because women have more disposable income than men, about four times as much, and more free time to organize and volunteer for political causes. 

If you doubt this, that women have more spending money and more free time than men traditionally, check a magazine rack. How many magazines are targeted towards women’s interests and how many towards men’s? Check book sales. Check a TV schedule. How many shows are targeted towards women, to sell things to women; how many are clearly men’s interest? How many shops cater to women, and how many to men? And so on.

With feminism and women entering the workforce, however, they have reduced their political power significantly over the years. They retain greater purchasing power, but have less free time to organize. So that they are now sometimes seeing their concerns lose out to other interest groups. Like trans athletes.

Gays have always had something of the same advantage. Because they do not procreate, they have, singly or as couples, usually had more disposable income and more free time to organize and volunteer for their political interests. And so this demographic tail has been wagging the dog; increasingly as the power of women has subsided.

Transgenders have the same advantages as gays: they do not procreate, and so they have the free time and disposable income to organize and fund their candidates and demands.

Seniors have always also had a powerful lobby: disposable income, free time. No politician dares mess with social security or medicare.

Wait. What about blacks and aboriginal people? They too, surely, have been getting their issues before government. What is their advantage? They may well have more free time for organizing, if only due to unemployment, But surely not more disposable income. 

But it is not really their issues, and it is not really them organizing and lobbying. Irt is powerful bureaucrats and bureaucracies claiming to act in their interests. They have by and large been kept dependent, wheeled out for sympathy as basket cases, to get more cash and power for these bureaucrats. Who themselves have lots of free time to organize, and all the money of the government itself to lobby the government itself for more power and money. They generally act heedless of the real interests of Indians or blacks—it is against the interests of the average Indian to maintain the system of reserves. It is against the interests of the average black to encourage open immigration or deny school choice. It is a con, suckering their charges, who have been taught to be helpless, in order to exploit the public sympathy for blacks and Indians. 

How do we escape this cycle? I suppose by seeing through it. As I suspect we are beginning to. Thanks to the Internet and the explosion of information it offers. And thanks to the demands of the privileged escalating to a point at which it at last becomes more obviously in the interests of the passive majority to confront the bullies than to appease and abet them.

To Sir, With Love

 

We are at the point, in Canada, in America, in the UK, perhaps across the Western World, at which telling the truth is a dangerous, subversive, brave, even revolutionary act. 

But it is essential to keep telling the truth, whatever the consequences. Truth is of ultimate value. If we stop telling the truth, we have invalidated our very existence. Solzhenitsyn said, of the old Soviet Union, that if one day one man woke up determined to say nothing but the truth, the entire enterprise would have collapsed.

That’s where we are.

The obvious example is the one which brought Jordan Peterson to fame: that men are not women. We are now under tremendous pressure on this particular issue. We are not allowed to be neutral: we must endorse the view that men are women.

The second obvious example, in Canada, is the residential schools. We are not allowed to suggest that they were a good thing. Although we are obliged to agree that education is a good thing in all other cumstances.

But why these issue in particular? Of the infinite number of possible lies that can be told, why is all the electrical charge on these particular things?

If, after all, a real woman were addressed as “sir,” or “bro,” would she take great offense? Would this be considered a slur? That trans people do consider it so is a tacit admission that they are lying, and they know they are.

No—the issue is not “misgendering.” It is that one must explicitly endorse the premise that others have the right to lie, and further endorse the premise that those who lie have a right to silence those who seek truth.

A second clue is that this aggressive insistence on lying is focused on sex, and not, say, race, height, age, or weight. One is required to accept and vocally agree if a man says he is a woman; one is not required to accept and agree, at least not yet, if Rachel Dolezal says she is African, or if Elizabeth Warren says she is Indian, or if some sixteen-year-old insists she is eighteen.

That seems to suggest that the underlying truth people want to deny is sexual.

The second prominent aggressive lie is about Canada’s “First Nations.” It may not be so clear that this, too, is about sex; but it is. To our primitive minds, aboriginal culture is all about the absence of supposedly oppressive sexual mores. Accordingly, nothing bad must ever be spoken about aboriginal culture. To do so would be to criticize unrestricted sex.

We make much of missing and murdered aboriginal women. The cause is no mystery; but nobody is allowed to say it. These young girls were either abandoned, or forced to escape, by their birth families. A lack of sexual mores was the obvious problem. We are being forced to very publicly declare it was not. 

If aboriginal culture represents unrestricted sex, the residential schools represent the opposite. Because they were run by the churches, their primary intent, in the popular mind, has to have been to impose sexual morality. Or, using the standard euphemism, “erasing native culture.”

Our culture is going totalitarian and decadent, is actually prepared to destroy itself, in order to preserve sexual libertinage.

You, gentle reader, may be reacting badly to my bringing up sexual morality. Isn’t this “puritanism”? Isn’t it all nonsense and foolish inhibition? After all, who is harmed by a supposed sexual sin? Who’s the victim? 

The first and obvious answer is, the children. Sex is obviously designed, by God or by nature, for conceiving children. Engage in it randomly, and children are entirely liable to pop up. 

The initial premise behind the “sexual revolution” was that, with the new birth control pill, this connection had been broken, and we were now liberated to engage in recreational sex. 

That might have worked were birth control one hundred percent effective; but it is not. So free and unrestricted abortion became a thing: mass murder. And we are feeling deeply guilty, and in denial, about that.

But even aside from that, it is callous to suppose there is no victim. Recreational sex necessarily involves viewing another human being as a mere means for physical pleasure. Like we view a steak or a beer. On the unhappy chance that a given sex partner does not see themselves the same way, as a mere slab of meat, and does not see you the same way, as a slab of meat, you are hurting them emotionally, possibly gravely. Emotional blows are at least as cruel as physical blows, and can leave scars at least as deep.

It is time to sober up, gang.

He or She?

 

Filipino transvestite beauty queen.

Jordan Peterson rose to prominence over which pronouns to use to refer to transvestites. This has become a dominating issue: if someone looks like a woman, but is in fact biologically male, do we say “he” or “she”? Or “zhe,” or “they.” Or seventy or a hundred other possibilities now being floated.

This is a relatively new problem in North America, but it occurs to me it is not elsewhere. In Thailand or the Philippines, transvestitism has been open and socially accepted for generations, perhaps centuries. So I thought to ask my Filipina wife, in Visayan, do you refer to a male-to-female transvestite as “he” or “she.” 

She reports that, as indeed seems most sensible, biological sex is definitive. He may look like a woman, but he is still, in fact, “he.”

Problem solved.