This post isn't about anything I think I know about what happened to Charlie Kirk. I have my thoughts, and some of what I write here may have a little to do with it. I think it does, but that's not what this is about. It is about the theme of this blog, and I write here mostly just to put down some thoughts related to that theme. I know most people won't visit this blog or see this post, that's okay. I only post here a few times, at least once a year. Most of my work is at my webzine, and yes, I invite you to go there and see a few more of my thoughts. I do think they have merit, but hey, just blogging here to say some things.
The theme of this particular blog, Reality Salon?
Deceit.
And not just any old deceit.
Metastasized deceit. Deceit that not only massively infects a society, institutionally authorized, but deceit that destroys. Lethal. Invasive. Expected for the requisite ecclesiocratic practices. Officially registered as such.
And metastasized simply because people want it, and the more and more they want it the more wickedly virulent it becomes.
Here's my example, and even though I know so well about it and hear it spewed all the time, I still get gobsmacked every time I hear it. It still wrenches my heart hearing how so many people can be so lavishly stupid and even brazenly blap so much of the deceit.
This past Sunday afternoon, a few days after Kirk was murdered, I was doing a bit of radio channel surfing in the car, and came across some radio show host on NPR. He was going to chime in on the Charlie Kirk thing but before he did he boasted about his longevity on NPR or wherever he could blither across the airwaves. I did not know who this guy was, I just missed his name and introduction. I still don't know who it was. But again, he claimed he was somebody -- being on the radio show (taxpayer-funded by the way, if you don't know about NPR) he considered himself something of an influencer.
He blapped the standard line about how no one should be murdered for what they say, and then -- the deceit -- he rattled off about a dozen of the evil and hateful things Charlie Kirk believed and said. They were all those typical leftist tropes that twist the righteous truth about what people like Kirk stand for into leftist talking points.
Here's just one for the purpose of this post.
He said, "Charlie Kirk hated black and brown people." Now, all kinds of things can be said about this, I know. Not going to get into most of them. But I am going to ask a simple question, answer it factually and truthfully, and expose the abjectly insidious lie in what Mr. Radio Show Guy said -- again something tens of millions of people have been browbeat to also believe with all their guts.
The question: What exactly did Charlie Kirk say that makes this guy and his listeners think he hates black and brown people?
The answer: (And I'm pretty sure it is some variation of this, so please, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm great with that, but I can say with some certainty that at more than a few of Kirk's "Prove Me Wrong" type events wherever, he said this.) "Diversity Equity Inclusion programs, or attempts to give black and brown people a special lift in life by affording them advantages for employment and college admissions, is a blatant form of discrimination and should be done away with. The idea is that in order to make up for past injustices, or to alleviate the effects of some kind of 'white supremacy' or 'systemic racism,' black and brown people should by law or by adjudication of some kind be given advantages that others do not have, and really those others (whites) should not have them because of their 'privilege.' This idea itself is racist and is wrong. People should advance in any kind of livelihood because of their character and their merit, how well they behave, learn at school, and produce things at their jobs. It should have nothing to do with their skin color."
Now, what Kirk shared there, as I've done my best to express it here, is a truthful, righteous, wise, and proper thing for a society to believe, share, and support. In this it is pretty clear, Charlie Kirk actually cared about and respected black and brown people. Now, to be fair, could Charlie Kirk be lying? Could he say one thing and actually hate black and brown people? Sure. But if I'm wrong about Kirk's true sentiments, how does Mr. Radio Show Guy know what is right about them? If we take Kirk by his own words, as they are, does he really hate black and brown people? Shouldn't we give him the benefit of the doubt? And if we aren't sure, maybe we shouldn't be blapping anything about it at all, especially across mass media platforms.
Why do leftists loudly rage about such a thing? Furthermore, why do they lie about it as this radio host did, echoing those tens of millions who think the same thing, many of whom are convinced they must revile a Charlie Kirk for being so openly demonstrative about those truths?
Beyond other certainly legitimate considerations, one of the most significant reasons is leftists like to virtue-signal. They live their lives so insecure that their only identity is in how much they can show people how wholesomely good they are. And one of the very best ways they can show that is by blasting their "anti-racist" virtue anywhere they can. "Look at all that I'm doing to help out the black and brown person! Lookit me! I give money and I volunteer and I vote for the wholesomely good politicians and I support this and that group doing things to make sure black and brown people are no longer poor and downtrodden and oppressed and victimized especially by the white person bad-thing-or-another! And if you don't help black and brown people in the way I am then you must hate them." Thing is, whole organizations have been formed making millions of dollars either in donations or flat-out government subsidies to help poor and downtrodden people -- of course to keep the gravy train flowing they need enough people to be interminably poor and downtrodden so the very wholesomely good leftist organizations may be there to "help" them.
This is the thinking. If I am inaccurate with this assessment about the basics of leftist thought, forgive me. But I think I'm pretty close. I know there is so much more to it related to the materialist, humanist, Epicurean perspective woven into all of it, as well as any number of other social, political, even religious and economic factors involved.
There are certainly black and brown people who do need help from others, but so do some white and Asian people. To assume it is only black and brown people who need codependent attention is not only racist but it is disrespectful and patronizing. That the leftist feels he or she is the only thing that can be the noble valiant rescuer of any given black or brown person, or that any given black or brown person cannot accomplish great things just as any other white or Asian or any other ethnic group can, is wretched at its core.
Who are the ones who really hate black and brown people? Who is hurt the most by the metastasized institutionalized codependent enabling relying largely on the most widespread and pronounced deceit?
And again, this deceit is not only evil, it is lethally evil.
Not saying I know one way or another what caused what -- yes I do have my thoughts, but here for this blogging effort I am saying nothing.
Except that, look what happened to Charlie Kirk when he said righteous and truthful things the powerfully reigning leftists did not like because they've got a whole ugly plausibility structure erected in their hearts and minds that just soaks up the deceit. Again I'm not indicting anyone or any group or any mentality in any incident whether it involved Charlie Kirk or anyone else. But we do know one truth for sure.
Lies like these are lethal.
__
