At Padre's
Politics • Spirituality/Belief • Culture
Tommy the Savage
From Rod Dreher's Diary
August 06, 2024

Tommy The Savage

When Speaking Common Sense Is Outlawed, Only 'Outlaws' Will Dare To Speak It

 
 
Tommy Robinson from documentary ‘Silenced’

Last night I had dinner with a middle-class English couple who are in Budapest for a visit. Friends of a friend. Naturally the conversation quickly turned to the riots in their home country. At one point, I said that I had recently started listening to Tommy Robinson, someone whom I had dismissed earlier as a thug, based on his extensive history of what you might gently call “dodgy behavior.” (Seriously, look it up.)

“Did you watch the Jordan Peterson interview with him?” asked the woman.

“I saw half of it this afternoon,” I replied. “It’s shocking.”

“It is,” she said. Then she went on to say that despite the messiness of Tommy Robinson’s life and record, she supports him because he is more or less the only prominent person who is willing to stand up and say what’s happening in Britain is wrong.

“I am friends with a couple who lost their daughter for a while to a grooming gang,” the woman began. Then she told the story. I noticed that she fought back tears as she gave me the details. At one point, she struggled for words to describe what the Pakistani men had done to this 14 year old girl. The details of the deeds were too much for her to articulate. She stammered finally, “The police had to collect DNA from the child. I hope you understand what I mean.”

I did.

“In the end, the police did nothing,” the woman continued. “The poor parents, my friends, had no idea what to do. There was nowhere to turn, not if the police don’t care.”

By the end of her story, this gentle woman in her late fifties was visibly suppressing rage. I could tell that she is not the sort of person to whom rage comes easily. But there it was, and it was entirely justified by the story she had just told me. I understood perfectly well why a nice, educated, middle-class lady like her would have become a partisan of the rough working-class bruiser from Luton: because all the nice, educated, middle-class people have surrendered to the violent dispossession of the British in their own land.

It turns out that she and her husband are in Budapest looking for ways to migrate here. One of them has Hungarian ancestry, and therefore a way in. I mentioned to them that in his recent Tusvanyos address, PM Viktor Orban said that Hungary can expect a rising inflow of Europeans who want to live in a “Christian national country.”

“That’s us,” said the man.

Yesterday at The European Conservative, I published an interview with my Budapest friend Mark Bollobas, the UK-born son of two refugees from Communism, who in 2010 moved to his parents’ homeland because he saw no prospects for himself in Britain, the country of his birth. Excerpt:

[Mark Bollobas:] … I had enough of an experience in London from before, from the years I spent there studying and working, to know that it’s again a place I really probably couldn’t live as good a life as I can live here in Budapest. That includes everything: safety, public transport, religion, the feeling of culture, a sense of pride in your nation, these are things that have been eroded. So if we look now at the United States, people are not happy with the way America is. If we look at how things are in the UK, there is massive disillusionment, especially among the youth, people looking towards the future going, “Well, how am I going to survive? I just don’t know how to.”

When I was looking, more and more I began to think of Hungary. I thought of Hungary not only because I could go there, as the son of Hungarian immigrants, but also because it’s a nice place, it’s a beautiful place, it’s a kind place. And there are values there that are still important—family values. It was 2010 [the year Viktor Orbán was elected prime minister], and I knew a huge change was coming to Hungary. And I got here before it arrived. For me most of all it was a feeling of coming home, which is strange because I wasn’t born here.

It’s difficult to describe because I wasn’t brought up here, but I always felt at home here. And here, unlike in the UK, where I was always asked where I was from, here in Hungary—well, I’m obviously not from here, and I have a thick accent in Hungarian, but I’m Hungarian. I fit in and I’ve been accepted. I felt then that the U.S. was burning out while I knew in Hungary the best years were ahead of us.

Last but not least, I wanted to get married and start a family, a family based of the values and traditions I hold dear. And for that I knew I needed a Hungarian woman, whom I’m lucky enough to have found.

It is striking to me that you migrated to your ancestral homeland not looking for economic opportunity, but rather for a place that felt like home. This seems to be something that both liberal and conservative elites all over the West cannot comprehend. Why not?

Most people don’t agree with my decision because they are wearing blinders. These blinders, made in the Cold War, tell them that everything east of the former Iron Curtain is terrible, and everything west of it is wonderful. The world is nowhere near like that anymore.

I still find it strange that is a white Christian male who speaks English with a British accent that I was not welcomed into UK society. But now, having lived outside of the borders for a few years, I realize that this is the case with everyone. Either you’re a white European and you go there as a guest worker, or you go there as a person of color from a Middle Eastern country or African country, and you end up living in an atomized community or a ghetto made up of only your countrymen, paid for by the state. 

I think when it comes to the sense of home and how important it is, the West has forgotten that what made the West great was its culture and its traditions. And they came to this from a position of power and wealth and success. They didn’t really need to fight to protect any of these things, because the power that came from economic power did it for them.

But as the world changed and other countries became more wealthy, and in many ways England became more poor, the UK became more poor, this skill of protecting your nation, your culture, your history, taking pride in yourself, it never came back. It never came back. I don’t know whether it’s from the schools, or whether it’s definitely in colleges, because academia is—well, it’s not very pro-British culture in any way. But even among the people it sort of disappeared. The sense of community sort of disappeared. It became much more important to make money, to be a success, to be the person you want to be. To be an individual.

Those are very, very important things to do when you’re in your twenties and thirties. But then you get to a point where you have your career, but you need a family, because family is what life is all about. After you have children, that is your droving force. And we’re now at this appalling stage where we have lots of individual success stories of people who’ve forgotten, and don’t know how, to make time for having a family. Worse yet, they’ve been educated to believe that having a family isn’t important, that you can get as much joy out of work. And that’s just not the case.

This is a really, really, really big problem. I have too many friends aged 35 to 45 who are single and lonely, who want a family, yet don’t have the skills needed to create one. Yet professionally they are all success stories. Worse yet, so many people tie materialism to happiness that when the money gets low—and globally we are all about to experience a recession—this means more and more people will become desperately unhappy as their wallets become lighter, and life becomes harder.

I’m not sure whether Hungarians know something different, I think they didn’t twenty years ago. But through a combination of luck, as well as solid political leadership, we have kept family as the most important goal in life. That’s a huge plus for us. In the early Eighties, Hungary led the world in suicides and alcoholism. And although there was Communism, almost everyone had a side hustle. Or two or three. But that has changed, those times are behind us. Now when I think of the nation that is doing terribly in similar categories, namely drug overdoses and suicides, while pushing a culture of relentless side hustles, the U.S. comes to mind.

I hasten to say that this has nothing to do with why I moved to Hungary. As you’ll recall, it had to do with personal circumstances of my divorce. I also was thrilled to move here because I think what is going on in Hungary politically and intellectually is fascinating, and important to the survival of the West. But I was not and am not alienated from America the way Mark is from Britain, in part because the ideological and cultural situation in the US, for all its problems, is not nearly as dire as in Britain.

Over the course of the evening, we talked about all kinds of things. The woman told wonderful stories about one of her ancestors, a celebrated historian remembered now for work he did to preserve a particular cultural tradition that was fading away (I’m speaking vaguely because I want to protect this couple’s privacy). On the way home last night, I thought about how she spoke with such affectionate pride in her country, and her ancestors, and what they accomplished. This I contrasted with the high emotion she had expressed earlier in the evening, thinking about the suffering of her friends whose daughter was turned for a while into a sex slave of Pakistani men, and how the police did not care to help, and how the British establishment doesn’t care either.

Then it hit me: this woman has been humiliated. Deeply humiliated. She has been humiliated by mass migration. She has been humiliated by the violence some of these migrants bring with them. She has been humiliated by the authorities, who expect people like her simply to suck it up. And she has been humiliated by a ruling class that has for some time been teaching young Britons to hate their country and their people, and to accept that their rightful place in the world is to live as second-class citizens in the land of their ancestors.

If I were her, Tommy Robinson would be my hero.

What a terrible thing, to come to late middle age, and to face the prospect that leaving your home country for a land where you don’t speak the language is possibly the most sensible thing you can do to protect yourself in old age. I mentioned to this couple the interview with Mark Bollobas, the part where Mark said that raising kids in Hungary, it is a blessing not to have to worry that his boys will be taught in school to hate their country and its people, and to think that they (the boys) might actually be girls.

She shot a glance at her husband, whom I had met on his last trip to Hungary. “It’s okay,” he told her. “He’s safe.”

It turns out she is a practicing Christian. She said she can’t understand how it is that even many of her Christian friends now accept transgenderism, not as an allowance society should make out of compassion for people who have gender dysphoria, but as a positive good that should be celebrated. The subtext of her quiet commentary was: so many of my countrymen have lost their minds, and I don’t understand what has happened to us all. That she needed assurance from her husband that it was okay to express skepticism of the trans revolution in private conversation told me something important about what it must be like to be a middle-class Briton today.

I tell you, living in Europe, and seeing more closely what mass migration has done to its countries, and also seeing the flat-out lying (either by commission or omission) done by the ruling classes of these countries (in government, media, academia, and so on), has really opened my eyes. As I’ve told you, over and over I meet people from the UK or western Europe who come to Budapest for a conference or a holiday, and hear them inevitably remark that being here reminds them of their own cities twenty or thirty years ago — before mass migration and the crime and disorder it brings had shredded the fabric of public life.

Last night I told the visiting British couple about a conversation I’d had over wine recently with a young American who had just moved here from Germany for language instruction. He told me that the difference between German cities and Budapest is striking to him. Having lived in Germany for the past two years, he said you just don’t see easygoing life on the streets like you do in Budapest. He marveled at how many people in the Hungarian capital are out and about, sitting (as we were) in a street cafe, or late at night, even young women walking to and from the clubs, not having to worry for their safety. In Germany, by contrast, he said Germans seem to have withdrawn from the public space into private life, to avoid the risk of criminal encounters with migrants or their adult children. This is especially true with German women, who run real risks just living their lives in cities where migrant men are a significant presence. And yet, he said, the Germans have neutered their own sense of self-worth, such that they seem to be under a spell that tells them they deserve what they get. How refreshing it is to be in Budapest, he said.

If you move here, I said to the couple, you will be astonished by how overwhelming, and how effective, the media propaganda is that causes people back home to think of Hungary as some kind of quasi-fascist hellhole. They laughed. The woman said that one of her relatives, hearing that they were off to Hungary for a holiday, said, “Are you going to be okay? That Orban is something of a dictator, isn’t he?”

In the future, historians may look back on this era in Western history and marvel at the psyop the ruling classes used on their nations to render peoples incapable of defending themselves and their own interests. People become self-policing, too, afraid to say commonsense things out of fear of being called evil. Are there any peoples on this earth, outside of the West, who loathe themselves as a people as much as Western liberals and progressives do?

The philosopher Matthew Crawford has a great Substack piece today in which he reveals that the UK government has long employed a psyop strategy to keep the public quiet in the face of violence that could cause them to question the dogma that Diversity Is Our Strength™. Excerpt:

One is not supposed to notice the downsides of mass immigration. In fact, such noticing has to be actively suppressed, and the present civil disorder in Britain reveals a breakdown of the UK government’s longstanding program to psychologically manage its own peoples’ response to demographic upheaval, ethnic conflict and violence.

As it happens, it was at the 2012 Olympics that these techniques were first put in place, in anticipation of a possible terrorist attack. The summer before, there had been riots across the UK that badly spooked the government, and Western leaders were watching the Arab Spring with a view to both the hazards and the opportunities for population control presented by social media. By 2019, the publication Middle East Eye was able to report that the British Home Office prepares for terrorist incidents “by pre-planning social media campaigns which are designed to appear to be a spontaneous public response to attacks.” The point, of course, is to have candlelit vigils, flowers and impromptu expressions of mutual love between “communities”, rather than riots. This story is worth telling, as it parallels the US government’s re-purposing of information warfare techniques, developed in the War in Terror, for managing internal political dissent.

Read the Crawford piece for details about this operation. He continues:

All this unrest comes in the wake of the Olympic games’ opening ceremony, in which Da Vinci’s Last Supper was repurposed as a grotesquerie of sexual unfortunates, expressing hatred of the normal and healthy disguised as defiant self-love. That is what it means to “queer” this or “queer” that (in the sense made popular by Judith Butler); it is an instinct to attack all that is settled; anything that makes feel people at home in the world. Any sense of a common culture or owned space.

In 2024, the Olympics feel like a “survival” (as the anthropologists would say) that has been turned to the purposes of what right-wingers like to call GloboHomo, that confluence of corporate-state liberationism and replacism. As Machiavelli said, a wise founder-prince will keep up the old forms, emptied of content, to make his “new modes and orders” go down more easily. As my friend Ethan put it to me, the Olympics now serve as “a remnant vector of legitimation to be exploited until it no longer means anything to anyone, just one more instance of the strip-mining of our material and symbolic order for the benefit of whatever higher interests profit, however ephemerally, from the operation.”

I believe some intuition like this, and not just the immediate issue of immigration, lies behind the rage of the Brits.

Yes, this is exactly what I encountered last night in that quiet dinner with the English couple. Migration, Islamic violence, and the hatred the British state has for its own people, dominated the conversation early on, but the bafflement the woman had over how the moral order in which she had been raised had been overthrown, and the new order accepted without protest by otherwise sensible people — this left her angry, confused, and … thinking about leaving her native land, which doesn’t feel like hers anymore.

Here is a 2022 essay that Crawford has ungated, about love of one’s own people. Excerpts:

National character grows among a people from shared experience. They speak the same language and pray to the same gods; their fathers fought in the same wars; their grandmothers tell stories that convey how one ought to feel about familiar things. They are likely to have a persistent stock of nursery rhymes and drinking songs; a repertoire of gestures, subtle facial inflections and emotional tones peculiar to them. Mutually recognizable to one another, they enjoy a form of social wealth that accumulates among inhabitants of some bounded territory that has been inhabited continuously for generations by the same people. Such an inheritance is far from universal; it is enjoyed by peoples who, often for reasons of geographical accident, have been spared conquest, colonization and dispersal long enough to form a nation, for example the “First Nations” of North America (as the indigenous tribes are called in Canada). The word “nation” shares its root with “native” and “natural”, and indeed a nation may claim an autochthonous origin for its ancestors — as though the earth itself, or rather their small part of it, were the original mother or father of their common lineage.

Crawford goes on to talk about how nationalism — political consciousness of oneself as a member of a nation, of a distinct people — is, to modern liberals, the source of all our problems. He quotes here the French political philosopher Pierre Manent describing “humanitarianism” as the successor ideology to Christianity. According to Manent, the cosmopolitan ruling class thinks that:

Peace and unity belong to the natural condition of mankind; its fragmentation into separate political bodies solicitous of their independence is the toxic fountainhead of everything that is wrong in human circumstances. Thus the right thing to do, the worthy enterprise, is to bring about the pacification and unification of humanity through the erasing or weakening of borders, the acceleration of the circulation of goods, services, information, and human beings, the fostering of an ever stronger and wider fellow-feeling among countries and peoples. Accordingly, looking at human things from the perspective of one’s own community — its common good and the peculiar content and quality of its education and way of life — is intrinsically wrong because it amounts to turning one’s back on the rest of mankind. Looking at human things … without the least preference (and even with a tad of healthy dislike) for what is ours — is intrinsically right and “progressive.” [Italics added]

And, conversely, to think and act with preference towards one’s own — that is wrong and regressive. This political psychodrama is why for some time now, the UK’s ruling-class institutions have been psyopping the British people into accepting their own displacement. This is exactly what Renaud Camus means by “the Great Replacement” — not only the replacement by foreign peoples, but the erasure of one’s own culture and history.

One more bit from Crawford:

The rise of populist movements has been fueled by a spreading recognition that this diversitarian turn, both in its moralistic expressions (humanitarianism as described by Manent) and in its material facts (mass immigration above all), is inextricably linked to an oligarchical development. Diversity is Our Strength, yes, but whose exactly? The political economy corresponding to humanitarian moralism and mass immigration is neoliberalism, an explicitly anti-national agenda for the globalization of labor markets, whether by the relocation of jobs to foreign shores or the opening of borders to foreign workers. Humanitarianism has been called “the sentimental justification of inhuman scale.”

Ethnomasochism is no psychological mystery, then. It serves a function among Western peoples as they adjust themselves -- or get adjusted -- to a post-national framework of government and economy. In such a framework, the proprietary pride of the citizen can only interfere. There are to be no citizens, only an undifferentiated mass of “human resources.”

I am reminded of Chapter 17 of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. If you’ve read my book Live Not By Lies, you know that I believe we have largely missed the totalitarian aspects of contemporary culture because our idea of totalitarianism has been formed by George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. In fact, Huxley’s model of a totalitarian dystopia is closer to what we have. It’s a dystopia that achieves total peace not through violent coercion, as in Orwell, but rather by lulling everyone to sleep, symbolically, by promising them a life of constant pleasure and entertainment to drive away anxiety.

You can read the entire text of Brave New World online. Chapter 17 begins on page 99. Here is an excerpt from the dialogue between Mustapha Mond, the World Controller for Europe, and “John the Savage,” a dissident who has been raised outside the system, on an Indian reservation, reading nothing but the complete works of William Shakespeare:

[Mond:] "But industrial civilization is only possible when there's no self-denial. Self-indulgence up to the very limits imposed by hygiene and economics. Otherwise the wheels stop turning." "You'd have a reason for chastity!" said the Savage, blushing a little as he spoke the words. "But chastity means passion, chastity means neurasthenia. And passion and neurasthenia mean instability. And instability means the end of civilization. You can't have a lasting civilization without plenty of pleasant vices."

"But God's the reason for everything noble and fine and heroic. If you had a God …"

"My dear young friend," said Mustapha Mond, "civilization has absolutely no need of nobility or heroism. These things are symptoms of political inefficiency. In a properly organized society like ours, nobody has any opportunities for being noble or heroic. Conditions have got to be thoroughly unstable before the occasion can arise. Where there are wars, where there are divided allegiances, where there are temptations to be resisted, objects of love to be fought for or defended–there, obviously, nobility and heroism have some sense. But there aren't any wars nowadays. The greatest care is taken to prevent you from loving any one too much. There's no such thing as a divided allegiance; you're so conditioned that you can't help doing what you ought to do. And what you ought to do is on the whole so pleasant, so many of the natural impulses are allowed free play, that there really aren't any temptations to resist. And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there's always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there's always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your mortality about in a bottle. Christianity without tears — that's what soma is."

The oligarchic Davos class wishes to create a utopia in which there are no nations, no borders, and the frictionless movement of people and capital. George Soros is one of the prime supporters of this vision, but by no means the only one. This is the World Economic Forum’s general view. Recall that at the WEF meeting in January, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said that the No. 1 challenge facing Europe is “disinformation” — which I take her to mean in large part publicizing facts and opinions that challenge the elite worldview.

Viktor Orban has made himself hated by these elites because he has dared to notice what they’re doing, and to oppose it intelligently and effectively. Tommy Robinson is no Viktor Orban for a variety of reasons, but I see in him something similar: that the kind of courage it takes to stand against these powerful consensus-enforcers in the national and international ruling class requires a character that doesn’t always play well with others.

Why does it fall to rough men like Tommy Robinson to say the things that ordinary Britons ought to have been saying in defense of their communities? Answer: because when speaking common sense is outlawed, only outlaws will speak common sense.

Here is a link to the X page where you can watch the Robinson documentary Silenced.

 

It’s well worth seeing. It details a famous case from 2021 in which Jamal, a Syrian refugee teenager, had water poured on his head in a playground incident. It got puffed up into “waterboarding,” and went viral internationally as an example of racist abuse. But it was a sham story. This kid, in fact, was a violent bully. Robinson shows how local authorities compelled teachers and others who knew what happened to sign non-disclosure agreements, and how the media, the judiciary, and the government conspired to silence the truth about the case, even though it destroyed the life of the kid falsely accused of “waterboarding” Jamal.

I think you’d have to have a heart of stone and a head of cheese not to sympathize with Tommy Robinson in all this. Is he a hot mess? You bet. Rough working-class lad. But at least in these matters of urgent justice, in which British people are being made to suffer, are being humiliated, are being dispossessed by foreigners and the actions of their own ruling class, which hates them — well, Robinson is one of the few prominent people in Britain who lives not by lies. You don’t have to agree with his politics, or make him into some kind of saint, in order to respect the hell out of him for speaking what millions know is true, but are too afraid to say.

Remember: When speaking common sense is outlawed, only outlaws will dare to speak common sense.

community logo
Join the At Padre's Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
September 10, 2025
MOTW 170 - What I miss
00:01:04
September 09, 2025
I do miss Little Britain
00:01:07
September 07, 2025
Living with terrorism for years will do that to you ...
00:00:26
It's been a rough year..
It's been a rough year..
November 22, 2024
Voltaire's birthday 11-21-1694 - A brief essay by Steve Weidenkopf

Today marks the three hundred and thirtieth birthday of the Frenchman François-Marie Arouet, better known by his nom de plume, Voltaire (1694-1778).

Born into a bourgeois family during the reign of Louis XIV, the “Sun King” (r. 1643-1715), Voltaire suffered tragedy at a young age when his mother died. Never close with his father or brother, Voltaire exhibited a rebellious attitude toward authority from his youth. His brilliant mind was fostered in the care of the Society of Jesus, who introduced him to the joys of literature and theater. Despite his later criticisms against the Church, Voltaire, throughout his life, fondly recalled his dedicated Jesuit teachers.

Although he spent time as a civil servant in the French embassy to the Hague, Voltaire’s main love was writing—an endeavor where he excelled in various genres, including poetry, which led to his appointment as the royal court poet for King Louis XV. Widely recognized as one of the greatest French writers, and even hyperbolically referred to by ...

Voltaire's birthday 11-21-1694 - A brief essay by Steve Weidenkopf
Meme of the Week Nominees

Apologies for the delay, been a long couple of days driving (7 hours and 350 miles) but finally chilling in the sofa in sunny but cloudy North Wales (pic of the potentially familiar view in the comments).

As ever, thanks for sharing and making us all laugh, as well as the truth bombs - now onto the voting - and please, just pick one!

January 01, 2025
Local's Lounge - All are welcome

Padre - Tom Miller invited you to a Microsoft Teams Meeting series:

The Local's Lounge with the ADD Irregulars - Home of Coffee Talk, Speakeasies, Schmoozes, Tea Times, Afterhours and other gatherings.

Coffee Talk - 6:00 AM Central - Daily
Afternoon Chats - Tuesdays, Friday & Sundays at 2:00 PM Central
Other Chats as scheduled by the community.

Please look for notifications for Speakeasies, Tea Times, Schmoozes & Afterhours for gatherings of the gang. New comers welcome, become an Irregular today!!

Wednesday, January 1, 2025
6:00 AM - 8:00 AM (CST)
Occurs every day starting 1/1 until 12/31

Meeting link: https://teams.live.com/meet/9392334144614?p=4Lr3AcWswEWjbzgHsZ

post photo preview
2 hours ago

@Padre @eclecticRPT

post photo preview
From VDH - The Blade of Perseus
Was the Current Madness Birthed in the University?

Was the Current Madness Birthed in the University?

September 15, 2025

Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness

America is currently sick.

The young conservative organizer and media personality Charlie Kirk was just murdered in a political assassination by a 22-year-old ‘anti-fascist’ and trans advocate, Tyler Robinson. As planned, he eliminated the most astute and successful political activist in a generation. Indeed, Kirk may well have ensured that Donald Trump won the 2024 election by not just increasing his youth vote by 6 percent since 2020 but, more importantly, by margins in the swing states of 15-24 percent, ensuring Trump’s victory.

No sooner was he killed than thousands on left-wing social media erupted in celebration—among them scores of teachers and professors. Their venom was eerily reminiscent of their earlier canonization of left-wing murderer Luigi Mangione. Recall, Mangione was the spoiled nepo baby who lethally ambushed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Thereby, he became an icon to the Left as a social justice warrior fighting the evil capitalist system, which had so enriched himself and his own family.

Such utter moral bankruptcy was on display as well by the social media praise of Palestinian activist Elias Rodriguez (“Free Palestine”), after he brutally murdered a young Jewish couple at the Jewish museum in Washington, D.C. Rodriguez supposedly showed the world how to deal with Zionists—reifying the hateful rhetoric that pervades the modern campus.

Was that ghoulishness confined to such anonymous left-wing nuts and fringe trolls?

Not really.

MSNBC’s guest “analyst,” Matthew Dowd, casually raised an asinine suggestion that the lethal shot came from a Kirk supporter firing off a round. And then, in Pavlovian fashion, he blamed the assassination of Kirk—on Kirk himself—for being an unapologetic “divisive” activist.

Dowd, who was subsequently fired by an embarrassed MSNBC president, only took his cue from anchorwoman, the untouchable Katy Tur, who first editorialized Kirk as a “divisive” figure. By her logic, would that mean that, say, a Bernie Sanders or Zohran Mamdani would also be divisive? What does Joe Biden, by Tur’s logic, deserve after labeling half the country as “semi-fascists” or reducing them to “garbage,” “chumps,” and “dregs”—or boasting he’d like to take Trump behind the gym and beat him up?

Does Tur mean that anyone deemed “divisive” then should naturally expect what befell Charlie Kirk?

Yet, in truth, Charlie Kirk was an upbeat, happy warrior not unlike William F. Buckley in his youth, willing to politely debate political opponents without anger and bias.

The multimillionaire socialist Rep. Ilhan Omar, who once claimed that the Trump “dictatorship” was worse than what she had fled from in her native Somalia, claimed the slain Kirk mourners were “full of sh-t” in a long, incoherent rant. Such creepy examples could be easily multiplied, such as the accustomed lunacy of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She now claimed that those who block gun control legislation could not blame others for inciting the violence: i.e., Charlie Kirk should have expected to reap what he sowed.

A dense AOC seems clueless that not even her fellow leftists seriously advocate confiscating bolt-action .30-06 hunting rifles of the sort that the assassin used to kill Kirk. Perhaps it might be wiser not to try to hunt down and round up 500 million guns in America, but rather to enforce existing unenforced gun laws that prohibit felons, the mentally ill, and domestic terrorists (“anti-fascists”) from possessing them.

Just prior to the murder of Charlie Kirk, a video had been issued of a 23-year-old Ukrainian immigrant, Iryna Zarutska, brutally murdered on public transit in Charlotte, North Carolina. Her throat was slashed by one Decarlos Brown, an African-American, 14-time felon, recently and prematurely released from custody.

The horror followed the now familiar left-wing script. The left-wing mayor, Vi Lyles, immediately tried to stop the release of the transit video, lest it cause anyone or anything to be blamed. Then she followed with the usual DEI boilerplate that excuses evil: do not judge the homeless, arresting people solves nothing, and the murder was merely “tragic,” as if there is no culpability, just bad luck or fate.

As expected, most of the media suffocated the murder story. After all, it upset the dominant racial narrative that must remain unquestioned. We have been told for decades that systemically racist Americans prey on victimized blacks, and thus, Ibram X. Kendi-style antiracism—de facto stigmatizing and demonizing whites—is needed to stop racism.

The left knows that black males, age 15-40, commit well over 50 percent of the most violent crimes in America, while comprising about 3 percent of the population. They know it and privately navigate accordingly, but few speak of it, and none seem to have answers to it. So the topic remains taboo.

Any “tragedy” that highlights that fact—such as the murder of Ms. Zarutska or the recent brutal strangling of Auburn retired professor Julie Schnuelle by a young black man with a felony record who was released back into the public—must be suppressed. So too we rarely hear of the recent murder of the elderly Queens couple by the alleged career felon and released criminal Jamel McGriff. He robbed them, he tied them up, he murdered them, and then he torched their home. And on and on the crime continues, the narrative continues, and we dare not say a word.

In our post-Daniel Penny world, three young black people, sitting just feet away from Zarutska, witnessed Decarlos Brown slit her throat—and did nothing. Perhaps they were afraid, we were told. Perhaps, we were advised, no first aid could have staunched such horrific wounds. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…

Nonetheless, when Zarutska was staring out at eternity in her death throes, bewildered that someone or something had just ended her life, none of the three lifted a finger to help her—or even console her in her final moments. Instead, the killer, blood dripping from his person, calmly walked off the train unmolested. And even then, in his absence, there was no effort of any of the nearby witnesses to tend to the dying Zarutska. Instead, they sidestepped her and left her behind on the train as she lay gasping her last breaths.

The killer, Decarlos Brown? He can be heard on the video mumbling twice, “I got that white girl.” Yet we were told either that the video was doctored, or too unclear, or irrelevant. If accurate, it demolished the media elite’s insistence that Decarlos Brown had not a racial thought in his mind.

Instead, we were to listen to media analyst Van Jones pontificate that the late Charlie Kirk should have been ashamed for connecting Decarlos Brown to racist hatred. Perhaps Van Jones should reconsider. He should review the entire narrative of how Zarutska found herself a target of a killer. Brown was a 14-time felon. He was out on cashless bail. The magistrate Teresa Stokes, who freed him, had no law degree. Such a “judge” had never taken, much less passed, a bar exam.

She owned an out-of-state alternative treatment center and was involved in another local one. In a prior sane world, magistrates had law degrees. They had been certified as competent by the bar exams. They followed conflict-of-interest protocols that prohibited them from even indirectly profiting from their judicial decisions.

But again, that narrative too is passé, given the power of diversity, equity, and inclusion to exempt norms and protocols for the supposed greater collective good.

From where does all this hatred, violence, and moral vacuity arise? Why did the shooter inscribe his bullets with “anti-fascist” messaging, cruel taunts, and trans jargon?

Is the hatred caused by the media, who talk about toxic “whiteness” nonstop? Is it the collateral damage from the racial obsessions of a Jasmine Crockett, Joy Reid, and septuagenarian Al Sharpton, now ending his racialist career where he started it?

Or is the promulgator the Democratic Party and the Left, out of power, impotent, and angry that their superior intelligence and morality are not properly appreciated by 51 percent of the people? Who put a photoshopped Trump on a New Republic cover as Hitler?

If a General Milley (“now I realize he’s a total fascist”) or a General Kelly (“certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure”) calls a current or ex-president a fascist, and presidential candidate Kamala Harris agrees (“a president…who admires dictators and is a fascist”), then does an unhinged 22-year-old “anti-fascist” college student feel the popular culture might approve of his own efforts in dealing with “fascist” Trump supporters?

Milley, Kelly, Harris, and the rest can call anyone a fascist but without ever defining the term. Did Trump suspend immigration law to let in 12 million illegals? Did he invite into the DOJ or White House the prosecutors Nathan Wade, Jack Smith, and the revolving door Michael Colangelo to coordinate lawfare against an ex-president?

Is Trump ignoring the improper usurpation of executive power by left-wing lower-court judges or instead appealing their decisions through lawful channels?

Did he hire a foreign national to undermine his presidential rival with a fake dossier?

Did he round up “51 former intelligence officials” to lie to the American people to warp the election?

Did he pardon his entire criminally minded family and then cover it up by in absentia outsourcing to his aides the pardoning of hundreds of criminals through an autopen? So please define fascism before smearing a president and lowering the bar of the acceptable.

What is the point of the past violent braggadocio of Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority Leader, posing with a baseball bat, or huffing that he will take the “fight” against the Trump agenda “to the streets?” Was he merely following on the earlier example of Rep. Maxine Waters, who urged supporters to whip up a crowd and physically confront Trump officials in stores and restaurants?

Why are congresswomen kickboxing and punching the screen as they video their seriousness to assault Trump?

What does now-campaigning California Governor Gavin Newsom mean when he promises, “It’s not about whether we play hardball anymore—it’s about how we play hardball. We are going to fight back, and we’re going to punch this bully in the mouth.” What would a potential third assassin think of that promise?

If the governor of the largest state in the union wants to bloody the face of the President of the United States or physically attack his opponents (“We’re gonna punch these sons of b‑‑‑‑es in the mouth”), then might lesser underlings and sympathizers try to outdo that?

Or, finally, is the culprit for the madness found ultimately in the elite university? Who, after all, mainstreamed the idea of racial re-segregation in dorms and graduation ceremonies and taught America that racial essentialism is part of the new tribal America?

Who ignored court rulings and civil rights legislation in their arrogance to recalibrate admissions by race? Who taught the anti-Jewish assassin Elias Rodriguez his hatred of Israel and his pro-Hamas zealotry, and who influenced Luigi Mangione, an honors graduate, to despise “capitalist” CEOs?

Where did the practice of identifying one’s pronouns at the end of memos start, or demanding that biological males could compete in women’s sports, and demonizing anyone who objected that there were still two, not three, biological sexes?

Where did the critical race theory and critical legal theory that empowered Black Lives Matter, Defund the Police, Cashless Bail, and all the laws that assured the public that thefts less than $950 were not really thefts?

From where did the new anti-Semitism come, and so strangely after the slaughter of October 7—if not from the campus?

Where else in America were young Jews fleeing to a library with the mob pounding on the windows? Where else are Jews roughed up by a thug who is subsequently given an award by their university? Where did demonstrations arise on behalf of those who murdered 1,200 on October 7?

Why, in the aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk, are so many teachers, professors, and college-graduate bureaucrats so eager to gloat over and cheer his death? Who taught them that?

Are universities critical to America’s prosperity and security now only in terms of the sciences, math, engineering, and medical schools?

As for the humanities? They scarcely exist at the elite universities as we once knew them. Either de facto or literally, they have been overwhelmed and distorted by endless studies-courses, DEI radicalism, 90 percent leftist faculties, and suppression of free thought and free expression.

Where did the envisioning of violent crime as the fault of a flawed society, the institutionalization of modern racialism, chauvinism, and essentialism, and the empowerment of militant transgenderism that in so many insidious ways has filtered throughout society—if not originally birthed in the university—come from?

Those sins of commission are force-multiplied by those of omission. Hundreds of thousands of students emerge from campuses not just indoctrinated with contempt for the Western tradition and American exceptionalism, and not just often thousands of dollars in debt from inflated tuition, but also poorly educated by the standards that once defined education.

The working classes and high school graduates, supposedly the losers of our society, are not those who are dividing the country. They are not often advocating violence or trying to use any means necessary to overturn the established order. But so often the products of the modern university are doing just that.

Sadly, in all these recent horrors, the ideology behind them—the premise that either birthed or appeased them—was birthed in modern higher education.

Read full Article
Rod Dreher's Diary
The times they are a changing
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Ffetch%2F%24s_%2169GR%21%2Cw_1100%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fpublic%252Fimages%252F4e41ba02-3526-4a61-9f28-e5a1b5243898_1860x380.png&t=1757936629&ymreqid=d41d8cd9-8f00-b204-1cc6-3e0004011c00&sig=x3QeWDwY16jgVKTPPDINOg--~D

The Times, They Are A-Changin'

How Charlie Kirk's Murder -- And Two Other Deaths -- Should Radicalize Us

Sep 15
mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Ffetch%2F%24s_%21dnYe%21%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fpublic%252Fimages%252F762a4764-c24d-4d8a-87f0-ff761d14f527_1802x2355.jpeg&t=1757936629&ymreqid=d41d8cd9-8f00-b204-1cc6-3e0004011c00&sig=HFDU9Im8KdTvsUrjFIIDpA--~D
 
 
 
 
 
READ IN APP
 
  
Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk: one week, two murders, a changed world

Yes, this is going to be another Charlie Kirk post, because I am convinced that a moment of reckoning has suddenly arrived, in many ways.

I woke up Sunday to learn that Tyler Robinson, Kirk’s assassin, was living in romantic partnership with a man, Lance Twiggs, who was transitioning to female, and who was also, it appears, a furry (a weird subculture of people who costume as animals, and often sexualize their costumed selves). (Read Andy Ngo’s excellent online sleuthing.) It could be that Charlie Kirk died so Tyler Robinson could defend the honor of his troon (tranny) lover. Of course we knew already that Robinson was steeped in radical Left/Antifa politics.

Robinson and Twiggs were ex-Mormons raised in conservative families, who were radicalized by going deep online and living there as if it were reality.

Let me offer you this full post by Robert M. Sterling, which he uploaded to Twitter. It’s long, but I think it’s very true. If you’re on X, follow Sterling:

My liberal friends are completely oblivious about how radicalizing the last week has been for tens of millions of normal Americans. Zero clue.

I’m not talking about people who are “online”; I mean regular, everyday Americans. “Normies.” People who scroll through Facebook posts and Instagram reels from the Dutch Bros drive thru line. Political moderates who have water cooler chats about Mahomes touchdowns and Bon Jovi concerts, not Twitter threads or Rachel Maddow monologues.

Millions of them. Tens of millions. They’re logging on, they’re engaging, and they’re furious.

And I’ll be candid: They blame you guys. They blame the left. Regardless of whether you believe it to be justified, they think you’re the bad guys here. And they are reacting accordingly.

I can already hear some of you racing toward the comments to start screeching in moral indignation, so I’m going to be blunt: Shut up and listen to what I’m telling you. Your movement will lose any semblance of relevance if you don’t develop some small measure of self-awareness, and—absent someone force-feeding you bitter medicine—you guys collectively lack the humility to do this on your own.

Here are the facts:

Fact 1. Tens of millions of Americans started the week seeing a 23-year-old blonde woman—a young woman in whom virtually every parent watching pictured their own daughter—stabbed in the neck by a career criminal. These people then found out the murderer had been released from jail 14 times over.

Fact 2. Two days later, tens of millions of Americans watched a video of Charlie Kirk get murdered speaking to college students. Millions of these people knew who Charlie was; millions of them didn’t. Upon seeing the video, however, these normal Americans from across the land and across the political spectrum agreed that he was the victim of a terrible, fundamentally unjustifiable crime, and their hearts broke in sympathy for his family. Good people who had never even heard the name Charlie Kirk before wept.

Fact 3. Immediately after seeing the footage of a peaceful young man get shot in the neck, these same people logged onto Facebook and Instagram (remember, we are talking about regular Americans, not perpetually online Twitter or Bluesky users) and saw some of their local nurses, school teachers, college administrators, and retail workers celebrating this horrific crime. Not just defending it, but cheering it.

These are all facts. You may not like the implications of these facts, and we can certainly debate the underlying causes thereof, but, indisputably, they are nevertheless factual statements.

Here’s what it means for you, the Democrats reading this: These normal, middle-of-the-road, non-political citizens just become politically active. They realized that politics cares about them, even if they don’t particularly care about politics. After watching Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk both bleed out from the neck, they think their lives and the physical safety of their families—the bedrock of human society, the foundation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—depend on political activation, whether they desire it or not.

These people are now sprinting—not jogging, not walking, but racing—to the right. Because they blame you guys for everything that just happened.

When they see footage of Decarlos Brown stabbing a Ukrainian refugee to death, they don’t see just one demon-possessed man. They picture every university administrator, HR bureaucrat, and DEI apparatchik that ever lectured them about systemic racism, the “carceral state,” or the need to release violent crime suspects without bail in the name of social justice. They then think back to conversations they’ve had with their cop friends—their buddy from high school who quit the force after getting tired of being called a racist, their friend at the local YMCA who vents about having to release career criminals because Soros-funded prosecutors aren’t willing to file charges—and they realize everything the left has told them over the last five years has been utter bullshit.

And they blame you. Because, even if you count yourself as a moderate Democrat, your party supported the district attorneys, city council members, and mayors that let fictitious concerns about mental health and racial justice supersede very real concerns for their family’s safety.

When these Americans see blood erupt from the side of Charlie Kirk’s neck, they don’t see just a martyred political activist. They think of every extreme leftist they’ve ever met who (1) calls anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton a fascist and (2) constantly jokes—“jokes”—about punching Nazis and “bashing the fash.” They realize that there really do exist people who wish to see them dead for their moderately conservative political beliefs, their Christian faith, and even the color of their skin. They ask themselves if the violence visited upon Charlie might one day show up on their own doorstep.

And they blame you. Because, even if you’re just a center-of-the-road liberal, you lacked the courage to police your own ranks. You let modern-day Maoist red guards run loose across every facet of society, and what started with social-media struggle sessions has now turned to 30-06 bullet holes. When these Americans log onto social media and see their neighbors justifying, celebrating, glorifying murder, they realize that some who walk among them are soulless ghouls at best, literally demon-possessed at worst.

These people—whether they faithfully attend church every Sunday or only attend with relatives once a year, on Christmas Eve—start talking about things like spiritual warfare. They implicitly understand that no normal human casually celebrates the mortal demise of a peaceful person. And they blame you.

Because, even if you condemned Charlie Kirk’s murder, they probably haven’t seen you condemn those in your own movement who cheered it on. They view you as complicit in allowing heartless fellow travelers to celebrate death, and it repulses them.

For all of these situations, what has your response been? Nothing but bullshit. In response to Iryna Zarutska bleeding out on the floor of a train, you post bullshit statistics about reductions in reported crime, when everyone who’s ever been to a major urban center in the last decade knows that actual crime has skyrocketed, only for victims not to waste their time reporting it to cops that don’t have the manpower to respond and prosecutors that seek to downgrade as many felonies as possible to misdemeanor citations.

In response to a 31-year-old man taking a bullet to the neck in front of his family, you post nothing but bullshit whataboutism.

> “What about January 6th?” (Honest answer: After you let Liz Cheney spend two years operating a star chamber in the House, combined with countless other failed attempts at “lawfare” against Trump, no one cares anymore.)

> “What about Mike Lee making a dumb joke on Twitter about some guy in a mask in Minnesota?” (No one outside of Utah, DC, or Twitter knows who Mike Lee even is.)

> “What about Paul Pelosi?” (That’s not comparable to Charlie Kirk getting shot, and we all know it. And, again, Paul who?)

> “What about regulations on assault rifles?” (That’s not going to get you very far when one of these killers used a knife and the other one used a common hunting rifle.)

In response to teachers, healthcare workers, and thousands of other liberals cheering on Charlie’s murder, it’s nothing but more bullshit and misdirection.

> “It’s not THAT many people celebrating!” (Yes, it is. Everyone has seen it on their Facebook and Instagram feeds.)

> “I thought you guys didn’t support cancel culture.” (We don’t cancel people over their opinions; we’re more than happy to see people lose their jobs—especially their taxpayer-funded jobs—for actively cheering on murder, though. If you can’t see the difference, that’s your own shortcoming.)

All bullshit. Not even smart bullshit, but stale, mid-grade, low-IQ bullshit. Ordinary Americans see right through it, and they don’t like how it smells.

You probably don’t like hearing this. But you need to hear it. Because I’m right, and, as you reflect on this, you know I’m right. The ranks of my political movement gained millions of righteously angry new members this week. We have a mandate to ensure these crimes never happen again, and that’s exactly what we are now going to do. If you want to keep a seat at the table as we do so, you’d better clean house and start policing your own.

A friend back in the US texted me this overnight:

FB blew up in my face. Family and friends celebrating Kirk’s death. The best man at my wedding that I’ve known for 35 years blocked me becuase I called him out for cheering on his death. I deactivated Facebook. I don’t need to see this. It genuinely hurts to know so many people in my life have such bloodthirsty and are so callous.

My friend has a heart condition. This experience caused him chest pain, which he had to medicate to keep it from turning into cardiac arrest. Yep: his heart literally strained to the breaking point from shock and anger at seeing people he cared about to have a relationship with him cheering the slaughter of a man who held the same opinions, pretty much, as he did.

I agree. Prior to last week, the only thing I knew about Charlie Kirk was that he was some kind of successful MAGA influencer. That’s not my world, so I didn’t investigate further. Now I know there was so much more to him than that, but even if all he was was a MAGA influencer, I would feel the same way. If I find that anybody in my life cheered on, or is cheering on, Kirk’s murder, they’re now out of my life. I have nothing in common with people who celebrate political assassination of a man simply for holding and stating opinions contrary to their own.

Killing Osama bin Laden? Fine. He was a terrorist and a mass murderer. But Charlie Kirk was about as average-American as you can get. He used words of persuasion, not weapons. One of the most extraordinary things about him, something that lifted him above average, was that he was willing constantly to engage his opponents in civil debate. This is what made him so popular and influential. At his campus appearances, he made a point of giving people who disagreed with him the privilege of moving to the front of the question line. He welcomed disagreement! In today’s NYT, there’s an account by a conservative college student that shows you the kind of movement Kirk started. This is from Jeb Allen, a conservative at Amherst College, a liberal bastion:

Last spring, I received a death threat in response to an article I wrote. My friends at Turning Point USA encouraged me to request the Amherst administration drop all disciplinary action in exchange for a one-on-one dialogue with the student. That request was granted, and I found our conversation informative.

Today, I believe that among the things the state should do is to ban all gender transition. Close the clinics. Forbid cross-sex hormones, and prosecute doctors who persist. If that is politically untenable, then strictly forbid it to anyone under the age of 30. Outlaw any policies that in any way grant privileges (e.g., bathroom and locker room access) to transgenders. Agreed, the great majority of transgenders are not murderers, and deserve to be treated with ordinary human decency. But we must abnormalize this condition again.

There’s not a lot the government can do about computers and youth, but there is a hell of a lot parents can do. This image, from Tyler Robinson’s mother in 2013, ought to be on the minds of every mother and father in America:

  

Note this commentary on it:

  

We need to once again abnormalize letting kids get computers and smartphones. It used to frustrate me to see the Christian school my kids attended forbid students to have phones during school, but parents — conservative Christian parents — permitting it out of school hours. It was like all the good the school tried to do was totally undermined by the kids’ parents.

It has been very heartening to see clips all weekend on X of people saying they are going back to church for the first time in ages, or going for the first time ever, because of this (watch this incredible short clip). Or picking up a Bible. Or leaving the Left. As the WSJ reports, the Charlie phenomenon is going global. You should also know that in the European media, Charlie is being described as a right-wing extremist and freak (strong implication: who had it coming). Here’s a report from German media about how a professional soccer team is coming down on a Christian player, Felix Nmecha, of African background, who is in trouble for posting mild, apolitical support for Kirk. The clip I post is from the translation:

  

This outraged some fans, and has prompted the team to say they are going to be having a talk with Nmecha. And you wonder why Europe is in so much trouble!

Here’s a fascinating take on the meaning, especially historically, of Charlie Kirk by T. Greer on his excellent Substack, The Scholar’s Stage. Excerpt:

To understand these emotions, you must first understand what the young Republican on campus was feeling at the height of the Great Awokening.

The young Republican felt afraid.

The young man who believed that a transgender woman is not a woman, or that white privilege is not a national crisis, or that Donald Trump should be president, was a young man who lived in fear. He feared what would happen if he expressed his beliefs. He feared humiliation. He feared that his classmates would blackball, bully, or haze him. He feared becoming the subject of a viral wave of hate. He feared having advisors and professors turn on him, damaging his grades or sabotaging his future career. (While I have used “he” here, all of this was even more true for the conservative young woman, who faced even greater social pressures to conform and more vicious tactics when she did not.)

These young conservatives feared because they took the rhetoric of their professors and classmates seriously. They expected to be treated with the same grace, respect, and friendship that the median progressive reserved for the Ku Klux Klan. Time and again they were told that their beliefs were the functional equivalent of a Klansman’s. In this environment, only the most disagreeable or the most courageous were willing to stand up for their beliefs.

It was in this air of fear that Turning Point USA began to rise. For years progressives have looked at Charlie Kirk’s campus events and lampooned him for spending so much time debating 18-year-olds. They missed the point of these events. By walking onto hostile campuses and planting TPUSA chapters, Kirk showed young conservatives that they were not alone. By arguing with anyone willing to stand in line—professor or protester, heckler or hanger-on—Kirk was demonstrating that conservative beliefs could withstand the scrutiny and social pressure of the college environment. Their creed could take the blows and keep its shape. Every clip he uploaded was evidence that a man who openly championed this creed could walk away looking better and wiser than the progressives who attacked him—no matter how many of these attackers there were. Kirk cut against the spirit of the age. He was no anon. He did not hide behind a handle or bury his convictions in the darker corners of Discord. Every time Kirk or his proxies praised Trump or made some inflammatory declaration, they were showing young conservatives that they could not be silenced.

Behind all of this was one overarching message: Do not fear. You have truth behind you. An entire fellowship of young conservatives stands behind you too. Charlie is here today to show you that conservatives like you can stand tall in hostile spaces. You can also do this. You should also do this. They do not own the public square. You do not need to be afraid.

That was the message of the man who was murdered this week.

You know, this is a variation on the message of both Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Vaclav Havel. They both said that people who are willing to live not by lies, and willing to suffer for their convictions, will attract more and more people to their cause by their courage, such that eventually a system built on lies will collapse.

Charlie Kirk embodied that. He was willing to suffer the scorn of campus haters for the sake of engaging them in public debate. Indeed, he said many times that the alternative to discussion and debate is violence. He paid for that conviction with his life. I don’t feel comfortable calling him a Christian martyr, because he was not murdered for his faith per se. But he was absolutely a martyr for free speech, like Socrates.

And now we see so very many people who were afraid no longer willing to be silent.

I’m also seeing on X a lot of people complaining that their churches were packed over the weekend, but their pastors said nothing at all about Kirk’s murder. To be fair, I don’t believe clergy are obligated to preach on current events. But this one — my God, it was news around the world, and had so very much to do with faith and courage and the wages of sin! And so many pastors, it appears, blew it. How out of touch with the needs of your flock can you be? I am reminded once again of the Orthodox priest I once met who refused to talk about gender ideology to his congregation, even though parents in it were confused, because he didn’t want to be “political.” Men of God, sack up! People need to know that the church is a place they can go for wisdom and leadership on how to live godly lives in a world that has turned its back on Him. If all you can provide are canned sermons that have little or nothing to do with the actual lives people live, then you are failing.

The American pope had nothing to say about it, aside from expressing condolences to the new US ambassador to the Vatican. Our Catholic reader Anne Heath sent this commentary, written by an angry Catholic, with a broken heart. Excerpt:

  

And Leo? On the very day of the assassination he tweeted not about Kirk, not about truth, not about martyrdom, but about migrants at Lampedusa. His only mention of Kirk came two days later in a private conversation with the U.S. ambassador, where he warned that “political differences must never be resolved with violence.” A diplomatic platitude, whispered in private, while the nations chanted in the streets.

Leo indicated that his first foreign trip will be to the island of Lampedusa, same as his predecessor’s first foreign trip, to highlight the plight of refugees. If so, then that is a signal that nothing much is going to change in this pontificate. Would that Leo go to Lyon to comfort the family of this wheelchair-bound Chaldean Catholic, who fled his native Iraq to escape ISIS persecution, slaughtered on a livestream by a machete-wielding Islamist for preaching the Gospel:

  

Say his name: Ashur Sarnaya. He was martyred by the same sort of person Pope Leo is urging Europe to keep letting in, and whose violent presence is driving Europe to the brink of civil war. Such is the pastoral wisdom of so many Christian leaders. Europe, and all the West, ought to be a haven for Christians fleeing Islamist persecution. But the Leos of the world want to keep letting Muslims in. No wonder Christians are losing faith in their institutional leadership — but not, let us hope, in Jesus Christ! (BTW, that same report Anne sent features a report of a German Catholic bishop going on TV to say that the Bible is wrong about homosexuality.)

Yes indeed, Charlie’s assassination has been an apocalypse. We are seeing who people are — and who they are not. We are seeing Good, and we are seeing Evil. We are seeing ourselves too. The words, or lack of words, from religious leaders say nothing to us, or are even counsels of despair. But the blood of Charlie Kirk, the blood of Iryna Zarutska, and the blood of Ashur Sarnaya shouts to us: You must change your life!

Tertullian: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” Strictly speaking, Sarnaya is the only true Christian martyr of these three. But there is not a Christian alive — indeed, not a person of conscience anywhere — who cannot read these signs, and choose to live in a different way. A better way. A braver way. A holier way. Me too.

Bob Dylan said it well two generations ago:

For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled

The battle outside ragin’

Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls

For the times, they are a-changin’

Read full Article
Nihilism in our time (More Rod Dreher)
And: Order VS Chaos

Nihilism In Our Time

And: Order Vs Chaos

 
Aug 29, 2025
∙ Paid
 
 
 
 
Robert “Robin” Westman, failed man

This Minneapolis shooting turns out to be much darker than I realized yesterday, when I first wrote. The killer was quite clearly possessed, I think. I mean that literally. This story from the New York Post details some of his chaotic, anti-Semitic, hateful beliefs, which seem to have no ideological core. His transgenderism seems to have been not so much at the core of his identity, but rather one manifestation of a malignant, radically disordered mind. Here is the 11-minute video he left behind, before the shooting. It is a horrifying glimpse into the mind of a madman.

This page from his journal jumped out at me when I saw it yesterday:

 

The Russian says:

 

Again: possessed.

Let’s not forget the valorization of revenge violence among trannies. Watch this. And look at this:

 

Peter Savodnik takes the measure of this lunatic. He goes through the various “explanations” people have offered, in an attempt to make sense of Westman’s heinous act, and concludes:

All that finger-pointing obscures a deeper point: Westman seems to have been driven by an all-consuming, destructive force, a nihilism—the conviction that life is meaningless; that words like truthjustice and God are empty slogans; that everything must be razed.

Nihilism is not some obscure academic notion. It stretches back to the 19th century—early Russian radicals were called nihilists—and it has waxed and waned across the past 150 years. Today, you can feel the nihilist impulse coursing through America, which has been mostly stripped of its faith and a shared national culture and has seen once-great institutions—universities, corporations, churches, nonprofit organizations, the media, the military—become engulfed in scandal and politicization.

It is an understatement to say America is struggling to infuse young Americans with a sense of purpose.

Earlier this year, the FBI introduced a new category of criminal: the Nihilistic Violent Extremist, or NVE.

If jihadis kill for Allah, and anti-government extremists like Timothy McVeigh killed in the name of some demented notion of freedom, then NVEs kill simply because they want to kill. They don’t have much in the way of ideological commitments—as the confusing hodgepodge of aphorisms Westman scrawled into his rifle, pistol, and shotgun makes clear—beyond a commitment to chaos and evil themselves.

If we are dealing with true nihilism, then we are all in for a hell of a ride. There’s no way to counter people who want to murder and cause havoc simply for the pleasure of doing it. Last week at the Midwestuary, I heard lots of talk about the spread of nihilism among young American males. This is the far fringe of victims of the Meaning Crisis. Max Remington texted me overnight:

America's Years of Lead are going to be driven by this kind of nihilistic violence by people of all ages. America has so many lone wolves, I wouldn't rule out the possibility it could collapse the country, honestly.

I don’t know the extent of this problem in the US, nor do I know if Europe has a similar problem. But see, this is the kind of thing that David Betz is talking about when he raises the prospect of “civil war”. It will almost certainly not be anything well-organized, he says, but rather random acts of killing, violence, and sundry mayhem, committed by people with different motives, or no motive at all other than destroying a society that they believe has failed them.

The great contemporary literary critic Gary Saul Morson explains the nature of 19th century Russian nihilism, which is not the same thing as what Robin Westman might have instantiated. Excerpt:

“Nihilist” and “nihilism”—terms typically attributed to novelist Ivan Turgenev—originally referred to a group that arose in Russia around 1860. Today we often call people nihilistic if they extend no hope that conditions can improve. Unqualified pessimists, they regard all grounds for optimism as illusory. We also use the term “nihilism” to describe extreme relativism about the bases of human knowledge. Science, in this view, is just another ideology, based, like all ideologies, on the interests of a ruling class. Accepted knowledge is nothing more than power made into a philosophy justifying it. This kind of nihilism often interprets various philosophers—Hume, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Feyerabend, and others—as justifying the claim that one can build on no certain “foundations.”

Neither understanding of nihilism applies to the original Russian nihilists. Far from despairing, they believed that they knew just how to build the perfect society, which, they also held, could be realized in a few years. Regarding “science” as a set of infallible (and mostly metaphysical) dogmas, they deemed their favored social theories scientific and therefore utterly beyond doubt. As their critics observed, these science worshippers missed the whole point of science, openness to contrary evidence.

The group’s leader, Nikolai Chernyshevsky (1828-1889), exercised immense influence. His utopian fiction, What Is to Be Done? (1863)—the question was anything but rhetorical—became the most widely read book among the intelligentsia before the Revolution. Lenin credited it with making him a revolutionary, and the Soviets hailed Chernyshevsky as a thinker in the same league as Marx and Engels. Tolstoy, on the other hand, referred to him as “that gentleman who stinks of bedbugs,” a loathsome figure who has persuaded his followers that “to be outraged, bilious, and spiteful is a commendable thing.”

In his novel Demons (sometimes translated in English as The Possessed), Dostoevsky illustrates and condemns the nihilism popular among young people of his era. His character Verkhovensky is a political nihilist, aiming to disrupt society for the sake of creating a utopian future. By contrast, Stavrogin is an existential nihilist, who truly believes life has no meaning, and who lives to channel his despair into destruction.

I have this sense that we are living in a culture accelerating towards a general calamity. Recall that when an audience member in a screening of Live Not By Lies asked me earlier this year if I thought the threat of soft totalitarianism was waning because Trump is in power, and pushing back on woke, I said no. All the conditions that Arendt identified as conducive to totalitarianism are still very much with us: mass loneliness and alienation, a loss of faith in institutions and hierarchies, a love of transgression for its own sake, a willingness to believe that “truth” is whatever satisfies one’s desires, and so forth.

We know very well where wokeness take us. I am particularly aware of how wokeness validated racial identity, and privileging racial identity. The right-wing version is now emerging ferociously. The very right-wing demons I warned many years ago that wokeness was summoning are now here. God only knows how this ends. I’ve always had a superstitious belief that the Jews are a canary in the coal mine of society: that anti-Semitism is a sure sign that a society is giving itself over to radical evil. Now we see that rising on both the Left and the Right.

Last night in Rome I was at a social event with some people from all over Europe. A couple of British interlocutors expressed extreme worry for their country. There’s the migrant crisis, of course, but also the economic crisis, about which I knew little. They talked about how the cost of living is becoming unsustainable, and how the government is barreling towards a fiscal Armageddon. Last week, the Telegraph reported that the government might be forced to appeal to the International Monetary Fund for a bailout. If that happens, my British interlocutors said, there’s a very good chance that the IMF simply will not have the funds to cover Britain’s debts. And if it does, the IMF will demand radical reforms, including either the slashing of pensions, the gutting of the National Health Service, or both. These are moves that the Labour government cannot politically do. So … what, then?

Britain is a post-Christian society. What holds it together, and prevents it from descending into chaos and violence should the economy collapse, particularly at a time of increasing racial and religious tension?

Notice that after Nigel Farage’s deportation speech, Reform has surged in popularity to the point that it has more support than the Tories and Labour combined! Has that kind of thing ever happened?

 

What if the same fiscal disaster happens to France, which is facing its own fast-approaching day of fiscal reckoning? Francois Bayrou, the prime minister, will have to resign in the days to come over the budget impasse. He appeared on French TV this week to say bluntly that the core problem is the Boomers’ pensions, which are politically untouchable.

I also talked to a German woman, who said that her own country is headed towards fiscal disaster. She told me that she used to fear and loathe the AfD (Alternative For Germany), but after seeing how extreme the German establishment has been in trying to crush the AfD, she now sympathizes with them. A German man earlier in the evening told me the same thing.

A German court has banned an AfD candidate for running for mayor in a German city. You’ll never guess why:

The exclusion began when incumbent Mayor Jutta Steinruck (formerly SPD) contacted the SPD-controlled Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Interior, requesting information about AfD candidate Joachim Paul from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The SPD-led ministry had already made headlines by announcing that civil servants expressing sympathy for the AfD would be excluded from state positions.

The resulting 11-page report claimed “good reasons to doubt Paul’s loyalty to the constitution,” citing:

  • A photograph: Paul posted an Instagram photo of himself with Austrian activist Martin Sellner, who was banned from Germany for advocating the deportation of migrants, including those with citizenship who fail to “sufficiently assimilate.”

  • The concept of “remigration”: Paul gave a November 2023 lecture titled “Immigration: A Matter of Destiny—Why Remigration is Necessary and Feasible.”

  • Literary references: A 2022 article by Paul in the Austrian magazine Freilich referenced Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, stating, “Tolkien’s entire work reflects a conservative mindset of particular value to contemporary conservatism … The protagonists fight for a cause greater than themselves: their homeland, the survival of their culture, a just order, the defense against a global threat.”

  • Cultural interests: Paul’s appreciation for Wagner’s Nibelungenlied, which the report claims holds significance for him in terms of “national pride.” The report notes he offers video seminars on the medieval epic.

For Germany’s liberal and cultural left, all of this undoubtedly smacks of “Nazi.” But in a democracy, the question of what to make of Paul’s ideas and associations should have been left to the public. Paul might not have won—some polls didn’t favor him despite the AfD’s strong February performance in the region, where it came a very narrow first with 24.3%. But the establishment wanted to take no risks, knowing full well they have lost the public struggle on migration and national values.

The dude likes Tolkien and Wagner. Clearly a Nazi!

Meanwhile, the Chief Imam of Ireland would like you to know that it was sad that an asylum seeker raped a Dutch woman and later murdered a Dutch girl the other day, but society is also to blame for :::checks notes::: not telling him that rape and murder is wrong:

 

Poor marginalized asylum seeker. How was he to know it was wrong to rape women and murder them?

Somehow, I think the Irish, like many other Europeans, are in no mood to be talked to like this.

‘We Murder To Dissect’ — Wordsworth

A great visual representation of the Medieval versus the Modern:

 
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals