Two nations

The statements "I disagree with X when he says Y but I don't think X should be executed for it" and "people shouldn't be executed for saying Y but X said Y" sound alike. But they are not alike. Allow us a thought experiment, here.

Okay: for me it is not much of an experiment. I never approved Turning Point, that "Coffee Party" of the Right. They got themselves involved beyond just those "prove me wrong" tables; where they interfered with Biblical-scholarship classes, they stepped in my turf. I don't know that TPUSA kids similarly interfered in biology; but I know Prof. Mike Adams did, and you'll find rare in TPUSA circles to say of Adams what I am here saying of TPUSA.

I respected that TPUSA were pushing back against the Left, but that says more about the bankruptcy of our Left than about TPUSA. I mean, QAnon might - might - have ginned up voters in critical moments. Longer-term such voters gin up meanwhile the antiRight vote, and distract the Right itself. TPUSA wasn't this bad, as noted they weren't even as bad (in-public) as was Adams. They were still, at best, checquered.

To steelman further, advocating for the government to exert force is the woman's way around exerting force one's-self. Politics is war, says Clausewitz; Heinlein says the vote is sublimated violence. Curtis Yarvin knows this. Andrew Anglin is saying this.

All this might sound like I'm talking myself into the position that this was a righteous hit like what took out Suleimani. Indeed some people on the Left are blaming exactly a Rightist for this crime. Or they're blaming Israel / Mossad, assuredly what passes for the Right in Jewry.

This blog must take the brave stance that it disagrees with Charlie Kirk but that it would be wrong to kill him for that. (Dumbass.)

If TPUSA was wrong, they should be told that they are wrong. Then people don't attend their events because they know such events are a waste of their time. Administrations don't ring up Charlie Kirk because they know his word is about as useful as that of a TypePad blog. For whatever Charlie Kirk believed, with the warning it is impossible today to ask him, I understand he would not have recommended that we do unto a Marxian history-professor (say) what has been done unto him. He would have had an agent float that professor's nonsense into public scrutiny, which might be adjudged accordingly.

The one exception that should be made is when they endorse violence outside of the legal structure. The Nation of Islam should be allowed to preach. We can argue the point about, oh, Yakoob. The Zebra used to do murders. There's no arguing with that.

Back to the first paragraph here: how you arrange these statements matters. By "well yeah you shouldn't be deleted for saying Y but he said Yyyyy" you are laying out your marker that Y matters more than the shooting.