↓ Archives ↓

Posts Tagged → website

Two different American peoples, two different languages

Conservatives are treated to a daily barrage of “Can You Believe This Person” reports about awful responses to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. These reports emphasize the worst of the worst, which is always a statistical outlier, in order to get more clicks and keep the audience whipped up. I do admit to being surprised at how much open mockery and sneering has been done towards Charlie Kirk, his wife, his friends and followers, as well as the steady flow of outright lies and hate.

These are not appropriate or responsible responses to a political murder. Especially of someone so young and so gentle.

This makes me curious, because in my innocent naivete I cannot imagine so many big-hearted Americans deliberately lying about or hating someone they do not know. The very same people who openly pride themselves on being open minded, kind, nice, tolerant, factually correct… right? Their professed qualities seem to be starkly contrasted and at odds with their lousy behavior in this instance.

Made me wonder How are American liberals experiencing Charlie Kirk’s murder?

Since Kirk’s 9/10/25 assassination, I have spent a fair amount of time with liberals in two locations. Generally, they are either unfazed or not thinking about the murder. It does not appear to be foremost in their minds one way or another, unlike conservatives, who are understandably talking about it 24/7. Liberals are not socially talking about the murder in any way that I can see. If the subject is raised, it catches them by surprise, and the moment is uncomfortable.

One half day was spent with a gathering of people from around south central PA, the day after Charlie’s murder; the other was three days with liberals from all around the country in southwest PA last week.

These people did not watch Charlie as fans, or listen to him out of curiosity, as far as I can tell. If they did, their response was negative and they filed it away with the “not this guy” stuff. No one I encountered said anything like “Yeah, I have watched some of his videos and I like his style but disagree with his policies” or anything like this.

My impression, and that is all I am reporting here, is that the opinions of liberals I was around run the gamut from Charlie Kirk earned his murder because he said things Leftists strongly disagree with, to something like There are bad apples and violent radicals everywhere and on both sides; today it was Charlie Kirk, tomorrow it will be a liberal leader who gets whacked.

Again, my impression only, but liberals are experiencing this political assassination very differently than conservatives. This is obvious to anyone who reads the news at any site, but I had to see it for myself to believe it.

More broadly, it looks like there are two different languages being spoken in America, one language spoken by one political side and the other language by the other political side. It’s why firing late night TV host Jimmy Kimmel was important to both sides: The Left needs these big sources of partisan disinformation like Kimmel to hold onto their inaccurate political narrative, and the Right wants to break the Left’s stranglehold on disinformation flow, so that Leftists are forced to seek out new sources and, hopefully, encounter new information.

But the Left seems to be like crack addicts over this information sourcing thing. They really really do not like to give up what they like, nor do they want to hear anything different than what they are comfortable with. Thus, they are mad as hell about Kimmel being fired for what he said, but they are not all that upset about Charlie Kirk being murdered for what he said.

One thing I saw (again, it is the same as I have observed over my past lifetime) past two weeks was liberals get their information second hand. Happily. A newspaper or tv channel they trust or like tells them something, and they accept it.

Alternatively, dueling podcasts and websites are huge on the political right. The political Right’s information ecosystem is wildly diverse and raucous. Because there is so much source competition and diversity on the right, so much hands-on/ eyes-on/ street-level reporting, so much direct fact checking or argumentation, the political Right thinks it has better answers to political questions. There is real dynamic debate on the right, and it attracts people comfortable with debate.

On the other hand, leftists seem allergic to debate or questioning their narrative. “Fact checking” by legacy media only started when the truth started coming out from new media sources, like Breitbart and The Gateway Pundit, and the legacy media needed a symbolic way of stopping it. Legacy media fact checks are just as ridiculous and innaccurate as the original spin-narrative they put out in the first place.

Liberals formed BlueSky as an alternative to Twitter/X, not because they were being censored on Twitter/X, but because conservatives were not being censored there. Liberals fled from inconvenient truths and uncomfortable facts on that platform, and have done all they can to suppress, censor, and chase off different points of view on every other platform, too. Is it any wonder, then, that they seem generally unaffected by Charlie Kirk’s assassination?

So, Charlie’s murder is not on the Democrat leftist radar except as a distant, cold data point. Not an emotional thing. He did not speak to them or for them. He scared them.

Said a friend to me, “Which is why even those Liberals who know not to comment about Charlie’s murder really dont care about it. Most have been completely lied to about him, and the far leftists who are the ones lying about him are happy. Godless people dont care about this type of thing.”

That is one way of describing it. I don’t disagree, and I also believe these leftist people have been heavily programmed for a very long time. They think they are godly. To them, God is pacifism, appeasement, open borders and endless spending on the government credit card. They believe that Americans who do not share their policy views are mean, heartless, unkind, un-Christian, etc.

Two really different languages are being spoken, and neither side understands the other. And while the political right has had to learn the language of the left over the past fifty years (due to not controlling the means of information production), the left has never had to learn the language of the right.

Obviously the left is resistant to hearing our point of view. They do all possible to censor, suppress, punish, and stamp out ideas contrary to their own. They do not want to think about this huge political assassination, except in ways that are strategic. Like, how can they beat it, and defeat it, so they don’t lose more power.

America, you are in big trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You vs. Machine

Since the days of the Luddites, Human versus Machine has been a persistent theme, with the human being the “good” side, and the machine wearing the black hat. It’s easy to see why.

This theme has been fully developed by Hollywood, with movies such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Terminator series, and plenty of other sci-fi fiction, with future dystopias where humans battle cruel robots and machines that are either under their own control or under some robotic impulse, either way sparing the humans no quarter.

Truth is often the father of fiction, and this week we have seen three real-life Human vs. Machine stories that are much more compelling than the fake thrillers on screen. One is local, one is regional, and one is national.

First up is the local story, where Harrisburg mayoral candidate Nevin Mindlin argued his court appeal this Wednesday in front of a three-judge panel. A former Republican, the hyper-qualified Mindlin is now an Independent. He was removed from the ballot by a bizarre last-second technical objection by his opponent’s friends, after a hearing in a heavily politicized Dauphin County courtroom. See, Mindlin represents a threat to the combined and congruent interests of both the Democratic Party establishment machine and the Republican Party establishment machine, both of which fed in a bipartisan parasitic manner off of the body of Harrisburg City. Mindlin is completely independent of party bosses, and he will run the city (to the extent he can) in a way that is fairest for the Taxpayer. The establishments of both major parties have much to lose if Mindlin wins, because he will demand a criminal investigation into the debt shenanigans that destroyed the city, as opposed to Eric Papenfuse, who will simply look the other way and let the problems slip into the past, while the taxpayers are saddled with yet more unjustified losses. It is Man vs. machine, or really, vs. machines.

Regionally, the Mid-West has been a political toss-up, with one-time Republican Colorado becoming more liberal as Californians flee their home disaster and seek to bring the same bad ideas to an innocent, rural wonderland. This week we saw the recall of two defiantly arrogant state senators who had led the charge for insane gun laws. These laws do zero to effect crime and do everything to hamper lawful gun ownership, the kind Americans have enjoyed since the very beginning of the nation. The fact that both state senators were Democrats and the fact that their opponents did not include the Republican Party, but rather were an assembly of pissed-off citizens makes this a true-life Human vs. Machine contest. The local citizens who led the recall effort faced down and beat the Michael Bloomberg anti-gun machine, the Democratic Party machine, and several other political machines.

Naturally, the mainstream media has said very little if anything about this incredible feat. Naturally they haven’t, because to inform the voters out there that their future might really be in their hands, then their favored political party might lose power. So they hush it up. Recall that the failed effort to recall Wisconsin’s governor and several allied state senators was reported heavily every day for months and months, until it in fact failed. And then the mainstream media quickly slunk away and said “Never mind, folks.”

Finally, one Human vs. Machine story is still playing out in front of us on the national stage. That is the effort to define who is a journalist and what is journalism. No kidding.

With traditional and mainstream media sources dying left and right, this effort to exclude citizen journalists and artificially buoy up the legacy media is really just an effort to retain an old power that is quickly slipping through away, but which the Democrats need.

The advent of Internet media, blogs, and email have greatly leveled the playing field between citizen, voter, and political machine. At one time the only place where a voter could get news was from the news media, which is heavily invested in liberal and Leftist values (witness the 100th major media personality to leave the mainstream media and join the 0bama administration, this week, going from “satellite” duty to “in-house” role). Now, voters can get all kinds of reporting and information, without subjecting themselves to the heavy filtering and manipulation of the mainstream media, as best represented by CBS, NPR, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. This threat to one of the most important sources of power and control has one political party scrambling. And so is no surprise that US Senator Dianne Feinstein of California is now leading the charge to make only the failing legacy media be defined as “real” journalism, and the new media, with citizen reporters like me, as somehow unfit and thus, not “real” journalists.

Never mind that any website is pretty much the same website as the New York Times, except that with many others (like here) you get no advertisements. Never mind that journalism school is really just an advocacy training system, teaching young liberals how to go out and spread their Gospel of Leftism and liberalism.

I mean, really, how much training does it really take to make calls, knock on doors, interview people, look up facts, and then write about them? Journalism school should be about one semester long.

So now we see the Human vs. Machine playing out with us citizens fighting to maintain our right to free speech, our right to be heard like anyone else, our right to have our desktop printing presses be just as valued as someone else’s larger printing press. And the machine we are battling is a national political party.

As usual, I sign off by asking you dear readers to do something practical about this problem. Do something to support the little guy, like help Nevin Mindlin by going door-to-door for him in Harrisburg City. Donate ten bucks to your favorite gun rights group. And write an op-ed or a comment on some website, as a symbol of your own independent thinking, free of the hatchet jobs of political parties or the mainstream media.