"The line that struck me said Kirk believed “Jews are trying to replace white Americans with nonwhite immigrants,”"
Yeah, I would be genuinely shocked if Charlie Kirk said that. Don't believe it for a second.
Charlie actually took a ton of heat from people on the right for either avoiding the question of Israel or for being too deferential towards them.
For gods sake, the Times of Israel article on his death is headlined "Conservative influencer and Israel advocate Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah event".
As for his Christianity as well - his type of Christianity (in my opinion) was 1000000 miles better/softer than the type of Christianity that we all remember was absolutely mainstream in politics back in the 90s. It's not even close.
He was accurate with scripture, but he wasn't some dogmatic fire and brimstone hateful kind of person. His was much more tame, gracious and charitable. And he actually was that kind of person, which I think is borne out by all the testimonies of the people who knew him.
Charlie Kirk was, by all accounts, a very good and decent human being.
So yeah. Shame on the people who are smearing him posthumously. It's gross.
Thank you for providing the link. Charlie was probably right in claiming that Jewish donors, who fund a lot of liberal organizations, end up supporting groups that seek to undermine traditional Western culture by opening the borders to people that hate the West, hate America, and -- it turns out, as Charlie said--that hate Jews and Israel, too. His remarks were not antisemitic -- they were more in the nature of a warning to secular Jews.
As a lifelong Democrat and New York Times subscriber, I became disillusioned with these institutions during Covid. I disengaged from the Democrats and, astonishing to me, cancelled my NYT subscription. Lately I have become even more appalled by the outright manipulation and seeming indifference to truth. Not to mention the disgusting celebrations of Kirk’s death. I want nothing to do with these people. They seem nasty, or crazy, or ethically compromised or all of the above.
It is not indifference to the truth. The defining characteristic of the contemporary Left is zealous commitment to demonstrable untruths, and vicious hatred towards all who present the evidence and arguments debunking their dogma. That’s why Charlie was killed and why a good chunk of the Left is dancing on his grave.
This is really nothing new in human history. The modern Left is just the latest version of a long line of deranged religious zealots looking for heretics to punish.
I try to avoid bring it up but when someone starts going off (ahem) on guns going off I’ll mention this. Though, not sure why. They don’t seem to get that pulling a trigger requires both a physical act and intent.
I knew Charlie, argued with him periodically about language and argued the need for precision. Despite all that, I had enormous admiration for his courage to discuss, to argue, to debate and really get into difficult topics. He was unfailingly courageous. The parsing by papers like the Times and others who can’t simply acknowledge his murder as a profound assault on THAT - the courage to speak your mind and debate - ought to scare the living sh*t out of journalists and editors but instead they seem incapable of altering their dug-in behavior.
This was a rare individual who gave it his all and probably induced more young people to engage in our political discourse than anyone (either party) in the last CENTURY. And the idea that THAT isn’t celebrated makes me want to pull my hair out.
The idiots at The NY Times and Wash Post (not even to mention MSNBC) ought to report this: Charlie’s murder has likely spurred a multi-digit alteration in the political landscape of America.
Young people know a hero and they gravitate to them. Charlie was that guy in life and I guarantee he will be even larger in death. TPUSA will see a surge in its members and activism in ways these small minded journalists can’t even fathom.
They didn’t see the power of these young people before….but just wait and watch what happens now.
"This was a rare individual who gave it his all and probably induced more young people to engage in our political discourse than anyone (either party) in the last CENTURY. And the idea that THAT isn’t celebrated makes me want to pull my hair out."
Unfortunately, it’s also exactly what got him assassinated. Engaging young people in reasoned political discourse is not allowed by people whose current position and power is threatened by rational, conversant young people.
>Charlie’s murder has likely spurred a multi-digit alteration in the political landscape of America.
You're way more optimistic than I am. I think his murder will harden existing tribal allegiances and lower the bar for future acts of political violence. We're in a tailspin and I don't see how to pull out of it.
People compare this to the political violence of the early 1970s, but in that case there was a singular animating principle, the Vietnam War, and the domestic violence petered out after it ended. The modern culture war is just about hating the other guys, plain and simple.
Matt, these psychopaths believe words are violence. They've been told that by a particular part of the political slider, but we can't say which. Because, you know, both sides need to cool it.
Because, you know, both sides and all.
It is weird how both sides don't burn down police stations, federal buildings or loot. That's just one side. It's so weird.
If you have a chance to watch Boghossian's street epistemology, you see this play out. The degree of mental illness amongst certain parts of academia is alarming, and I'm not even talking about their problems with academic cheating, AI or political extremism.... I'm just talking about the head cases running the social sciences.
I actually really like this idea but don't want to cash in on somebody else's quote if I DID read it somewhere. I'll do some more digging when I have free time tomorrow and let you know :)
Pretty sure they only mean other peoples’ words. Like the vicious attacks on religion that are just refuting their tenets or denying a prophet is the sole conduit for virtue and are responded to with physical violence.
That was exactly my thought in anger and despair yesterday. Has there ever been an act of violence in the decades of my adulthood anywhere near equivalent to a person of the left killing a person on the right!
The problem that (some on) the left is having right now is that they're basically saying "He deserved to die because of his political views" and half the country realizing they also hold those views.
For example, I spent days researching the FAA discrimination scandal and know the agency has been hiring based on race for 25 years. I know the air traffic controller test was changed to be almost random -- in the name of 'equity' -- and that some people were given the answers to the test. And while that lawsuit didn't concern pilots in particular, I think it would be logical to at least wonder if the reduction of standards also bled over into pilots.
I appreciate the Matt/Walter belief that truth/fact based American journalism can create a national conversation capable of replacing the (my view) "everything means everything so nothing means anything" amoral surveillance hysterics the MSM, and the people who pay them, are using to strip Americans of their connection to the moral lines of demarcation our Republics founding fathers worked hard to enshrine in our Constitution. The ideological extremes of both Marxism and Capitalism are totalitarian. I do believe that the malignant narcissism of the purely mercenary leadership exploiting the ideological utopians of both camps care for nothing but themselves. Whatever the word populist means, both the "left" and "right" see it as an enemy to be destroyed. This assassination and the violence now poisoning the American psyche across our Republic is the result of allowing the American national conversation to be captured and reduced to the vacuous amorality and psychopathy of the lie now covering for the grifting mal actors and perps feeding on the lives and labor of hard working Americans. Slice it any way one wishes but the greatest economy in the world was looted and left in civilizational and cultural ruin.
There is the Republic, the Constitution and the free citizen. Everything else is psyop. Depart the psyop and live.
Demand, participate in the creation of and support the solutions oriented truth/fact based national conversation that will create the truth/fact based reality the citizens of the American Republic must have to survive.
I'd imagine that the reference is to the financialization of everything and the inevitability of the merger between corporate and governmental power. When CEOs cocktail with senators, policy and legislation happens for the benefit of the corporate sector. Those who can participate in the financial markets may have some collective financial benefit, but working class interests are essentially reduced for the most part to an accounting line item, and messy things like individual rights/responsibilities are also thusly reduced in the name of cost-management. Think of the centralized power of managed health and see a totalitarian system in action. Those vertically organized corporate enterprises squeeze profit out of managing the relationship between doctor and patient with an iron fist.
But that's not capitalism. That's corporatism, also known once as mercantilism, later state socialism or pejoratively these days as fascism. Capitalism is the FREE exchange of goods and services, managed not by force but by ordered liberty.
I agree - we don't live under a pure capitalist system. But given that there is the ideal, and then the real, it's unlikely that any human system can survive centralized power without becoming totalitarian. I described the process by which the illusion of capitalism devolved to the corporatism we slave for. I might say that the only chance for a better version of capitalism to happen would be if we can get the American experiment in constitutional republicanism back on track. Seems a big ask in these days of so many clamoring for positive "rights" rather than the negative right to be left to solve one's problems in one's own community, in one's way. Stripping "personhood" from corporations mug be a start. But whose 401k would survive that (says the citizen whose retirement plan is to work till I'm dead) ?
You win. I'm for ordered liberty and free trade. Call the rigged game looting and stripping the free peoples of the world of their civil liberties anything you like. (You might enjoy the Mike Benz take on USAID/Ukraine/Soros/NGO/spook land.)
I'd be equally against the FAA declaring the height of their workforce must match the height of the workforce at large, then discriminating based on height. Ditto religion or literally any other metric other than capability.
I wish the whole idea of race could be discarded. Back in the heyday of Carl Linnaeus (18th century), science was a new thing, and categorizing everything was a “thing.” So Cuvier and Buffon came up with “race” (root, ironically, means root), based on mostly superficial characteristics, like skin melanin content and epithelial eye folds. What a disservice! We need to retire this concept, forever.
At a fundamental level, I wonder how these things are even determined. We'll use the FAA example since we're already talking about it. The categories to be "balanced" with the civilian workforce were:
Black
Hispanic
Asian Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaskan Native
White Non-Hispanic
The black, white and Hispanic categories make sense, but who decided that Asian Pacific Islander should get its own category, and further decided what that even entails?
(Ironically, at this specific snapshot in time, the American Indian/Alaskan Native category was pretty heavily over-represented....meaning these "diversity goals" may have actually hurt this group!)
And then you have black hispanic! Might not be on FAA’s list, but I’ve seen that one, too. Originally, intersectionality came about from a suit with GM, where the contention was that the plaintiffs were discriminated against on two counts, for being black AND being female. Probably was legitimate at the time, but that idea has been blown out of all proportion. It’s all absurd
The concept of race has become preposterous and increasingly meaningless in our mixed race country. I was talking with my teenage granddaughters (who are racially mixed--1 grandfather is African-American), and the oldest was recounting how mortified she was when she was recognized as having scored well on the PSAT for an African-American---she had just checked the racial boxes and didn't realize how the categories would be used. Her younger sister said, "you were the whitest person up there! I would never check those boxes! Plus I could never pass as black!" Ironically, the same thing happened to their mother 25 years ago.
This stuff is so aggravating. Instead of identifying as black, or white, or “mixed race” (whatever that is), why can’t we just identify as humans and let it go?
I'm not yet willing to discard ethnic gene pools as one of the factors in assessing intelligence, but I place a lot more importance on the culture in which people are raised. Everybody knows by now that a number of Asian cultures (and gene pools?) produce people with the highest IQ's in the U.S., and they also push scholarship, achievement and excellence. If I had to choose a surgeon from a group with diverse skin colors and I know nothing else about them, I would go for the East Asians and Indians.
The left labels anyone they disagree with "controversial." I'm sick of it. The assassin aimed for a media-created cartoon character named Charlie Kirk and the bullet killed a human being named Charlie Kirk who was a good man, a husband, a father and a patriot.
Fuck the media, fuck the SPLC, fuck the hate speech laws and fuck all the billionaires and NGOs funding this bull shit.
There's a sense among Democrats that they're being railroaded into saying nice things about someone whose views they regard as harmful just because he got shot, and they resent that, which I do think is understandable.
I don't care if they have to preface it with "he was bad" as long as they clearly condemn political violence, as most of the party leadership has done.
If they say political violence is bad but he essentially had it coming because of all the bad things he said, the second part negates the first. Condemning assassination doesn’t mean you have to also heap praise on the victim, you can even say you disagreed with him (I did) and he still shouldn’t have been killed over his beliefs. And it always takes zero effort to stay silent- if you’re not a prominent politician, you don’t have to publicly comment on everything.
I know emotions are high right now, but we really do have to distinguish between people who say "he had it coming", or use extremist rhetoric, versus people who just want to make it clear they strongly disagreed with him.
If Zohran Mamdani got shot, I imagine my own reaction would be something like: political violence is always wrong, but socialism is extremely destructive and NYC will be much better off without him as mayor. That isn't justifying violence. It's making it clear that violence doesn't canonize its victims.
Party leadership is Pelosi, Schumer and Jeffries. They are all on record inciting violence against Trump and MAGA and the USSC.
The previous president of the U.S. gave a speech with a blood red background and two marines in the dark flanking him, calling Trump and MAGA the greatest threat to American democracy. They have encouraged this hate for nearly ten years against the people of the United States. No modern president until Obama that I am aware of had ever attacked the voters, not the politicians, the voters, of the other party.
I could give a damn about a “sense among Democrats that they’re being railroaded blah blah blah…”.
First, where were they when their leadership was repeatedly demonizing the opposition and their voters? Second, my complaint isn’t with people who couch their hate or dislike with qualifiers that political violence is not OK. It is with the people who literally are celebrating the murder, mocking his wife and children, and saying he deserved to die and/or hope he is the first of many more.
Finally, the haters and mockers have a first amendment right to make total assholes of themselves, but that right ends the moment they incite violence. If they want to be dickheads and cunts, fine, but they should expect to be treated like the dickheads and cunts that they are and shamed by civil society and even fired. Who wants to associate with such scum?
Indeed. They have actually become quite good at it over recent years. There was a time several decades ago (I cancelled my subscription to NYT years ago) when they were a must-subscribe -to newspaper. What a sad waste of a news icon.
—“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
I think this famous gem best describes our postmodern academy, the sewage pit that poisons our civic discourse, much more than inscrutable quotes from Foucault and Derrida, those emperors of bullshit.
First it was there's no such thing as truth (which encouraged infinite lies), then it was there's no such thing as right or wrong or good or bad (those are terms the oppressor uses to further his power), no book or artwork is better than any other (great art makes mediocrities anxious and angry), any possible interpretation of a text is as worthy as the view of its author (the author was killed off and replaced by "theorists"), along with one culture is no better than any other culture (leading to the contextual defense of clitorectomies and other indigenous "ways of knowing"), which then became things like America fought its Revolution to preserve and protect slavery and the mammalian sex binary is actually an oppressive imposition of the patriarchy.
Which leads us to where we are today, the official slogan of the postmodern Left: “Your speech is violence; our violence is speech.”
When you quote Kirk as saying “I’m sorry, if I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified,” to demonstrate one of his supposed “bad” statements, I think you are guilty of the same dishonest characterization you decry in the NY Times. He was talking about the pernicious effects of DEI which causes the credentials of all black people in positions of responsibility to be questioned. You make it sound like he simply viewed black people as inferior, which is not true. He had a long history of working with black groups. That’s an unfair quote out of context.
Would it even be possible to phrase concerns about DEI in such a way that could not be construed as racist? How would you word it if you were to interpret his words in the most charitable way?
Is it even possible to talk about such things without being called a racist? I’m not sure that it is.
So you think he is a racist? The examples you cited, both imo out of context, are squarely on that topic.
You kinda stepped in it. Provide the basis for thinking he just slipped and exposed himself as a racist. Otherwise, I’m with Wallace Barker.
But you did same with cherry picked snippet of the “better off” video.
Defend why you didn’t show the greater exchange where she agreed with his underlying premise.
I respect the shit out of you as a writer and even more as a thinker. This is why many of us expect more, or at least a much better explanation for you doing what your article complains (rightfully) of others of doing. The above, ~I stand by my inference which is not readily obvious from the transcript (pilot) or video (better off)~ comes across as complete horse shit.
You made the choice to call him a racist and offer a very slender reed in evidence to support the claim. Man up!
You don't know if it was an actual description of how he would really react in such a situation or a rhetorical example he was giving.
I have to admit, the thought would cross my mind also. I'm a white guy and I would have the least amount of concern about a male asian pilot. It shouldn't be this way.
Transcripts are available for the black pilot conversation. So is a video of him explaining it again after the fact. So is commentary by Jordan Peterson.
Matt’s reply is in essence, ~yes, his racism is not readily obvious nor inferable, and he explicitly denies that he believes such things. But I know he is racist anyway.~
Given a name… this feels very personal. Matt gives off the vibe that he has personal knowledge that Charlie is a covert racist but is too chicken shit to say that.
I’m so pissed. I borderline revere Taibbi. But this was “weak ass shit.” Matt being a baseball pro knows exactly what that means.
It needs to be in print. Either as a correction or even an explanation for why he refuses to explain the thinly veiled accusations of racism and continues to rely on an out of context quote taken from NPR of all places and a cherry picked :26 from a video that in context says the exact opposite of what he claims. If I submitted a paper in college, made similar claims and offered evidence equivalent to what Matt did I wouldn’t just get an F, I would get referred for academic discipline (I went to school when bs like that didn’t fly).
They have been doing the same thing to JK Rowling.
Ask any of the people who claim Charlie or JK are haters just exactly what they said that was so awful, and they cannot tell you. Or they take something out of context like you mention above.
Same playbook. They've used the damn thing for over a decade now and we need to get ahead of it and defang it permanently.
i think it’s the term “white nationalist” that was most dehumanizing for Kirk. the slur is used to denote someone who doesn’t embrace mass immigration, and you know who isn’t (or, wasn’t) too keen on mass immigration was Bernie Sanders.
I think this illustrates the problem in a nutshell - if a person favors their [whatever] others immediately say that person is against [whatever the different thing is]. But that is not true. It conglates bias with prejudice. You can be for your group without being against a different group. That is why we have Black Entertainment Television network and Black awards shows but cannot even say anything positive about whites.
Ok, Matt. Overall ok article, but you are wrong again on some of this. I never once thought, oh, no we have a black pilot UNTIL WE HAD THESE DEI programs! THEN I started worrying. That is the point! He is NOT a racist and you should rethink that comment. It's the programs not the person's skin. He wants them to be qualified and we couldn't be sure anymore. So that is a complete mischaracterization.
Next, ok, if you don't like it that his religion doesn't approve of homosexuality (even though he has gay friends and does not judge individuals or other sinners or people who would be considered, since we are all sinners). But if leftists (which used to include you) call him a hater, why in the world are leftists taking the side of these Muslims who denigrate women, gays, and are probably not for abortion. But they never go after them, just Christians because they want power. And vice versa. Muslims do not like liberals, they just use them. I myself am ok with gay marriage (the trans crap is something else, especially for children). However, I do object to them normalizing it and demanding we all think and say it's normal. Or telling my kid it's just a normal choice! I don't think it is. They can live as they want to but they cannot control what we think or believe and they do not have a right to mold society in their image. Or tell my kid that.
But overall, thanks for writing it. Charlie Kirk was a kind, gentle soul, who just wanted to engage and have conversation and they blew him away. I'm still gutted by it.
I never have followed CK , but the postings on his death are off the charts. Why would anybody post “Glad he’s dead. Next …”. No offense, but if anybody in my heath care orbit is posting that. . . . We have fallen a long way.
When did you see or ride with black or female pilots BEFORE DEI programs? Can you provide dates or evidence? If aviation accidents are more likely due to inexperienced pilots, then statistics would show new identities to a profession to be involved in higher rates of accidents. Also, when you saw a white professional from an Ivy League University did you wonder each time if he was qualified, considering he likely was a legacy student or that he was attending a school with quotas? When you ran into a professor whose father was a professor before him, did you worry whether he was hired due to the good old boy network rather than merit? Who cares what you consider "normal" other than you? Matt has certainly developed a new profitable audience for himself, having lost his secure protected position at Rolling Stone. The unity of view here is interesting.
Yes, I did, and how dare you question it. There were black pilots when I was in my twenties. Which was a long time ago. I had complete faith in black pilots I knew were trained and not put there because of their skin color. You need help. And actually I argued with my left wing professors, many of whom weren't that smart, but were put there in a left dominated brainwashing machine. I was an adjunct professor for ten years and I know how this works. Pilots back then were not part of this garbage. Who cares what you think. And you are criticizing Matt for telling the truth? "Profitable." You are just upset because people are starting to see just who you people are.
LOL. You trigger easily. How dare I ask you for some evidence of your narrative? When were you in your twenties, easy question? The histories of men and women in commercial aviation are well documented. Let's see how that lines up with your claims. How did you know which black pilots were trained as opposed to which were placed there by their skin color? Or even which were black?
We all need help these days, but you should definitely see a therapist for your issues. Your posting is proof enough you were quite smarter than your "left-wing professors." Not sure which "left dominated brainwashing machine" you attended. Mind telling us which school it was and in which subject? The same questions as to where you were an adjunct professor and know how it works? Most Universities today have been converted into technical training institutions, although there are certainly some departments which are heavily ideologically-influenced. I spent a lot of time around academia, so I also know how it works, but I also spent years out in the real-world too.
Nobody cares what either of us think. At least I know that. I supported Matt's journalism from the moment his deal at Rolling Stone came to an end. I don't criticize Matt when he provides solid relevant reporting, but I didn't sign up for yet another internet influencer or two old crotchety men kibitzing with each other for two hours or endless postings about the latest assault to Matt’s or Walter's ideological sensibilities or late-to-the-party reporting on issues which Matt should have covered 5-10 years ago or Walter’s psychedelic-induced political observations. Eric Salzman is the only one doing worthwhile investigative reporting at Racket News these days. I will not be renewing my yearly support, if I can figure out how to prevent them dinging my credit card again. However, I duly note that you are receiving from Matt what you want, which was my earlier point.
Yes, profitable. I was quite surprised to learn that Matt told Sy Hersh he was making more money than ever from his substack gig.
I’m not upset, but I am disappointed, along with other long-time readers of Matt. Call us old-school, but we prefer the Useful Idiots to the Useless Idiots. As for you, what a revealing tell. What kind of person do you think I am and then what kind of person are you?
This will be the last words I exchange with someone who can't win arguments so delivers ad hominem attacks. To me. To Matt. You are being ridiculous. I saw black pilots when I flew all the time in my 20's. Long time ago. DEI did not exist then in skilled jobs, that simple. So we knew they were well-trained.
And not only did I adjunct and publish books, but we have our own business, apartment units. And for a while we owned a construction company. So I think I have a pretty broad life experience.
Nobody makes you read Matt, who is one of the very few critical thinkers on substack or anywhere else. He was surprised to make more money by telling the truth. It's not enough to just argue issues with leftists; they have to hurl insults and bullets.
Today somebody on Substack had a post inviting people to compare today’s Dems to those of the recent past.*. The poster referenced LA Mayor Tom Bradley compared to the current LA mayor. You can view Bradley on YouTube. The point. Dems didn’t used to be this radical.
*My words: “BC” — Before (not Christ) Obama v. “AD” — After (not Christ) Obama.
Yes, this is about these radical narratives and programs. Before Obama, Democrats were not this radical. How anyone can defend what just happened here is shocking. This wasn't some outside enemy who attacked us--this was our neighbor and we (and his wife and children) got to watch this guy blown away in prime time by our own people. We knew little kids were blown away praying as well, but this was brutal in a way I don't think we'll equal. It was worse than 911 and there is no excuse for the extent of the evil here. And Democrats used to be human. Now they have been taken over by complete crazies. And if they aren't, they better draw a distinction and soon. Because otherwise, we know who they are.
LOL. I’m glad you are done, as you can't win an argument, if you refuse to answer factual questions put to you. That's just basic discourse.
Since you refuse to say in what years you were in your twenties, I have no idea to what extent your testimony has truth in it.
Before DEI, there was Affirmative Action, and Affirmative Action came along at the same time as the first commercial black pilots were hired (after the Civil Rights Acts).
I do my homework.
And since I did live in that period, I can affirmatively state that blacks did not enter the professions at integrated institutions in any significant numbers until Affirmative Action.
So prove me wrong.
The same arguments against DEI were made back then against Affirmative Action.
By the way, it took even longer for women to make any significant inroads into commercial aviation and even today they are grossly underrepresented.
Since you won’t even state at what school you were an adjunct or in what subject, hard to say anything about your personal testimony related to battling it out with “left-wing professors” at a "left dominated brainwashing machine."
Ad hominem attacks? I had a lot more questions for you if I wanted to make ad hominem attacks.
You are certainly correct that nobody makes me read Matt. However, neither my friend nor I, who has also had enough, were able find a way to cancel our yearly subscriptions and get a pro-rated refund. Since I paid for a year, I believe I had the right to exercise my free-speech to critique the direction Matt and Racket News have gone. I was loyal to Useful Idiots, but obviously Matt couldn’t handle Katie and is much more comfortable here with Walter. Useful Idiots has gotten better without him. His choice, but I have the right to be disappointed. I also would pay to read Eric Salzman if that could be arranged.
It’s great for you that Matt’s truth is your truth. I wonder if he feels the same way. Does this mean that Matt’s earlier truths were inconsistent with your own? And to think Matt just lucked into earning more money, rather than making some conscious decisions about which direction to take his journalism and punditry. Others, including former associates, have analyzed what happened and reached different conclusions than you should you be interested. I don’t take a position.
You should really engage in some self-reflection. Do you really believe that asserting you were so much smarter than your “left-wing professors” and calling your school a "left dominated brainwashing machine” not insulting or hurling bullets (metaphorically)? Or were you channeling Matt’s earlier gonzo writing style? Yes, please don’t bother to argue with anyone who doesn’t agree with you already. It seems you haven’t the skills for it, or maybe we just caught you on a bad day.
I hardly would call Matt one of the few critical thinkers on substack or anywhere else. I doubt he would call himself that either, but Matt’s a big boy and to his credit actually engages now and then in the comments section of his postings. He can speak for himself. I’d be happy to discuss in further detail any of my remarks or judgements that you consider ridiculous.
This increased under Obama and we all know it. I flew mostly from 1978-1983 for my work (Most of my flights were in that time frame). They stopped the programs because they were sued in 1978. Charlie Kirk was criticizing the programs. Not the people. Nobody cares what color anyone is. Now I'm done arguing with you.
"The line that struck me said Kirk believed “Jews are trying to replace white Americans with nonwhite immigrants,”"
Yeah, I would be genuinely shocked if Charlie Kirk said that. Don't believe it for a second.
Charlie actually took a ton of heat from people on the right for either avoiding the question of Israel or for being too deferential towards them.
For gods sake, the Times of Israel article on his death is headlined "Conservative influencer and Israel advocate Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah event".
As for his Christianity as well - his type of Christianity (in my opinion) was 1000000 miles better/softer than the type of Christianity that we all remember was absolutely mainstream in politics back in the 90s. It's not even close.
He was accurate with scripture, but he wasn't some dogmatic fire and brimstone hateful kind of person. His was much more tame, gracious and charitable. And he actually was that kind of person, which I think is borne out by all the testimonies of the people who knew him.
Charlie Kirk was, by all accounts, a very good and decent human being.
So yeah. Shame on the people who are smearing him posthumously. It's gross.
thanks. this is a really good and thoughtful comment. really good.
💯!!!
Well said and he was only 31 years old. He had at least another 30 + natural years to develop further. What an absolute shame. Heartbreaking 💔.
Wasn’t Kirk a Jew?
Read the full quote, here, I believe: https://www.factcheck.org/2025/09/viral-claims-about-charlie-kirks-words/
The fact check doesn't provide dates, times, and other critical details, so...
Thank you for providing the link. Charlie was probably right in claiming that Jewish donors, who fund a lot of liberal organizations, end up supporting groups that seek to undermine traditional Western culture by opening the borders to people that hate the West, hate America, and -- it turns out, as Charlie said--that hate Jews and Israel, too. His remarks were not antisemitic -- they were more in the nature of a warning to secular Jews.
The full quote isn't in there. It's not mentioned anywhere.
Dont waste my time fact checking your sources for you, it's a rude thing to do.
I couldn't care less about this specific instance and stipulated clearly that the link had multiple flaws.
When I'm rude I write things such as "fuck off and learn to read."
As a lifelong Democrat and New York Times subscriber, I became disillusioned with these institutions during Covid. I disengaged from the Democrats and, astonishing to me, cancelled my NYT subscription. Lately I have become even more appalled by the outright manipulation and seeming indifference to truth. Not to mention the disgusting celebrations of Kirk’s death. I want nothing to do with these people. They seem nasty, or crazy, or ethically compromised or all of the above.
So many in this forum fit your profile. I 'me too' your comment.
second
It is not indifference to the truth. The defining characteristic of the contemporary Left is zealous commitment to demonstrable untruths, and vicious hatred towards all who present the evidence and arguments debunking their dogma. That’s why Charlie was killed and why a good chunk of the Left is dancing on his grave.
This is really nothing new in human history. The modern Left is just the latest version of a long line of deranged religious zealots looking for heretics to punish.
Good point.
It's all of the above.
Thank you. As a conservatarian, I root for there being more of you.
As am I
“Mistakes were made.” That’s all the press is capable of these days.
Reminds me of reading police reports of bad shoots.
"The gun discharged and the victim was struck."
An SUV jumped the curb and plowed into a crowed in.........
“The victim was struck.” Wonderful use of passive voice.
A law prof told me of one of his long term studies on firearms. He’s been doing it 50+ years. I’ve only been doing it for 25 since I learned of it.
But the premise is to safely store your guns and over time record every instance of them, “going off.”
It has been an uneventful study.
For the sake of science, I will now attempt to replicate your experiment. (I wasn't writing it down before, but now I will!)
Yeah, was tempted to back date it.
I try to avoid bring it up but when someone starts going off (ahem) on guns going off I’ll mention this. Though, not sure why. They don’t seem to get that pulling a trigger requires both a physical act and intent.
Or the classic line given by Mrs. Clinton after Benghazi:
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Note passive voice.
glad you caught that. After all, it is well settled that one should always avoid passive voice. :) :)
Unless you’re ducking blame 😉
That and a petty insult to the already wronged party.
The "revelation" (i.e. correction) is convenienlty only in the on-line edition for quick removal.
But were they really mistakes?
That’s a good point. Sometimes, no, they just have to make a correction because they got caught.
Yes, this type of comment is super weaselly
Yeah except they’re saying Charlie made the mistakes.
I knew Charlie, argued with him periodically about language and argued the need for precision. Despite all that, I had enormous admiration for his courage to discuss, to argue, to debate and really get into difficult topics. He was unfailingly courageous. The parsing by papers like the Times and others who can’t simply acknowledge his murder as a profound assault on THAT - the courage to speak your mind and debate - ought to scare the living sh*t out of journalists and editors but instead they seem incapable of altering their dug-in behavior.
This was a rare individual who gave it his all and probably induced more young people to engage in our political discourse than anyone (either party) in the last CENTURY. And the idea that THAT isn’t celebrated makes me want to pull my hair out.
The idiots at The NY Times and Wash Post (not even to mention MSNBC) ought to report this: Charlie’s murder has likely spurred a multi-digit alteration in the political landscape of America.
Young people know a hero and they gravitate to them. Charlie was that guy in life and I guarantee he will be even larger in death. TPUSA will see a surge in its members and activism in ways these small minded journalists can’t even fathom.
They didn’t see the power of these young people before….but just wait and watch what happens now.
"This was a rare individual who gave it his all and probably induced more young people to engage in our political discourse than anyone (either party) in the last CENTURY. And the idea that THAT isn’t celebrated makes me want to pull my hair out."
This is exactly how I feel.
Unfortunately, it’s also exactly what got him assassinated. Engaging young people in reasoned political discourse is not allowed by people whose current position and power is threatened by rational, conversant young people.
From your lips to God's ears.
Hear hear!
>Charlie’s murder has likely spurred a multi-digit alteration in the political landscape of America.
You're way more optimistic than I am. I think his murder will harden existing tribal allegiances and lower the bar for future acts of political violence. We're in a tailspin and I don't see how to pull out of it.
People compare this to the political violence of the early 1970s, but in that case there was a singular animating principle, the Vietnam War, and the domestic violence petered out after it ended. The modern culture war is just about hating the other guys, plain and simple.
Matt, these psychopaths believe words are violence. They've been told that by a particular part of the political slider, but we can't say which. Because, you know, both sides need to cool it.
Because, you know, both sides and all.
It is weird how both sides don't burn down police stations, federal buildings or loot. That's just one side. It's so weird.
The only reason to claim words are violence is to justify violence to stop words.
If you have a chance to watch Boghossian's street epistemology, you see this play out. The degree of mental illness amongst certain parts of academia is alarming, and I'm not even talking about their problems with academic cheating, AI or political extremism.... I'm just talking about the head cases running the social sciences.
The demarcation between political ideology and mental illness is pretty fuzzy, I’m afraid.
Also, the people who claim "silence is violence" prove their pacifism by never shutting the hell up.
Can you put this on a t-shirt? If not, will you allow me to?
I actually really like this idea but don't want to cash in on somebody else's quote if I DID read it somewhere. I'll do some more digging when I have free time tomorrow and let you know :)
I want one too, if they can be made!!
The process is a little more involved than I thought and may take a day or two....
Great sentence. Truly superb.
Brilliant
It's so good I'm positive I read it somewhere else.
I'm pretty sure it was some libertarian who said it.
I actually googled it and searched it on X to give credit and didn't find any matches, to my surprise.
Pretty sure they only mean other peoples’ words. Like the vicious attacks on religion that are just refuting their tenets or denying a prophet is the sole conduit for virtue and are responded to with physical violence.
And the key point is that their own words never cause violence - just love, get it Hitler?
That was exactly my thought in anger and despair yesterday. Has there ever been an act of violence in the decades of my adulthood anywhere near equivalent to a person of the left killing a person on the right!
The problem that (some on) the left is having right now is that they're basically saying "He deserved to die because of his political views" and half the country realizing they also hold those views.
For example, I spent days researching the FAA discrimination scandal and know the agency has been hiring based on race for 25 years. I know the air traffic controller test was changed to be almost random -- in the name of 'equity' -- and that some people were given the answers to the test. And while that lawsuit didn't concern pilots in particular, I think it would be logical to at least wonder if the reduction of standards also bled over into pilots.
“ I think it would be logical to at least wonder if the reduction of standards also bled over into pilots.”
Retired airline pilot here. Your logic is sound.
I appreciate the Matt/Walter belief that truth/fact based American journalism can create a national conversation capable of replacing the (my view) "everything means everything so nothing means anything" amoral surveillance hysterics the MSM, and the people who pay them, are using to strip Americans of their connection to the moral lines of demarcation our Republics founding fathers worked hard to enshrine in our Constitution. The ideological extremes of both Marxism and Capitalism are totalitarian. I do believe that the malignant narcissism of the purely mercenary leadership exploiting the ideological utopians of both camps care for nothing but themselves. Whatever the word populist means, both the "left" and "right" see it as an enemy to be destroyed. This assassination and the violence now poisoning the American psyche across our Republic is the result of allowing the American national conversation to be captured and reduced to the vacuous amorality and psychopathy of the lie now covering for the grifting mal actors and perps feeding on the lives and labor of hard working Americans. Slice it any way one wishes but the greatest economy in the world was looted and left in civilizational and cultural ruin.
There is the Republic, the Constitution and the free citizen. Everything else is psyop. Depart the psyop and live.
Demand, participate in the creation of and support the solutions oriented truth/fact based national conversation that will create the truth/fact based reality the citizens of the American Republic must have to survive.
Explain how any degree of capitalism is totalitarian.
I'd imagine that the reference is to the financialization of everything and the inevitability of the merger between corporate and governmental power. When CEOs cocktail with senators, policy and legislation happens for the benefit of the corporate sector. Those who can participate in the financial markets may have some collective financial benefit, but working class interests are essentially reduced for the most part to an accounting line item, and messy things like individual rights/responsibilities are also thusly reduced in the name of cost-management. Think of the centralized power of managed health and see a totalitarian system in action. Those vertically organized corporate enterprises squeeze profit out of managing the relationship between doctor and patient with an iron fist.
But that's not capitalism. That's corporatism, also known once as mercantilism, later state socialism or pejoratively these days as fascism. Capitalism is the FREE exchange of goods and services, managed not by force but by ordered liberty.
I agree - we don't live under a pure capitalist system. But given that there is the ideal, and then the real, it's unlikely that any human system can survive centralized power without becoming totalitarian. I described the process by which the illusion of capitalism devolved to the corporatism we slave for. I might say that the only chance for a better version of capitalism to happen would be if we can get the American experiment in constitutional republicanism back on track. Seems a big ask in these days of so many clamoring for positive "rights" rather than the negative right to be left to solve one's problems in one's own community, in one's way. Stripping "personhood" from corporations mug be a start. But whose 401k would survive that (says the citizen whose retirement plan is to work till I'm dead) ?
You win. I'm for ordered liberty and free trade. Call the rigged game looting and stripping the free peoples of the world of their civil liberties anything you like. (You might enjoy the Mike Benz take on USAID/Ukraine/Soros/NGO/spook land.)
And it really has nothing to do with race.
I'd be equally against the FAA declaring the height of their workforce must match the height of the workforce at large, then discriminating based on height. Ditto religion or literally any other metric other than capability.
I wish the whole idea of race could be discarded. Back in the heyday of Carl Linnaeus (18th century), science was a new thing, and categorizing everything was a “thing.” So Cuvier and Buffon came up with “race” (root, ironically, means root), based on mostly superficial characteristics, like skin melanin content and epithelial eye folds. What a disservice! We need to retire this concept, forever.
At a fundamental level, I wonder how these things are even determined. We'll use the FAA example since we're already talking about it. The categories to be "balanced" with the civilian workforce were:
Black
Hispanic
Asian Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaskan Native
White Non-Hispanic
The black, white and Hispanic categories make sense, but who decided that Asian Pacific Islander should get its own category, and further decided what that even entails?
(Ironically, at this specific snapshot in time, the American Indian/Alaskan Native category was pretty heavily over-represented....meaning these "diversity goals" may have actually hurt this group!)
https://ibb.co/4gnQbrrt
And then you have black hispanic! Might not be on FAA’s list, but I’ve seen that one, too. Originally, intersectionality came about from a suit with GM, where the contention was that the plaintiffs were discriminated against on two counts, for being black AND being female. Probably was legitimate at the time, but that idea has been blown out of all proportion. It’s all absurd
The concept of race has become preposterous and increasingly meaningless in our mixed race country. I was talking with my teenage granddaughters (who are racially mixed--1 grandfather is African-American), and the oldest was recounting how mortified she was when she was recognized as having scored well on the PSAT for an African-American---she had just checked the racial boxes and didn't realize how the categories would be used. Her younger sister said, "you were the whitest person up there! I would never check those boxes! Plus I could never pass as black!" Ironically, the same thing happened to their mother 25 years ago.
This stuff is so aggravating. Instead of identifying as black, or white, or “mixed race” (whatever that is), why can’t we just identify as humans and let it go?
I'm not yet willing to discard ethnic gene pools as one of the factors in assessing intelligence, but I place a lot more importance on the culture in which people are raised. Everybody knows by now that a number of Asian cultures (and gene pools?) produce people with the highest IQ's in the U.S., and they also push scholarship, achievement and excellence. If I had to choose a surgeon from a group with diverse skin colors and I know nothing else about them, I would go for the East Asians and Indians.
The left labels anyone they disagree with "controversial." I'm sick of it. The assassin aimed for a media-created cartoon character named Charlie Kirk and the bullet killed a human being named Charlie Kirk who was a good man, a husband, a father and a patriot.
Fuck the media, fuck the SPLC, fuck the hate speech laws and fuck all the billionaires and NGOs funding this bull shit.
If you go out of your way to point out how “bad” somebody was on the occasion of their murder, what could be your purpose other than to justify it?
There's a sense among Democrats that they're being railroaded into saying nice things about someone whose views they regard as harmful just because he got shot, and they resent that, which I do think is understandable.
I don't care if they have to preface it with "he was bad" as long as they clearly condemn political violence, as most of the party leadership has done.
If they say political violence is bad but he essentially had it coming because of all the bad things he said, the second part negates the first. Condemning assassination doesn’t mean you have to also heap praise on the victim, you can even say you disagreed with him (I did) and he still shouldn’t have been killed over his beliefs. And it always takes zero effort to stay silent- if you’re not a prominent politician, you don’t have to publicly comment on everything.
I know emotions are high right now, but we really do have to distinguish between people who say "he had it coming", or use extremist rhetoric, versus people who just want to make it clear they strongly disagreed with him.
If Zohran Mamdani got shot, I imagine my own reaction would be something like: political violence is always wrong, but socialism is extremely destructive and NYC will be much better off without him as mayor. That isn't justifying violence. It's making it clear that violence doesn't canonize its victims.
Party leadership is Pelosi, Schumer and Jeffries. They are all on record inciting violence against Trump and MAGA and the USSC.
The previous president of the U.S. gave a speech with a blood red background and two marines in the dark flanking him, calling Trump and MAGA the greatest threat to American democracy. They have encouraged this hate for nearly ten years against the people of the United States. No modern president until Obama that I am aware of had ever attacked the voters, not the politicians, the voters, of the other party.
I could give a damn about a “sense among Democrats that they’re being railroaded blah blah blah…”.
First, where were they when their leadership was repeatedly demonizing the opposition and their voters? Second, my complaint isn’t with people who couch their hate or dislike with qualifiers that political violence is not OK. It is with the people who literally are celebrating the murder, mocking his wife and children, and saying he deserved to die and/or hope he is the first of many more.
Finally, the haters and mockers have a first amendment right to make total assholes of themselves, but that right ends the moment they incite violence. If they want to be dickheads and cunts, fine, but they should expect to be treated like the dickheads and cunts that they are and shamed by civil society and even fired. Who wants to associate with such scum?
Well said.
sounds like you Agree with JD.
Consequentialism - the ends justifies the means - is a nasty, nasty doctrine in the hands of people who believe that truth is subjective.
Such people have no principles but their self-interest.
I can’t stand your pessimism. Because I fear you are right. But I keep trying. Being catholic im not supposed to have that kind of hope. But I do
Totally 💯
Consequentialism isn’t quite that tidily “ends justifies the means.”
It decides the morality of an act by its outcome. It is retrospective.
So, good intentions acted upon that come to disaster through no fault of the good actor is an immoral act.
Yes, it certainly the system does condone bad acts that produce good results. And on that basis, yeah, 100% agree. It is a system we should reject.
Yes, it certainly is accepted by those who find truth relative to their interests. We’ve seen far too much of it.
Your comment summarizes how I’ve been feeling for a number of years so well, I actually took a screenshot of it.
NYT set out to defame Charlie Kirk in death and they had no problem lying to do so.
Indeed. They have actually become quite good at it over recent years. There was a time several decades ago (I cancelled my subscription to NYT years ago) when they were a must-subscribe -to newspaper. What a sad waste of a news icon.
—“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
I think this famous gem best describes our postmodern academy, the sewage pit that poisons our civic discourse, much more than inscrutable quotes from Foucault and Derrida, those emperors of bullshit.
First it was there's no such thing as truth (which encouraged infinite lies), then it was there's no such thing as right or wrong or good or bad (those are terms the oppressor uses to further his power), no book or artwork is better than any other (great art makes mediocrities anxious and angry), any possible interpretation of a text is as worthy as the view of its author (the author was killed off and replaced by "theorists"), along with one culture is no better than any other culture (leading to the contextual defense of clitorectomies and other indigenous "ways of knowing"), which then became things like America fought its Revolution to preserve and protect slavery and the mammalian sex binary is actually an oppressive imposition of the patriarchy.
Which leads us to where we are today, the official slogan of the postmodern Left: “Your speech is violence; our violence is speech.”
Hate has no home here! Love wins!
When you quote Kirk as saying “I’m sorry, if I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified,” to demonstrate one of his supposed “bad” statements, I think you are guilty of the same dishonest characterization you decry in the NY Times. He was talking about the pernicious effects of DEI which causes the credentials of all black people in positions of responsibility to be questioned. You make it sound like he simply viewed black people as inferior, which is not true. He had a long history of working with black groups. That’s an unfair quote out of context.
As I said, I’m aware of the DEI context, and I still think that quote is unintentionally revealing.
But how, exactly?
Unintentionally revealing of what?
That he is a racist? That he thinks less of the ability of dark skinned people?
Would it even be possible to phrase concerns about DEI in such a way that could not be construed as racist? How would you word it if you were to interpret his words in the most charitable way?
Is it even possible to talk about such things without being called a racist? I’m not sure that it is.
So you think he is a racist? The examples you cited, both imo out of context, are squarely on that topic.
You kinda stepped in it. Provide the basis for thinking he just slipped and exposed himself as a racist. Otherwise, I’m with Wallace Barker.
But you did same with cherry picked snippet of the “better off” video.
Defend why you didn’t show the greater exchange where she agreed with his underlying premise.
I respect the shit out of you as a writer and even more as a thinker. This is why many of us expect more, or at least a much better explanation for you doing what your article complains (rightfully) of others of doing. The above, ~I stand by my inference which is not readily obvious from the transcript (pilot) or video (better off)~ comes across as complete horse shit.
You made the choice to call him a racist and offer a very slender reed in evidence to support the claim. Man up!
Exactly.
You don't know if it was an actual description of how he would really react in such a situation or a rhetorical example he was giving.
I have to admit, the thought would cross my mind also. I'm a white guy and I would have the least amount of concern about a male asian pilot. It shouldn't be this way.
Transcripts are available for the black pilot conversation. So is a video of him explaining it again after the fact. So is commentary by Jordan Peterson.
Matt’s reply is in essence, ~yes, his racism is not readily obvious nor inferable, and he explicitly denies that he believes such things. But I know he is racist anyway.~
Given a name… this feels very personal. Matt gives off the vibe that he has personal knowledge that Charlie is a covert racist but is too chicken shit to say that.
I’m so pissed. I borderline revere Taibbi. But this was “weak ass shit.” Matt being a baseball pro knows exactly what that means.
It needs to be in print. Either as a correction or even an explanation for why he refuses to explain the thinly veiled accusations of racism and continues to rely on an out of context quote taken from NPR of all places and a cherry picked :26 from a video that in context says the exact opposite of what he claims. If I submitted a paper in college, made similar claims and offered evidence equivalent to what Matt did I wouldn’t just get an F, I would get referred for academic discipline (I went to school when bs like that didn’t fly).
So disappointed.
I'mjust trying to understand your point.
They have been doing the same thing to JK Rowling.
Ask any of the people who claim Charlie or JK are haters just exactly what they said that was so awful, and they cannot tell you. Or they take something out of context like you mention above.
Same playbook. They've used the damn thing for over a decade now and we need to get ahead of it and defang it permanently.
Once an outlet marches down the road of character assassination, there’s no turning back, only a surly muttering, like Stephen King’s apology.
The King “apology” is puke worthy. He only texted what he did because he now knows CK “cherry-picked” from the Sacred Texts. What an ass hat.
He pops up on X when he’s taking a break from fantasizing that he’s Annie Wilkes and has Trump captive.
MSM is the enemy of the people. It's that simple. They are directly responsible for the division in this country
i think it’s the term “white nationalist” that was most dehumanizing for Kirk. the slur is used to denote someone who doesn’t embrace mass immigration, and you know who isn’t (or, wasn’t) too keen on mass immigration was Bernie Sanders.
bernie is pure payola
he got rich to roll over for that fat ghastly hag and they been paying him off ever since.
Bernie was given a pass for any of his sins when he rolled over and kissed HRC's posterior. That is how it works now in my former party.
I think this illustrates the problem in a nutshell - if a person favors their [whatever] others immediately say that person is against [whatever the different thing is]. But that is not true. It conglates bias with prejudice. You can be for your group without being against a different group. That is why we have Black Entertainment Television network and Black awards shows but cannot even say anything positive about whites.
Ok, Matt. Overall ok article, but you are wrong again on some of this. I never once thought, oh, no we have a black pilot UNTIL WE HAD THESE DEI programs! THEN I started worrying. That is the point! He is NOT a racist and you should rethink that comment. It's the programs not the person's skin. He wants them to be qualified and we couldn't be sure anymore. So that is a complete mischaracterization.
Next, ok, if you don't like it that his religion doesn't approve of homosexuality (even though he has gay friends and does not judge individuals or other sinners or people who would be considered, since we are all sinners). But if leftists (which used to include you) call him a hater, why in the world are leftists taking the side of these Muslims who denigrate women, gays, and are probably not for abortion. But they never go after them, just Christians because they want power. And vice versa. Muslims do not like liberals, they just use them. I myself am ok with gay marriage (the trans crap is something else, especially for children). However, I do object to them normalizing it and demanding we all think and say it's normal. Or telling my kid it's just a normal choice! I don't think it is. They can live as they want to but they cannot control what we think or believe and they do not have a right to mold society in their image. Or tell my kid that.
But overall, thanks for writing it. Charlie Kirk was a kind, gentle soul, who just wanted to engage and have conversation and they blew him away. I'm still gutted by it.
I never have followed CK , but the postings on his death are off the charts. Why would anybody post “Glad he’s dead. Next …”. No offense, but if anybody in my heath care orbit is posting that. . . . We have fallen a long way.
You are seeing the ancient cold-blooded reptile brain at work. Without the mediating influence of the more recent Superego level of the brain/psyche.
When did you see or ride with black or female pilots BEFORE DEI programs? Can you provide dates or evidence? If aviation accidents are more likely due to inexperienced pilots, then statistics would show new identities to a profession to be involved in higher rates of accidents. Also, when you saw a white professional from an Ivy League University did you wonder each time if he was qualified, considering he likely was a legacy student or that he was attending a school with quotas? When you ran into a professor whose father was a professor before him, did you worry whether he was hired due to the good old boy network rather than merit? Who cares what you consider "normal" other than you? Matt has certainly developed a new profitable audience for himself, having lost his secure protected position at Rolling Stone. The unity of view here is interesting.
Yes, I did, and how dare you question it. There were black pilots when I was in my twenties. Which was a long time ago. I had complete faith in black pilots I knew were trained and not put there because of their skin color. You need help. And actually I argued with my left wing professors, many of whom weren't that smart, but were put there in a left dominated brainwashing machine. I was an adjunct professor for ten years and I know how this works. Pilots back then were not part of this garbage. Who cares what you think. And you are criticizing Matt for telling the truth? "Profitable." You are just upset because people are starting to see just who you people are.
LOL. You trigger easily. How dare I ask you for some evidence of your narrative? When were you in your twenties, easy question? The histories of men and women in commercial aviation are well documented. Let's see how that lines up with your claims. How did you know which black pilots were trained as opposed to which were placed there by their skin color? Or even which were black?
We all need help these days, but you should definitely see a therapist for your issues. Your posting is proof enough you were quite smarter than your "left-wing professors." Not sure which "left dominated brainwashing machine" you attended. Mind telling us which school it was and in which subject? The same questions as to where you were an adjunct professor and know how it works? Most Universities today have been converted into technical training institutions, although there are certainly some departments which are heavily ideologically-influenced. I spent a lot of time around academia, so I also know how it works, but I also spent years out in the real-world too.
Nobody cares what either of us think. At least I know that. I supported Matt's journalism from the moment his deal at Rolling Stone came to an end. I don't criticize Matt when he provides solid relevant reporting, but I didn't sign up for yet another internet influencer or two old crotchety men kibitzing with each other for two hours or endless postings about the latest assault to Matt’s or Walter's ideological sensibilities or late-to-the-party reporting on issues which Matt should have covered 5-10 years ago or Walter’s psychedelic-induced political observations. Eric Salzman is the only one doing worthwhile investigative reporting at Racket News these days. I will not be renewing my yearly support, if I can figure out how to prevent them dinging my credit card again. However, I duly note that you are receiving from Matt what you want, which was my earlier point.
Yes, profitable. I was quite surprised to learn that Matt told Sy Hersh he was making more money than ever from his substack gig.
I’m not upset, but I am disappointed, along with other long-time readers of Matt. Call us old-school, but we prefer the Useful Idiots to the Useless Idiots. As for you, what a revealing tell. What kind of person do you think I am and then what kind of person are you?
This will be the last words I exchange with someone who can't win arguments so delivers ad hominem attacks. To me. To Matt. You are being ridiculous. I saw black pilots when I flew all the time in my 20's. Long time ago. DEI did not exist then in skilled jobs, that simple. So we knew they were well-trained.
And not only did I adjunct and publish books, but we have our own business, apartment units. And for a while we owned a construction company. So I think I have a pretty broad life experience.
Nobody makes you read Matt, who is one of the very few critical thinkers on substack or anywhere else. He was surprised to make more money by telling the truth. It's not enough to just argue issues with leftists; they have to hurl insults and bullets.
Today somebody on Substack had a post inviting people to compare today’s Dems to those of the recent past.*. The poster referenced LA Mayor Tom Bradley compared to the current LA mayor. You can view Bradley on YouTube. The point. Dems didn’t used to be this radical.
*My words: “BC” — Before (not Christ) Obama v. “AD” — After (not Christ) Obama.
Yes, this is about these radical narratives and programs. Before Obama, Democrats were not this radical. How anyone can defend what just happened here is shocking. This wasn't some outside enemy who attacked us--this was our neighbor and we (and his wife and children) got to watch this guy blown away in prime time by our own people. We knew little kids were blown away praying as well, but this was brutal in a way I don't think we'll equal. It was worse than 911 and there is no excuse for the extent of the evil here. And Democrats used to be human. Now they have been taken over by complete crazies. And if they aren't, they better draw a distinction and soon. Because otherwise, we know who they are.
LOL. I’m glad you are done, as you can't win an argument, if you refuse to answer factual questions put to you. That's just basic discourse.
Since you refuse to say in what years you were in your twenties, I have no idea to what extent your testimony has truth in it.
Before DEI, there was Affirmative Action, and Affirmative Action came along at the same time as the first commercial black pilots were hired (after the Civil Rights Acts).
I do my homework.
And since I did live in that period, I can affirmatively state that blacks did not enter the professions at integrated institutions in any significant numbers until Affirmative Action.
So prove me wrong.
The same arguments against DEI were made back then against Affirmative Action.
By the way, it took even longer for women to make any significant inroads into commercial aviation and even today they are grossly underrepresented.
Since you won’t even state at what school you were an adjunct or in what subject, hard to say anything about your personal testimony related to battling it out with “left-wing professors” at a "left dominated brainwashing machine."
Ad hominem attacks? I had a lot more questions for you if I wanted to make ad hominem attacks.
You are certainly correct that nobody makes me read Matt. However, neither my friend nor I, who has also had enough, were able find a way to cancel our yearly subscriptions and get a pro-rated refund. Since I paid for a year, I believe I had the right to exercise my free-speech to critique the direction Matt and Racket News have gone. I was loyal to Useful Idiots, but obviously Matt couldn’t handle Katie and is much more comfortable here with Walter. Useful Idiots has gotten better without him. His choice, but I have the right to be disappointed. I also would pay to read Eric Salzman if that could be arranged.
It’s great for you that Matt’s truth is your truth. I wonder if he feels the same way. Does this mean that Matt’s earlier truths were inconsistent with your own? And to think Matt just lucked into earning more money, rather than making some conscious decisions about which direction to take his journalism and punditry. Others, including former associates, have analyzed what happened and reached different conclusions than you should you be interested. I don’t take a position.
You should really engage in some self-reflection. Do you really believe that asserting you were so much smarter than your “left-wing professors” and calling your school a "left dominated brainwashing machine” not insulting or hurling bullets (metaphorically)? Or were you channeling Matt’s earlier gonzo writing style? Yes, please don’t bother to argue with anyone who doesn’t agree with you already. It seems you haven’t the skills for it, or maybe we just caught you on a bad day.
I hardly would call Matt one of the few critical thinkers on substack or anywhere else. I doubt he would call himself that either, but Matt’s a big boy and to his credit actually engages now and then in the comments section of his postings. He can speak for himself. I’d be happy to discuss in further detail any of my remarks or judgements that you consider ridiculous.
This increased under Obama and we all know it. I flew mostly from 1978-1983 for my work (Most of my flights were in that time frame). They stopped the programs because they were sued in 1978. Charlie Kirk was criticizing the programs. Not the people. Nobody cares what color anyone is. Now I'm done arguing with you.
https://manhattan.institute/article/affirmative-action-lands-in-the-air-traffic-control-tower