Charlie Kirk assassin was living with trans roommate

[ThatZanyFatball]

May have been lovers, and sounds like he knew ahead of time that it was going to happen.

Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin Tyler Robinson lived with transgender partner: source

Are you aware that the Communist Party is the only political party on the record as being GC in the UK as far as I know.

Are you aware that Marxists are materialists, engaged with the real world? (I suspect many of those newer to left wing politics who claim to be Marxists but who espouse gender ideology haven't really understood/ read Marx. Just a hunch!)

There are many left wing GC feminists.

To equate gender ideology with being hard left is a massive oversimplification.

Yes, most of the left-leaning parties have come out for gender ideology, but not without an internal fight. The leadership may have gone that route but they never asked the rank and file. There were a substantial number of GC people within those parties who were against the policies. Same as all the other parties - except the Communists who rejected gender ideology.

What you call 'alphabet soup ideology' is more right wing in origin than anything else - it's rooted in the idea that the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the group. The deference to identify reflects the same attitudes that protected the British aristocracy for so many centuries. Don't speak out of turn. Women, know your place.

Goodness knows what is going on in Canada, but the UK's commitment to evidence based healthcare is rooted in the structure of the NHS. On the other hand, the American healthcare system is driven by profit and resists regulation.

The EDI training that got NHS Fife in such a pickle didn't have anything to do with equality, diversity or inclusivity. The goal was just to protect the interests of a particular tribe of people.

The phrase, ‘LGBT terrorism’ made me sit up. The interviewee uses it at one point.

It made me realise that although the word ‘terrorism’ has come up when discussing violent TRA threats and attacks on GC women we have never called it ‘LGBT terrorism’; it has always been very obvious it’s the T part not the LGB part doing this.

On this board there are quite a wide range of posters from people who are old school conservatives (or would ,broadly fit into a right wing box) all the way to very left wing radical feminists. (And people who don't care about that stuff at all). They just happen to be GC. As far as I am aware none of us want to shoot each other. So arguments that "the left" are just itching to pull the trigger when they don't get their way don't make much sense. It's likely it was a weird motivation for the murder of Charlie Kirk which was awful. The rise in political violence is awful. My super left wing neighbour does not secretly want to kill me because we disagreed about capital gains tax.the last time we talked.

It seems to me that some of these extremists use the language and aesthetics of Marxism etc in the same way they use the language and aesthetics of Nazism - they don’t really know or care that much about the histories and realities of those movements they are just picking controversial stuff that upsets their parents/mainstream society and gives them righteous excuses for plotting violent attacks on people they perceive as having wronged them in some way.

It's a different type of force teaming isn't it...

And as far as the trans threats go... Even though TRAs have been sending a lot of threats and getting away with frankly way more stuff then anyone else would, Glimmers trial showed its actually a really small number of very odd very emmeshed people that seem to have been involved in his ongoing drama. I hope the publicity opens some people's eyes. But even I was a bit surprised how few people were able to cause that much trouble. So it's not even all trans people (many of whom are quite vulnerable or are very young) just this small knot of crazy.

I don't know why other people might think it's relevant, but for me, I would like to push back against the framing that women's rights are something to be sympathetically balanced against trans rights, with both of those parties being just different groups in society who need to have their needs met and we have to come up with a compromise.

I understand where it comes from - the Equality Act framing of different protected characteristics being balanced, etc. Like calmly and rationally negotiating whether pushchairs or wheelchairs should get priority on buses.

But I think it breaks down when a significant minority of people in a community are insanely, graphically violent. Vicious GFM-style fantasies being normalised, not just death threats but graphic descriptions of torture, arming themselves, egging on each other's paranoid delusions that the whole world wants to genocide them - all this among a community with significant comorbities with serious mental illness, even if you don't think transgender identity itself is one. I think there is a lot that is normalised within these communities which is outside the bounds of civilised society.

I'm not saying every trans person is this, at all. I do wonder whether the rhetorical insistence that "we're not trying to demonise them, we just want them out of our spaces" - while I see the political justification for it - leads us sometimes to be blind about behaviour that we should condemn, and be wary of, and treat as a warning sign of potential further escalation.

Agree. Despite the availability of guns most Americans are not attempting political assassinations, and it's difficult to understand what has been gained out of this one. Trump has tried to make hay out of it, but it won't change anyone's mind, and you would have to go down a very strange conspiracy hole to think Trump wanted this.

It’s certainly not the L! Except of course that the AGP Trantifa types identify as lesbians.

It’s TQ terrorism really but the TQ have thoroughly glommed onto the LGB despite the efforts of sensible LGB people to push back against it.

That ex undercover chap did at least point out that it’s not necessarily the cause that concerns law enforcement agencies, but the tactics used and crimes committed supposedly in the name of that cause.

Very good points.

I think condemning the behaviour of an individual within a group is the opposite of demonising the whole group.
I also think that vulnerable teenagers/neuro diverse adults falling into online rabbit holes where they end up being convinced the world hates them/that there is some huge existential threat they need to defeat is part of the trans issue but it's also much wider than the trans issue. Some of them seem to have gone on a path where the were very right wing at one point, the left wing, then trans, then very right wing again. But always persecuted. Always more aware of the dangers of the world than "normies". The fact that this was being encouraged by adults rather than addressed is really unhealthy but I don't think it's only trans ideology that can do this.

I agree. Anecdotally I’ve seen a lot of trans identified males on social media who say they were MRAs (I imagine the incel type) before they transitioned and “became feminists” 🙄

That ex undercover chap did at least point out that it’s not necessarily the cause that concerns law enforcement agencies, but the tactics used and crimes committed supposedly in the name of that cause.

That's very important. The FBI under Hoover was very effective against extremism - we hear about their actions against the left, but they also completely crushed the Klan. They did, it's true, go way overboard with the Cointelpro strategy of infiltrating and disrupting groups who might have had extremist ideologies but who had entirely peaceful methods.

That's been the basis for a lot of the mythology that's grown up on the American left, and not only the far left but the centre left, who will wang on endlessly about the Hollywood blacklist while airbrushing the fact that there was significant violence from far left groups, that Communist Party members were heavily involved in espionage etc.

Kash Patel will be worth watching because he's argued for years that the FBI was far too heavily involved in politics and should really get out of the business of surveilling activism and back into the business of solving crime. I don't know how he'll jump.

It's even trickier if we're talking about decentralised and networked extremism. And it might only be a small number of violent extremists, but they're swimming in the sea of a community of people with lots of mental health issues, where violent rhetoric has become completely normalised.

I agree and disagree.

I think that in the UK we have a small but significant number of mainly younger people who could reasonably be called "hard left" or "far left". They seem to often exist on the fringes of labour or in the greens / SNP / Plaid. The support taxing the rich, greater equality, and they support "social justice" (which means injustice - anti white racism, TQ+ misogyny and homophobia etc etc).

On the other hand when they protest they like wearing masks, and all black and one could easily mistake them for fascists, even though they claim to be anti-fascist. Their ideology almost entirely ignores class struggle (as most of the are middle or upper class) and is academic and anti-worker. They are also highly individualistic and ignore society in the sort of way that would impress Thatcher until she realized they had gone 10 times further than she would support.

That's what EDI is though, and that is it's link to the left.

Classical Marxists, who use the language of Marxism and really believe it's all about class, are matrialts with regard to that, etc, are something of a rarity these days, there is the odd one in academia.

But the activist marxists, people in unions, and most of the marxist parties outside the UK are all now treating class as referring to things other than materialist economics. The groups are build around race or sexuality or any other thing like that, many of them hard to pin down, or in some cases, like sex, they don't fit well into traditional Marxist ideas about abolishing class.

This is the form their arguments take around things like surrogacy, for example. Yes, it will benefit individuals as do all benefits for groups. But the argument for it is based on the idea that surrogacy is the only way to create equity for the class of homosexual men. The argument for race quotas in training courses are about promoting equity between the groups that have been identified as important - "equity seeking groups."

Of course it quickly becomes a thing to become a member of a group like this, or to define new groups, in ways that benefit people who want advantage of some kind. So it creates a push to define all kinds of new inequalities.

Anyone extreme enough to think it’s a good idea to assassinate someone they profoundly disagree with is going to do it anyway, whatever their beliefs, which might be left, right or just weird. Any political or faith system is capable of producing murderers and martyrs. It’s probably irrelevant which system it actually is, except in providing a form of words for the slogans.

The trans/ furry Lance wasn’t just a roommate.

We need to be absolutely clear. There is an LGB. There is a T. There is a TQ+.

The only time one should ever use the term LGBT or LGBTQ+ is when discussing the fact that the T and the TQ+ should never be grouped with the LGB who they despise.

I agree, and particularly that there are many rabbit holes to fall down - but maybe the problem is more likely to be examined if somebody falls down other rabbit holes?

I think Brianna Ghey's mother was very concerned about online influences, both on the murderers and Brianna, but am I right in thinking she has faced push back?

That's what I hear... but the point I was trying to make is that I don't think it matters... there's no way they would share a flat together unless TR was 100% into the ideology that his "roommate" (god I hate that expression, other than if they literally are not a couple but have to have single beds in the same room!) was into. I simply cannot comprehend a trans person or TRA living with someone who was neutral let alone gender critical.

And because groups with TRA links were discussing the murder the day BEFORE it happened.

Going into online trans spaces can be quite disturbing because of the number of people talking openly about their very poor mental health and also the cartoonishly violent language. Even the Trans UK subreddit is like that. The American ones are much worse, and they're in a country with much easier access to guns.

If the Trans UK subreddit portrays JKR as some kind of cross between Cruella De Vil and Skeletor, you don't have to imagine how Charlie Kirk was portrayed on the American equivalents.

If there's a community with this combination of poor mental health, who have marinated for years in violent rhetoric, whose misbehaviour has been indulged far beyond what's reasonable... well most of the people in that community might be young and vulnerable, but it's not too much of a stretch to see the danger of them producing some Son of Sam types.

Yes, the TRAs really don't like Esther Ghey's idea of restricting online access for vulnerable young people. I couldn't possibly speculate why.

I do agree with this, that it's relatively few people - and also, that some of the people who hear the messages and take violent action were vulnerable and taken advantage of.

However let's say there are 10,000 TRAs in Britain and 10 of them are angry enough to show up to a GC or GC-adjacent event. 0.1% so not worth worrying about right? (I made up these numbers)

Your security arrangements depend a lot on whether you think the worst those 10 people will do is stand outside with some signs, or whether you think they're capable of murder.

There’s no evidence that the shooter himself engraved those messages on the bullets. I’m hearing, however, that a group he was part of did so. This raises even more questions.