Révélations sur le politiquement correct, les partis pris et le refus de mettre en doute les grandiloquences auto-congratulatoires des autorités (avec preuves à l'appui) qui sévissent dans le journal de référence, Le Monde, et dans d'autres médias français…….Bilingual Documenting and Exposing of the Biased Character of French Media, Including its Newspaper of Reference, Le Monde
After being banned three to four months ago — 112 days to be exact (during which time I skipped over to NP's sister blog, Le Monde Watch, and blogged there) — No Pasarán has been restored to the internet.
Wednesday,
I woke from a nap and turned on my iPhone, planned to click on the
Instapundit tag but clicked on the No Pasarán tag next to it instead by
mistake. There is supposed to be a blank Google page with the words
"Blog has been removed." Instead, I did a double take. "Wait, that's not
normal!" The blog was up. Right there — in front of my face. "There's
something wrong here!"
Before I say more and delve deeper into
the most stressful summer in memory — and I assume I will be adding to
this post and updating it over the next few days — I want to use three
sentences to quickly address a key controversy.
As the blogosphere rallied in support of ¡No Pasarán!'s
restoration to the Internet, some voices have misunderstood the very
title of the blog, going as far as to wonder whether, based on its
title (aligned with the Left
during the Spanish Civil War), ¡No Pasarán! isn't a pro-communist blog or even a communist blog.
The short answer is No (or, in Spanish, "¡No!") — not at all. On the contrary: appropriating the battle cry of Spain's leftists, the blog was — is! — thumbing its nose at leftists of all stripes — that being, indeed, the blog's raison d'être.
Certainly,
if you are familiar with the blog's banner, you would agree that it is
highly unlikely that a (pro-)communist would ridicule the famous photo
of Che Guevara by having El Che (or, as we
called the Dissident Frogman's doctored photo, Mi-Che) wear Mickey Mouse
ears on the top of his noggin.
I have lots of people to thank (speaking of which, thanks for the Instalink): In no particular order, I would like to extend my deepest thanks for their support to the Republicans Overseas France (ROF) organization in Paris and its members. Stateside, deep thanks are due, over at Instapundit (without which it would have been hard to survive the past two decades), to Glenn Reynolds, Ed Driscoll, Sarah Hoyt, Stephen Green, and — last but not least — Gail Heriot. And of course Powerline, Doug Ross, and the ADF. Also to Fausta and Benny Huang, not to mention W2, who was
present as a fellow blogger at No Pasarán's birth in 2004. There are
many others, but I am still in shock, so
forgive me if I left anybody out.
But above all I owe thanks to Damian Bennett —
he provided me with plenty of ammunition and, when I was feeling down
and/or fed up with fighting the Google behemoth in California, loads of
support.
Indeed, since I am still in shock, I will let
Damian share his experience of Wednesday. If you need a design
consultant or posters in the Richmond (Virginia) area, by the way, be
sure to consider the designer of these works (check out Damian's portrait reminiscent of that of none other than Che Guevara)…
I was going to wait on ES to spring the news, but he'll probably be on a bender the rest of the week.
STORY
BEGIN. Here I was, a quiet overcast afternoon reading about Charlie
Kirk being mysteriously murdered by a cis-white male from a solid
righty-right Hitlerian Republican MAGA family, Mormon no less, with no
clue to motive, when in the midst of my confoundment [our mutual friend] DBH pops up in my
inbox --
POP!
Poking around on the internet, I came across this link to ¡No Pasarán!
'This' link was 'THE' link and there it was, ¡No Pasarán! as we left it In May plus an auto-scheduled post for D-Day.
THX to DBH for his sleuthing. Congrats to ES on the David-vs-Google-liath WIN. THX to everyone who lent their support, whether with well wishes and encouragement or following developments at Le Monde Watch or viewing the restoration posters at Bēhance (bonus THX if you hit the blue appreciation button and/or shared the link). THX also to friends of ¡No Pasarán! at Instapundit, Power Line, Doug Ross, Republicans Overseas France, and Alliance Defending Freedom.
If you were a regular ¡No Pasarán! reader
of its meaty longer posts, with complex weaving of detailed history and
contemporary issues and opinion, when the site was memory-holed the
loss was profound. Now imagine the loss for the writer of those posts,
then multiply your imagining by 21+ years and the loss is
annihilative, psychologically annihilative. Unlike loss of fortune --
fortunes can be rebuilt -- or loss of friends -- new friends can be
found -- I know of no writer who could recover the loss of a 21-year
corpus of writing. It resembles the loss of a child.
Good news is in short supply these days, and this good news is really just bad news undone, but let's take the win and all go home happy.
Everyone, stay safe.
Thanks, Damian.
So a lot of people have been wondering how on Earth I got the blog back.
And the answer is: Nobody knows. (Nobody knows for sure, I mean.) I certainly received no message from Google.
So
why did it happen? Was it the campaign on the blogosphere? Was it my
registered letters to the top echelons both in Mountain View and in
their local Paris office? Was it the vaunted First Amendment defense
organizations that vowed to take on the behemoth? (Few of them accepted
to listen to my case, or even deigned to answer me — which, frankly, was
a huge deception, a deception from organizations that I have admired
and even lionized on the blog. With one notable exception: the ADF, to which I am, again, eternally grateful.)
There are a number of theories: The aforementioned Damian Bennett believes
that Google is starting to feel the strain of the many lawsuits, not to
mention the attacks from the Trump White House on all types of old
media and tech giants.
As for myself, I have been wondering if all
my working, both on and behind the scenes, didn't do less than my
making sure every week to religiously do something as simple as press
the "Request Review" button (see screenshot above), which refreshes
weekly. Maybe the Blogger crew got tired of me asking for a review so
often or perhaps I had to wait until it was the time for someone
reasonable to be in charge a particular day, and that right person was
on call this week.
In any case: We have been restored and we are back in action.
This was the (depressing) view one would see every time one tried to access the blog No Pasarán. When I clicked onto the blog last Wednesday by mistake, I was so shocked to see the blog back again, I thought, "Wait, there is something wrong here"
Messages anti-Charlie Kirk: pour Philippe Karsenty, porte-parole du comité (Trump France), "c'est de l'apologie du terrorisme" pic.twitter.com/moHVMvNDc7
In the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Philippe Karsenty joined the guests of a BFMTV debate, where he heard the usual platitudes about right-wing censorship of free speech.
"I have been hearing about such things as 'insensitivity' towards simple 'detractors'," said the Frenchman, who went on to illustrate his points by making comparisons with the original "Je suis Charlie" motto, i.e., the machine-gunning of Charlie Hebdo personnel in 2015. "It has strictly nothing to do with free speech; it is the glorification of terrorism" (the best excerpt on X).
Moreover, when asked if the founder of TPUSA should not be considered "a martyr of the far right", the spokesman of le Comité Trump France answered No — since it was too reminiscent of the voices considering the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo bloodbath as martyrs (as Muslim martyrs, in that case) — and that, besides, the husband of Erika Kirk had been "a conservative, not a reactionary."
Charlie Kirk: "Il était conservateur, pas réactionnaire", assure Philippe Karsenty, porte-parole du comité "Trump France"
Charlie
Kirk, 31 ans, a été assassiné par balle mercredi lors d'une réunion
publique en plein air dans une université de l'Utah, dans l'ouest des
États-Unis. Un suspect a été identifié et interpellé, ont annoncé les
autorités ce vendredi.
Messages anti-Charlie Kirk: pour Philippe Karsenty, porte-parole du comité (Trump France), "c'est de l'apologie du terrorisme"
pic.twitter.com/moHVMvNDc7
The day prior to the assassination, Philippe Karsenty appeared (misspelled) on the Qualita TV channel where he spoke of the far left and wokism, in Israel and America as well as in France.
Les institutions juives de France mettent en danger les juifs de France - L'invité du 9 Sept 2025
Philippe Karsenti, porte-parole Trump-France, qui explique la position du président américain face à Israël et critique l'attitude hostile d'Emmanuel Macron envers l'Etat hébreu ainsi que le comportement trop complaisant selon lui des institutions juives communautaires en France: "Les Juifs de France ne sont pas défendus par leurs institutions. Au contraire, celles-ci les mettent en danger.
If there is one historical quote that could be used in every single post of this blog and of No Pasarán for the past 21 years, it is that of a French writer who traveled through America two centuries ago:
It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth — Alexis de Tocqueville
That also applies in the present post addressing the Left's contention that Charlie Kirk "had it coming" due to his "insensitive" declarations in favor of that "repulsive" Second Amendment. I would like to start with a question for those, foreign as well as American — not a few of them among my social media contacts — making jokes about, laughing about, or otherwise celebrating the Charlie Kirk assassination:
Besides the fact that your attitude is heinous, how — how on Earth — do you propose to convince a sizable of citizens in future elections — not just Republicans but also Independents and even your own fellow Leftists (Democrats, Socialist Democrats, outright Communists, etc) — that a would-be leader supported by somebody like yourself (by somebody as childish and as vile as yourself) deserves to be elected to office and be put in charge of the well-being and the welfare of the country and its population?!
Incidentally, I will add that I am not in favor of Elon Musk taking down these videos on X/Twitter — I think that all people should know exactly the childish, the wicked, and the abhorrent attitudes of the "tolerant" locofocos on the Left.
In that perspective, I will add a message to those — again, foreign as well as American — who seem (slightly) less partisan and more thoughtful, "simply" calling the founder of TPUSA (or his speeches) hateful. As many others have pointed out, if you call Charlie Kirk odious and the perpetrator of hate speech — the epitome of a conservative seeking an honest debate — then there is no hope for what you claim to seek, a bridge to connect with any of you.
In addition, your homilies about a "divided America" — when Charlie Kirk did nothing but try to engage in dignified debate with you and, indeed, try to unify America — are nothing but a deliberately passive description of a rift that is entirely caused by you yourselves and by your (by the postmodern left's) own pedantic didacticism and depravity.
1) Two Basic Attitudes of Liberals That They Are Totally Oblivious About
Let us examine the holding that Charlie Kirk deserved to die because of his statements. One in particular stands out: The speech claimed to be the most controversial is that in which he is described as allegedly ignorant or uncaring about the country's murder rate, specifically school shootings of kids.
"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths
every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect
our other God-given rights."
As usual, with the Left, it can only be described as a lie: they omit the entire context, which ends by addressing the very school shootings that CK was supposed to be criminally ignorant and/or repulsively uncaring about. (This will be examined in detail at the end of this post.)
Having said that: has it occurred to you that, first of all, you are engaging in superstition? You people of the Left don't believe in religion, you claim, and you instead prefer rationality — pure rationality. Then in the very next breath, the drama queens that you are claim that some so-called invisible force in the universe — whether it is (some type of) God or karma or whatever — that, like a deity from a pagan religion, unleashes his (or her) wrath on people and reigns down injustice on evil capitalists (see also 9-11 and Gaia and tsunamis along with various other natural catastrophes).
As a general remark, it should be pointed out . Take the Canadians: when Donald Trump made abour, the karma remark is suddenly nowhere to be found
A more general observation about karma (and superstition) is the extent to which the charge proves too often to be remarkably one-sided and the source of double standards. For instance, when Canadians vowed to boycott U.S. products because of Donald Trump's controversial comments about their
country last winter, leftists and anti-Americans the world over cheered, saying that the conservative Yankee president was getting his just desserts. Now
that populations the world over, not least the Canadians,
are holding memorials for a conservative Yank — even singing America's
national anthem! — the karma aspect is suddenly nowhere to be seen.
Second of all, ask yourselves this, Leftists: what are we doing, exactly, by pursuing this line of thought?
Think about it…
Aren't you validating the need for the very Second Amendment that Charlie Kirk defended?!
There are millions of people who, rightly or wrongly, hold the same opinions and viewpoints as the husband of Erika Kirk. If
you say that the founder of TPUSA deserved to die, then millions of
other Americans presumably also deserve to die — by being gunned down or by any other means. Well, guess what: since we disagree with you (rather vehemently) about this, I would suggest that this makes our desire for weaponry rather more rational than (as you claim) irrational. Indeed, if one of you were to (God forbid) be elevated to a position of power in this country, how — how on earth — are we to trust you to be in any way benevolent towards us (i.e., towards that part of the population that does not agree with you)?!
In any case, your attitude about karma proves nothing less than — get this — the very necessity of private citizens to own and bear arms.
But the Left is ignoring (and the mainstream media never covers) the numerous instances of mass shootings where only two or three people died. (And for the sake of brevity, let's not get into the many instances of killings that the MSM refrains from covering because they don't further the Left's narratives — see, e.g., Iryna Zarutska.) And here you are bound to ask: If only two or three people were killed, why should the media, American or foreign, cover it?
And, besides: why would anyone call it a "mass shooting" in the first place?
Because the "mass" part of the shooting was prevented by an armed citizen (aka as "a good guy with a gun") who subdued and neutralized the shooter (either by killing him outright or by holding him in check).
Think of another mass shooting unreported
in America and across the globe, the one in December 2019 where only three
people were killed in Texas. Hold on, you ask: Three people? Certainly a tragedy,
but why, then, call the West Freeway Church of
Christ event a "mass" shooting? Well, because that low figure was due
only to one parishioner pulling out his weapon and gunning down the
(would-be) mass shootist. Jack Wilson is what we call "a good guy with a
gun."
In the comments section of a Herschel Smith piece, a person named David writes that
The other factor here is when a concealed carry holder intervenes
it often means the number of victims is not as high as waiting for
police. In that situation it doesn’t make the list of “mass shootings”.
I saw another analysis that said if you look at just the incidents
that don’t occur in gun-free zones, 46% of mass shootings end because of
intervention by a civilians.
As for Gary Griffiths, he goes on to note to what extent the logic is skewered (bold and italics by myself):
Part of the problem is, it is impossible for an armed citizen to
stop a mass shooting. Here’s why: If the shooter is stopped before
three victims are shot, it is, by definition, not a mass shooting. If
the shooter is not stopped before three victims are shot, then by
definition, the citizen did not stop the mass shooting. Liberal logic
at it’s finest!
How
many mass shootings did NOT happen because of someone with a legal
firearm? How many crimes and of what kind prevented by someone with a
legal firearm - if they only threaten to use it and do not shoot?
Police/FBI do not keep any statistics on this, but the NRA publishes a
page full of such incidents every month in their magazine.
Events like this one happen every day in America, but
because they don’t fit the narrative of liberal gun control activists,
they rarely get the attention mass shootings do. Instead of advocating
for ways by which citizens can empower themselves, rather than wait
around as sitting ducks for the police to show up, the left-wing media
habitually uses tragic events as a political platform by which to
trumpet for more gun control. Stories of armed citizens brandishing
their weapons to deter a criminal are also not as sensational as a mass
gunman killing innocent people, and, to borrow an analogy from crime prevention researcher John Lott, “Airplane crashes get news coverage, while successful take-offs and landings do not.”
An armed civilian doesn’t have to fire his weapon to stop a tragedy.
Many shootings or mass shootings have been prevented by an armed citizen
brandishing a weapon or simply revealing it to someone threatening
others. No shots were fired. There was no need. This is far more common
and just as heroic as the actions taken by Mr. Dicken.
3) Wouldn't Gun Control, European-Style, End Shootings in the First Place?
But all of this hardly addresses the call to imitate Europe and the contention that with gun control of the European type, there would be no shootings, and certainly no mass shootings, to begin with.
On May 25, 2022, I was on a train to Switzerland that morning when I was called back to Paris to participate in a debate on the BFMTV channel after the atrocious Uvalde school shooting.
That evening, naturally, I was the first guest asked to speak, in response to the question, "shouldn't Americans change their views on the 2nd Amendment?" or on the free sale of firearms, a question that they didn't think any person could answer other than Yes.
I responded as follows (slightly redacted):
Every time there is a shooting, we are told — both by Europeans and by Democrats in America — that these American neanderthals ought to imitate the rational Europeans, and notably they are told that they ought to imitate those nice countries like the ones in Scandinavia, a country like Denmark or Norway — Norway, where in 2011, a person gunned down 77 people, most of them teen-agers. Therefore, European-type legislation, i.e., gun control, did nothing to save the children of Utøya.
Then I went on to try to ask a question, indeed two questions: Wouldn't it have been a good thing if someone on the Oslo island had had a gun and shot back at Anders Breivik (perhaps not to kill him, but at the very least to get him to seek cover, thereby interrupting his killing spree)? Furthermore — to take on a different progressive talking point — didn't Breivik deserve the death penalty?
All of which was an expansion of what I wrote in my response to a New York Times gun control editorial ten years ago:
It is easy for leftists, American as well as foreign, to tout the success of the gun control laws in the rest of the Western world … when you (deliberately or otherwise) ignore:
the 1996 massacre of 16 children at a Scottish primary school; the 2000 killing of eight kids in Japan; the 2002 deaths of eight people in Nanterre, France; the 2002 killing of 16 kids in Erfurt, Germany; the 2007 shootings to death of eight people in Tuusula, Finland; the killing of 10 people at a Finnish university less than a year later; the 2009 killing of 15 people in Winnenden, Germany; and, needless to say, Anders Breivik's 2011 mass murder of 77 Norwegians, most of them teenagers.
Is it unreasonable (or perhaps politically incorrect) to wonder whether the death tolls might have been lower in any of those places — or in the Bataclan concert hall in 2015 (137 dead) — had a few of the adults (or some of the eldest teens) carried a weapon and tried to shoot back at the respective killers?
In the 18th century — the century at the end of which the Second
Amendment was being passed in the newly-born United States — the biggest
problem for the majority of the world's population was not the right to keep and bear arms.
It was the lack of the right to keep and bear arms.
In the 19th century, likewise, the greatest problem for most people on this planet was not the absence of gun control.
It was the presence of gun control.
In the 20th century, most people did not suffer from the right to keep and bear arms.
They suffered from the lack of the right to keep and bear arms.
As can be attested by the victims (assuming they could talk) of the likes of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin,
Pol Pot, and Milosevic, along with the Hutus…
As an aside, one of the first measures taken by each of the
aforementioned (ahem) leaders after coming to power — for the good of
the people, needless to say — was to impose or to tighten arms control.
And it is no different today.
Look at Saddam's Iraq, at Khadaffi's Libya, at the Assads' Syria…
(Would not the average Iraqi citizen, the average Libyan citizen, the
average Syrian citizen over the past 30 to 40 years have been better off
with the right to keep and bear arms?)
And all of this brings us back, full circle, to Charlie Kirk's "controversial" statement, with locofocos and fire-eaters falling over themselves and going ballistic with regards to school shootings — which he is accused of (carelessly) ignoring or (despicably) minimizing. Except that his reply is far less controversial if you take the TPUSA founder's full reply (tak til Thomas Petersen) into context, not least the issue of school shootings, the most important part of which he addresses forthrightly in his conclusion, notably the final paragraph's final sentence (duly emboldened below + video at very bottom of this post):
Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment
fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending
why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good
politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my
mind.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second
Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The
Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself
against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow,
that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have
not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number
two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in
Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be
wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart.
So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just
don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and
that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their
communities and their families.
Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty.
Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the
road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have
50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of
driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is
worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be
very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not
happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers
in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should
have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should
not have a utopian one.
You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and
you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I
am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost
of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have
the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.
So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do
you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at
baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games.
That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed
guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks?
We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings
at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows,
there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?
The Marine veteran's "long rant" is without the shadow of a doubt the single best article that I have seen on the Charlie Kirk assassination since the tragedy in question.
I am taking the liberty of printing it here in total (while advising @RobertMSterling of same and if, for any reason, he should object, I will immediately take it down, using only excerpts instead).
My liberal friends are completely oblivious about how radicalizing the last week has been for tens of millions of normal Americans. Zero clue.
I’m not talking about people who are “online”; I mean regular, everyday Americans. “Normies.” People who scroll through Facebook posts and Instagram reels from the Dutch Bros drive thru line. Political moderates who have water cooler chats about Mahomes touchdowns and Bon Jovi concerts, not Twitter threads or Rachel Maddow monologues.
Millions of them. Tens of millions. They’re logging on, they’re engaging, and they’re furious.
And I’ll be candid: They blame you guys. They blame the left.
Regardless of whether you believe it to be justified, they think you’re the bad guys here. And they are reacting accordingly.
I can already hear some of you racing toward the comments to start screeching in moral indignation, so I’m going to be blunt: Shut up and listen to what I’m telling you. Your movement will lose any semblance of relevance if you don’t develop some small measure of self-awareness, and—absent someone force-feeding you bitter medicine—you guys collectively lack the humility to do this on your own.
Here are the facts:
Fact 1. Tens of millions of Americans started the week seeing a 23-year-old blonde woman—a young woman in whom virtually every parent watching pictured their own daughter—stabbed in the neck by a career criminal. These people then found out the murderer had been released from jail 14 times over.
Fact 2. Two days later, tens of millions of Americans watched a video of Charlie Kirk get murdered speaking to college students. Millions of these people knew who Charlie was; millions of them didn’t. Upon seeing the video, however, these normal Americans from across the land and across the political spectrum agreed that he was the victim of a terrible, fundamentally unjustifiable crime, and their hearts broke in sympathy for his family. Good people who had never even heard the name Charlie Kirk before wept.
Fact 3. Immediately after seeing the footage of a peaceful young man get shot in the neck, these same people logged onto Facebook and Instagram (remember, we are talking about regular Americans, not perpetually online Twitter or Bluesky users) and saw some of their local nurses, school teachers, college administrators, and retail workers celebrating this horrific crime. Not just defending it, but cheering it.
These are all facts. You may not like the implications of these facts, and we can certainly debate the underlying causes thereof, but, indisputably, they are nevertheless factual statements.
Here’s what it means for you, the Democrats reading this:
These normal, middle-of-the-road, non-political citizens just become politically active. They realized that politics cares about them, even if they don’t particularly care about politics. After watching Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk both bleed out from the neck, they think their lives and the physical safety of their families—the bedrock of human society, the foundation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—depend on political activation, whether they desire it or not.
These people are now sprinting—not jogging, not walking, but racing—to the right. Because they blame you guys for everything that just happened.
When they see footage of Decarlos Brown stabbing a Ukrainian refugee to death, they don’t see just one demon-possessed man. They picture every university administrator, HR bureaucrat, and DEI apparatchik that ever lectured them about systemic racism, the “carceral state,” or the need to release violent crime suspects without bail in the name of social justice.
They then think back to conversations they’ve had with their cop friends—their buddy from high school who quit the force after getting tired of being called a racist, their friend at the local YMCA who vents about having to release career criminals because Soros-funded prosecutors aren’t willing to file charges—and they realize everything the left has told them over the last five years has been utter bullshit.
And they blame you. Because, even if you count yourself as a moderate Democrat, your party supported the district attorneys, city council members, and mayors that let fictitious concerns about mental health and racial justice supersede very real concerns for their family’s safety.
When these Americans see blood erupt from the side of Charlie Kirk’s neck, they don’t see just a martyred political activist. They think of every extreme leftist they’ve ever met who (1) calls anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton a fascist and (2) constantly jokes—“jokes”—about punching Nazis and “bashing the fash.”
They realize that there really do exist people who wish to see them dead for their moderately conservative political beliefs, their Christian faith, and even the color of their skin. They ask themselves if the violence visited upon Charlie might one day show up on their own doorstep.
And they blame you. Because, even if you’re just a center-of-the-road liberal, you lacked the courage to police your own ranks. You let modern-day Maoist red guards run loose across every facet of society, and what started with social-media struggle sessions has now turned to 30-06 bullet holes.
When these Americans log onto social media and see their neighbors justifying, celebrating, glorifying murder, they realize that some who walk among them are soulless ghouls at best, literally demon-possessed at worst. These people—whether they faithfully attend church every Sunday or only attend with relatives once a year, on Christmas Eve—start talking about things like spiritual warfare. They implicitly understand that no normal human casually celebrates the mortal demise of a peaceful person.
And they blame you. Because, even if you condemned Charlie Kirk’s murder, they probably haven’t seen you condemn those in your own movement who cheered it on. They view you as complicit in allowing heartless fellow travelers to celebrate death, and it repulses them.
For all of these situations, what has your response been? Nothing but bullshit.
In response to Iryna Zarutska bleeding out on the floor of a train, you post bullshit statistics about reductions in reported crime, when everyone who’s ever been to a major urban center in the last decade knows that actual crime has skyrocketed, only for victims not to waste their time reporting it to cops that don’t have the manpower to respond and prosecutors that seek to downgrade as many felonies as possible to misdemeanor citations.
In response to a 31-year-old man taking a bullet to the neck in front of his family, you post nothing but bullshit whataboutism.
• “What about January 6th?” (Honest answer: After you let Liz Cheney spend two years operating a star chamber in the House, combined with countless other failed attempts at “lawfare” against Trump, no one cares anymore.)
• “What about Mike Lee making a dumb joke on Twitter about some guy in a mask in Minnesota?” (No one outside of Utah, DC, or Twitter knows who Mike Lee even is.)
• “What about Paul Pelosi?” (That’s not comparable to Charlie Kirk getting shot, and we all know it. And, again, Paul who?)
• “What about regulations on assault rifles?” (That’s not going to get you very far when one of these killers used a knife and the other one used a common hunting rifle.)
In response to teachers, healthcare workers, and thousands of other liberals cheering on Charlie’s murder, it’s nothing but more bullshit and misdirection.
• “It’s not THAT many people celebrating!” (Yes, it is. Everyone has seen it on their Facebook and Instagram feeds.)
• “I thought you guys didn’t support cancel culture.” (We don’t cancel people over their opinions; we’re more than happy to see people lose their jobs—especially their taxpayer-funded jobs—for actively cheering on murder, though. If you can’t see the difference, that’s your own shortcoming.)
All bullshit. Not even smart bullshit, but stale, mid-grade, low-IQ bullshit. Ordinary Americans see right through it, and they don’t like how it smells.
You probably don’t like hearing this. But you need to hear it.
Because I’m right, and, as you reflect on this, you know I’m right. The ranks of my political movement gained millions of righteously angry new members this week. We have a mandate to ensure these crimes never happen again, and that’s exactly what we are now going to do.
If you want to keep a seat at the table as we do so, you’d better clean house and start policing your own.
(Warning: long rant)
My liberal friends are completely oblivious about how radicalizing the last week has been for tens of millions of normal Americans. Zero clue.
I’m not talking about people who are “online”; I mean regular, everyday Americans. “Normies.” People who scroll… pic.twitter.com/NeCxHqrFXi
Google Cloud Chief Details How Search Giants Is Making Billions Monetizing Its AI Products September 9, 2025 “We’ve
made billions using AI already,” said [Google’s cloud chief Thomas]
Kurian, speaking at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia and Technology
Conference in San Francisco. Kurian said that Google Cloud’s backlog of
customer demand is growing faster than its revenue. “Our backlog is now at $106 billion — it is growing faster than our revenue,” he said. “More than 50% of it will convert to revenue over the next two years.”
Apparently Big Blue Tech is both winning and losing the AI Great Turning.
Meanwhile Google continues roguish exploitation of its users.
In pursuit of profit (not a bad thing) Google seeks to indenture users as data slaves (definitely a bad thing). "Don't be evil." Well that's long gone by the board. Perhaps it's time to lean, lean hard into Google 'bad news' when discussing its furtive ¡No Pasarán! censure
enforcement. Google will never be shamed into doing the right thing,
but it certainly doesn't want more attention drawn to 'bad news', i.e.,
reshape ¡No Pasarán! censure from an instance of abuse to part of a larger, general, historic and continuing pattern of user abuse.
Are you familiar with the phrase "You do not hate the media enough"? In case you didn't think the sentence is evergreen, check out the front page of the international edition of the New York Times today.
Indeed, none of them is directly associated to yesterday's (or the day before yesterday's) events.
Only the briefest of mentions about "A young voice on the right" in the top left corner of the front page, above the newspaper's title, points to an article inside. Although the INYT does manage to place said article not on page 17 or on page 33, but on page 2, this is simply the INYT's traditional location for obituaries — here are the four stories that the editors in London found more important than the TPUSA founder's assassination. (George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, and Jordan Neely never had it this bad.)
Charlie Kirk,
murdered on Wednesday talking to college kids at Utah Valley
University, built his career and reputation organizing a different kind
of campus conservatism — fun-loving, masculine, rowdy, mainstream, even
faintly cool. He seemed like a guy who would be popular on campus, who
would be invited to the good parties, who would have friends outside of
political activism, who wouldn’t just show up in a bow tie plotting how
to take over the Young Republicans.
… But Kirk didn’t abandon the nerdy-controversialist side of campus
conservatism; he tried to embrace it and live it out, as well, showing
up on his college tours ready to debate and argue publicly with anyone,
liberal or far left or further right.
Update: The following day, in the international edition's weekend (Saturday-Sunday) edition, still nothing on Charlie Kirk until page 6 (although the three articles devoted to the founder of TPUSA there do admittedly take up the full page), in contrast to Melena Ryzik's article on the front page — you can hardly make this up — about a performance of Waiting for Godot with Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter of “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” fame.
Now take a look at the left side of the international edition's front page: in the part reserved for an Opinion column, the London editors have featured Brazil Just Succeeded Where America Failed (in the international version, Filipe Campante and Steven Levitsky's column is called, simply, America could learn from Brazil), which was hailed to the heavens in a Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey post ("We failed to protect our democracy"). Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds links to Nate Fischer's reaction: What Brazil's Leftists did to Jair Bolsonaro "is what [America's Leftists] would have done to Trump and his supporters if he had lost.
We cannot risk letting these people take power again."
Under the threats of leftist thugs, "I have myself felt like stopping" admits Nicolas Conquer on Europe 1 (at 5:52-6:33 and 12:22-13:41 in the video above, at 7:00-7:44 in the video below). "But after the shock and the disbelief, I must take up the flame." And the ROF spokesman predicts an army of Charlie Kirks.
The main guest was France's equivalent of Charlie — he is an outspoken conservative who started the magazine Frontières in addition to being of the same age and a declared admirer of Charlie Kirk who interviewed him last summer and was in talks to invite the TPUSA founder to a debate at La Sorbonne. But now Erik Tegnér confesses that he is scared and that he "feels like stopping everything."
Erik Tegnér réagit à la mort de Charlie Kirk : "C’était un modèle"
Christine Kelly revient, de 11h30 à 13h, sans concession, sur tous les sujets qui font l'actualité. Une émission durant laquelle VOUS avez la parole. Vous pouvez réagir en appelant le 01.80.20.39.21 (appel non surtaxé) ou sur les réseaux sociaux d'Europe 1 (Facebook , X et Instagram).
Jeudi 11 septembre, elle évoque l'assasinat de Charlie Kirk.
#news#trump#charliekirk#usa
"J'ai envie de tout arrêter" : Erik Tegnér en larmes se confie sur les menaces de mort qu’il reçoit
Yet another confirmation that the left has become, in France as in the United States, the party of hatred, intolerance, obscurantism, and unreason. They are incapable of attacking you on the substance, on your ideas, so they attack you ad hominem, psychologically, and physically. The left is the party of intellectual terrorism; today, it is the party of terrorism, pure and simple. RIP Charlie Kirk, for the values of freedom of speech that you defended for all of us.
Encore une confirmation que la gauche est devenue, en France comme aux États-Unis, le parti de la haine, l'intolérance, l'obscurantisme et la déraison. Ils sont incapables de vous attaquer sur le fond, sur les idées, ils vous attaquent donc ad hominem, psychologiquement et physiquement. La gauche est le parti du terrorisme intellectuel, aujourd'hui il est celui du terrorisme tout court. RIP Charlie Kirk, pour les valeurs de liberté de parole que tu as défendu pour nous tous.
I have lots of people to thank (speaking of which, thanks for the Instalink): In no particular order, I would like to extend my deepest thanks for their support to the Republicans Overseas France (ROF) organization in Paris and its members. Stateside, deep thanks are due, over at Instapundit (without which it would have been hard to survive the past two decades), to Glenn Reynolds, Ed Driscoll, Sarah Hoyt, Stephen Green, and — last but not least — Gail Heriot. And of course Powerline, Doug Ross, and the ADF. Also to Fausta and Benny Huang, not to mention W2, who was
present as a fellow blogger at No Pasarán's birth in 2004. There are
many others, but I am still in shock, so
forgive me if I left anybody out. 
