Category: Uncategorized

They Got the Patsy

Color me dubious. Color me very, very dubious indeed that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was committed by another lone gunman.

The suspect is Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old man from Washington, Utah. The shooter confessed to his father that he was the perpetrator, CNN reported.

The man’s father then tipped off law enforcement and secured his son until officers arrived. Sources told CNN the individual was still being questioned as of Friday morning.

Trump said that ‘somebody who was very close’ to the suspect turned him in to police – referring to the tipster as the assassin’s ‘minister’ and ‘father’.

‘It was a minister who was involved with law enforcement… his good friend is a top U.S. Marshal – and they took it from there,’ Trump said, suggesting the suspect’s father told him it was time to turn themselves in.

Law enforcement will share more details about the suspect’s arrest later on Friday, the president said.

It’s always possible that the Official Story is true… but history suggests that just isn’t very likely.

UPDATE: Retired Green Beret Nate Cornacchia claims that whoever the FBI arrests as the shooter will likely be just a patsy in a much larger cover-up. He adds that the chances of the arrested individual actually being the real shooter are “slim to none.”

You don’t say…

UPDATE: In case you didn’t believe the “shooter” is just the patsy, now they’re reporting that he was a follower of Nick Fuentes. Now, I may not think much of Fuentes, but he’s the kind of guy who runs away from debates with the likes of Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk, he’s not the kind of guy who plots their destruction and neither are his followers.

DISCUSS ON SG

Conservatives are Waking Up

It’s taken them a long time, but we may have actually reached a point where conservatives finally agree more with us than with the sworn enemies of Christendom and civilization.

I am told that as a state representative this is the moment where I’m supposed to express my heartfelt condolences and then stand in solidarity with those on the other side of the aisle as we condemn political violence and stand unified as one people. But we aren’t “one people” are we? The truth is we haven’t been for some time now, and there is really no point in pretending anymore, if there ever was. We are two very different peoples. We may occupy the same piece of geography, but that is where the similarities seem to abruptly end.

I convinced myself for a long time that whenever the left called me a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a fascist, a “threat to democracy” for even the most innocent of disagreements, that it was simply hyperbolic rhetoric done for effect. And now the “effect” is a widow and two orphaned children, because the left couldn’t bear the thought of a peaceful man debating them and winning. I don’t think they realize it yet, but murdering Charlie is going to be remembered as the day where we finally woke up to what this fight really is. It’s not a civil dispute among fellow countrymen. It’s a war between diametrically opposed worldviews which cannot peacefully coexist with one another. One side will win, and one side will lose.

Charlie tried to win that fight through argumentation, through discussion, through peaceful resolution of differences. And the other side murdered him. Not because he was “extreme” or “inciting violence” or any other hyperbolic slur they hurled at him. They murdered him because he was effective. Because he was unafraid. Because he inspired others and made them feel like they had a voice, that they were not alone. And he did it at the very institutions which have fomented so much hatred toward conservatives.

I don’t want to “stand in solidarity” with the other side of the aisle. I want to defeat you. I want to defeat the godless ideology that kills babies in the womb, sterilizes confused children, turns our cities into cesspools of degeneracy and lawlessness…and that murdered Charlie Kirk. Social media is aflame right now with leftist celebration of Charlie’s death.

I wonder if any among them understand what has just happened. If there is a Yamamoto somewhere in their midst warning, that all they have done is awoken a sleeping giant. I doubt it. I think they gave up such introspection and self-awareness long ago. I don’t know exactly what will happen next. I just know that it won’t be the same as what has happened in the past. There will be thoughts and prayers…Charlie would have wanted prayers. Not for himself but for those left behind and for the country that he loved. But then there will be a reckoning.

My Christian faith requires me to love my enemies and pray for those who curse me. It does not require me to stand idly by in the midst of savagery and barbarism…quite the opposite. So every time I feel tired, every time I feel discouraged or overwhelmed, I am going to watch the video of a good man being murdered in Utah…I will force myself to watch it…and then I will return to the work of destroying the evil ideology responsible for that and so much more.

Rest with God Charlie, your fight is over. Ours is just beginning.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Or rather, what one hopes will turn out to be the attempted assassination of Conservative Inc.’s current spokesman.

Shots have been fired at a Charlie Kirk event at Utah Valley University in Orem. Footage from the scene showed eventgoers screaming as shots rang out on Wednesday. The conservative firebrand, 31, was reportedly shot in the neck area at the Turning Point USA event Wednesday, according to bystander accounts.

If the orcs and goblins of Clown World are going after the cuckservatives, it’s probably best for genuine nationalists to stay frosty and stay very far away from public speaking events on college campuses… which is not exactly a problem.

If Charlie dies, this may prove to be the first shot fired in Round Two. It should be noted that the Right didn’t start it. It’s far too soon to know what the eventual impact will be, but it would not be surprising if Charlie Kirk’s death also marks the end of the moderate Right.

UPDATE: The man arrested appears to be a 60-something liberal Boomer. But he may not be the shooter.

UPDATE: MSNBC just speculated the Charlie Kirk shooting could have “been a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration.”

UPDATE: He didn’t make it. Requiescat in pace. Charlie Kirk was 31 years old.

DISCUSS ON SG

False Flag in Poland

Three drones, supposedly of “Russian origin” were shot down in Poland.

Russia’s defence ministry denied targeting Poland and its foreign ministry accused Warsaw of spreading ‘myths’ to escalate the war in Ukraine.

The military said ‘there had been no plans to target facilities on the territory of Poland’.

The Russian embassy in Warsaw separately told AFP that ‘Poland has failed to provide evidence of the Russian origin of the objects that entered Polish airspace’.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters: ‘We wouldn’t like to comment on this.’

‘This is not for us to do so. It’s a matter for the [Russian] defence ministry.’

Now, what is more likely? Russia violates Polish airspace for no reason with drones that can be easily shot down and do no damage or Ukraine obtains a few Russian drones and flies them across the border in order to give the Europeans more ammunition to demand US military support? Look at where the drones were flying.

If Russia ever decides to attack Poland, it’s not going to be slow drones flying out in the countryside, but hypersonic Kinzhals and Oreshniks hammering military sites. This is an obvious Ukrainian false flag of the sort we’ve been expecting for months.

DISCUSS ON SG

American Game Theory

Nick Fuentes poses a philosophical exercise.

  • Scenario A: You board a train car and see a black person, you immediately turn and leave— You’re a racist.
  • Scenario B: You sit beside a black person and get stabbed to death— You’re dead.
  • Scenario C: You fight back and subdue your attacker— You’re charged with manslaughter.

This exercise isn’t that hard, because racism isn’t bad, evil, wrong, or a sin. Racism is nothing more or less than the normal preference for the survival of one’s genetic kindred, culture, language, and religion, and opposing their destruction. That’s what it has meant since the term was first coined by General Richard Henry Pratt in 1902. The fact that the term has been twisted and redefined for rhetorical purposes doesn’t change what it actually and observably is.

Racism is even a Biblical and Christian virtue. See 1 Timothy 5:8.

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Anti-racism is literally anti-Christian, as its reliably satanic fruits have proven over and over and over again. Let them call you whatever they want to call you, so long as you do what is right. Which, in this case, is obviously Scenario A. Because they’re going to call you racist no matter what you do, say, or even think to yourself, so long as you and your race of people survive with their identity intact.

“Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or hinders their growth. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism.”
—Richard Henry Pratt, 1902

DISCUSS ON SG

Weekly Meme Review

She Finally Saw Color, 2025

You know the drill. One meme per customer. But lay off the memes about the Ukrainian girl murdered by the young man who didn’t do nuffin and was going to be a college student as there are a million of them around now.

Also remember that the paywall is up, so if you haven’t renewed your subscription to UATV yet, you should get that process started so you can take part in the next one.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Talk was Necessary

ESR observes that John Derbyshire, who was canceled for pointing out the undeniable, was right all along.

15 years ago, John Derbyshire was canceled for writing an essay titled “The Talk: Nonblack Version”, framed as safety advice for his mixed-race children. In it, he said a number of things about dealing with the presence of Blacks in American society that I think are true, a few things that I think are probably false or exaggerated, and one which has stood out in my mind because I didn’t have the evidentiary basis to have any idea whether it’s true or not.

I’ll quote his point 9 in full:

“A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.”

Now consider “I got that white girl” and the fact that the first public statements of the Black mayor of the city where the murder took place oozed sympathy for the poor mentally ill murderer while not even naming the victim. I think we can safely describe the murderer as ferociously hostile. And the mayor as part of Derbyshire’s 50% subset that willingly enables such hostility. What I’ve wondered about ever since “The Talk” is the size of the “ferociously hostile” cohort.

On general principles I was sure it’s non-zero, because if you go far enough down the left tail of any normal distribution you can find arbitrary levels of craziness; but I had no way of knowing if I can trust Derbyshire’s 5% estimate, and I still don’t know what the size of the “ferociously hostile” cohort is. I do think it’s time to abandon the taboo in polite society on recognizing that it exists, and needs to be contained with violent and punitive measures. It won’t do anymore to bandy excuses like “mentally ill” or “oppressed”. That way only leads to a lot more murdered women.

Anti-racism was always evil and stupid, but it was quality, high-pressure rhetoric that was more than capable of emotionally manipulating weak-minded whites. But the sight of a beautiful young blonde woman being brutally murdered by an unrepentant predatory criminal for no reason other than his racial hatred for white people is even more powerful imagery capable of dissolving the anti-racist rhetoric once and for all.

DISCUSS ON SG

We Never Went to the Moon

As the Boomers die out, so too does the belief that the Apollo Moon landings were real.

The moon hoax theory was almost unheard of before the spread of Internet, and gained momentum with the development of YouTube, which allowed close inspection of the Apollo footage by anyone interested. Before that, individuals who had serious doubts had little means to share them and make their case convincing. One pioneer was Bill Kaysing, who broke the subject in 1976 with his self-published book We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle. He may be called a whistleblower, since he had been working for Rocketdyne, the company that designed and built the Apollo rockets. Then came Ralph René with his NASA Mooned America!, also self published.

Research gained depth and scope, and disbelief became epidemic around the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11, thanks in great part to British cinematographer David Percy, who co-authored the book Dark Moon with Mary Bennett, and directed the 3-hour documentary What Happened on the Moon? An Investigation into Apollo (2000), presented by Ronnie Stronge. It remains to this day greatly valuable for anyone willing to make an informed opinion.

Then there was the much shorter A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon (2001), directed by Bart Sibrel, which brings in valuable insight into the historical context. Sibrel also went around challenging NASA astronauts to swear on the Bible, in front of the camera, that they did walk on the moon, and he compiled these sequences in Astronauts Gone Wild, together with more useful footages of embarrassingly awkward statements made by NASA astronauts who are supposed to have walked on the moon but sound hardly competent and consistent; Alan Bean from Apollo 12 learning from Sibrel that he went through the Van Allen radiation belt is a must-see.

Then, using materials from those films and other sources, came the groundbreaking TV documentary Did we land on the moon? (2001), directed by John Moffet for Fox TV. To my knowledge and judgment, this is still the best introduction to the arguments of the “moon hoax theorists”.

I don’t believe for one second that the Apollo missions went to the Moon and landed on it. It has all of the characteristics of a government-funded fraud, right down to the equivalent of the “training exercise” of the films made by Stanley Kubrick. There are obviously a whole host of flaws in the Official Story, but the one that finally converted me to a Moon Landing Denier was the “oh, we recorded over the telemetry tapes and then we lost them” excuse that was belatedly produced when skeptics wanted to analyze them.

It’s worth noting the background of NASA’s first administrator, T. Keith Glennan.

Born in Enderlin, North Dakota, the son of Richard and Margaret Glennan, he attended the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire and then earned a degree in electrical engineering from the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University in 1927, where he was a member of Chi Phi fraternity. Following graduation, he became associated with the newly developed sound motion picture industry, and later became assistant general service superintendent for Electrical Research Products Company, a subsidiary of Western Electric Company. During his career he was studio manager of Paramount Pictures, and Samuel Goldwyn Studios.

NASA was a Hollywood operation all along, from the very beginning. And while Ockham’s Razor is not perfectly reliable, it is a reasonable metric that tends to point toward the truth.

The reason Man has not been back to the Moon is because he never went in the first place.

DISCUSS ON SG