O Bitchary

I can think of lots of different people whose deaths I will be quite glad to hear about. I’m sure you can too. And that’s absolutely fine and normal. It’s not for anyone else to tell you how you should feel on learning of a person’s demise. I say I would be ‘quite glad’ because I don’t imagine myself ever whooping and cheering like a nutter. For example, on the day I learn that Piers Morgan has departed, hopefully in the way that he deserves; old, alone, terrified and covered in his own faecal matter, I doubt that I’ll pop the champagne and hold a spontaneous Good Riddance party. I’ll probably just heave a sigh of relief and think to myself, “Oh good.”

I’d be curious now to see what might happen if, at some point in the future, we were told that Anthony Fauci was dead. Maybe murdered, maybe natural causes, maybe (poetically) myocarditis. Regardless, what you’ve got there is the Charlie Kirk situation in reverse. Those who still identify as being ‘on The Right’ think Fauci’s a villain, while those who still identify as being ‘on The Left’ think Fauci’s a great hero of mankind. Forget which side is correct for a second. Presumably, based on what I’ve just witnessed unfold, nobody ‘on The Right’ will express even the slightest sense of relief or happiness about the death of a man they considered to be Satan’s representative on Earth. If they do, then naturally, because of the way they’ve just behaved, ‘The Left’ will instantly destroy their careers. And if they try to protest, they will receive a load of ‘This you?” screenshots in reply. What a stupid mess.

I really don’t subscribe to the silly notion that you shouldn’t speak ill of the dead. Why ever not? I hate to bring him up again but it’s more than likely that when Piers Morgan does pass away, the media will be awash with tributes to a ‘Titan of Modern Journalism’ and a ‘Much-admired Champion of Free Speech’ and other laughable nonsense. No, if somebody was a prick, they deserve to be remembered as one. We do ourselves no favours by instantly trying to polish turds just because they’ve finally flushed.

When The Queen died, the obituaries should have pointed out that she had betrayed her people and her God when, from 2020 onwards, she watched with indifference as her government, in collusion with the opposition parties, plunged the nation into murderous tyranny, and made people’s basic rights dependent on them undergoing permanent medical procedures. In fact, she actively encouraged it all. So on balance, she was probably one of the worst monarchs in British history.

Alas instead, we had to hear about what an absolutely adorable little bastion of decency and devotion we’d all lost, while our children were still being pumped full of the deadly poison she’d pretty much ordered us to take. Completely bonkers. But of course, what it means ultimately is that future monarchs, her sausage-fingered berk of a son and beyond, know for certain that they can crap all over their oaths as many times as they like, and still go to their eternal rest, safe in the knowledge that the nation will weep like cretins as they gawp at the ludicrously expensive funeral parade that their taxes are paying for.

I think we’re all a bit confused by this subject now. Death, I mean, and how to deal with it. Of course, the entire pandemic charade was planned around the understanding that most people nowadays have absolutely no ability to contextualise, cope with or respond to the deaths of others. We were told that 95 year-olds in hospital with Alzheimer’s were dying from pneumonia, and that this constituted an international emergency that could apparently only be solved by adopting communist totalitarianism. And hardly anybody could bring themselves to point out that old people do just, you know, die. And that’s normal. Paradoxically, when they were told that the communist totalitarianism being implemented to ‘save’ the already dying 95 year-olds was going to kill a lot of children, people were totally relaxed about it. “Why didn’t you start killing them sooner, you clueless toffs?” They all cried.

And here’s our big problem. Here is why discourse has been derailed and integrity is as dead as Traitorous Old Liz. Yes, The Queen really did betray her country when it needed her most. That isn’t an opinion or a theory. It happened. However, depressingly, most of the population thought their own oppression was brilliant. Indeed, they literally stood on their doorsteps clapping for it, after all that’s how totalitarianism works. So in order for them to judge The Queen’s conduct, they would also have to judge their own. And they would rather not, thank you very much. They just squawk, “The facts changed”, “Hindsight’s a wonderful thing”, “Nobody could possibly have known what to do in that situation”, and other completely pathetic excuses for the fact that, it turns out, most people, deep down in their core, when the shit hits the fan, are just totally immoral arseholes.

What’s even more bizarre, is that most of those doorstep clapping medical fascists are now the ones correctly opposing the relentless, prolonged mass-slaughter of civilians in Gaza, and most of the tiny number who declined to applaud the Orwellian dystopia are now the one’s trying to justify Netanyahu’s butchery.

The upshot is this, and it’s a very, very bleak place for humanity to find itself:

There remains only a minuscule group of people on this planet who have NOT justified the indiscriminate murder of civilians for one reason or another, at some point over the last five years. About eighty percent did it because they were sold a story about a virus. Another nineteen percent did it because they were sold a story about some paragliding bogie men and hostages. Obviously, whether or not those stories were true makes no difference to the moral argument, because the whole point, the vital point, is that your moral foundations are supposed to survive intact through any narrative, any scenario, any emotional blackmail. You can’t sit comfortably at the dining table for years and years, solemnly declaring that you think children must be protected at all costs, that violence against children is always wrong, and then immediately hurl the nearest toddler under a bus as soon as some dick head in a lab coat shouts, “PANDEMIC!” Neither can you set fire to the nearest baby as soon as some knobend in a kippah shouts, “DESTROY HAMAS!”

Imagine what that does to the energy of a species. The collective consciousness, the connection to God, however you want to think of it. Millions and millions of people justifying murder. For years and years. How on earth do you think we’re supposed to come back from that? When ninety nine percent of us can’t open our mouths again without a sulphuric cloud of hypocrisy belching forth. Generally, it’s catastrophic. Specifically, it means that killing becomes more and more commonplace. The law of violence reigns supreme.

Now, here’s where people can easily get in a muddle. Just because I think the world will be better off when certain people are no longer in it, doesn’t mean I want those people to be murdered. When a person is killed, I don’t think it should ever be cause for celebration, even if you thought they were a total wanker. Last reference to Morgan, I promise.

Personally, I don’t think you can pick and choose when it comes to the morality of unarmed civilians being shot in the head.

Jordan Peterson does. Ben Shapiro does. Douglas Murray does. Konstantly Ass-Kissin does. Tommy Robinson does. Keir Starmer does. Barack Obama does. Donald Trump does. RFK Jr does. Charlie Kirk, rather awkwardly, did. And apparently all of the people saying Kirk deserved to be assassinated do too.

But I don’t.

I believe that, however difficult it might be, we should always condemn murder. In other words, if you thought Charlie Kirk was a nasty little hypocrite who preached about every human life being sacred one minute and then attempted to justify the most overtly wicked act of mass slaughter in our lifetimes the next minute, it’s PERFECTLY FINE not to cry for days over his death. I sympathise, and well done for noticing this glaring contradiction.

However, if you find yourself actively celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder, and suggesting it was right or necessary for him to be shot in the neck like that, you’re just doing the very thing that, in all likelihood, he did to make you dislike him in the first place, aren’t you. In short, you seem completely deranged.

As you may have gathered, I didn’t particularly admire Kirk. I thought he seemed like a deeply confused man who appeared to believe that when The Bible told him to “bless the Jews” it meant we should wholeheartedly endorse the man who locked up seven million Israelis, injected them with experimental drugs and then made them show papers to visit a restaurant. In much the same vein, he appeared convinced that the way to save America was to re-elect the man who wiped his orange arse on the constitution in 2020 and signed all the executive orders making it possible for every citizen to be stripped of their rights and then Pfizered to death. He was either not very bright and morally all over the place, or a Deep State agent playing a deliberately contradictory character. There is no third option.

I’m not glad that he was murdered, though.

I think it was a terrible, cowardly, deeply upsetting thing to have happened. And sure, you can throw any conspiracy theory you like at me here and I’ll happily entertain it as possible. Maybe he’s not dead. Maybe it was faked. Maybe that was a clone. It was actually Joe Biden mark 4 in a mask (Oh, there is a third option!). Fine, whatever. I’m not really concerned with the truth of what did or didn’t happen on that particular day here. I’m talking about how people responded based on the official story, and how ridiculous that is in light of where we all are as a society.

All of this happened on Social Media, or because of Social Media. Charlie Kirk only did what he did, and became who he was, because of Social Media. Anybody who isn’t on Twitter or TikTok or Instagram has never heard of him. The concept that ‘The Left’ wanted to kill Charlie Kirk only exists because of Social Media. The reason that all of these nitwits actually believe that he was shot by some trans-adjacent man-child having a meltdown while demonstrating military-grade sniper skills, is because of Social Media. Were it not for Social Media we wouldn’t have had to witness people who’ve been shilling for genocide for two years, suddenly saying how violence is never acceptable. Were it not for Social Media, nobody would have known how many people were glad he’d been shot. If any of them were real accounts managed by real people (and that’s a big ‘if’), they wouldn’t have bothered trying to get their views on his death published if it wasn’t so easy and instantaneous.

It’s not as though these blue-haired oat juice guzzlers, and MAGA hat-wearing amnesiacs thought they had come up with the most insightful and profound take on the situation that the whole world just desperately needed to hear. It was simply that a BIG EVENT happened and the little mind-worm that’s burrowed deep in their brains after years of shitposting started squirming and nibbling and telling them, “Quick! You need to SAY something. You need to get involved in this game. Grab some likes. Pick up some new followers. Make a meme or two. Don’t miss out, jump on the Kirk Is Dead train.”

I think it’s about time we stood back and had an objective look at the broad concept and outcomes of social media and asked, “What the hell are we all doing?”

Elon Musk is forever stammering on about how ‘Egg Egg Ex is aah Ex is the th th the Town Square for the whole world.”

No it’s not, you Technocratic pillock. The Town Square is The Town Square. The Village Green is The Village Green. The Community Hall is The Community Hall. But those places are empty because everyone’s wasting their lives on your stupid website.

Social Media most likely the invention of the worst and most powerful characters alive, pushed on society to make us easier to herd into their Digital Hell.

But for argument’s sake, and to calm down slightly, let’s assume it was just a huge experiment in the limits of discourse. The thesis went something like, “What would happen if we gave every single human being the ability, and sense of obligation, to share their thoughts and opinions about everything, to everyone else, instantly, all day, every single day? And what if we then mixed into the conversation a lot of completely fake entities, designed to manipulate the course of the discussion and then designed the whole thing like an addictive computer game with points and prizes?”

It’s probably now safe to conclude that the results are beyond disastrous. It doesn’t work. It’s not how we are meant to engage with one another. It’s totally unnatural. It fuels fear, anger, paranoia, spite, pride, envy, violence and lust. It punishes authenticity, consistency, creativity, truth, beauty and reason.

The ‘war on free speech’ is entirely centred around social media. When it stretches beyond Social Media, it’s usually because of a controversy that was generated by Social Media in the first place. In this respect, it’s not really happening. What I mean is, if you clicked your fingers and suddenly transported yourself to a world where everything’s the same except nobody ever invented the concept of Social Media, there’s no problem. I mean, there would still be problems, probably far fewer, but nobody’s wailing about their voice being silenced. It seems to me that people are so wound up about what they are or aren’t allowed to post online, they’re unable to see that most of them shouldn’t be posting anything online at all. Ever.

Firstly, it’s a complete waste of their energy. Or rather, a harvesting of it. Secondly, if you have something to say, typing out a few sentences on a website (I’m as guilty as anyone of this) and slinging them into a cesspit of very similar paragraphs to see how many likes they get IS NOT THE WAY TO SAY SOMETHING. Paint a picture. Write a piece of music. Start a club. Found a society. Give a speech. Build something beautiful. Create something real.

The war isn’t on our speech. It’s on our souls. It’s on our values. It’s on our authenticity. It’s on our decency and moral consistency. It’s on our creativity. It’s not really about what you’re saying, it’s about the energy you’re wasting in the way you’ve been conned into saying it.

Just refuse to justify murder, and stop listening to anybody who does. If we could all make that a core moral principle and actually stick to it, no matter what we’re told, then I humbly suggest that things would dramatically improve.

The powers that be, The Elite, the nebulous ‘They’, however you choose to describe the forces of evil at work in this world, are trying to kill us. Physically and spiritually. And no, I’m not talking exclusively about Fundamentalist Islam here. Please get a grip.

Murder is like breathing for these people. So my suggestion is, strategically, spiritually and logically it’s a good idea for the rest of us to unconditionally reject murder. Leave it to Them. Let it be Their domain.

Jesus Christ had been billed as an ass-kicking warlord who would slay thousands of Roman invaders and lead the righteous to victory in battle. Instead, He turned up and shocked everyone, including His own disciples, by preaching love and defeating Evil without spilling a single drop of anyone’s blood but His own.

If you think that’s just a story, fine. But there’s a powerful message there, whether you’re a believer or not. It’s one I wish Charlie Kirk had understood. It’s one those who celebrated Kirk’s assassination should reflect on. It’s one we should all try to remember.