I see another way, the "dumb prejudice" can outrun the smart one: often we have very very false ideas from TV and such about how crimes play out in the real world and rationally incorporating those false ideas into our assessment will lead to catastrophe. Reading about true crime on Counter-Currents or listening to Devin Stack's Insomnia Streams about it, and watching actual crime footage taught me how wrong the public perception is - therefore: following your gut instinct is better unless you really are an expert on the type of people you are dealing with.
I'm reminded of a video I watched where a well known AI researcher was talking about "Bad uses of AI" or something similar. He used the example of an AI model they were building that was told "James is a man" and then asked what a typical occupation might be for him. It answered "computer programmer". Then they told it about Jane and asked the same question. It answered "homemaker". Well, this was BAD and WRONG you see.
The AI had been presented with a vast array of training data. It had made (correct) inferences from it - and this was wrong and needed to be "fixed". The researchers had taught the machine to reason like an intelligent and sane person and so of course they had to go in and cripple it.
The people running our society are like this. They are terrified that anyone (or anything) will simply look at the world and draw whatever conclusions may be drawn from it - to the point that they will hobble their own projects to discourage honest inquiry. Every totalitarian regime does this. It gets to the point where it basically outlaws thinking and speaking forthrightly about the real world.
As an aside: I argue constantly with my wife because she will frequently accuse me of arguing that "All X's are Y's" when I simply pointed out that the overwhelming majority of X's are Y's. She cannot distinguish these two viewpoints despite being generally quite intelligent. Women seem particularly prone to this error in fact and this is one of the reasons the 19th Amendment was such a bad idea.
Picking on one detail however, which doesn't alter your general conclusion, I'm not, at least yet, convinced by your specific assertion regarding the overwhelming evidence for Tyler Robinson's guilt in the matter of Charlie Kirk.
May I enquire if you have actually looked into the evidence in depth yourself, and reviewed the reasons to doubt the official narrative? If so can you identify which pieces of evidence you regard as overwhelming?
Peronally I'm not making any definitive claim about what may or may not have happened to Charlie Kirk and who may or may not have orchestrated it, but I am very far from convinced by the Tyler Robinson story which seems to me to be on a par with the Lee Harvey Oswald story... :-)
The case against TR stands up by itself, although you may believe it's not the whole story. The case against LHO does not stand up by itself, and, unlike TR, he was conveniently assassinated.
I'm not going to get into a long exchange about this. There is eyewitness evidence, video evidence, forensic evidence, and a confession. That's normally enough for a conviction. There is nothing that proves third parties weren't involved, but there's no evidential reason to think they were.
Have you watched Baron Coleman's exhaustive critique of the prosecution case as presented at the preliminary hearing? If not, perhaps you should check out his You Tube channel.
I do not believe that there are any of those things. Or rather I have not yet been shown any of those things.
We have been told that those things exist by people who may have a reason to lie, but we have not actually been shown any of this evidence and there are reasons to doubt its existence, not least that it is inconsistent with other evidence we have including unsolicited eye witness testimony as to Tyler's presence in a different location (three hours away) from where the prosecution asserts he was at one point in time.
Perhaps the court case will confirm that this evidence exists - to date it has not despite frantic protestations from some segments of the press.
Good piece. You agree with Nick Fuentes on the Charlie Kirk theory being “low-IQ”, which seems to be the common position in white racialist quarters. No gripe. We should acknowledge that Fuentes is also devoting himself to “combatting low IQ antisemitism”.
You can find many reasons to doubt that Tyler Robinson was a lone gunman and solely responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk in these two videos, one by Baron Coleman and the other in which BC in interviewed by Diligent Denizen:
Well, I could ask why you display such faith in the prosection case as presented at that hearing. What exactly is the basis for your claim that "there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson is the killer and had very different motives." Where did you discover that "overwhelming evidence" if not at the preliminary hearing?
Donald Trump Jr. has tweeted similar facile claims as to Tyler Robinson's guilt. But at least he attended the preliminary hearing. Why then do Baron Coleman and others contend that the evidence presented at that hearing leaves ample room for many reasonable doubts as to Tyler Robinson's guilt?
Notwithstanding those doubts, however, there is enormous political and media pressure (including your own comments) on the judge to send the case to a jury trial. But Coleman et. al., from their own investigations, have established a prima facie case that other people must have been involved in a concerted effort to frame TR. Their investigations appear to be far more rigorous and impartial than anything that the FBI, the Utah state police, the prosecution, or even defense counsel have done to reveal the actual perpetrators of Charlie KIrk's murder.
Given the massive holes in the prosecution case, it may be that those involved in the effort to frame TR as the lone gunman will take steps to ensure that there is absolutely no chance that he will be acquitted in a jury trial. Like Lee Harvey Oswald, Tyler Robinson may never live to see trial.
Surely, in light of the failure of the preliminary hearing to provide clear evidence of TR's guilt, the high IQ approach to this case would be to uphold the presumption of innocence. Recognizing the failure of the prosecution to eliminate reasonable doubts as to TR's sole guilt, the high IQ party should demand that the authorities follow up the leads uncovered by Coleman et al. and pursue every avenue to reveal the identity of those who have been involved what appears to be a conspiracy to frame Tyler Robinson.
On the basis of your argument - with which I broadly agree - I feel totally vindicated in considering all Jews to be suspect and devious and untrustworthy. Hence my antisemitic world view. Your argument in relation to Trump thinking he knows the good Jews who he trusts just demonstrates that Trump’s discriminatory sensibility does not work or more likely have been over ridden by his greed or susceptibility to flattery. As for what happened to Charlie Kirk, I think that on the balance of probabilities, the Jews did assassinate him because of the threat he represented as a result of his belated realisation the Israel/Jews are evil. They killed Kirk because he threatened to expose the Zionist threat to US sovereignty! Thanks for a very interesting article.
Thanks for this. On the Kirk matter, you are certainly correct that Jews had a motive for killing Kirk and were certainly capable of it. But we know someone else did it, for different motives.
It's not a lack of discrimination - Trump is a crook and has always been on the bad guy team. He's been working for the Rothschild zio-mafia since (and probably before, but definitely since) he ran the Atlantic city money laundering operation for them many decades ago.
💯 well said and true. Thanks for a much needed rational and reasonable explanation of the phenomenon, and the example provided.
Is this a zyop? 😂
I see another way, the "dumb prejudice" can outrun the smart one: often we have very very false ideas from TV and such about how crimes play out in the real world and rationally incorporating those false ideas into our assessment will lead to catastrophe. Reading about true crime on Counter-Currents or listening to Devin Stack's Insomnia Streams about it, and watching actual crime footage taught me how wrong the public perception is - therefore: following your gut instinct is better unless you really are an expert on the type of people you are dealing with.
I'm reminded of a video I watched where a well known AI researcher was talking about "Bad uses of AI" or something similar. He used the example of an AI model they were building that was told "James is a man" and then asked what a typical occupation might be for him. It answered "computer programmer". Then they told it about Jane and asked the same question. It answered "homemaker". Well, this was BAD and WRONG you see.
The AI had been presented with a vast array of training data. It had made (correct) inferences from it - and this was wrong and needed to be "fixed". The researchers had taught the machine to reason like an intelligent and sane person and so of course they had to go in and cripple it.
The people running our society are like this. They are terrified that anyone (or anything) will simply look at the world and draw whatever conclusions may be drawn from it - to the point that they will hobble their own projects to discourage honest inquiry. Every totalitarian regime does this. It gets to the point where it basically outlaws thinking and speaking forthrightly about the real world.
As an aside: I argue constantly with my wife because she will frequently accuse me of arguing that "All X's are Y's" when I simply pointed out that the overwhelming majority of X's are Y's. She cannot distinguish these two viewpoints despite being generally quite intelligent. Women seem particularly prone to this error in fact and this is one of the reasons the 19th Amendment was such a bad idea.
I agree with the general point here.
Picking on one detail however, which doesn't alter your general conclusion, I'm not, at least yet, convinced by your specific assertion regarding the overwhelming evidence for Tyler Robinson's guilt in the matter of Charlie Kirk.
May I enquire if you have actually looked into the evidence in depth yourself, and reviewed the reasons to doubt the official narrative? If so can you identify which pieces of evidence you regard as overwhelming?
Peronally I'm not making any definitive claim about what may or may not have happened to Charlie Kirk and who may or may not have orchestrated it, but I am very far from convinced by the Tyler Robinson story which seems to me to be on a par with the Lee Harvey Oswald story... :-)
The case against TR stands up by itself, although you may believe it's not the whole story. The case against LHO does not stand up by itself, and, unlike TR, he was conveniently assassinated.
Can you describe the case against TR? Which pieces of evidence do you believe provide watertight proof when taken together?
I'm not going to get into a long exchange about this. There is eyewitness evidence, video evidence, forensic evidence, and a confession. That's normally enough for a conviction. There is nothing that proves third parties weren't involved, but there's no evidential reason to think they were.
Have you watched Baron Coleman's exhaustive critique of the prosecution case as presented at the preliminary hearing? If not, perhaps you should check out his You Tube channel.
I do not believe that there are any of those things. Or rather I have not yet been shown any of those things.
We have been told that those things exist by people who may have a reason to lie, but we have not actually been shown any of this evidence and there are reasons to doubt its existence, not least that it is inconsistent with other evidence we have including unsolicited eye witness testimony as to Tyler's presence in a different location (three hours away) from where the prosecution asserts he was at one point in time.
Perhaps the court case will confirm that this evidence exists - to date it has not despite frantic protestations from some segments of the press.
Good piece. You agree with Nick Fuentes on the Charlie Kirk theory being “low-IQ”, which seems to be the common position in white racialist quarters. No gripe. We should acknowledge that Fuentes is also devoting himself to “combatting low IQ antisemitism”.
I'd very much like to see you respond to Baron Coleman's analysis of the shortcomings of the prosecution case in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZZ_e53ZDnY&t=9310s
As Coleman says:
We were told there was "a mountain of evidence" and this was "an open and shut case." The state did not deliver either at the preliminary hearing.
0:00 Intro
2:02 Opening Statement - The Prosecution Did Not Present a Mountain of Evidence
22:32 Andrew Kolvet Does TikTok to Try to Salvage Something, Anything
27:05 Operation Erika Kirk Actually is Nice in Full Effect
41:12 Erika Kirk's Lawyer Irritates Judge and Everyone Else
54:28 Lance Twiggs Video Testimony Can't Identify Tyler 100% and Has More Major Problems
1:14:46 Lance Twiggs and Tyler Robinson Texts Have Timeline and Even Bigger Problems
2:00:23 Missing Fragments and Wrong Sized Fragment Not Matching Purported Weapon
2:19:16 Tyler Robinson is a Terrible Shot Based on Targets Presented as Evidence
2:23:26 What Did We Learn? Reasonable Doubt is Overwhelming Thus Far
Why comment on a preliminary hearing at this point?
You can find many reasons to doubt that Tyler Robinson was a lone gunman and solely responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk in these two videos, one by Baron Coleman and the other in which BC in interviewed by Diligent Denizen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBDB-mpI-Xw&t=5687s
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiSyZhuzjrI&t=3760s
Well, I could ask why you display such faith in the prosection case as presented at that hearing. What exactly is the basis for your claim that "there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson is the killer and had very different motives." Where did you discover that "overwhelming evidence" if not at the preliminary hearing?
Donald Trump Jr. has tweeted similar facile claims as to Tyler Robinson's guilt. But at least he attended the preliminary hearing. Why then do Baron Coleman and others contend that the evidence presented at that hearing leaves ample room for many reasonable doubts as to Tyler Robinson's guilt?
Notwithstanding those doubts, however, there is enormous political and media pressure (including your own comments) on the judge to send the case to a jury trial. But Coleman et. al., from their own investigations, have established a prima facie case that other people must have been involved in a concerted effort to frame TR. Their investigations appear to be far more rigorous and impartial than anything that the FBI, the Utah state police, the prosecution, or even defense counsel have done to reveal the actual perpetrators of Charlie KIrk's murder.
Given the massive holes in the prosecution case, it may be that those involved in the effort to frame TR as the lone gunman will take steps to ensure that there is absolutely no chance that he will be acquitted in a jury trial. Like Lee Harvey Oswald, Tyler Robinson may never live to see trial.
Surely, in light of the failure of the preliminary hearing to provide clear evidence of TR's guilt, the high IQ approach to this case would be to uphold the presumption of innocence. Recognizing the failure of the prosecution to eliminate reasonable doubts as to TR's sole guilt, the high IQ party should demand that the authorities follow up the leads uncovered by Coleman et al. and pursue every avenue to reveal the identity of those who have been involved what appears to be a conspiracy to frame Tyler Robinson.
On the basis of your argument - with which I broadly agree - I feel totally vindicated in considering all Jews to be suspect and devious and untrustworthy. Hence my antisemitic world view. Your argument in relation to Trump thinking he knows the good Jews who he trusts just demonstrates that Trump’s discriminatory sensibility does not work or more likely have been over ridden by his greed or susceptibility to flattery. As for what happened to Charlie Kirk, I think that on the balance of probabilities, the Jews did assassinate him because of the threat he represented as a result of his belated realisation the Israel/Jews are evil. They killed Kirk because he threatened to expose the Zionist threat to US sovereignty! Thanks for a very interesting article.
Thanks for this. On the Kirk matter, you are certainly correct that Jews had a motive for killing Kirk and were certainly capable of it. But we know someone else did it, for different motives.
Maybe - but I am unconvinced it wasn’t a false flag Mossad operation. Some mug got set up.
It's not a lack of discrimination - Trump is a crook and has always been on the bad guy team. He's been working for the Rothschild zio-mafia since (and probably before, but definitely since) he ran the Atlantic city money laundering operation for them many decades ago.