Now before I discuss the terrible tragedy that happened in Utah, which in case you hadn’t heard the Utah governor, is that the suspected assassin of Charlie Kirk turned out to be from Utah and not, as the governor hoped someone from interstate or another country, I’m just going to challenge you to prove my theory on gravity wrong.
It’s quite simple really: There’s no such thing as gravity and it’s only the big airline companies that have put metals in our diet and have attached magnets to the ground so that it’s the magnets that are pulling us down and forcing us to buy airline tickets. It’s a perfectly sound theory and, if I can just get Robert Kennedy on board, we’ll be able to ban food and within a short time people can be buzzing around without having to rely on Qantas, which will not only help with the cost of living but also cut down on emissions…
Go on. Prove me wrong.
Of course some of you will jump to the conclusion that I’m mocking Charlie Kirk and that I’m being distasteful and one of those leftwing people who Ralph Babet suggested must be ripped out of Australian society. Some of you may feel that I’m like Mike Carlton who had the audacity to quote Kirk on the right to bear arms completely out of context. When Kirk said that a few deaths was the price the USA had to pay for the right to bear arms he was talking about other people’s deaths and it was disgraceful of Carlton to quote him after he was the victim of an assassin’s bullet.
No, I don’t believe that violence is the answer, nor should it ever be. I condemn the shooting of Kirk, just as I condemn all violence… unless it’s in self-defence.
And it’s that qualifier that causes all the trouble.
“We had to invade Ukraine to stop them inviting NATO forces on our doorstep.”
“I didn’t feel safe with that person walking down my street because he was a stranger so I shot him in self-defence…”
“We were storming Congress to assert our Constitutional right to hang the Vice-President and to defend the country. It wasn’t an insurrection it was self-defence.”
“I had to punch that guy in mouth because he said that my grandfather was Lebanese!”
I could go on but already I have Bob Katter agreeing with some of the above…
One of the things that strikes me – apart from Bob Katter potentially if he reads the bit about his Lebanese grandfather – is that Charlie Kirk has become such an important figure in Australia in the past week when I’m quite sure that two weeks ago there’d be less than ten percent of the population who’d heard of him.
Naturally this didn’t stop Josh Frydenberg from taking the opportunity to write an article about the danger for political violence to become the norm in Australia. While he did mention quite a few anti-Semitic acts, he overlooked the major example of recent political violence in Australia: the killing of two police officers in Porepunkah. It’s easy to dismiss the alleged killer as a bit weird and overlook the fact that he felt that it political views that gave him the right to ignore the search warrant and to open fire on the officers.
The fundamental problem with all of it is that it’s always self-defence, even when it clearly isn’t. And we already have politicians and commentators in the USA telling us that Charlie Kirk was a great man who debated people respectfully and he was killed because of all the things that “the left” said and that they shouldn’t have said them and that they need to be silenced and sacked from their positions because we need to ensure that champions of free speech like Charlie Kirk can say whatever they believe to be true without having people saying things that make other people angry about what the free speech champions are saying.
In the end, it’s not just morally wrong to resort to violence just because you find what someone says offensive, but it rarely has the result you were hoping for. You turn the victim into a martyr and incite the emotions of those who were on their side.
Perhaps it’s better when someone says: “Prove me wrong!” to simply say, “No, I don’t have to.”
After all, gravity gets us all in the end.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Gravity:
Commerical airflight has been a thing for less than a century. Even if we stick with the supposedly biblically-based assertion that the world is only some 6,000 years old, how did things work before there were airlines to instal those magnets?
Now, if it was Kirk who had asked us to prove that point incorrect, and I gave that answer, he would – based on actual filmed “debates” – try to ignore me because I wasn’t a straight, white, cis bloke; deride me for being female, unmarried and childfree; try to steamroller me with a pile of irrelevant statistics and statements; possibly physically threaten me; and have me blacklisted for every future “debate” or event he attended.
“Violence is never the answer”
Sometimes it is. The Allied response to Hitler’s invasion of Poland was necessary violence; there was no other answer that would have worked. Standing up to bullies by fighting back is necessary violence; there is usually no other practical way to stop them. When there is a genuine, immediate physical danger to self or someone defenceless, violence is sometimes the only route to survival.
Responsive violence is still violence, even though it is needed in some circumstances. I would rather say that unilateral violence is never an acceptable answer – you don’t throw the first punch (just the last one).
Shot him in pre-emptive self defence!
So the radical left who want to take away your guns are the ones killing politicians on the right?
Yeah! Makes total sense.
That’s right Roswell, it’s not gravity, it’s mavity.
https://fictionhorizon.com/doctor-who-mavity-explained/
Valè Charlie Kirk, what happened to you was WRONG, though I will not miss or mourn you.
I think he asked to be proved wrong and he was. He said it was OK to have a few gun deaths in order that people could have guns. Now everyone is saying his death was NOT ok. So that proves he was wrong. Can’t escape that logic if you ask me.
From another FB page:
”Charlie Kirk had a net worth of over $11M and was being paid over $400k a year by TPUSA- which has millions poured into it by masked conservative billionaires.
A nonprofit- what a joke! It was a means to funnel money into Kirk & his friends lavish lifestyle including first class airfares and 6-figure parties. TPUSA even paid for Kirk’s wedding reception!
.
I shed no tears for this grifter, who owned 3 houses, each valued over $1 million.”
HOW MANY KILLS DID YOU GET TODAY??
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-vector-of-political-killings-in-the-usa-is-still-donald-trump,20159