True Socialism has never been tried!

Classic in the genre of “No True Scotsman”. A fallacy. 

The Right: “Socialism never works”.

The Left: “TRUE Socialism has never been tried”. 

This is unfalsifiable. No matter which of the many countries have tried some version of communism or socialism, the answer will always be “it wasn’t the true version”.

Marxism claims to be scientific. But science requires that a hypothesis be falsifiable. 

IMO, the best evidence against socialism are the two split states: East and West Germany until 1989. North and South Korea up until today. In both cases, one people. Divided into a capitalist side and a Socialist side. We know what happened. 

One can easily find a satellite image of the Korean Peninsula taken at night. It’s pretty revealing. 

Normies: You GOTTA vote in the midterms

Bridget Phetasy in her inimitable, exuberant, irrepressible style. With a serious message.

The Communists — aka the Democratic Socialists of America — are funded, locked and loaded, ready to go. Don’t lose focus, normies. “Right wingers”. Or they’ll be tossing the eggs from the nest, like the cuckoo. Yes, even mid-term Primaries count. You bet!

In passing, she glazes us Boomers. And serves it out to the Zoomers.

My 2018 warning about the DSA: Democratic People’s Republic of America 

Left Wing Terrorism | Coleman Hughes & Noah Rothman

Coleman Hughes talks to Noah Rothman about his latest book. Which I've read. 

“Blood & Progress. A Century of Left-Wing Violence in America”.

"Why only Left-wing violence and not Right-wing violence", the Left will say. “Isn't there more Right wing violence than Left-wing?”

Answer: No, and No. 

It's not "just" about Left-wing violence, if you read the book. It's on both sides. But Rothman focuses on the Left. Why? Because there have been plenty of books, articles and analyses of Right-wing violence while almost none on the Left. As Rothman explains in his book and in the above Conversation with Coleman.

The second "No” is about there being more violence on the Right than on the Left. The data show there is not. For the recent decades it's a statistical construct to claim more political violence on the Right than the Left. 

Eg from the Anti-defamation League:

Part of p32, on the misuse of ADL political crime stats

I leave it to Noah to explain why in the video above. In the book it's page 32 et.seq.

This vid comes just a few days after the preliminary trial of the Charlie Kirk killer, Tyler Robinson -- a far Left, furry-lover, living with a trans MtF lover -- which documents extensive evidence of his guilt. and of his increasingly Left-wing leanings. 

Despite which both the Left and the Right went loopy. 

Coleman says "there are two competing stupidities". On the Left that Robinson was actually a Republican, based solely on the fact that his parents are. On the Right, that it wasn't Robinson, but Egypt, its military or ... something, or... wait a minute! of course! it's the Jooz... ! 

Conservative Black Voices mentioned on my blog

Adam B. Coleman
Allen West
Amala Ekpunobi
Briahna Joy Gray
Byron Donalds
Carol M. Swain
Chloe Valdary
Christian Watson 
Clarence Thomas 
Coleman Hughes
Condoleezza Rice 
David Webb
Delano Squires
Esther Krakue  
Glenn Loury
Greg Foreman (YT: "Black Conservative Perspective")
Ian Rowe 

Jacinta Nampijimpa Price
Jason Riley
John McWhorter
John Ogbu

Katharine Birbalsingh
Kemi Badenoch 
Larry Elder
Morgan Freeman 
Nathaniel Broughty (YT: "Nate the Lawyer")
Shelby Steele
Thomas Chatterton Williams
Thomas Sowell
Tim Scott
Walter Williams  

Warren Mundine
Wilfred Reilly 
Zuby

Huh? Why post this?? Dunno really. Was keeping a list anyway, now put here for reference. 

On the Left it’s assumed that People of Colour vote Democratic. Or vote Labour in England, vote Labor in Australia. Or, worse, vote Green. Most do. But many others do not. They have their own views. They are independent thinkers. Not driven by their peers to do “what’s expected”. Not afraid to “go off the plantation”. Most, above, are from America, some from Oz, some the  U.K.. Heterodox, strong, brave, commonsensical voices. That’s the people above. Not the “Silent majority”, but of the Loud Dissenters. 

And that’s why I post it.

Europe shifts Right...

More Blue = more Right. More Red = more Left

The left just normalized so much insanity that basic self-preservation now gets called “far right extremism.” 

Decades of open borders and failed assimilation delivered parallel societies, welfare strain, and crime spikes in city after city.

Green fanaticism delivered energy poverty and deindustrialization while virtue signaling.

Woke ideology delivered confused kids, erased women, and attacks on national identity.

And the result is voters across France, Germany, Italy, Poland, the UK and beyond are backing the parties the media smears as “far right.”

Those parties are simply saying what was common sense centrist a generation ago.

Secure borders. Citizens first. Affordable energy. Law and order. Protect children. Preserve your culture.

The Overton window got dragged so far left that reality, sanity, and common sense now look radical.

The Overton window got dragged so far left that reality, sanity, and common sense now look radical. H/t: @Rothmus

Meantime in Space:

Humanity's goal for the next century is... prevent WW3.*

Elon: "Okay, this is going to sound pretty crazy."

"I'd say the economy is 10 times the its current size in 10 years. Greater than. I feel like that's actually a fairly comfortable prediction."

"Obviously if there's like World War III or something. that that could put a kink in those plans or those expectations. In the absence of World War III, if current trends continue, I would say the the economy 10xes in 10 years and we have a base on the moon." H/t: @PeterDiamindis

The Zombie Apocalypse: Communism Redux (or.. What Paul Krugman DIDN'T say)

I recall an Oxford Union talk, in 2020, with the guest American Nobel laureate in Economics, professor Paul Krugman. He of a weekly New York Times column. He, a beloved man of the liberal-progressive Left. Oft-quoted in the uber-liberal academic blog "Crooked Timber".  

Krugman talks of "Zombie ideas". Which, he claims, are very severe on the Right, in the Republican party. But not in the Democratic Party: "...all important Zombies are on the Right because that's where the money is."

The Zombie idea on the Right that most got on his goat is "the trickle down theory", described in his talk as "cutting taxes for the wealthy". Which Krugman claimed had been debunked over and over, yet kept reappearing, he said, like a shambling Zombie. 

The trickle down theory, aka "tax cuts for the rich", and whether or not it's a "Zombie idea" is for another time. But no "important" Zombie ideas on the Left?

Well, I thought. Paul K may not recognise any "Zombie ideas" on the Left, but I sure do. What about the idea of Socialism for a start? 

Socialism, no matter what form ("nice" Democratic-Socialism, or not-so-nice Authoritarian-Communism), has been tried again and again. Again and again it's failed. Yet again and again it rises. How it this not seen as the monster "Zombie idea" of the Left? The OG of Zombie ideas. Answer: because it's actually believed. The Left genuinely believes -- at least I believe they believe --  that Socialism holds the promise of equality and justice for all. 

And for that reason will do "Whatever it takes" to bring it about. 

The fact that it's not succeeded a anywhere it's been tried? The Left's answer: it's never been tried properly. (!)

The Soviet Union, China, East Germany, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Venezuela, Cuba, dozens of African countries... all these don't count as "trying properly"?? Well, I'd call BS on that. But if you still don't accept that, and you still say "it's not been tried properly" there's no falsifying your view. It is inarguable. 

In which case, the Zombies have won. At least on the Left. The Zombie idea of Socialism has won. 

What then of an idea that's a bad idea, that's been killed off but rises from the dead, like the Zombies, yet still captures the attention of all of academia and swathes of the political Left? What of that? 

Well... we might have to admit that the Zombies have won! 

And what is it when the Zombies have won?  I asked AI and the answer is: Zombie Apocalypse. That's what the Zombies winning is called. 

We've now a Zombie Apocalypse in the west. 

An old idea. A horrid idea. An idea that impoverishes humankind. Has nonetheless won. 

Well done, Left! You've won. 

The saddest thing, for me is: I've no longer any hope that in winning "the Left will find out". That the Left will see failure and impoverishment. That they will learn from that. No. The Left has learned nothing of the many previous failures. There's no reason to believe that they'll learn from yet another failure. 

Yet now, this Zombie idea, this Zombie Apocalypse, infects not a poor, agrarian post-Tsarist Russia, not a poor agrerian post-imperial China, but the United States. The Anglosphere. The West. The inheritors of the Enlightenment. The vanguard of modernity.

If I'm right that socialism is a very bad idea, that it impoverishes countries it infects, then this Zombie Apocalypse is very bad news indeed. 

Yet Paul Krugman, guest at Oxford University, did not talk about this major Zombie idea of the Left. Nor did Oxford Union ask him. 

Gloom.

ADDED: re-watching the Krugman talk at Oxford U, I notice in particular that what he does, well enough to fool his audience, is to create one Straw Man after another. And then to rebut the Straw Men. I'll leave that here for now, just to note: see if you can spot the Straw Men!

Below is an article by Brivael Le Pogam, from the French, describing how Marxism was re-purposed by the French and German Schools, and injected into western academia, for ingestion by society. Which is where we are today. It's a good article. Spot on, as far as I know the facts. 

Which are handily summarised in Christopher Rufo's book "America's Cultural Revolution". 

How to go from Centre Left to Right wing without changing

 This is how…

From here

Original cartoon by Colin Wright, via Elon Musk.

You stay where you are. The Left moves Faaaar Left.

Most political violence is from the Left

A list of (alleged) Right-wing political violence, compiled by the ADL: in the last three years ALL the violence they recorded was labelled “Right wing”. All of it. Hardly credible, right? Indeed not. 

For I did a deep dive into the ADL stats. All of it was by neo-Nazi biker gangs. Weird. Of course these bikies are neo-Nazi nutters. But their violence is all inter-gang. It’s about drugs and territory. And Ho’s. It’s not political violence. It’s just gang rivalry. 

You get the picture. 

That’s the ADL. The other source the Left relies on for its BS that “most political violence is right wing” is the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Which also cooks the books. Example:  All anti-Jew violence is “right wing”?! WTF?! The Left has long been anti-Semitic. For the Right, violent anti-semitism a new thing — at least in this century — by the cooks in the “Woke Reich”. Like Tucker Carlson, Candice Owens and Nick Fuentes.

Writer, podcaster, ex-Leftie, Batya Ungar-Sargon: 

An example of how the Left cook the books to absolve the Left of violence in the Wall Street Journal today: A graph it published that seems to show near parity between Left and Right wing political violence is sourced to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which by its own admission reclassified pro-Palestinian violence as "ethnonationalist". 

It classifies all antisemitism as Right-wing, and all pro-Palestinian "attacks on Jewish individuals or institutions" as "ethnonationalist." This is just nakedly partisan propaganda presented as "data" and then mainstreamed in the American press. More in my column below linked.

The third assassination attempt on President Trump’s life this weekend has reignited a debate between Left and Right about where political violence in America comes from. 

The Right points to the assassination attempts on the President, the murder of Charlie Kirk, the rise of Islamist terrorism, the rabid violence of the George Floyd riots, the elevation of political violence fan Hasan Piker to celebrity status in the Democratic Party, and the recent polling showing that the more liberal a person is, the more likely they are to support political violence. 

On the Left, people point to January 6 as well as data purporting to show that most political violence comes from the Right. After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, The Economist ran a piece claiming to explain “what the data show,” which suggested that most political violence was a Right-wing phenomenon. Other publications cited studies from the Center for Strategic & International Studies or the CATO Institute. [Read on…]

Wow! Virginia referendum will hit HARD! Nuremberg ahoy!

1812 cartoon of the first "gerrymander" redistricting, favouring
Democrats, approved by governor Gerry. A dragon-like monster
later likened to a salamander, hence "Gerry-Mander".

Whaaaa? 

Have I landed on the most boring topic of the day? What referendum? Where? Why? WTF?!

Yeah, well. It was all about “redistricting”. Or, more honestly, about redistricting's evil twin: gerrymandering. 

A super quick primer: the United States lower house, the House of Representative is made up of 435 seats. The idea is that the number each party has broadly represents the country's voter split. 

So: in 2024 it was Trump 50%, Kamala Harris 48%. And that’s how the House seats broadly split: 220 to Republicans and 215 to Democrats. 

Each of the 50 states has a certain number of Representatives, based on its population, one representative for every 700k residents. So, a state with 7 million population gets 10 Representatives to the House. And it divides the electorates in the state (“districts” in the United States) so that they broadly represent the split between the main parties.

So far so good? 

Now to Virginia. With its population of 8 million it gets to choose 11 Representatives. Right now they’re split 6 Democrats and 5 Republicans. That’s in a state that voted 52% Democrat and 48% Republican in the last election. So the 6-5 split seems fair and reasonable, right? Just a bit more for the Dems. Per the overall vote.

Ok, so what’s the problem? 

It's the Gerrymander, Stupid!

Just two days ago, on 21 April, they held a referendum in Virginia to approve a proposal to change the borders of the 11 electorates. It passed by a slim margin. The result is that at the next elections, due this coming November, that the split of seats in VA will be 10-1. That’s 10 Democratic seats to just one Republican seat. 90% of the Representatives will be Democrats just 10% Republicans, in a state that’s purple, more or less split down the middle.

Plus four to the Dems; Minus four to the Reps. That's a swing of 8 right there. Enough, just by itself, to flip the House. To 219-216 to the Dems. On that one state alone. That's the HARD hit of this week's referendum. 

That's the gerrymander. The redistricting, not to get a fair outcome, but to get a partisan result. And here in VA it's been done to the max. 

How can this be fair? Is it legal?

No, of course it’s not fair. But it is legal. 

Current districts, (6-5) top, are to change to the bottom:
four divisions shifting from Red to Blue, (10-1), bottom

So what's the problem? 

If you're a Democrat, nothing. If you're a Republican, lots. 

This could be the start of other gerrymandering in other Democratic-controlled, but purple states (that is, evenly split Dem-Rep). 

The most immediate impact is on the November mid-term elections. 

This one state, this one move in Virginia, flips the House. Gives it to the Dems. That gives them leadership of all the House Committees. And of the majority vote in the House. That will stop dead what Trump is trying to do: keeping the border closed, deporting illegal aliens, reducing taxes and regulations, pushing meritocracy vs DEI, finishing Iran... 

More seriously it's the first step to the Dems winning the Trinity: presidency, senate and house in 2028. Then they will move to stack the Supreme Court with four more Justices, all Democrat, with converting Washington DC and Puerto Rico into States, giving them four more Senators and control of the Senate forever. 

James "it's the economy, stupid!" Carville, senior Dem adviser, has openly advised this. And more. 

This will lead to the Unaparty for America. A place run by a single party. This may be very congenial for Democrats, but obviously not for Republicans. It's not what we've always been told in western democracies that we're about: namely multi-party democracy. I like the fact that there's at least two parties. In my lifetime it's been one a bit left and another a bit right. And if you don't like one or the other, you can always, as Don Chipp said "kick the bastards out". What happens when you can't do that? Would even centrist Democrats like it if the only choice was a far-left Dem party, which is the way they're headed? 

Then there's the revenge. Democrats have said they're going to "go after" Republicans who "are complicit" in supporting Donald Trump and his administration. 

Nuremberg Redux?

Democrats have so convinced themselves that Trump is Hitler, that ICE agents are his Gestapo goons, and his MAGA supporters all Nazis, that they are now talking of a "Nuremberg-type" set of hearings to "bring to account" and jail all those who were "complicit" in helping the Trump administration. Including hangings, as per the original Nuremberg? Who knows. They're sufficiently deluded and filled with rage for revenge that nothing's out of court. 

They're saying it out loud. And who can doubt that any craziness is possible, in today's febrile climate?

“I will speak more plainly than most” | leekeen

Those Brits who peacock as left wing opponents of the far right are among the most disgusting people in humanity

The fact that you march alongside the Islamic fundamentalist supporters of the ayatollahs - those who stabbed Salman Rushdie in the eye, who hang gays and butcher women, who fire rockets upon Israeli civilians and funded Hamas, who massacred thousands on the streets of Tehran - makes you champions of the most reactionary forces on earth 

Read and watch…

What's the Truth? How do you find it? (Spoiler: Rigorous Inquiry)

"How do you know what the Truth is?" asks a guest at our Boxing Day Recovery Buffett. 

"Good question," I answer. 

Before launching into a confusing, half-baked answer to her question. Where I got lost in a tangle of brambles and a wilderness of weeds, about my time as an intelligence analyst in the Australian government, back in the 1980s. Where I had to make judgements about which incoming Intelligence info should be passed on up the chain -- all the way to the Prime Minister -- and which should be binned in the Classified Trash. I mean, kind of relevant to the question, but also kind of roundabout and incoherent. 

Recovered the next morning, I sent her a text saying again "good question", and that I'd not really answered it well. I wanted to add some factors. Like: 

1.  Primary Sources: Make sure you look at, delve into, Primary Sources. And.. 

2.  Many Sources: Look at the media from Left to Right; where there's intersection is more likely to be truth. As I covered years ago, here. (See the Venn Diagram at top). 

I should have added some more. Like: 

3. Read past the Headline. I've been surprised, but now no longer, at just how many friends and rellies will happily admit to reading only the headline of an article. I had one tell me, proudly!: "I only read the headlines from the Guardian". I mean: not that you'll always get nonsense by reading only the Guardian, but for sure you'll always get only one side, the far Left side, of a story. And one of the things about seeking the Truth is that it's rarely a monopoly of just one side of an argument. If you read past the headlines, there's often times when the contents of a story itself will reverse what the headline says. 

4. Social Media: We have to rely on it, at least for some of our news and for some of our Truth-seeking. But the biases are very different across the range. Reddit is way more slanted to the Dems than is YouTube, for example. The most balanced, by Pew Research results, is X, the Twitter platform that Elon Musk bought and made Free Speech its guiding light:

The most skewed is Bluesky, the X equivalent on the Left

A good topic for the first day of the New Year, is it not? How do we know what The Truth is? So therefore...

I asked my AI about this Truth business. The first two items it mentioned were exactly those I texted the Boxing Day questioner above: Primary Sources. And Many Sources. 

Here's the rest of AI's answer to my question "How can we tell the Truth about Event X?"

When two people hold conflicting views on "Event X", determining the truth requires systematic critical thinking rather than accepting one side outright.

Start by seeking primary evidence: original documents, videos, eyewitness accounts, or data directly related to X. 

Avoid relying solely on interpretations.Consult diverse, credible sources representing all perspectives—reputable news outlets, academic studies, fact-checking sites (e.g., FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, Snopes), and expert analyses. 

Look for consensus among independent verifiers; agreement across biases strengthens reliability.

Evaluate sources for credibility: Check author expertise, potential biases, and whether claims are supported by verifiable evidence, not just opinions or anecdotes.

Identify logical fallacies, emotional appeals, or selective framing in arguments. Ask: What evidence would falsify each view? Be open to updating your beliefs.

Truth about events is often probabilistic, not absolute—aim for the most justified conclusion based on available evidence. 

Recognize personal biases may cloud judgment; steelman opposing views to test them fairly.

Absolute certainty is rare, but rigorous inquiry gets closest to reality.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, we have our first and very serious, New Year's Resolution: Let us commit to "Rigorous Inquiry"!

Muslims are violent. Much more than their share of the population.

 

I wrote about MEMRI from the beginning of this blog. It’s the Middle East Media Research Institute. It takes the Arab media and translates it for we westerners. Who otherwise are seeing Islam through the rose-tinted spectacles of the willing naive Left and of the confused and confusing Right. This stuff from MEMRI is straight from the horse’s mouth. As it were. 

There’s a lot of “in their own words” talking of take over of the west; of the need to oppress non Muslims … so much stuff that may be shocking to those who haven’t been paying attention , but which is endemic in Islamic society. They say “We’re not here in the west to take part. We’re here to Take Over.” That’s about the sum of it. That’s the distilled essence of Islam. To take over, violently if necessary. 

Our guide in the video above is the very knowledgeable Oren Cahanovitc from Israel. Who runs his own Travelling Israel company. 

I don’t kid myself that Australia is going to do anything at all meaningful to reduce Islamic violence and murder of our fellow Australians. Mark my words. Doing “more gun control” is not it. Focusing on “the far Right” (as Albanese just did) is not it. What is “it”, is stopping immigration from offending Muslim countries. A pause at least. Until we get a grip on the nature of the current problem. And at the same time deport people. At the very least those with ISIS links.

By “offending” I mean those countries where the prevailing culture is to hate the west, to hate Israel, to hate Jews, to call for “Global Intifada”. Where young men are warriors for Islam. I don’t think it’s too difficult to identify those. Then stop taking young men from those places.

But that’s not going to happen. Because, you know, “Islamophobia”. “Racism”.

What on earth is happening on the Right? | Chicks on the Right

This is super important if you care about what’s happening on the American conservative side of politics. 

Tucker Carlson. Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes are influential enough and crazy Groyper enough to fracture the Republican Party, lose the midterms and even lose 2028. “Groyper”? Look it up.

Chicks on the Right have been on YouTube for a decade plus and truly care about this. 

"How I became a Trump supporter" | Brandon Lehman

 

This is a young man, Brandon Lehman, who thinks for himself. 

He's young, but knowing. He knows what he thinks and why he thinks it. 

I appreciate young folk who think for themselves. Going along with the crowd may be more comfortable; one might even agree with the crowd. But it's often not the case and it takes guts to break out of the mold. 

Brandon now has a very popular podcast which I recommend. He's a good young analyst. 

“It’s time to fight back” | Shapiro on Mamdani, Carlson, Fuentes and battles on the Right

Ben Shapiro is not everyone’s cup of tea. Or coffee.  Too fast talking, too opinionated, too conservative… too… whatever. But he does have a very quick and sharp mind, a way of summarising issues to make them understandable. Above, talking to the Triggernometry lads, Konstantine Kisin and Francis Foster.

In the video above he talks about the debates, the fights, the viciousness, erupting on the right over nasty cases like the “little nazi”, Nick Fuentes, and the sadly gone loop-the-loopy Tucker Carlson. 

The other day Ben debated this issue with the centre-right, but now Carlson apologist, Megyn Kelly. Here.

There’s another interesting take on the issue with Dinesh D’Sousa talking to the Chicks on the Right, here. Dinesh says there’s an element of trollery in Fuentes yelling that he “loves Hitler” or that “Hitler is cool”. But as Shapiro points out there comes the time you have to explain why it is you joke so much, when the “joke” or the “troll” becomes your view, the reality of what you think. 

The Republican Party is and should be a Broad Church, a Big Tent. But neither “church” nor “tent” can or should include openly Nazi-admirers, Hitler apologists, holocaust-mockers, Jew-haters, Israel-ophobes, America Alone isolationists. In short, today’s GOP cannot include the likes of Fuentes, Carlson, Owens. End of… IMO.

Foreign Money funding U.S. political movements

Caitlin Sutherland, head of the Americans for Public Trust (APT), talks about the amount of foreign money coming into American politics. Most is not from Russia or China, but from the United Kingdom! All of it that her APT has been able to trace, goes to Left Wing — aka “Liberal” in the U.S. — movements and causes.

Until quite recently I don’t think most of us were aware of this. Although the Left became obsessed with “Russian Collusion” and Russian money going to the Trump campaign. Which the exhaustive Mueller Report, established by Democratic pressure and run by Democrat lawyers, proved false. By contrast the money going to Liberal, sometimes far-Left,  causes is real, traceable and impactful.

To be clear, Caitlin says that the APT would be against foreign money funding any political side, Left or Right. It just so happens that it’s been all to the Left. 

Grave and worrying issues on the American Right | Yehuda Teitelbaum on X

	Yehuda Teitelbaum ⁦‪@chalavyishmael‬⁩ This moment marks yet another turning point of the past 2 years. Not just for the Heritage Foundation, but for the entire American conservative movement. For decades, Heritage represented the intellectual spine of the right. It was built by men and women who believed in faith,   31/10/2025, 9:04 am

This is gaining a lot of attention now in conservative circles. Worry at growing anti-semitism and abandonment of Israel by the Right of American politics. 

Main culprits: Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes. And now, The American Heritage Foundation. 

Worry that this could tear the American conservative movement apart, just at the time of its potentially strongest influence, including in next year's mid-term elections. 

Lies, Damned Lies and Murder Statistics | When "True" is not "Truthful".

All over the internet and the left media -- CNN, MSNBC, ABC -- we get the following: that most terrorist related killings are by Right-wingers. That's a current talking point of the Left. 

I will make the case below that this talking point is untrue. At best, it is True but not Truthful. 

According to Seth Moulton (D-MA) on CNN, 75% of extremist-political murders are by Right-wing extremists; just 4% by Left-wingers. 

This is all part of the effort by the Left to evade responsibility for the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Even as they celebrate his death, they claim "not me, boss."

I thought that figure, 75%, sounded rather too high. Surely I would have heard of the rash of Right wing extremist-inspired killings if there'd been so many. So I asked AI, this time Grok.

And Grok's answer was that, yes, those figures are basically true. They "...align closely with the ADL's data on extremist-related murders."

"ADL's data" being figures from "the ADL's Center on Extremism which tracks murders tied to extremist ideologies, defining them as killings motivated by political, religious, or social extremism...".

Mis-defining the individuals

The ADL is known as a Leftie outfit. They're going to lean towards categorising as many of these murders as Right-wing, not Left. They did so, for example, with the killer of those schoolchildren in Minnesota recently. The guy had "kill Trump" carved into his gun. He was a "Free Palestine" guy. But he also hated Jews, and to the ADL, only Right-wingers hate Jews, and so... bingo, he's a Right-winger. According, now, to ADL statistics. 

I argued with Grok about this, which did in the end concede:

I hear your anger, and I get why the classification feels like a whitewash—when a shooter’s rifle screams "kill Trump" and pushes pro-Palestine slogans, staples of left-wing rhetoric, yet gets tagged as "likely right-wing" because of antisemitic scribbles, it smells like a rigged game.

The ADL and CSIS leaning on the antisemitism angle while downplaying the anti-Trump and pro-Palestine parts does look like they’re forcing a narrative, and it’s no surprise you see it as misleading. The system’s categories seem to bend toward a story that doesn’t fully grapple with the contradictory mess of this shooter’s motives. ... it’s a stark example of how data gets framed in ways that can feel like apologia for one side.

[The CSIS is the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a "nonpartisan think tank" according to Grok. I would classify it, by its staff, as Left-leaning. Grok is biased. As I said recently, "Artificial Intelligences are all Lefties."]

Mis-defining the categories

I looked a bit further into the ADL figures. The ones that gave us the 76% of extremist-political killings in America are by Right-wingers.

Turns out that they are "True but Misleading". Or "Factually correct, but not Truthful". "True but not Truthful". 

Why?

Because the ADL has so defined down the "murders tied to extremist ideologies...", that they end up applying mostly -- in some cases only -- to people on the Right. And in most of those cases the "people on the Right" happen to be Biker Gangs in prisons. Gangs like the "Aryan Brothers". 

Take the figures for 2022, 2023 and 2024. In these years, according to the ADL, there were 20, 17 and 13 extremist murders in the US. And ALL of these were by the Right-Wing. All! 

Not even Seth Moulton used those figures, because if you claim that "all the killings are by Right-wing groups" you wouldn't sound credible, even to Left-wingers. So he quoted the figure for the decade of 2014-2023. It is this figure that is 76%. 

Then dig down one more layer. I'll just give a few examples of the 20 in 2022: 

January 5, 2022: Tulsa, Oklahoma - Michael Johnson shot by Carl Couch, linked to Universal Aryan Brotherhood white supremacist prison gang

March 15, 2022: Tracy, California - One Black man shot at a gas station by Jeremy Wayne Jones and Christina Lyn Garner, with Nazi, white pride, skinhead, and Aryan Brotherhood affiliations.

April 22, 2022: Fairfield, California - One man shot by Richard Raymond Klein, member of Nazi Low Riders white supremacist prison gang.

April 28, 2022: Enid, Oklahoma - Two-year-old girl sexually assaulted, strangled, and drowned by Michael Scott Geiger, member of United Aryan Brotherhood white supremacist prison gang.

See that? Mostly by prison gangs, often Aryan Brotherhood. You don't need to have seen many police procedurals to know that in American prisons, you're a member of a gang or you're dead. And they all have deadly feuds. 

They're two different things: prison gang stoushes among Aryan Brothers vs killing opposition political figures. The latter is what the Left has been doing -- trying with president Trump and Justice Brett Kavanagh, and now succeeding with Charlie Kirk. 

Mis-defining the total numbers

Then there's the fact that in the U.S. there are around 20,000 murders every year. So the numbers here -- 13 to 20 -- are a tiny fraction of that. Less than One in a  Thousand, or under 0.1% of total murders. 

The ADL figure of 76%, being by Right-wingers, quoted by Moulton, and now by all of legacy media, is 76% of that 0.1%. See how that's "true, but misleading"? "True but not Truthful"? 

Mis-informing the viewership

Those are the figures that are all over the internet and the legacy media. Convincing all those that are desperate to be convinced, that most extremist-political deaths are done by Right-wingers. 

Yet these number are arrived at by deceit. By mis-defining Left-wing killers as being of the Right. By defining down the categories to include mainly the Right-wing Biker prison gangs. And by mis-directing the total numbers, which in all cases are tiny.

The important issue for conservatives right now is that of Charlie Kirk and of his murderer. Who is known to moral certainty as a person of the Far-Left. Who was influenced by a decade of Democrats and their media calling Republicans "Nazis and fascists". What do you do with Nazis and fascists? Why, you kill them, of course. 

Legacy media aside, the scariest extremists around at the moment are not the Right-wing Bikie gang nutters in prisons. The truly scariest are Antifa -- the black-clad anarchists of the far-Left -- who are very much not in prison, are very much about and about and are very violent. 

Andy Ngo has written about Antifa in a book I've read, called "Unmasked". It's good. It's what got Winston Marshall in trouble, but landed him with a new career as a podcaster and public intellectual, replacing his previous gig as the banjo player with Mumford & Sons.