Apropos of tonight’s Eyrie thang, Steyn piles on by way of the recent Milan riots.

What were they rioting over? Well, I saw one report describing it as an ad hoc alliance of pro-Palestinians, leftist unions objecting to Meloni, and assorted neighbourhood “migrants”.

Whatever. It doesn’t really matter, does it? I mean, it’s not like twenty-five arrests at a Tommy Robinson rally, two-thirds of whom turn out to be anti-Tommy counter-protesters. All that can be said for certain is that, if you live almost anywhere in the western world, violence is in your future. For the moment, it comes overwhelmingly from the political left and their various shock-troops, whether Antifa or your local migrant sex-fiends. Because the left are the most turned on by it. Even the comparatively peaceful ones can’t stop salivating over the thought of killing you. Here, for example, a perfectly nice respectable American lady – probably listens to NPR – has a grand old time beheading an effigy of Trump:

Do stay tuned for the punchline. At the end she turns around and has what we used to call the golden rule emblazoned all over her T-shirt:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

So does that mean Trump supporters can decapitate, say, Kamala Harris?

Well, no, because, if you lopped off Kamala’s head, it wouldn’t make any difference. The most stupid and incompetent major-party candidate of the modern era has just “written” a book seeking to explain how everyone’s favourite glass-ceiling-shattering Montreal schoolgirl somehow failed to beat a “convicted felon” who spent most of campaign season in court. So, to pitch her book to fellow wine-moms like the decapitator above, Kamala has been out on the plug circuit. Shooting the breeze with leftie superstar Rachel Maddow, the former vice president calls the current president a “tyrant” and a “dictator”…

For any aspiring tyrants out there, if you’re wondering how to become one yourself, all you have to do is win Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in the Electoral College. That’s how all the tyrants and dictators do it.

Is Ms Harris not worried that, by de-legitimising her opponent’s lawful, peaceful and democratic victory over her good self, some excitable types might try to, say, shoot his head off?

Oh naw naw naw NAW, that would never, EVER happen! Right? RIGHT?

RIIIIGHT?!?

Of course not, you big silly. I simply have to include this next bit because of the gleeful way it rips renowned baglapper and/or Lefty rumpswab Keith “Upper-lip-sweat” Olbermann all to bloody gobbets and then scatters the pieces all over the lot.

I briefly caught Mr Olbermann’s attention a decade or three back, and, from what I can recall of it, he struck me as a big pansy fagulous trannifilarious nancy poufter mincing dweeb of a homicidal maniac but who likes sounding butch by saying “motherfucker” a lot. Yet, in a functioning society, it should not be incumbent upon Scott Jennings to judge whether the guy specifically menacing him actually means it or is just an insecure over-compensating loser. As noted here an hour or so after Charlie Kirk’s death, at least seven Internet posts appeared to have foreknowledge of what had yet to happen.

I have joked for years about jihadist nutters being fully paid-up members of Local 473 of the Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves. But the leftie nutters are beginning to feel like that, too. One half of the political spectrum is so drunk on its bloodlust they don’t even notice it. “Denver’s oldest gay bar”, for example, took the trouble to create a new cocktail and make a sign for it…

The old definition of a gay bar was: one hundred bottoms looking for a top. It requires a perverse genius to re-imagine it as one hundred bottoms looking, in the Britannic sense, to top someone.

YEEOWTCH, that made my butt hurt! Now brace yourselves for the heady, thrilling denouement.

Over two decades, I have occasionally quoted the words of the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut: “The lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology,” he said in 2005. “And this anti-racism will be for the twenty-first century what Communism was for the twentieth century: a source of violence.”

Bloodlust mixed with moral preening is a uniquely toxic cocktail and, unlike those available at the R&R bar in Denver, it will not be content with merely a single shot.

DAMNED good squishy there, Mark. Yet again, I must remind y’al of the one, the only rule that matters: THEY SHOOT. WE DIE. Unless and until that changes, we’re all just whistling Dixie here, I’m afraid.

Update! A timely and very much related reminder from the esteemed Eric Raymond.

In one of my previous analysis postings, I outlined three possible scenarios for the future after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

This corresponds to scenario 3, the one where insurrection edges into a simmering civil war a la Bosnia. I caught some flak in my replies at the time from people who thought an insurrection based in urban areas isn’t practical under modern conditions.

Antifa thinks it is. It’s what they’re planning for.

One of the things I have to remind myself of occasionally is that most people know essentially nothing about Communist theory and Communist revolutionary tactics.

Antifa is running the classic Communist playbook. Make the enemy fight you where you are strong and they are weak – where you have support among the people and (when possible) cover from sympathetic local officials.

Historically that has usually meant fighting from rural areas where the reach of the government is weak. But the Russian Revolution was an exception, and the revolution Antifa is trying to fight is another. Their natural home ground is large coastal cities run by left-wing Democrats.

ESR also provides ironclad evidence to support his contention in the above-quoted Tweet/X/Whatever.

Man, I really gotta come up with some kind of nomenclature to refer to those blasted things.

Sleeping through it update! Another ringing endorsement of refusing to go on playing the Left’s game by the One Rule mentioned above.

Somehow it is inconceivable to anyone on the political right that anyone might actually mean what they say about politics and actually be willing to fight for any of the things they claim to be willing to fight for.

Maybe Right Wingers could just look at the people saying “We hate you, we want you dead, and we are committing violence against you” and right wingers could think that they’re committing violence against you, and maybe they hate you, and they want you dead… and maybe you should hate them back?

What did you think “Civil War” meant? Vibes? Essays?

If the state’s monopoly on violence is corrupted to serve evil… would it not be time to break that monopoly? To enter that monopolized market with a new disruptive innovations, so to speak.

If the government is a usurper regime that doesn’t represent you, and is dressing up tyranny under cover of a barely feigned playact of legitimacy… Well you’re American, what did your founders do in such a situation?

Yet Even as millions of leftists openly celebrate this shooting and wish for more of them to happen, and openly state that they’ll see any who commit said shootings as heroes worth celebrating….

It is inconceivable to the Right Winger that immortal fame, their own sincerest convictions, true hatred, the judging eyes of their political forefathers, and the celebration of MILLIONS might actually be worth doing or risking something over.

Just sit back and pay taxes and keep his head down whilst serving the enemies who hate him and paying for their six figure salaries in government employment whilst waiting for more people to “wake up”… Even as they brainwash his kids to hate him, and “cut ties”, and cut their genitals off.

Just wait bro, more people need to wake up!

Kennedy was shot 60 year ago. The first people to “wake up” are in nursing homes.

You’ve waited so long for people to “wake up” that the majority have fallen back asleep and died of old age.

Yeppers, so it would seem.

Whataboutist update! Margolis handily dispenses with the noxious “Both sides” canard.

To maintain their crumbling narrative, the left weaponized a deeply flawed study from the CATO Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh, which purports to show that right-wing extremists commit the majority of politically motivated killings in America. This convenient talking point has been parroted everywhere to deflect from the fact that their side just murdered one of conservatism’s most prominent young voices.

But when you actually examine Nowrasteh’s methodology—which I have—the whole thing falls apart faster than a House Democrat’s promise to secure the border.

Take Timothy McVeigh, labeled “right-wing” despite his ideology having nothing to do with traditional conservatism. McVeigh was an anti-government extremist whose rage stemmed from Waco and Ruby Ridge, not conservative principles. The man rejected both political parties, described himself as agnostic, and supported abortion rights.

Then there’s Anderson Lee Aldrich, the Club Q shooter, branded “right-wing” despite identifying as non-binary and suffering from documented mental illness. Peyton Gendron, the Buffalo supermarket shooter, gets the same “right-wing” label even though his own manifesto explicitly identified him as an “eco-fascist national socialist”—hardly traditional conservative ideology. The study also classified a couple who killed a sex offender as perpetrators of “right-wing” violence despite the fact it was a personal vendetta with no apparent political motivation whatsoever.

Even more telling is what Nowrasteh’s study leaves out entirely. Notice how the data shows a convenient dip in 2020—the same year America witnessed the most destructive riots in its history. The George Floyd riots caused billions in property damage and at least nineteen deaths, yet somehow none of these deaths made it into his tally of political violence.

The Waukesha Christmas parade attacker, who drove his truck through a crowd in 2021 killing six people, also got left out. When you correct for these glaring omissions and misclassifications, the numbers between left-wing and right-wing violence become roughly equal—and that’s just examining the past decade.

But, the narrative that political violence is a right-wing problem took another hit this past week, when, Anibal Hernandez-Santana, a 64-year-old former legislative director for the California Federation of Teachers, decided to turn his politics into bullets with a drive-by shooting at the local ABC station. This wasn’t some random act—it happened just one day after protesters gathered there with their usual signs calling Trump “Hitler” and his supporters “fascist enablers.” Hernandez-Santana absorbed that mood of righteous fury, posted calls for Trump’s demise on social media, and then carried his left-wing politics into the realm of violence.

And that wasn’t all. Saturday night in Nashua, New Hampshire, 23-year-old Hunter Nadeau opened fire at the Sky Meadow Country Club, killing one and injuring at least two others while shouting “Free Palestine!”

The truth is unavoidable: the left doesn’t just tolerate political violence, it cultivates it. They spent the summer of 2020 making excuses for rioters while their media allies described burning buildings as “mostly peaceful protests.” They’ve created an atmosphere where their followers believe they have a moral obligation to commit violence against their political opponents.

We keep hearing lectures about “rising extremism on the right,” but the evidence keeps piling up showing exactly where the real threat is coming from. A popular conservative leader gets assassinated. A leftist union operative shoots up a television station. An anti-Israel radical sprays gunfire into a country club. And somehow the left still thinks it can wag its finger at conservatives?

Well, naturally. When you’re not merely comfortable with spewing brazen lies in the face of obvious truth but have actually come to prefer it that way, wagging a finger self-righteously at your hated enemies begins to look like pretty small beer.