zer0_Mods_
patreon
I've been following what's happening in the US with the murder of Charlie Kirk
🕑 Added 2025-09-15 17:50:51 +0000 UTCI didn't know this influencer before his assassination so I'll spare universalist appeals to emotions and shared values that aren't here, because that would be hypocritical, since I'm not a Christian nor a Secular Humanist.
Speaking of values, I wanted to post a funny genealogy of some popular terms used by one side of the current debate to claim the moral high ground:
From a pagan or pre-Christian perspective (mine), racism doesn’t exist as a moral category because there is no universal axiom that all humans are equal.
In tribal or pagan logic:
Each group simply prioritises its own survival, its own gods, its own customs.
Strangers are outsiders; treating them differently is natural, not immoral.
Inequality between groups isn’t a violation of principle—it’s just fate (Moira), nature, or divine will.
The Christian revolution introduced the universalising claim: all souls equal before God. Once that axiom is in place, distinctions of race, sex, or class become potential moral contradictions. Racism as a concept only emerges after equality is established as a value.
Pagan worldview → no racism, only tribalism.
Christian worldview → racism becomes possible as a moral accusation because it violates universal equality.
Each term only exists if equality is already taken as a moral axiom. From a pagan/tribal frame, they collapse.
Racism
Christian frame: Racism is immoral because all humans are equal before God. Discriminating against someone on race violates universal worth.
Pagan frame: No such category. Preferring your own tribe is natural, outsiders have no guaranteed worth. It isn’t immoral to rank groups differently, only pragmatic.
Homophobia
Christian frame: After equality extends beyond tribes and into persons, sexuality becomes another field of worth. Condemning homosexuality is framed as denying equal worth of people regardless of orientation.
Pagan frame: No category of homophobia. Customs regulate sex for pragmatic reasons (fertility, inheritance, ritual purity). Same-sex acts may be ridiculed or tolerated, but not moralised as oppression.
Transphobia
Christian frame: With equality extended further into identity, rejecting someone’s self-declared gender is cast as hatred against their equal worth as a human being. Speech itself can become “violence” because it denies dignity.
Pagan frame: No transphobia. Gender roles are fate (Moira). If someone deviates, it may be tolerated as eccentric or punished as disorder, but it’s not parsed as denying equal worth, only breaking custom.
Bigotry
Christian frame: Bigotry is condemned as the refusal to extend equal worth universally. To be “closed-minded” is to fall short of the universal call to love one’s neighbour.
Pagan frame: No concept of bigotry. Favouritism toward kin and hostility to outsiders is expected. Open-mindedness is a pragmatic tool for trade or alliance, not a moral duty.
Therefore: if someone celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk because he was "racist, homophobic, transphobic, bigot" they're claiming the high ground with borrowed Christian values.
Calling him racist, homophobic, or bigot only makes sense if you believe in equal worth of all humans: a Christian inheritance. If you celebrate his death you deny that same worth, slipping back into pagan logic.
You’re preaching Christian values while acting like pagans.
If you're that person, you know your way to the door. I don't want you around.
_
It's pointless that you leave pissed comments or send me private messages because you're displeased about this post, you have no leverage. Money is no leverage. Morality is no leverage. Shared "categories" are no leverage. Inventing fantastical "we" to smuggle individual judgement as group authority is no leverage. You'll be instantly blocked. We share nothing, you are strangers, you get no right to speak, no right to appeal, no right to complain. This is PAGAN LAW. Take the door or I'll show you where it is.
-
I don't know what part of "you have no appeal" is so hard to comprehend for you others so I'll put it the way my father would put it: the problem with you people is that you've been taught that debate is endless and that boundaries can always be crossed if pushed in the correct way, that salvation is always possible. It is not. Debate isn't endless. This is where it ends. The signal that was given by killing Charlie Kirk then parading around in celebrations for ancient cultures or in some outside the West would be clear and brutal: that's a declaration of war. If you were not against your so hated Christians, the retaliation would not be peaceful.
Comments
Jordan
I think it's because your country doesn't have a shared framework that keeps it together. It's an external perspective but it doesn't seem like the Human Rights framework is working very well at conciliating the differences among people. As soon as something happens, everyone turns on everyone and starts pointing the finger towards someone. If you compare this to Islamic countries, that you might not like from your binary moral perspective, Islam under the law is capable of closing the ranks without dissolving in internal fighting. The law is clear and binds the community. It also looks like you have a lot of unresolved grievances going on.
Dara Pressley
I believe the problem with your argument is that we don't live in tribes. We live in one very large country of many many mixed tribes. Where two tribes -- through the structure of the country -- suppress the rights of the others. By those two, I mean the oligarchs and the supremest that they get to do their bidding through much manipulations. I wish it was as simple as tribalism. But it's not about how one person feels or thinks, it is systematically embedded into the fabric of this country. Like, why, the moment after this happened... why were black people immediately threatened by Kirk's followers. When black people had absolutely nothing to do with what happened. They even went as far sending bomb threats to black colleges! This wasn't the first time. Every time people like Kirk have been hurt in the history of the US, black people are attacked. And every time the story comes to light -- black people had nothing to do with the initial incident. This just has to stop. Personally, I don't care about what happened to Kirk. I'm not celebrating his murder -- but I'm also not sorry. He did a lot of damage in his time. And his hate came back to him from a person who thought his hate wasn't strong enough. If those hateful people want to eat each other up -- fine by me. Leave me and my people out of it.
Jordan
I think I'll print your comment and hang it in my bedroom.
Terry Lasagna
I find Kirk’s ideas abhorrent and worthy of robust critique. That said: celebrating his murder is a moral failure. Condemning speech as harmful is one thing; converting that condemnation into jubilation at a life ended is another entirely. We don’t have to be friends with those we oppose, but if our rhetoric pretends a universal commitment to human worth.. or to free expression.. we must be honest when our actions contradict those claims. The easiest way to hand power to the most monstrous storytellers is to answer blood with applause. Violence begets a cycle of martyrdom, and martyr narratives are how wars are escalated. If we want political change, aim at argument, exposure, legal and social pressure, not rejoicing in death. That is both strategically stupid and morally bankrupt.
![[ ʜʏᴇɴᴀ ʙᴇᴡɪʟᴅᴇʀᴇᴅ ] from gumroad](https://leakoo.com/kistorage/110963.jpg)
