The sick game played by left-wing politicians in their response to Kirk’s murder.

Notice how they all claim that there is no place for violence in "our society".

But not for a single moment do they call on their own people to stop the violence?.

This sick game of the Left derives from the fact that when they write or say that "in our society violence has no place" they actually mean between the people who make their society. Hence, towards political enemies, violence may be applied.

Their "our society" is them describing a post-revolution ideal of how they'd like to live. But it is also used to help fabricate promises in a pre-revolution era, promises aimed at those who are not really fully part of "our" society...

The aiming of political will, rethoric, and power (eerily like the mainstream media) towards a single or real "our society" in a real factual time - does not exist and is a complete tactical fabrication - that enables maximum flexibility, towards a wide readership, with minimum effort, without ever needing to say - "Hey, Fellow (Marxist) Democrats - Stop, Right Now!"

For when they say, "In our society violence is not ok", they may actually mean that they are at a stage where violence is no more instrumental to achieve "democracy", "justice", and political consolidation on a wide scale. But for the rest of us, and for tommorow?. Well, given the fluid (non-stable) and Hegelian (conflict-based) nature of their class of "our" - things, may actually expand, and sooner than later, that very non-violent "our", may redfine itself, and totally make that no-violent-in-our-society - sound like a void statement in the process....

Hey, nobody said inclusion was easy...

Don't believe it's actually this sinister?

Just look at the statements of Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, they all condemn violence as if it were some Platonic or amorphous concept.

But for a moment they do not:

The reason for this is that the Left will forever be seeking for a justification to act on external triggers, and the moment they actually tell their own to stop and desist from violence directly, and admit they themselves are actually the main source of political violence in the US and in the west, then they will in effect be admitting that there is no external, non-violent cause that justifies a violent response in times of relative peace. And that will void the rethorical code of "our society", used for decades now to make tactical gains.

That admission, would be methodologically devastating to their political logic as it contradicts their existential-ideological essence as leftists - who act only through external projection of action - which is needed to justify their negation-like nature as a deconstructive force in modernity. Their very standing, and justice, in fact depends on their willingness and readiness to be ontologically-physically-reactive to the 'real' "our". Without which, they cannot claim to be actively benevolent or just - hence they cannot prove themselves as saviors.

The oppressed–oppressor dialectic, and the bizarre attempt to forge a minority–rainbow–Muslim coalition, requires a constant trigger point to fuel consolidation and collective resentment, not only philosophically, but also from a tactical prespective.

Their natural “oppressed” allies depend on it.

What Charlie Kirk sought to do through his work was to dismantle that false "our" framework via dialogue and real inclusion, and that is something they can never call their followers openly to cease from trying to undermine in real-world situations.

They are exactly like the PLO when "condemning terror" - treating it as an amorphous phenomenon rather than the direct product of their own indoctrination which is used as part of their conolidation process, through their conflict-based educational outlook.

And just as with the PLO, we know their words are lip service, because they never address their own followers and say one simple thing: "You, We, Us, Let's Stop This". 

Leftism, like Islam, never engages in critical-introspection; its calls to end violence are always hollow language declarations that can easily expose the underlying duplicity found in Marx and Marcuse. They are mere pauses as they ready the next round of unavoidable and necessary action-conflict in our society.

They cannot admit that they themselves are the source of the hatred and violence in our society.

Everyone can only exist if we are powerful. And if we are not powerful at the moment, and that means violence. then we condemn it.

Get it?