Showing Their Colors

     The contemporary Left is a vile thing. Its adherents behave atrociously whenever they get to “acting out.” Yet many of us in the Right cannot help but assume that there’s a bottom to their depravity. After all, we say to ourselves, there are limits beyond which we would never go; surely they have such limits too… ?

     Well, maybe not:

It is genuinely terrifying that a MASSIVE group of people in this country believe that the appropriate response to speech they disagree with, is m*rder...

...and they celebrate it with horrifying glee

I don't know where we go from here.pic.twitter.com/4ly4IRdqns

— Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) September 13, 2026

     Vandalism and general defacement of public statues and such has been in the Left’s wheelhouse for some time now. As Charlie Kirk, who was murdered a year ago, has become something of martyr for us, defacing his statue – which is in front of the Phoenix, Arizona headquarters of Turning Point USA – isn’t out of character for them. But have a gander at the first reply to Matt Van Swol’s tweet:

Hey propagated racist ideals while disguising them. Dude was a wanna be Rush Limbaugh and we know that fucker was racist.

The world became a better place.

He, if not Trump, would have led us to a Nazi Germany type situation

— pauly (@GreatInHD) September 13, 2026

     Let that sink in for just a moment before continuing on.

* * *

     Sometimes, it’s possible to get a feel for the Left’s premises from fiction. That’s especially the case this time around. Consider the following dialogue, in which the protagonist of a famous, much-loved novel has asked a Supporting Cast character a question many real people have contemplated: If you had a time machine, would you go back to 1932 and kill Hitler?

     “Is this one of those trick questions?” Chuck asked.
     “Nope.”
     “Well, would they catch me?”
     “Pardon?” That was a question none of the others had asked.
     “If I killed him. Would they catch me? Hang me from a lamppost? Make me do the funky chicken six inches off the ground?”
     “Well, I don’t know,” Johnny said slowly. “Yes, I suppose they would catch you.”
     “I don’t get to escape in my time machine to a gloriously changed world, huh? Back to good old 1977?”
     “No, I don’t think so.”
     “Well, it wouldn’t matter. I’d kill him anyway.”
     “Just like that?”
     “Sure.” Chuck smiled a little. “I’d rig myself up with one of those hollow teeth filled with quick-acting poison or a razor blade in my shirt collar or something like that. So if I did get caught they couldn’t do anything too gross to me. But I’d do it. If I didn’t, I’d be afraid all those millions of people he ended up killing would haunt me to my grave.”
     “To your grave,” Johnny said a little sickly.

     [Stephen King, The Dead Zone]

     Wonderful! A magic formula for deciding that murdering someone is quite all right: He’s going to become Hitler! Mind you, the real Hitler hadn’t yet killed anyone in 1932. So anyone who might have murdered Hitler in that storied year would have been killing an innocent man, regardless of his political positions. Also, why would you assume – if we first assume that travel into the past is actually possible – that the traveler’s appearance in 1932, where he had never been before, wouldn’t result in changes to the timeline? Maybe detoxify Hitler, or even remove him from public life altogether?

     Think about that. Then reread “pauly’s” tweet above.

* * *

     Time travel is one of the less plausible ideas entertained in science fiction. I actually embedded a passage about that in Doors:

     “Carol?”
     “Hm?” The sound of her name pulled her back from the edge of slumber. “What is it, sweetie?”
     “Do you ever think about…time?”
     What?
     She shook her head and looked at him. Their lovemaking, as boisterous as it had been, had tired her out. Apparently it hadn’t done the same to him.
          He’d assumed a semi-reclined, semi-sitting position. She elbowed herself into the same posture. “What brought that on?”
     He smiled faintly. “You.”      She started to reply, checked herself. She knew her still-new husband was more thoughtful than most. His question was unbounded, but there had to be specifics behind it that she could tease out.
     “Go on.”
     “I was thinking,” he said, “how much different my life would have been if I’d known you in high school. I never even talked to a girl back then. Do you think, if you’d lived up here then, you would have talked to me?”
     She took a breath and tried to unscramble the question.
     “Are you asking,” she said, “if Carol as she was then would have approached you, or if Carol as she is now would have approached you?”
     “Well,” he said, “given our ages the first case doesn’t work, ‘cause when I graduated high school you wouldn’t yet be old enough even to be a freshman. The second case would require time travel. So I guess it’s a silly question. But I couldn’t help thinking about it.”
     She chuckled. “What makes it silly? Lots of writers have speculated about time travel, haven’t they?”
     He scowled gently. “Time travel is a ridiculous notion. For travel into the past to make sense, everything that’s ever happened would have to be still going on now. But if that were the case, there’d be no possibility of changing anything. A time traveler wouldn’t even be able to enter the past in a meaningful way, because he’s not there already.”
     “Well, then what about travel into the future?” she said.
     “That’s just as silly if not sillier. Everything that ever will happen would have to have happened already!”
     “Damn,” she said. “You’re right. I never thought it through.”
     He ran a finger along her cheek. “It’s the kind of thing I used to think about before we met.”

     For travel into the past to be possible and meaningful, the traveler’s own past would have to be alterable. Not only would he have to be able to “enter” the past at the point of his choosing, he would have to be able to alter events at or subsequent to that point in a way that could change “history” further on. Yet at the point of entry, the events he hoped to change would not have happened yet. He would be working from an assumption that without what he was planning to do, they would occur as his future self knew them. But those changes might also eliminate him! Unworkable.

     But that’s peripheral to the main point: Entering the past prior to a given event means that the event has not yet happened. If you believe that the human will is free – you do, don’t you? – then at that point it remains possible that the event of interest might never happen.

     So much for the wholly specious notion that what Hitler did in later years would justify murdering him in 1932.

     But the Leftist monster who goes by “pauly” is forward-looking. He predicted that a future with Charlie Kirk in it would resemble Nazi Germany. What powers of prognostication! And what incredible godlike stature they imply for him and his fellow travelers! Not only can they foresee the future; they can also assume the power of life and death on the basis of what they foresee.

     You may rest assured, Gentle Reader, that if permitted to go on as they have to date, they’ll get around to you and me.

* * *

     I once wrote that the Left regards everyone in the Right as either stupid or evil. That era has passed. Now – today – leftists regard all of us as evil. By “pauly’s” logic, that categorization implies that it would be quite all right to kill any of us. Never mind the law.

     Consider yourself warned. You’re not safe around them. Therefore, unless you have a reason so powerful that it overrides your personal safety, stay away from them. They consider themselves licensed to kill.

     James Bond never had it so good.