Opinion
By Jeff Childers
9/15/25
Good morning, C&C, it’s Monday! Our roundup today includes: the Charlie Kirk story expanded as new details about the assassin emerged, and liberal myths fell away like shedded snakeskins; liberal lies about killer being ‘far right’ exposed; scientific study shows political violence acceptance almost exclusively a left-wing phenomenon; FBI begins investigating wider group that may have known about Charlie Kirk’s assassination in advance; faith-forward apps surging online as digital church swells; and the Times finally coughs up something positive about ivermectin— and it will encourage you.
⛑️ C&C ARMY POST | MORNING MONOLOGUE ⛑️
For those who enjoyed my last Code Red Podcast with Pastor Zach Terry, we released a new one this weekend, discussing the Charlie Kirk assassination (of course) and its interplay with Civil War themes.
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/LqTmmjiTHCA?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0
🌍 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🌍
Now let’s slay some left-wing sacred cows.
🔥🔥🔥
As expected, the fog of the hot takes phase began to clear over the weekend, and more reliable information emerged. It was not good news for leftists who’d hoped that the assassin of one of the most popular conservatives in America was also a conservative. Of all places, the New York Times broke the story, headlined, “Kirk Shooting Suspect Held ‘Leftist Ideology,’ Utah Governor Says.”
Anyone active on social media this weekend surely saw the legions of leftwing commenters trumpeting that assassin Tyler Robinson was a far-right troll angered that Charlie Kirk was insufficiently conservative. The claim itself was strangely oxymoronic. If Charlie were literally Hitler, how could he also be not-Hitler-enough?
Anyway, that silly theory vanished in an electric crackle of demonic lightning this weekend as news emerged that Robinson lived with his transgender boyfriend, enjoyed animalistic role-play (where humans called “furries” pretend to be beasts), and in his online posts robotically regurgitated left-wing talking points.
On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Utah Governor Spencer Cox described Robinson as first being a “very normal young man,” who was later “radicalized” by the “deep, dark internet.” Governor Cox reported that, after reviewing extensive online evidence provided by his boyfriend, Lance Twiggs, 22 (who is cooperating), Mr. Robinson’s political ideology was “very different” from that of his conservative family.
“There clearly was a leftist ideology with this assassin,” Governor Cox said, citing the suspect’s family and romantic partner as sources.
The Times was stingy with details, refusing to suggest any facts that supported Governor Cox’s conclusions. But the UK Daily Mail was much more helpful, and ran several stories yesterday packed with nauseating new information. One was headlined, “Trans ‘partner’ of Charlie Kirk suspect ‘praised Joe Biden’ before conservative activist was shot… as link to bizarre ‘furry’ lifestyle revealed.” Another ran below the headline, “Charlie Kirk’s ‘killer’ made sick jokes just hours after ‘shooting activist dead’ as his twisted messages emerge.”
Those Daily Mail links are a good starting point if you want to delve into those troubling details. I won’t do it here. Suffice it to say that leftists’ silly claims about Robinson’s conservative credentials were exposed as made-up. In truth, Robinson was raised conservative, but someone online taught him radical leftism and trained him how to etch propaganda slogans onto bullets.
Robinson’s political beliefs were the first left-wing myth to be demolished this weekend. There was more.
🔥 The second slanderous slogan making the rounds on social media this weekend was the myth of “balance,” liberals calling for “even-handedness” since “both sides” are “equally guilty” in celebrating political killings by people who disagreed with victims about marginal tax rates or whether crosswalks should be neutral grey or rainbow-colored.
The myth of “balance” is diabolical.
Let’s use science, shall we? In April —months before Charlie Kirk was silenced for his conservative beliefs— social scientists at Rutgers University published a study titled, “Assassination Culture: How Burning Teslas and Killing Billionaires Became a Meme Aesthetic for Political Violence.”
I’ll give you one guess what they found.
The study was provoked by researchers’ concerns over widespread left-wing celebrations of two recent stories: the firebombing of several Tesla dealerships to protest CEO Elon Musk’s relationship with President Trump, and the political assassination of insurance executive Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione over “corporate greed” or something (his reasoning remains murky; Mangione’s diary described the young man’s view that insurance is “extracting human life force for money”).
In other words, the leftwing internet was already celebrating political violence and encouraging escalation months before Charlie Kirk was killed. In the composite below, note how female user jadepheonix encourages young men that, by assassinating Elon Musk, “you would become a god.”
“The survey revealed several troubling trends,” the researchers concluded. “Fifty-six percent of those who self-identified as left of center reported that, if someone murdered Donald Trump, they would be at least somewhat justified.” Similar numbers supported murdering Musk and destroying Tesla dealerships.
Unsurprisingly, the researchers also found a statistically significant predictive correlation between assassination culture and BlueSky usage.
The scientists linked assassination culture with “Left-Wing Authoritarianism,” which was defined as moral absolutism, punitive attitudes toward ideological opponents, combined with a willingness to use coercion for progressive aims. Sound familiar? Think masks, shots, and lockdowns. If you think about it, all those mandates are essentially violent, in the sense that they directly violate victims’ bodily integrity.
Chillingly, the researchers found the problem is not just Trump Derangement Syndrome, or even a strong hatred toward any particular person. The problem is a worldview that allows for political violence as just another tool in the box:
“This pattern,” the researchers grimly noted, “suggests a broader worldview in which violence is seen as a legitimate political response—not just a reaction to individual figures.” They summed it up: leftists have turned violence into a virtue. “We believe these results point to a structured ideological framework—what we term assassination culture—in which revolutionary action is valorized, particularly when directed at symbols of wealth, power, or conservative politics.”
“These attitudes are not fringe,” the researchers warned. “They reflect an emergent assassination culture, grounded in far-left authoritarianism and increasingly normalized in digital discourse.” Their prescription was that Democrats should clean their own house, and fast. “Unless political and cultural leadership explicitly confronts and condemns this trend, NCRI assesses a growing probability of real-world escalation.”
Somehow, while this widespread, pro-violence worldview was growing on the left to astonishing proportions, Biden’s DOJ concluded that stay-at-home moms were the country’s greatest domestic terror threat. NBC, March 2023:
So what exactly are we looking at? Just how bad is this violent leftwing trend that has infected 56% of people who call themselves “left of center?” What do they hope to achieve?
Welcome to Accelerationism.
🔥 Perhaps there is no better indicator of how pervasive this nihilistic, leftwing ideology has become, or how protective the deep state is about it, than the deliberate and obvious attempt to blur its meaning. Googling returns long lists of articles about “tech accelerationism,” “white supremacist accelerationism,” and “Christian nationalist accelerationism.” All of those combo terms (something plus accelerationism) are post-hoc attempts to capture the word, make it ubiquitous, and blur it into meaninglessness.
If something means everything, then it means nothing at all.
Here’s a quick video explainer, even if it omits a few important details.
CLIP: Explanation of “blackpilled accelerationism” (8:14).
Accelerationism was the fiendish brainchild of two French communist philosophers, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, who in 1972 co-wrote “Capitalism and Schizophrenia.” In 2025 Internet slang, “blackpilled accelerationism” refers to an extreme, pessimistic worldview convinced that society is irredeemable and inevitably headed for collapse or catastrophe. The “blackpill” idea —drawn from internet subcultures— refers to total disillusionment (i.e., nihilism), usually coupled with a conviction that positive or constructive change is impossible.
Combining blackpilling with “accelerationism” results in a belief that the best (or only) way forward is to speed up society’s decline through acts intended to intensify social conflicts, crises, and instabilities. Rather than seeking reform or improvement, adherents advocate for or celebrate events (including violence or chaos) that they think will hasten the destruction of the current institutions. Memes, irony, and online rhetoric —like those etched on Tyler Robinson’s bullet casings— are commonly used to recruit others to embrace this bleak outlook and justify increasingly radical or destructive acts that escalate or “accelerate” the inevitable collapse of civilization.
Unlike religious, nationalistic, or racial radicals, accelerationists have no plan for the “after.” There’s no new social order to replace the collapsed one. Just chaos, misery, and death. Pure nihilism.
It’s unsurprising so many trans people are attracted to this philosophy. They are ripe for recruitment. Trannies are being trained to believe that the “normies” hate them and want to “erase them.” All of civilization appears hell-bent on frustrating transsexual happiness, freedom, and fulfillment. They see no way to fix it, no common ground, nothing to negotiate. Thus, civilization must go.
As one horrifying example, networks of perverse accelerationists delight over procuring child suicides through befriending kids online, gaining their confidence, and then blackmailing them with shared secrets. I’ve written about them before. It is pure, refined evil, on an internet scale.
Of the 56% of “left of center” people who believe political violence is at least somewhat justified, many probably do not even know they’ve been radicalized by accelerationist theory. But that is the thread running through the left’s celebration of Charlie Kirk’s killing. For a deeper dive, watch Bx’s five-part video series about accelerationism and online radicalization. It’s about an hour total. Here’s the first segment:
CLIP: Part I—Where is Jade? Radical accelerationism explained (very adult content) (22:13).
🔥 There is some good news. Bx’s video series published in January, and got little attention, at least, relative to what it should have received. The Rutgers study ran in April, and nobody ever heard about it, despite its explosive conclusions. But it nevertheless penetrated, and although corporate media ignored the story, FBI Director Kash Patel prioritized investigating radical accelerationist groups starting back in May. For example:
The ‘764’ group mentioned in the headline is only one of the shadowy networks of radical accelerationists. Since Tyler Robinson was identified and arrested, the questions now are: how was he radicalized— and who radicalized him?
The FBI is already working on it. Headline from the New York Post, yesterday:
Independent investigators rounded up posts suggesting that a wider group of people may have known that Charlie Kirk would be shot. Unlike what would’ve happened under Biden’s DOJ, this FBI is apparently acting on the information. Stay tuned.
💉💉💉
Unconfirmable anecdotal reports yesterday suggested swelling church attendance in the wake of Kirk’s assassination. That’s encouraging, but there are also other, more tangible signs of a new spiritual movement in America. This weekend, the New York Times ran a long-form, multi-media animated story headlined, “Finding God in the App Store.” That they would feature the story at all is as much of a story as the details themselves. Let’s figure out why.
The article was a pocket square of truth draped in rolls of deceptive purple cloth. The story began with the undeniable fact that the “faith tech” industry is booming, powered by religious apps rocketing to the top of Apple’s App Store. Bible Chat, a Christian app, has more than 30 million downloads. Last year, Hallow, a Catholic app, briefly beat out Netflix, Instagram and TikTok for the top spot in the App Store.
In a broad, civilizational sense, it was terrific news. In the U.S., at least, faith-forward apps are making strong showings in the charts. It’s a miraculous digital revival. Folks are trading in cheap entertainment for spiritual sustenance. Or at least, they are adding spiritual support, in very large numbers.
The Times article did everything it could to confuse the narrative.
According to the Times, millions of spiritual seekers are skipping stained-glass sanctuaries for more convenient pixelated priests. However, it offered no direct evidence that people downloading these apps were trading in-person gatherings for online counseling. Sure, many people estranged from organized religion can find comfort in digital alternatives, but that logical notion says nothing about the trend.
The Times even admitted that, “Many apps explicitly help people find local congregations to attend.”
The article deceptively decorated its overlong story with animated chat sessions representing all major religions (including Hinduism), but the trend is almost exclusively among Christian app downloads. So Times readers were left with a false sense of a broad, generic spiritual awakening, when the truth is that it is nearly completely a Christian phenomenon.
We could have a lively debate about whether people should be chatting with AI pastors, but the fact they are seeking spiritual counseling, prayer, and Bible study resources is the more important story. (For what it is worth, when I checked the App Store this morning, I found “Bible Chat: Daily Devotional” as the #9 top ‘free app’ download, and “Holy Bible” was #32.)
In another misleading trick, the story described platforms offering users chances to “chat with AI deities” —troubling if true— but it offered no evidence people are doing that in significant numbers. Indeed, the Times even called these AI platforms as “smaller apps and websites.”
The article wrapped with what was maybe the most important fact of all. It cited lagging church attendance over the last several decades, then quoted Ryan Beck, the chief technology officer at Pray.com. “They aren’t going to church like they used to,” Mr. Beck said. “But it’s not that they’re less inclined to find spiritual nourishment. It’s just that they do it through different modes.”
Reports of the church’s death may have been greatly exaggerated.
💊💊💊
Rounding out our New York Times review this morning, behold this astonishing headline: “What Ivermectin Can (and Can’t) Do.” I bet you never expected to see an ivermectin headline appear in the Times without a dire warning. Let the retconning begin.
The story began by carefully mocking claims the drug cures covid, don’t even think about that. But it explained in gruesome detail how well the Nobel-prize-winning drug kills intestinal worms. Then the story finally got around to what it really wanted to sneer at: people who claim ivermectin cured their cancer. The Times contemptuously smirked:
Got it, dummies? Y’all aren’t horses with parasite problems. Stop munching ivermectin pills for your skin cancer. “There is not evidence.” Get that through your thick, Cro-Magnon skulls. No evidence. None.
But wait. Um.
Many paragraphs later —in the same story— the Times said this:
In other words, studies, research trials, and doctors’ opinions all credibly suggest that ivermectin might help stop cancer. So … when the Times said there is not evidence for ivermectin as a cancer treatment, it meant there IS evidence. Reading the Times requires a certain amount of mental flexibility. Orwell would nod ruefully.
Should we line our parakeet’s cage with this contradictory story? Or should we perhaps recognize that the reporter managed to smuggle in the hopeful, heterodox information about ivermectin and cancer, while still regurgitating the party line about its uselessness? As a hopeless optimist, I choose the latter. I suspect the reporter is secretly convinced.
One clue was that the first phrase, “there is not evidence,” is flat awkward. “There is no evidence,” or “there is little evidence” would have read more smoothly. I suspect that sentence may have been a late editorial addition to please pharma partners.
Either way, accidentally or not, the bottom line was that the New York Times just reported ivermectin’s potential for treating cancer. It’s a modest miracle. Sure, it was qualified. Sure, they made certain we knew it still doesn’t work for covid. Sure, they leaned into “but only alongside other (more profitable) cancer treatments.” But still, there it was.
Could covid have led us to an unexpected cancer miracle? Other major medical discoveries, like penicillin, insulin, or the use of thalidomide for certain cancers, were either accidental or emerged from unrelated medical domains.
Imagine it. What if the pandemic led to the accidental discovery of a cheap, effective cure for cancer? Or even just a more effective treatment (or co-treatment)? It would be a monumental scientific and public health breakthrough. What would we then say about the covid miracle?
Have a magnificent Monday! We will return tomorrow morning, with more over-caffeinated essential news and commentary. See you then.
Don’t race off! We cannot do it alone. Consider joining up with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could sure use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠
Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com
The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal Florida
