1,628 words
Now that the dust has settled and overwhelming emotions have subsided, it is time to explain what went wrong with the Charlie Kirk discourse (spoiler: just about everything). In doing so we can also illuminate another thorny issue for the American Right, namely the intertwined problems of “low IQ” antisemitism and “schizo” conspiracy theorizing.
Successive “red-pill tidal waves” crashed down upon the United States— most significantly in 2020 and again in 2023—creating an atmosphere of informal and erratic “mass noticing”. Make no mistake, this has been an overwhelmingly positive development as it has created a general mood of skepticism towards mainstream narratives and personalities. On the other hand, it would be foolish to act as though this new cultural climate has not posed challenges of its own.
Chief among these challenges are incuriosity and closed-mindedness, a lack of analytic rigor, and an impulsivity which prevents organizing around first principles (or at the least, makes doing so exceedingly difficult). All is not lost, however, as there are solutions to these challenges. And they may be broached through an application of the proper psychological framework (but more on that later).
In the wake of Charlie Kirk”s murder, it was not uncommon to see comments across social media expressing the following sentiments:
“Israel did it!”
“Charlie was turning on them – they had to silence him!”
“If you don’t think it’s even *possible* that Israel was involved then you’re a shill!”
“Tyler Robinson was a patsy! Benjamin Netanyahu personally hit Kirk with an Israeli heart attack ray via satellite!”
Before the facts were in, before any rigorous examination could begin, before the FBI had any idea what it was doing, many onlookers rushed to judgment and began heaping scorn and contempt on commentators and analysts alike who drew different conclusions from the available information.
Many in the commentary space leapt into action, too, eager to spin improbable yarns of their own. Candace Owens, already the high priestess of “low IQ” antisemitism (recall her discussion of Sabbateanism and the Frankists?), quickly became a two-time titleholder of the Ultimate Kookery Championship with her globe-spanning, mind-bending account of the international conspiracy against Charlie Kirk. Her everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach has implicated France, Egypt, and perhaps yet even El chupacabra in Charlie’s pre-meditated assassination.
How do we account for this behavior? In the case of the commentariat class, e.g., Max Blumenthal, Tucker Carlson, Ian Carroll, etc., the answer is more or less transparent: Machiavellian types with an axe to grind are likely to wield every story like a weapon in hopes that they may hurt the reputation of their enemies (all three are well-known for their anti-Zionist priors). In Candace Owens’ case, the answer is similarly uncomplicated: a middle-of-the-road intellect meets economic incentive (hence the slow drip of private correspondence and the ever increasingly fantastical narratives she serves her audience).
But how do we explain the reactions from the general audience—anonymous social media users and “normies” alike? The average person hardly needs the assistance of influencers and talking heads to engage in confabulatory thought. To answer this, we must turn to the work of cognitive psychologist Keith Stanovich.
Let’s start with the most important feature of Stanovich’s work, the intelligence-rationality distinction. Stanovich’s model differentiates “intelligence” from “rationality”, a distinction which undermines the claim that low intelligence is the chief cause of analytic confusion. According to Stanovich’s research, intelligence is merely a measure of efficiency rather than being a catch-all term for everything we consider to be desirable about human cognition. Intelligence is analytical, not rational. Therefore, it is possible (and even commonplace) for intelligent people to think and act in irrational ways.
How, then, should we understand “rationality”? Well, rationality is the proper use of intelligence. Contained within this definition is an epistemic component (as in the development and maintenance of accurate beliefs) as well as an instrumental component (the effective pursuit of some stated goal), both of which are mediated by what Stanovich calls reflectivity (the capacity to think about and question one”s own thoughts).
Rationality, or reflectivity, sits at the top of a tripartite model of cognition, intervening upon lower cognitive faculties should they slip into error. Stanovich conceptualizes this model as follows:
- Type 1 is known as “the autonomous mind” and corresponds to our intuitive faculty.
- Type 2 is known as “the algorithmic mind” and corresponds to our analytic, or logical, faculty.
- Type 3 is known as “the reflective mind” and is the home of our rational faculty.
The reflective mind is the sole store of true rationality in the psyche, and when it intervenes upon lower cognitive processes, it brings coherence, comprehensiveness, and unity.
Importantly, it unifies the individual with himself, bringing his or her thoughts, beliefs, and actions, into a state of reasoned harmony. When the mind reflects, it engages in a critical evaluative process which prunes thought of the unjustifiable, the contradictory, and the factually incorrect. Type 2 cognition, while powerful in its own right – it can generate and elaborate upon several hypotheses at once – can nevertheless be remarkably shallow. By shallow, it may be more precise to say narrow: Type 2 cognition, if not reflectively intervened upon, may fail to generate truly alternative hypotheses, thereby iterating inappropriately on the same data set. Said differently, the mind will not look for other information, nor consider other possible explanations, upon engaging in analytic thought.
In terms of mechanisms, Stanovich argues that the mind utilizes a “Possible Worlds Box”, which can simulate numerous hypotheses and representations, reflect on each hypothesis or representation, and engage in any number of “reality tests” to evaluate the credibility of some data set and come to a final judgment. Aided by tools like decoupling (the separation of mental representations from external reality) and the capacity to think about, or reflect on our thoughts, we become capable of higher-level thinking and may engage in truly rational thought. These representations are constricted by the formal rules which govern thought – what Stanovich terms “mindware”.
Mindware refers to any knowledge, rule, or strategy used for rational inquiry. We acquire mindware through development and experience, and it is ultimately our mindware which helps us to achieve rationality. Of course, accumulated mindware can also be an obstacle to rationality (especially in a social climate rife with taboos, prohibitions, and disciplinary behavioral controls).
Stanovich argues that errors of thought are often related to either a “gap” in one”s knowledge or understanding (what he calls “the mindware gap”), or the presence of “contaminated mindware” i.e., facts and information, rules, or strategies, which are themselves faulty and therefore induce cognitive errors.
Let’s now apply this brief lesson in cognitive psychology to the Kirk shooting.
As I already observed, the backlash suffered by those who were slow to engage in conspiratorial ideation was as intense as it was irrational. Now there is a wholly banal explanation for such behavior, which is the mindware gap imposed by the average person’s ignorance of the day-to-day affairs of political operatives and the social stratum in which they occupy. Said differently, we don’t have any insight into the practical workings of Conservatism Inc., and absent a first-hand understanding of the matter, can only lapse into incomplete and irrational speculation. We may also understand such reactions in terms of the deliberate engineering of contaminated mindware which leads people to draw irrational conclusions about the nature of politics, subterfuge, and violence, e.g. the kayfabe of mass democratic politics, portrayals of political life in popular media, cognitive infiltration, and so on.
But there’s another factor at play: the psychological effect of taboos.
Taboo distorts cognition, inducing a response which the individual interprets not dissimilarly from a physical threat. But rather than a threat to his or her person, the individual instead fears a threat to their personhood. First order effects of the taboo are attacks on their status (i.e., losses in their family, community, career, et cetera), the immediate consequence of which is alienation. Individuals, now feeling themselves to be all alone, quickly lose their grip on rationality.
Now, should the individual seek to continue violating the taboo, the second order effects attack cognition: his (or her) judgments and evaluations are now impaired by mindware acquired due to the solitude incurred by this violation. The individual is harmed by the very “knowledge” he now possesses. While a reflective intervention would clear up this confusion and rectify these misconceptions, the individual is no longer capable of this and instead ruminates obsessively on a handful of facts and half-digested analyses, rather than opting to pursue new information and achieve a fuller comprehension. Alas, the taboo has already defeated and robbed him of his rational faculties. All that remain are incoherent arguments, impotent fits, and rage-filled hysterical outbursts.
What lessons can be drawn from Stanovich’s research beyond a mere academic detailing of human cognition? Simply put, if there is no evidence to suggest a foreign plot then we ought not force a square peg into a round hole. And if there is insufficient proof to implicate Benjamin Netanyahu in the murder, then we ought not tie ourselves into knots or work ourselves into rageful fits when others point this out. Interestingly, what “low IQ” antisemitism and “schizo” conspiracy theorizing has wrought is not an iron clad case for the politically motivated and pre-meditated murder of Charlie Kirk, but the obfuscation of Jewish influence on popular American conservatives.
In the immediate aftermath, we learned just how hands-on Jews in the conservative movement can be. We also learned how hard Kirk labored to keep Conservatism Inc. from moving further to the right. These revelations should have been the focus of everyone”s attention, and yet, wild and irresponsible conjectures won the day. This is the final lesson to be taken from the matter: if we let irrationality overtake the conversation, we risk losing control of it forever.
28 comments
I used to think Owens was just a DEI grifter. After seeing her endlessly exploit her supposed friend’s death for clicks, even going so far as to imply that his widow was involved in the killing, I now think she is probably a sociopath. Her entire adoption of antisemitism really originates in a personal quarrel with Ben Shapiro, rather than anything ideological.
The vast majority of the theories and internet activity surrounding Kirks death have been bullshit/attention seeking/schizo/low-IQ etc. I think this is being used to malign the real conspiracy theories, JQ etc.
However, there are some people doing investigative work to get to the bottom of it and I do appreciate them. One such person is Sam Parker.
https://x.com/BasedSamParker
I think there is more to the story than the official narrative we have been given.
The problem is when people jump to conclusions and grab a megaphone to spread their hairbrained theories.
This is why the right and/or whites will never, ever “unite.” Because we’ll always have guys on our side so excited to tell us how stupid we are if we don’t believe the things that they believe, specifically for the reasons they believe them. The snobbery is insane to me, it’s so off-putting. It doesn’t make me want to try to understand your point because it’s just completely insulting on the face of it. Am I missing something?
I hate Jews. I think their influence over every part of our country is corrupting and disgusting. I wasn’t that big of a fan of Charlie Kirk’s, but do I think Jews killed him or were behind his murder? At this point, I’ve got a 99% chance of being right if I say yes. Any “evidence“ you’ve got from the scene has likely been corrupted, so you can use rationale all day long and I just don’t think any of that shit matters anymore. I don’t trust one damn thing coming out of this government or any of its entities. That doesn’t necessarilymake me low IQ. it probably makes me someone you’d rather not have in your special club, but that’s the least of my worries these days.
I have seen no evidence to support the claim that Mossad or the Jews had anything to do with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The pervert, Tyler Robinson, did the crime, motivated by leftwing ideology.
However, Jews are happy and relieved that Kirk is out of the way. He had ceased to support Israel, and had started to oppose Jewish lobby groups, such as AIPAC. Now they are trying to hijack his organization, Turning Point USA. Jews seek to turn it against America and for Israel, just like they are.
I don’t get it.
There is Belief based on evidence and facts and good reasoning and logic, and a systematic process of testing hypotheses, making arguments and debate in order to sift the wheat from the chaff.
And there is nonsense.
One approach is a lot harder than the other.
Too many of our people are what I call “Epistemological Nihilists,” which basically means that their theory of knowledge and discovering truth, is abject nothingness.
They can’t understand so nobody can. Believe anything. Believe nothing.
If those in the peanut gallery do have any reality or Worldview, it likely comes from the bottom of a can of suds or from the Boob Tube, or maybe from the Bible or some sort of dusty and arcane Hebrew mythology.
I personally don’t put much stock into that.
I guess a thirst for knowledge does require some Faith ─ some optimism that there is more than Nothingness to the order of the universe ─ that there are underlying truths that can palpably be discovered by the likes of mankind.
And that is very different indeed from Superstition.
Unless compelled for some external reason, the African tribesman will not bother to even plant a tree because he already knows well enough that he will not likely live long enough to reap any of the fruit borne from it.
The Western Soul is very different, of course. Knowledge is power, and understanding is a virtue for its own sake.
But it is not invented from whole cloth.
🙂
The sad truth: Charlie Kirk has already been forgotten.
Yes, you are right, he is fast receding down that “memory hole.” In two years he will be forgotten by all, except immediate family members. I didn’t even know he existed, until I heard the radio announce his assassination. 🙃
Excellent article.
Yes, I am troubled by a lot of low-IQ epistemology.
The sad truth is that a Twink with a Tranny boyfriend killed Charlie Kirk with his Granddad’s hunting rifle, because he found Charlie’s Christian and Conservative rhetoric off-putting.
Lots of people did not like Charlie Kirk, and even academic Librarians ─ Marxists by any other name ─ called him a “White Nationalist” and a Fascist. That certainly does not make it true. I’m one and Charlie never came to the meetings.
But what I am particularly troubled by is the concept that assassinations at academic places ─ precisely where controversial matters should be discussed and debated ─ has already been forgotten without any comprehensive action taken. Where is that purge of AntiFa troublemakers that President Trump promised?
The case against Tyler Robinson is overwhelming, and that is only the evidence that has been released to the public.
There will be a high-stakes Death Penalty trial coming which will answer many questions unless something extraordinary happens like a Jack Ruby assassination or a Jeffrey Epstein suicide.
In any case, contrary to the DEI grifter Candace Owens, there is zero evidence that the Mossad and Mormons were involved.
🙂
One of the reasons that university presidents and administrators deny conservative speakers a platform or cancel them at the last minute is because of safety concerns. There is something to that. It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy or even antifa involvement that can cause violence at an event like that. All it takes is one deranged leftist with a firearm or some other weapon to cause an incident. That doesn’t mean that I agree with universities cancelling conservative speakers because of it, though. Universities should do the hard work of implementing better safety protocols and ensuring that a controversial, conservative speaker can speak without being interrupted. It won’t happen, though. Administrators will continue to take the easy way out, cancel the event, and cave into leftist activists.
Just you wait until they dig into the private messages of Dallin H. Oaks and find that he masterminded the deaths of President Nelson, Charlie Kirk, and JFK. The plan is unfolding. A little birdie told me.
Most conspiracy nonsense is based on bad applications of the maxim “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action” [Iam Fleming]. Fleming’s quote was, IIRC, based on his experiences in the Cold War spy VS spy game. A useful heuristic for a low-trust environment, in other words.
Pure “conspiracy logic” says that, theoretically, any source or piece of evidence can be part of the plot, therefore you have to “Trust No 1” [famous phrase from The X-Files]. But, because you also “Want to Believe” [also The X-Files], at some point you have to make a decision and pick a set of untrustworthy sources over another set of untrustworthy sources. -> general, indiscriminate distrust means, in practice, freedom to be biased
No fact can bind you, you can “unfact” them all with reference to “Trust No 1”. Imagination unbounded, which feels incredibly liberating
If rationality is distinct from intelligence, we may ask: How high is the RQ (rationality quotient) of Jews, Asians, Blacks & Brown people compared to white Europeans?
I’m reminded of a passage from Haskins, The Normans in European history (1915):
“Hard-headed and practical, the Norman is not an idealist or a mystic; even his religion has a practical flavor, and the Bretons are wont to assert that there has never been a Norman saint. With the verse of Corneille and the splendid monuments of Romanesque and Gothic architecture before us, no one can accuse the Normans of lack of artistic sense, yet here, too, the Norman imagination is inclined to be restrained and severe, realistic rather than romantic. Its typical modern writers are Flaubert and Maupassant; its typical painter is Millet, choosing his scenes from Barbizon, but loyal to the peasant types of his native Normandy. Indeed Henry Adams insists that Flaubert’s style, exact, impersonal, austere, is singularly like that of those great works of Norman Romanesque, the old tower of Rouen cathedral and St. Stephen’s abbey at Caen, and shows us “how an old art transmutes itself into a new one, without changing its methods.” l In history, a field in which the Norman attachment to the past has produced notable results, the distinguishing qualities of Norman work have been acute criticism and great erudition rather than brilliant imagination. In science, when a great Norman like Laplace discovered the nebular hypothesis, he relegated it to a note in the appendix to his ordered and systematic treatise on the motions of the heavenly bodies. The Norman mind is neither nebular nor hypothetical !”
The Normans had some saints, including St Honorina, St Laud, St Adele the daughter of William the Conqueror, St Jean Brebeuf who was martyred by heathen savage amerinds (French from Normandy founded Quebec btw), and the famous St Therese of the Child Jesus (if you include Flaubert and Laplace, I can also include people from later periods who were from Normandy). They were also, like the Bretons, devoted to St Michael, which speaks to their particular austerity and soldierliness – after all, St Therese spoke of “the little way”, a more restrained path to belief -, but doesn’t take away their faith. They were more Catholic than other Northern peoples, while remaining the latter; wrote chronicles of the first crusade (the Normans becoming zealous rulers of the Holy Land for a while) and of world history, and were also devoted to the Immaculate Conception, a very mystical yet complexly logical concept.
I must say, that I have never heard of the Normans portrayed in such a fashion!
I am intrigued and I need some more information please, Dominic.
I don’t have more info on this specifically, but would guess that Charles Homer Haskins’ book would be a good place to start. It’s from 1915 so not copyrighted anymore (if I understand this correctly).
Conspiracy theorists are like the grasshopper. They’re a minor nuisance usually, not really settling on any one conspiracy or any one topic, hopping from field to field. It’s a personality type that’s really attracted to such thinking, and they are like that across their entire life. They’re a constant factor in politics, in every era the conspiracy theorist is there. In comfortable eras like the 90s they have more comfortable and fun conspiracy theories, like flat earth or aliens or secret nazi bases. And it’s fine for the public and seen like harmless fun, the same way one grasshopper in a field is no big deal. It becomes funny to joke about a character like Alex Jones in the 2000s, to have him star in “A Scanner Darkly” playing up his conspiracy theorizing for laughs.
But like the grasshoppper, certain conditions can trigger a metamorphosis in the lowly solitary conspiracy theorist. Afterwards, they become gregarious with one another, they cluster together, and instead of being spread out and hopping between fields, they become fixated on one field, and ruin it. The conspiracy theorists then become like destructive locusts, and have a negative impact on actual areas of political concern by concentrating all their irrational nonsense there. And it stops being something the public jokes about. Alex Jones no longer can play the haha funny conspiracy theorist character in movies. After the Qanon nonsense, him spewing his nonsense meant being absolutely destroyed with lawfare. Qanon was one such hyperfixation, and the low-IQ nonsense from that just poisoned conservative politics for the worse for many years.
The grab-bag of conspiracy theories from the solitary mode is actually filled with the past obsessive fixations from their locust mode. The Masonic lodges during the 1848 springtime of nations, the global communist conspiracy of the mid 20th century, jewish/zionist influence. And for some countries there’s some bewildering ones that linger in the grab-bag, Japan still has the Dutch as a conspiracy theory due to their influence in the Edo period. All of these past collaborations and influences were true to degrees, but the obsessive locust fixation was so excessive it made many live well beyond their time and era.
Candance Owens probably knows the locust potential in conspiracy theorists, seen the dedication from the Qanon base towards Trump, and wants that for herself. What annoys me is that it might just work, and like a farmer tending to a field, you can’t work out when locusts will hit. We could all become completely blindsided by another wave of conspiracy theorists riding Candance Owens or someone like her to the top, and afterwards in hubris she just poisons the JQ exactly the same way Qanon poisoned conservative politics.
That said, conspiracy theorists are a fact of this world, common to all people, they’re not going anywhere. You have to manage conspiracy theorists the same way that farmers have to manage the risk of grasshoppers becoming locusts, which often means you can’t do much. If we’re going through political upheavel, we’re simply going to have them buzzing about. The silver lining is, like the locusts, their damage doesn’t last long as they pitter out pretty rapidly. Qanon is already effectively dead as a movement, after all.
This piece is pure grandiloquent pathologizing—ad hominem dressed up as diagnosis.
I don’t trust the FBI (least of all the odious Kash Patel), and my ballistics expertise ends at YouTube conspiracy clips—yet that’s still enough to doubt Robinson fired the shot.
Do you think it is rational to argue:
X is capable of anything.
Therefore, X did this.
You’re the King!!
It’s rational to think they are capable of it.
Ofc, there’s bad actors peddling nonsense, but it is certainly weird how when Kirk was starting to doubt, this oliver-stone-jfk-style conspiracy of degenerates suddenly arises to kill him, patsies and weird ballistics included. And an even more philosemite leadership takes his place at his org, and his widow smiles a lot.
And worse, no one was really awoken, at least not to the expected degree – enough confusion on one hand, enough ennui on the other. Then again even coup-d’etats are tv/internet occurrences now, most of the masses being pacified. We just need a critical mass of participants, not a majority of people, i guess.
In the meantime, whether it was spiritual or genetic juiceboxes, it is obvious they and/or their ideals did it – against us, whether Kirk was truly us or not. That’s what matters. Preach that truth, and the critical mass will be built that way.
Like you, I regret that the Trump administration failed to exploit the Kirk shooting to crack down on the Left and consolidate power. They must act with ruthless urgency before the 2028 election—and even the midterms—as peaceful transfers of power are no longer viable in this country. The time to seize state power is now, but tragically, it won’t happen. We’re headed for a Democratic sweep.
Trump wrecked his coalition on multiple rocks: (1) Israel, Epstein, and the Kirk shooting; (2) the mishandled tariff rollout, clumsily wielded as sanctions rather than strategically for long-term economic needs; (3) H-1B visas, 600,000 Chinese university students, etc.
Trump’s only remaining path to avoid total defeat is an immediate, total halt to immigration followed by the launch of remigration—starting with Somalis and methodically expanding to other groups.
He sacrificed his coalition, and with it America’s future, for Israel. Even if direct Israeli involvement in the Kirk assassination can’t be proven, virtually no one believes the official story. The stench of a cover-up has fatally undermined Trump at the precise moment he needed to move decisively to consolidate power.
His final chance to regain the trust and fervor of his base is to begin remigration—now.
Given the online stew these twinks fester in, it’s almost like Reddit did Charlie Kirk in.
Josh, have you seen the Rufo-L0m3z discussion on Candace Owens? They even use your lexicon about ‘schizo’ politics. The one possibility you cannot entertain is that Israel or her assets within our evangelical military fraternity could have done the dirty deed. That’s just too far out!
Candace Owens is a troll. Simple as that.
Don’t feed it. Don’t believe it.
Isn’t it one of CC’s main points to find the truth in fiction and to delve into magical thinking and/or manifestation? But suddenly connecting the dots based on intuition by blaming common enemies of the movement is “low-IQ”.
Also, Kirk is far from forgotten. The transleft STILL masturbates over his death, still makes jokes, still crows with joy. They can’t get enough of it, and they want more. To say he is forgotten is to say you forgot about him, and that leaves his memory in the heads of our enemies where he is a weapon to be used against us, rather than a weapon that we have a right to use against them.
Charlie Kirk is either a martyr to the right, or another scalp in the basement of the left. It’s our choice.
What is the real motivation of this article?
Are you simply annoyed that Candace Owens (and others), have clouded the nice clean weapon of “TransLib murders Right wing Christian Political Superstar” that you would like to stab specific enemies with? Transmogrified it into a massive multi-headed hydra-cudgel that is doing damage left and right in a wild and seemingly unmanageable fashion?
In the horror show of many bad actors and pathetic liars and grifters she/they have cast light on, the patsy and his foul motivations still exists and can still be used — but they are shaking the tree of evil and a hailstorm of rotten fruit is falling — this is god-given opportunity!
(Seeing the ‘hidden hand’ of the Jews frantically scrabbling to shut it down come into the awareness of masses of these “lesser IQs” is priceless in itself alone! Making that stick in the minds of the masses is triumph for the taking, and a transformation of our struggle to a higher level — a gift from the gods. It’s like the nerd finally catches the pass in street football and the crazy guy just threw a block that breaks the field wide open all the way to the chevy at the corner — don’t worry, don’t ‘manage’, just run like hell!)
I question your ‘rationality’ in bewailing these “low IQ” types you appear to look down on?
She and they are like mad-cadaver-dog, over the edge with grief for its beloved master, a force of nature that is off the leash and finding bodies right and left that we weren’t even looking for.
You are smarter than her, fine. I am smarter than you. So what? Smart isn’t everything.
This unlikely person and fellow travelers are putting things in play — in a chaotic way sure — that we could not have done. (Who let the dogs out?, lol, they did! Dogs of war. 🙂 )
We should stop complaining and adapt ourselves to exploiting this rare and wonderful chaotic opportunity.
They say life is what happens when you are making other plans.
Perhaps sometimes victory is what you do with the annoying unexpected when you had other and more clever plans! 🙂
This is a beautiful example of paranoid schizo posting, right down to the accusation that our author is a Jew.
Great article, but I would want you to focus more on the leftist criticism of Kirk which is far more prevalent – the 2nd Amendment comment, DEI pilots, etc, all of which are often unanswered by the right and contribute to people’s image of him as a “hateful bigot” who was nothing more than a “grifting podcaster”. If the right rides on refuting these, they can turn the tide around in their favor.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.