Craig, I hope you don't get carried away and add Charlie Kirk's portrait next to Aaron Bushnell. They have NOTHING in common as far as I am concerned.
In our desire to "find our heroes" we must be careful to separate the grain from the chaff.
Just because the "chosen"--whom he served willingly and vigorously for more than 10 years, spewing Christian zionism dogma all along-- did not appreciate his recent "triangulation" and decided to snuff him does not turn him into a Christian martyr. Least of all our hero.
Funny thing: JD Vance agrees with you. In his speech today at the huge rally in Arizona called him a "Christian martyr."
The makeover of Kirk by JD Vance aligns with the official campaign to distract attention from any reasons Israel had to eliminate him and blame his assassination of the evil Left who hated him for his moral (ergo Christian) values.
Your makeover ignores Kirk's consistent position over the years of cynical support for the genocidal state that reached peaks of absurdity and immorality.
No, he did not have a "change of heart ." He attempted a strategy adjustment: he would throw a few crumbs to his base (which had moved away from unconditional support of Israel) while maintaining his Christian zionist position. He thought the Jews who criticize Netanyahu would agree with him. He had no "trajectory" from then on. At this point he was sentenced to death. He was too popular to be replaced by a internal coup and all the buzz of Charlie alleged "awakening" had to be cut short. Make a martyr of the Left was the ideal solution.
No, I disagree. If he were only triangulating or adjusting his strategy, he would have taken the money and not put his own life in danger. He was sincerely trying to extricate himself from an impossible place knowing that it could cost him his life.
As Christians, we honor repentance.
But even if his repentance were insincere and he was only adjusting his strategy, we would still want to prevent the people who murdered him from using his murder to further their agenda. They are our enemies. They are going to say Charlie Kirk loved Israel to the end. Even if it were true, we shouldn't be out there agreeing with our enemies.
As I was thinking about your comment, I realized that I don't really have a good grasp on what it means to be a "martyr," particularly a "Christian martyr." I hadn't thought of him in that way. I thought of him as my people because he was culturally Christian of European descent, but not that he was killed for his religion.
An article published today in UR argues that Israel was not involved in any way in Kirk's assassination because Kirk was not really turning against Israel. I disagree with this because Israel’s (e.g., Netanyahu’s) perception of whether Kirk was becoming a serious liability is what counts not the fact of Kirk’s real liability.
Nevertheless I found the author’s arguments that Kirk was not really “turning against Israel” very useful — factual and convincing:
They are as follows:
"Kirk, a devout Evangelical, publicly declared that Christians had a divine obligation to “bless the Jews,” aligning himself with the most extreme dispensationalist interpretations of scripture.
He parroted Israeli propaganda almost verbatim, denying that Palestinians were even a real people. According to Kirk, they were not only unfit to govern themselves, they were, quite literally, nonexistent.
He denied the mass starvation in Gaza as fiction, and repeated the grotesque liethat Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. Even when it came to military aggression, Kirk stood firm with Israel. Despite some rhetorical hedging, he ultimately endorsed Trump’s bombing of Iran, another clear indication of his unwavering loyalty to the Zionist war agenda.
His point was not to attack Jewish influence, far from it, but to warn liberal Jews that their own ideological activism was endangering Israel’s long-term survival.
Kirk’s statement was clear: “Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years. Stop supporting causes that hate you.” He then tied this directly to the future of Israel. According to Kirk, if you train an entire generation to view the world through the lens of oppressor versus oppressed, that lens will inevitably be applied to Israel—and Israel will not survive the scrutiny. “Until you cleanse that ideology from the hierarchy in the academic elite of the West,” he warned, “there will not be a safe future. I’m not going to say Israel won’t exist, but Israel will be in jeopardy.”
This is not anti-Semitism. It is not even criticism. It is a tactical warning, entirely consistent with Israeli PR strategy. In the very same episode, Kirk praised the fact that wealthy Jews were finally pulling their money out of the universities they had previously funded—institutions now pushing anti-Israel narratives. This is pure Hasbara, the sort of rhetoric that has been echoed for decades by pro-Israel Jewish intellectuals themselves.
It is plausible that Kirk felt pressure and fear, but what followed was compliance, not resistance.”
The triangulation, in my view, wasn't done as a way to maintain his support for Israel and keep the money coming while retaining his legitimacy with the young, it was the same inflexible mental triangulation all Christian Zionists must perform between the Christian view of the sanctity of all human life and the Judaic view that the only human life that exits is Jewish.
I think, in Kirk's case, he had too much moral and intellectual integrity to maintain the inner contradictions. Had he for 13 years? Yes, and he could have continued to if only he could dredge up the necessary venality. As he got older, he got wiser. He couldn't maintain the Satanic core, even for $150 million. He walked away. He said so himself to Ben Shapiro's face on his final program--I'm pushing back against Israel--confirming what both Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson have said.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of gentiles shut their eyes to the manifest immorality of Jewish behavior and go along with it for money, or safety, or social comfort. Only a very few have some inner nobility that won't allow them to continue in that state of degradation. Those should be our heroes.
Aaron Bushnell was one of those, but we don't dismiss him based on the argument that, as a US soldier he had, after all, been a willing participant in a criminal enterprise. No, we recognize that some heroic inner core--his advanced religious nature--wouldn't let him continue, so he stopped at enormous personal cost. In my view Charlie Kirk is exactly the same.
You appear determined to snatch Kirk from the embrace of MAGA-ziots who are claiming him as their hero and a "Christian martyr who died for his faith."
Instead, you make him into someone who had “moral and intellectual integrity” during the 13 years that he loudly supported Israel’s crimes against humanity and getting obscenely rich for his efforts.
In the face of such determination, and having already detailed my objections to it, I give up, comforted by the knowledge that this is the only one instance I have ever doubted your judgment and that it does not involve a worldview or principles, but only the evaluation of one specific person's character.
PS: You say: "we don't dismiss him [Aaron Bushnell] based on the argument that, as a US soldier he had, after all, been a willing participant in a criminal enterprise.”
Nobody is making such an argument. If anyone did, then every single soldier in the US military over many past decades would be a ”willing participant in criminal enterprises,” when in reality the vast majority of them are clueless sheep driven by wolves to murder other sheep in distant lands for them. How many of them, however, do so cynically for munificent pay as Kirk did.
You are making up this false argument trying to make Kirk into an Aaron Bushnell soul mate.
This is the perfect topic for sharing a bottle of wine on a high stone veranda, watching the sun set over the Pacific, and enjoying a long meandering disagreement between two old friends who share the same worldview and are confident in each other's principles.
Yes, I would love to snatch Kirk away from both the MAGAdiots and the Jews.
Politically, Kirk is much more powerful today than he was two weeks ago, and, from the point of view of the Jews, much easier to control. If they succeed in casting him as a faithful slave of Zion to the last, that he LOVED Israel, in Netanyahu's words, then they reap all the benefit of their crime.
It would be great to deny the Jews the rewards of their crime by emphasizing the real reason they killed him--he, like Aaron Bushnell, said, or was beginning to find the courage to say, no, I will no longer be complicit in genocide. That's why they killed him so quickly, because the more he found his new direction, the more evidence was out there that he was, as Candace Owens, a long-time personal friend and a truth-teller, put it, having a spiritual transformation.
Unz has a post up today arguing the absurd position that the reason they killed him on Sept 10 was to preempt Tucker Carlson's Sept 11 release of his new 9-ll series. I commented on his post but, for some reason, the comment didn't appear.
As Christians, we forgive. We honor repentance. We believe in redemption. Kirk was clearly turning. The Jews recognized that and quickly murdered him so they wouldn't lose their investment. On Sept 9, they were vilifying and attacking him. On Sept 10, they killed him, On Sept 11, they were all out there singing his praises.
"I will no longer be complicit in genocide, he [Aaron Bushnell]said.
Nor will I, said Charlie Kirk, and the monstrous Israelis murdered him for it."
Kirk never said he would not be complicit in genocide. Neer. To the end he also blamed the starvation on Hamas who steals the food...
I fact not too long ago he said the evil Muslims's persecution of gays was so atrocious that according to his information they would take the gays up to the top floor of a high building and throw them down. But now, he, he, in Gaza they can't do much of that anymore because there are no tall buildings left.
I saw your comment on the previous post and, to another commenter, called it powerful. And you are right. As many on our side have pointed out, he did lots of damage and said many evil things. But he was a mouthpiece for evil people and in their pay, so it is to be expected.
But he was 18 when they swooped in and captured him. They came with private jets, penthouses on Central Park, trips to the White House, and millions of dollars--hundreds of millions of dollars. They brought centuries of experience to bear on their project to turn him into their tool, and they are very good at what they do. They succeeded.
At 18, he could not even have begun to conceive of the level of evil he was confronted with
Nothing--and no one--in his world, which I believe was a Christian Zionist world, could have prepared him for what he was thrown into. Indeed, everyone and everything in his world left him weaker, more vulnerable, and more helpless in their clutches. Still practically a child, he was on his own, with them.
So, I cut him some slack. Actually a lot of slack. Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens are among the very few media figures I have any respect for. Both of them knew Kirk personally, have spoken to him privately and in person recently. Owens said he was undergoing a "spiritual transformation" (backing up my interpretation of his decision to turn down the money as a decision made for moral reasons--a religious decision). Carlson said he expressed a desire to escape Israel's boot. I trust those two way more than I trust Bibi Netanyahu or Donald Trump, who both said "Charlie loved Israel."
I wasn't aware of some of the things you mention, and maybe he was triangulating as a way to hang on to his audience share or something, but the fact that he turned down the money and declined an invitation to Israel and was receiving a blizzard of furious texts from the oligarchs and actually "went there" with Ben Shapiro on his show and then said he was afraid Israel was going to kill him and a few days later they did actually kill him, all of that makes me think he was sincere.
I would expect someone in that position to begin to experience pangs of remorse when they reach their 80s and are thinking about their legacies. He reached it a half century earlier.
Yes, in terms of media coverage the deaths of Charlie Kirk and Aaron Bushnell were very different, but, intrinsically they were identical. They both died as a result of their moral opposition, their religious revulsion, to the genocide of the gazans by israel. That's what makes them similarly important because the same media that ignored Bushnell and is all over Kirk has to absorb that contradiction. It's important on a cultural level which will manifest I'm hoping and I believe it will on a political level
Though I generally loathe Reddit and have been completely censored off MULTIPLE sub/r, I do sub to r/SaltLakeCity just to monitor what the locals are posting about.
I came across this (linked below) post 'Utah's New "Homeless Campus" = Concentration Camp' by LastLightReview along with the supplementary article (linked below) involving a state action plan from an HHS Interim Committee meeting basically involving the rounding-up of, and the mass, involuntary incarceration of the homeless population.
In its all-too-obvious and ambiguous bureaucratic lingo, these detention centers will involve "secure residential placement" and "work-conditioned housing." Boy, will these unconstitutional and illegal measures in this plan be fraught and replete with tyrannical and dystopian measures, all disguised behind "mental health," "public safety," and "rehabilitation."
Once this plan becomes up-and-running, the potential of this deviating from, and completely abusing, its initial raison d'etre is almost written in the stars!
I will let you guys read through both and come to your own conclusions. LLR did respond to multiple queries put to him in the sub. Keep in mind, this will be planned for ALL 50 STATES and is directly connected to the largesse of federal government funding. Know also that, almost certainly will Palantir be involved, probably from the beginning, as will - most-likely - the Gideon program also. This plan will morph into a very dark scenario, probably quickly at that!
Though LLR does discuss what some of the short-term and far-reaching implications are, and what some of the unseen potential additions and fall-out with this plan might be, he's most-definitely way too indoctrinated, naive, and too much of the myopic and "good goy" to actually comprehend what the truly nefarious and subterranean aims are of this plan.
As inflation approaches hyperinflation, as fewer and fewer jobs become available due to AI-governance becoming more widespread, and as the economy continues to fall apart, with our puppet string-pullers continuing to assist in this overall process of accelerating us into their "Great Reset" - more and more people will be ejected out into the streets, more will become less able to make ends meet, etc. You see where this is going!
Were Solzhenitsyn alive today, he would see the obvious preparatory similarities in the people's own perplexing willingness and conformity to walk into another harrowing Gulag!
Right. I've written a lot about the parallel tracks of pre-Revolutionary Russia and the US today. And you are probably right about those homeless camps, especially the mental illness aspect.
Noticing what Jews do = antisemitism
Antisemitism = mental illness
And the cries are growing louder to institutionalize the mentally ill
In terms of political impact, the deaths of Charlie and Aaron couldn't be more different. Aaron's sacrifice didn't register on any societal seismograph. It went directly into memory oblivion. That's what the PTB wanted. Craig, you were pretty much a one man gang high-lighting his importance. This time the msm and the alt social media are all over it. Everyone's got an opinion and wants to talk about it. For Gen Z, it's their JFK in Dallas. For Christians, it's a real Christ like sacrifice, more believable, more emotional than Trump's near miss, striking down a handsome, clean-cut, charismatic, family man in his prime, actually one about Jesus's age. His mission, Turning Point, has been symbolically fulfilled by his apparent sacrifice. Cancelling hate, formerly an exclusive leftist preoccupation has now been taken up by the right and free-speech poles have been reversed. Is this the start of serious civil strife or military takeover by a right-wing despotism? There's a lot more to play out, not least the so-far silence of the enigmatic Mr Robinson, who just happens to look like archetypal patsy LHO.
I already replied to your comment, but the reply ended up in the main thread for some reason. I'll add a thought here, though.
Both Aaron Bushnell and Charlie Kirk were young white men with deep Christian roots. Both were in service to Zionism--Aaron as a soldier, Kirk as a limited hangout. In other words, both were being paid to further the project of the people working to destroy them and their civilization. At some point both of them made the decision to say no--a decision that came at enormous personal cost. In both cases they made their decision because it was the right thing to do--in other words, they both acted religiously, i.e., as Christians.
Everybody is focusing on the political response to Kirk's murder, or the mechanics of it--the realms of Art and Science--and those are important parts of reality, but we mustn't neglect the most important, most complicated realm--the transcendent, what we love and why, what we give our lives for--the realm of Religion.
Politically? Who knows. I just saw something on GAB by something like Good Turning Point USA or some shit trumpeting the 37,000 new TPUSA chapter requests that have poured in since the assassination. Whoop-de-doo. Now Ben Shapiro has a larger fundraising list and 37,000 politically interested Americans will be fed a steady stream of propaganda and lies but kept on the conservative ranch where supporting Israel, fighting antisemitism, voting Republican, opposing trannies, and owning the libs are the most important conservative values.
Because that's what Charlie wanted.
Just watch, these Jews are going to milk the shit out of Charlie Kirk and achieve the very opposite effect of what his death actually signifies.
I think the forensics are important. They are facts on the ground which will point us to whether there was likely an assassination or not. If there was no assassination, there's no sacrifice, no transcendence engaged, and no springboard for expansion of Jewish control thru cucked MAGA ideology. "If it's a charade, there can be no parade."
As I see it, the problem w/ seeking the forensic implausibility of this assassination is that it's a black pill. It leads to irrevocably tarnishing Charlie's already dubious character and turning his martyrdom into another tawdry political imposture: hoodwinking the goyim, corralling them deeper into passionate Judeo-Christian submission.
Then there's the likelihood of their new banner going forward. Charlie loved Israel and MAGA. Don't you forget it! Only commies and trannies will deny his triumph over death.
Think they can't get away w/ denial of his apparent red-pilled awakening? I think Nick Fuentes is already jockeying to be the new face of TP. I heard him say Charlie was pro-Israel to the end. I think he's feuding w/ Candace over that. I do hope Fuentes is made of sterner stuff, but he's a dodgy character and therefore capable of being blackmailed. Anyway, somebody's going to get elevated and they'll have to knuckle under to get that powerful position.
I'm sure they will have no problem finding candidates willing to do anything for some shekels, being included in the monthly conference calls, and a public pat on the head once a year. Sadly, it will take most of them years to realize they are working for the destruction of their own people, not to mention humanity. Sadder still, even when they do realize it most of them won't care. Our religious progress has been so stilted for so long thanks to the ignorant superstition of the "written word" that few of us are capable of seeing anything above the material or social worlds. It is the rare brother or sister who is religiously advanced enough to say no to money, power, applause. And life itself.
Yes, the forensic truth of the Kirk assassination is important. And the political truth of the Kirk assassination is important. But neither needs to be at the expense of the other and most definitely neither should come at the expense of the moral truth of the Kirk assassination, by far the most powerful truth and the only one in which our people still hold the whip hand, if only we can learn what a whip is, what it's for, and how to use it. That's what the religious revolution will teach us.
My regular readers probably get tired of listening to me always going on about the three realms in which humans express rationality: Science, Art, and Religion. But I find it so useful--such a powerful framework--that I'm compelled to bring it up again. So, roll your eyes, but ...
The forensics belongs to the physical realm, the realm of Science, and we do want the information we have about the physical reality of the assassination to be as accurate as possible so we have the best chance to act in terms of the world as it really is--to act rationally in response to the assassination.
The politics belongs to the realm of truth generalized over humanity--Art, and, regarding that, what you say about Fuentes rings true. I caught a clip, I think it was in an Andrew Anglin piece on Unz of Fuentes and he had that certain look. It caught my attention immediately and the first thought that came to me was "blackmail." I haven't heard of anything like that, it was just the look they get when they start that journey at the end of which they all look like Madeline Albright. Only faintly even human.
My first exposure to Fuentes was a video of a speech he gave at an AmRen conference when he was 18 and I was stunned by it. His grasp of the issues, his polish, his fearless intellect, his ringing oratory... but 18 is way too young to be the giant in the room and it seemed he was holding onto himself for dear life under the smooth exterior. I caught him a few times over the years and the Christian religiosity he displayed never sat right. It was too overt, almost cartoonish, and it always made me cringe. Religion is an intensely personal aspect of the human condition and is not meant for public display. Public displays are for politics.
In any case, we don't have any control in the physical and political realms. Even if it is proven Tyler Robinson could not have been the shooter (almost already the case), if the Talmudic conspiracy desires it, he'll be convicted and executed.
I like your take on Fuentes. Wunderkind. Peter Pan who'll never be Madeline Albright. His Christianity is superficial, worn like a I.D. to get in. The blackmail would be re his sexuality, the incel thing. He seems more like a tomboy than a man.
I never paid much attention to Fuentes, disbelieving in his rise and wondering how can that happen.
Rather than being an extreme cynic, I will rise to being a mere cynic and retain some faith. If that vanishes in a particular occasion, I will move on to the next having some faith occasion. At least for awhile longer.
That distinction can be misleading because Zionism is nothing more than the political program as laid out in its entirety in the founding document of Judaism--Deuteronomy.
A practicing Jew is necessarily a Zionist if they observe God's "Judgments and statutes."
What amazes me is that Charlie put himself into that position at UVU that day, in what was essentially a kill box. Didn't he learn anything from Butler? I wouldn't have exposed my stationary physical body outdoors anywhere around buildings like that. All speaking engagements would be indoors. Not to "blame the victim," but he made it much easier for them to kill him. At least make them work for it.
Read A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind. Here's a link to the internet archive as the original edition was heavily edited. Garfield and McKinley were assassinated by the Rothschild banking cartel, so basically, yes, Jews whose greatest sin is usury.
Right. And in a hundred years we're all going to be dead. The unknown is whether our people will.
If Kirk's death gets bogged down in endless debates over palm guns and shell casings, a la 9-11, his death is wasted and there is no improvement in the chances our people will survive.
If his death is absorbed in the useless, endless spats between liberals and conservatives or left and right, his death is wasted and there is no improvement in the chances our people will survive.
If his death transcends, there may be some improvement in the chances our people will survive. And, if we do, then he will be one of the few of us still alive in a hundred years.
I guess you got a little creative in the last part of your list. McKinley was shot indoors at the Temple of Music part of a PanAm Expo. Lord Northbridge never made that train. He never even registered as a peer of the realm. Closest name to his I could find was a restaurant in Western Australia called Northbridge's, Lord of the Fries.
Lord Northcliffe owned both the Times and the Daily Mail, one for the classes and one for the masses, as the saying went.
My favorite among the press barons was the Canadian born, self-styled Lord Beaverbrook. The Kinks mentioned him in a song from Arthur, their underrated rock opera. He's considered a Nazi sympathizer by his liberal peers because he conducted a fair-minded interview w/ Hitler's emissary Hess when he parachuted into Scotland seeking a last minute peace treaty w/ England.
I think I remember that Douglas Reed was the personal secretary to Lord Northcliffe on that fateful trip back to England to personally fire the insubordinate editor.
Well, if he feared for his life, then he shouldn’t have left his secure area and only engaged with people virtually. I know that’s no way to live, but his cohort was the younger generation, and this is how they (mostly) live. Online.
Forrestal wasn’t in a “secure area.” They threw him out of a hospital window. I define a “secure area” as a place over which the subject has complete control. Forrestal didn’t have control over the hospital. I suppose they could still take you out in a “secure area,” per my definition, but it wouldn’t be as easy for them as sitting in the middle of a college quad around 3,000 people, insufficient police presence, surrounded by buildings the roofs of which no one bothered to check or monitor.
I am NOT denying the holocaust happened, but rather taking issue with it was mostly Jews. It was Gypsies, old (useless esters), Political Prisoners, and so on. It was everyone they wanted to get rid of and that would have included some Jews in the aforementioned groups.
In fact, demographic research does not show a 6 million difference in the post holocaust Jewish population.
Remember, Jew George Soros, was a Nazi collaborator!
In other words, using their predominate control of the media, they’ve been milking it.
And no I am not rabid, my college roommate was Jewish, we worked at the same company, he and his folks have gone on outinsg to the lake with my now deceased parents and I. My father carried on work place banter with the Jewish engineers he interfaced with: he'd tell them they aren't so smart, if they'd turned right instead left when they left Egypt they'd have all that oil.
Actually, the exodus of Jews does turn right. They wandered in Sinai, then left Egypt and crossed the Red Sea. Looking at the map that's moving east which is to the right for a viewer. Libya is to the left and that's where there's oil. Just saying.
I know that and my father knew that. Work place banter is never factal. However, it may be a cultural thing you're not familiar with. I am going out on the balcony and sip some Melot, you might want to relax and do the same.
"But even if his repentance were insincere and he was only adjusting his strategy, we would still want to prevent the people who murdered him from using his murder to further their agenda”
And you think that a good way to prevent them from using his murder to further their agenda is to reclaim him as “our hero”?
"They are going to say Charlie Kirk loved Israel to the end. Even if it were true, we shouldn't be out there agreeing with our enemies.”
I have no problem agreeing with our enemies on this: Yes, Kirk was an Israeli Firster who for years presented his cynical zionist propaganda (including justifying the genocide) marinated in Christian zionism ("God will bless those who bless Israel”). The fact that such devoted service did not count enough to forgive him some minor recent transgressions showed that they felt they could not take any chances: Israel must finish its genocide before Trump keels over and the American youth must be prepared to serve in a war against Iran if called.
Nevertheless they are not saying that, they are implying it based on the wealth of documented professions of Kirks’ total allegiance to Israel all along. They are too clever to say that directly which might provoke naysayers to contradict them and bring unwelcome attention to Israel.
No, what they say is that he was "a Christian martyr who died for his faith.” Every single speaker at the big to-do in Glendale the other day repeated this ad nauseam. Apparently his “faith” is under attack by the “Left" who hate our Judeo-Christian values…
Well, his declared faith was Christian zionism, is he your 'Christian martyr' too?
I don't believe he loved Israel. I believe he was an opportunist who loved obscene wealth, privilege, and the sense of power that rubbing elbows with big-time war criminals gave him.
Unlike you I will not cut him any slack on the grounds that:
— He was 18 (which you keep repeating forgetting that he was 18 only for one year, Craig, not for the next 12 years or so. And no, you don't have to be 80 to see the horror of Jewish supremacism in bloom, plenty of people under 30 see it. His own young followers saw it and were becoming restive so he had to placate them);
— They threw far too much money at him, why, who could resist that? Indeed… A mansion and adjacent property worth $4.5 mil, revenue of $100 mil/year in 2024, poor kid, how can we possibly blame him, right? Hey, he was White, sort of Christian, so we must not let “them” have him, he is our martyr.
Sorry, Craig but comparing him to Aaron Bushnell is an insult to the memory of that principled, truly courageous young man— a real hero.
I don't believe he loved Israel. I believe he was an opportunist who loved obscene wealth, privilege, and the sense of power that rubbing elbows with big-time war criminals gave him.
Unlike you I will not cut him any slack on the grounds that:
— He was 18 (which you keep repeating forgetting that he was 18 only for one year, Craig, not for the next 12 years or so. And no, you don't have to be 80 to see the horror of Jewish supremacism in bloom, plenty of people under 30 see it. His own young followers saw it and were becoming restive so he had to placate them);
— They threw far too much money at him, why, who could resist that? Indeed… A mansion and adjacent property worth $4.5 mil, revenue of $100 mil/year in 2024, poor kid, how can we possibly blame him, right? Hey, he was White, sort of Christian, so we must not let “them” have him, he is our martyr.
Sorry, Craig but comparing him to Aaron Bushnell is an insult to the memory of that principled, truly courageous young man— a real hero.
Kirk's wife announced she is not the CEO of Turning Point.
Did not say who appointed her. Does the Turning Point have a Board of Directors or a Board of "Stakeholders"-- the big donors?
Her speech in Az today was cringeworthy to me: the Biden-like hushed whisper for effect and the handkerchief constantly tapping dry eyes plus her revealing to us that upon Charlie's arrival in Heaven the Lord received him standing...
"in the end he stood up to the Jews by turning down the money." This is the most real article I've read about Charlie Kirk. However, "Jews" is too broad a spectrum. The writer might should have said "Zionists" rather than "Jews." Like all of humanity, we cannot put everyone in the same box. I see this writer's point and honestly, I hope some of these people saying Kirk did not die; no exit wound etc. are right and he is still alive because his fears were real and he knew his life was in danger and his killing was some staged event that kept him alive, but that too is too far a reach. I wish the young man were alive to pursue his change of heart. He might have been like JFK, MLK, and many others who were true diplomats for peace in the world and who were also assassinated for their beliefs. I do not understand how anyone cannot see why JFK did not want Israel to have nuclear weapons (Samson Option). JFK new who he was dealing with as did his brother. And they too were assassinated for the same. We have a very deep state and Trump is bringing it to fruition. May the bullet that struck Charlie be aimed were it belongs.
All Israel has done is make me hate them with the fury of 1000 suns. And I will teach all six of my children the truth about them. The toxicparasite always kills the host eventually unless you violently root it out. It’s beyond time.
Did you even watch the video you posted? Six people with AK-47s (you can clearly see the weapons in the video) are firing and one person is crouching down with an RPG getting ready to fire. Those aren't "men standing talking on a street in their own city".
As for the rest of your fantasy, as a White Supremacist, if you need to make up conversations and facts to fit your ideology can you at least be a bit more imaginative? Your conspiracy theory is a bit lazy and repetitive. Put some more flair into it.
Craig, I hope you don't get carried away and add Charlie Kirk's portrait next to Aaron Bushnell. They have NOTHING in common as far as I am concerned.
In our desire to "find our heroes" we must be careful to separate the grain from the chaff.
Just because the "chosen"--whom he served willingly and vigorously for more than 10 years, spewing Christian zionism dogma all along-- did not appreciate his recent "triangulation" and decided to snuff him does not turn him into a Christian martyr. Least of all our hero.
Funny thing: JD Vance agrees with you. In his speech today at the huge rally in Arizona called him a "Christian martyr."
The makeover of Kirk by JD Vance aligns with the official campaign to distract attention from any reasons Israel had to eliminate him and blame his assassination of the evil Left who hated him for his moral (ergo Christian) values.
Your makeover ignores Kirk's consistent position over the years of cynical support for the genocidal state that reached peaks of absurdity and immorality.
No, he did not have a "change of heart ." He attempted a strategy adjustment: he would throw a few crumbs to his base (which had moved away from unconditional support of Israel) while maintaining his Christian zionist position. He thought the Jews who criticize Netanyahu would agree with him. He had no "trajectory" from then on. At this point he was sentenced to death. He was too popular to be replaced by a internal coup and all the buzz of Charlie alleged "awakening" had to be cut short. Make a martyr of the Left was the ideal solution.
No, I disagree. If he were only triangulating or adjusting his strategy, he would have taken the money and not put his own life in danger. He was sincerely trying to extricate himself from an impossible place knowing that it could cost him his life.
As Christians, we honor repentance.
But even if his repentance were insincere and he was only adjusting his strategy, we would still want to prevent the people who murdered him from using his murder to further their agenda. They are our enemies. They are going to say Charlie Kirk loved Israel to the end. Even if it were true, we shouldn't be out there agreeing with our enemies.
As I was thinking about your comment, I realized that I don't really have a good grasp on what it means to be a "martyr," particularly a "Christian martyr." I hadn't thought of him in that way. I thought of him as my people because he was culturally Christian of European descent, but not that he was killed for his religion.
An article published today in UR argues that Israel was not involved in any way in Kirk's assassination because Kirk was not really turning against Israel. I disagree with this because Israel’s (e.g., Netanyahu’s) perception of whether Kirk was becoming a serious liability is what counts not the fact of Kirk’s real liability.
Nevertheless I found the author’s arguments that Kirk was not really “turning against Israel” very useful — factual and convincing:
They are as follows:
"Kirk, a devout Evangelical, publicly declared that Christians had a divine obligation to “bless the Jews,” aligning himself with the most extreme dispensationalist interpretations of scripture.
He parroted Israeli propaganda almost verbatim, denying that Palestinians were even a real people. According to Kirk, they were not only unfit to govern themselves, they were, quite literally, nonexistent.
He denied the mass starvation in Gaza as fiction, and repeated the grotesque liethat Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. Even when it came to military aggression, Kirk stood firm with Israel. Despite some rhetorical hedging, he ultimately endorsed Trump’s bombing of Iran, another clear indication of his unwavering loyalty to the Zionist war agenda.
His point was not to attack Jewish influence, far from it, but to warn liberal Jews that their own ideological activism was endangering Israel’s long-term survival.
Kirk’s statement was clear: “Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years. Stop supporting causes that hate you.” He then tied this directly to the future of Israel. According to Kirk, if you train an entire generation to view the world through the lens of oppressor versus oppressed, that lens will inevitably be applied to Israel—and Israel will not survive the scrutiny. “Until you cleanse that ideology from the hierarchy in the academic elite of the West,” he warned, “there will not be a safe future. I’m not going to say Israel won’t exist, but Israel will be in jeopardy.”
This is not anti-Semitism. It is not even criticism. It is a tactical warning, entirely consistent with Israeli PR strategy. In the very same episode, Kirk praised the fact that wealthy Jews were finally pulling their money out of the universities they had previously funded—institutions now pushing anti-Israel narratives. This is pure Hasbara, the sort of rhetoric that has been echoed for decades by pro-Israel Jewish intellectuals themselves.
It is plausible that Kirk felt pressure and fear, but what followed was compliance, not resistance.”
I read that article, but was not persuaded. I posted a comment stating why here:
https://www.unz.com/article/charlie-kirk-was-not-turning-against-israel/#comment-7312347
The triangulation, in my view, wasn't done as a way to maintain his support for Israel and keep the money coming while retaining his legitimacy with the young, it was the same inflexible mental triangulation all Christian Zionists must perform between the Christian view of the sanctity of all human life and the Judaic view that the only human life that exits is Jewish.
I think, in Kirk's case, he had too much moral and intellectual integrity to maintain the inner contradictions. Had he for 13 years? Yes, and he could have continued to if only he could dredge up the necessary venality. As he got older, he got wiser. He couldn't maintain the Satanic core, even for $150 million. He walked away. He said so himself to Ben Shapiro's face on his final program--I'm pushing back against Israel--confirming what both Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson have said.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of gentiles shut their eyes to the manifest immorality of Jewish behavior and go along with it for money, or safety, or social comfort. Only a very few have some inner nobility that won't allow them to continue in that state of degradation. Those should be our heroes.
Aaron Bushnell was one of those, but we don't dismiss him based on the argument that, as a US soldier he had, after all, been a willing participant in a criminal enterprise. No, we recognize that some heroic inner core--his advanced religious nature--wouldn't let him continue, so he stopped at enormous personal cost. In my view Charlie Kirk is exactly the same.
You appear determined to snatch Kirk from the embrace of MAGA-ziots who are claiming him as their hero and a "Christian martyr who died for his faith."
Instead, you make him into someone who had “moral and intellectual integrity” during the 13 years that he loudly supported Israel’s crimes against humanity and getting obscenely rich for his efforts.
In the face of such determination, and having already detailed my objections to it, I give up, comforted by the knowledge that this is the only one instance I have ever doubted your judgment and that it does not involve a worldview or principles, but only the evaluation of one specific person's character.
PS: You say: "we don't dismiss him [Aaron Bushnell] based on the argument that, as a US soldier he had, after all, been a willing participant in a criminal enterprise.”
Nobody is making such an argument. If anyone did, then every single soldier in the US military over many past decades would be a ”willing participant in criminal enterprises,” when in reality the vast majority of them are clueless sheep driven by wolves to murder other sheep in distant lands for them. How many of them, however, do so cynically for munificent pay as Kirk did.
You are making up this false argument trying to make Kirk into an Aaron Bushnell soul mate.
This is the perfect topic for sharing a bottle of wine on a high stone veranda, watching the sun set over the Pacific, and enjoying a long meandering disagreement between two old friends who share the same worldview and are confident in each other's principles.
Yes, I would love to snatch Kirk away from both the MAGAdiots and the Jews.
Politically, Kirk is much more powerful today than he was two weeks ago, and, from the point of view of the Jews, much easier to control. If they succeed in casting him as a faithful slave of Zion to the last, that he LOVED Israel, in Netanyahu's words, then they reap all the benefit of their crime.
It would be great to deny the Jews the rewards of their crime by emphasizing the real reason they killed him--he, like Aaron Bushnell, said, or was beginning to find the courage to say, no, I will no longer be complicit in genocide. That's why they killed him so quickly, because the more he found his new direction, the more evidence was out there that he was, as Candace Owens, a long-time personal friend and a truth-teller, put it, having a spiritual transformation.
Unz has a post up today arguing the absurd position that the reason they killed him on Sept 10 was to preempt Tucker Carlson's Sept 11 release of his new 9-ll series. I commented on his post but, for some reason, the comment didn't appear.
As Christians, we forgive. We honor repentance. We believe in redemption. Kirk was clearly turning. The Jews recognized that and quickly murdered him so they wouldn't lose their investment. On Sept 9, they were vilifying and attacking him. On Sept 10, they killed him, On Sept 11, they were all out there singing his praises.
So where would I have to travel? Does it have to be the Pacific?
I am far from it, clear across the continent, where Rio de la Plata pours itself into the Atlantic.
The Atlantic is a good ocean, too, but watching the sun set over it isn't as dramatic--at least in the northern hemisphere it isn't.
"I will no longer be complicit in genocide, he [Aaron Bushnell]said.
Nor will I, said Charlie Kirk, and the monstrous Israelis murdered him for it."
Kirk never said he would not be complicit in genocide. Neer. To the end he also blamed the starvation on Hamas who steals the food...
I fact not too long ago he said the evil Muslims's persecution of gays was so atrocious that according to his information they would take the gays up to the top floor of a high building and throw them down. But now, he, he, in Gaza they can't do much of that anymore because there are no tall buildings left.
I saw your comment on the previous post and, to another commenter, called it powerful. And you are right. As many on our side have pointed out, he did lots of damage and said many evil things. But he was a mouthpiece for evil people and in their pay, so it is to be expected.
But he was 18 when they swooped in and captured him. They came with private jets, penthouses on Central Park, trips to the White House, and millions of dollars--hundreds of millions of dollars. They brought centuries of experience to bear on their project to turn him into their tool, and they are very good at what they do. They succeeded.
At 18, he could not even have begun to conceive of the level of evil he was confronted with
Nothing--and no one--in his world, which I believe was a Christian Zionist world, could have prepared him for what he was thrown into. Indeed, everyone and everything in his world left him weaker, more vulnerable, and more helpless in their clutches. Still practically a child, he was on his own, with them.
So, I cut him some slack. Actually a lot of slack. Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens are among the very few media figures I have any respect for. Both of them knew Kirk personally, have spoken to him privately and in person recently. Owens said he was undergoing a "spiritual transformation" (backing up my interpretation of his decision to turn down the money as a decision made for moral reasons--a religious decision). Carlson said he expressed a desire to escape Israel's boot. I trust those two way more than I trust Bibi Netanyahu or Donald Trump, who both said "Charlie loved Israel."
I wasn't aware of some of the things you mention, and maybe he was triangulating as a way to hang on to his audience share or something, but the fact that he turned down the money and declined an invitation to Israel and was receiving a blizzard of furious texts from the oligarchs and actually "went there" with Ben Shapiro on his show and then said he was afraid Israel was going to kill him and a few days later they did actually kill him, all of that makes me think he was sincere.
I would expect someone in that position to begin to experience pangs of remorse when they reach their 80s and are thinking about their legacies. He reached it a half century earlier.
Yes, in terms of media coverage the deaths of Charlie Kirk and Aaron Bushnell were very different, but, intrinsically they were identical. They both died as a result of their moral opposition, their religious revulsion, to the genocide of the gazans by israel. That's what makes them similarly important because the same media that ignored Bushnell and is all over Kirk has to absorb that contradiction. It's important on a cultural level which will manifest I'm hoping and I believe it will on a political level
Here is a more considered response:
https://open.substack.com/pub/craignelsen/p/finding-our-own-heroes?utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=158414170
Though I generally loathe Reddit and have been completely censored off MULTIPLE sub/r, I do sub to r/SaltLakeCity just to monitor what the locals are posting about.
I came across this (linked below) post 'Utah's New "Homeless Campus" = Concentration Camp' by LastLightReview along with the supplementary article (linked below) involving a state action plan from an HHS Interim Committee meeting basically involving the rounding-up of, and the mass, involuntary incarceration of the homeless population.
In its all-too-obvious and ambiguous bureaucratic lingo, these detention centers will involve "secure residential placement" and "work-conditioned housing." Boy, will these unconstitutional and illegal measures in this plan be fraught and replete with tyrannical and dystopian measures, all disguised behind "mental health," "public safety," and "rehabilitation."
Once this plan becomes up-and-running, the potential of this deviating from, and completely abusing, its initial raison d'etre is almost written in the stars!
I will let you guys read through both and come to your own conclusions. LLR did respond to multiple queries put to him in the sub. Keep in mind, this will be planned for ALL 50 STATES and is directly connected to the largesse of federal government funding. Know also that, almost certainly will Palantir be involved, probably from the beginning, as will - most-likely - the Gideon program also. This plan will morph into a very dark scenario, probably quickly at that!
Though LLR does discuss what some of the short-term and far-reaching implications are, and what some of the unseen potential additions and fall-out with this plan might be, he's most-definitely way too indoctrinated, naive, and too much of the myopic and "good goy" to actually comprehend what the truly nefarious and subterranean aims are of this plan.
As inflation approaches hyperinflation, as fewer and fewer jobs become available due to AI-governance becoming more widespread, and as the economy continues to fall apart, with our puppet string-pullers continuing to assist in this overall process of accelerating us into their "Great Reset" - more and more people will be ejected out into the streets, more will become less able to make ends meet, etc. You see where this is going!
Were Solzhenitsyn alive today, he would see the obvious preparatory similarities in the people's own perplexing willingness and conformity to walk into another harrowing Gulag!
www.reddit.com/r/SaltLakeCity/s/Qpdpi4UcKY
https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2025/09/18/utah-new-homeless-campus-civil-commitment-beds/
Right. I've written a lot about the parallel tracks of pre-Revolutionary Russia and the US today. And you are probably right about those homeless camps, especially the mental illness aspect.
Noticing what Jews do = antisemitism
Antisemitism = mental illness
And the cries are growing louder to institutionalize the mentally ill
It began, yes?, No? with the emptying and defunding of mental health institutions. Note the year(s) that began.
The 80s wasn't it?
In terms of political impact, the deaths of Charlie and Aaron couldn't be more different. Aaron's sacrifice didn't register on any societal seismograph. It went directly into memory oblivion. That's what the PTB wanted. Craig, you were pretty much a one man gang high-lighting his importance. This time the msm and the alt social media are all over it. Everyone's got an opinion and wants to talk about it. For Gen Z, it's their JFK in Dallas. For Christians, it's a real Christ like sacrifice, more believable, more emotional than Trump's near miss, striking down a handsome, clean-cut, charismatic, family man in his prime, actually one about Jesus's age. His mission, Turning Point, has been symbolically fulfilled by his apparent sacrifice. Cancelling hate, formerly an exclusive leftist preoccupation has now been taken up by the right and free-speech poles have been reversed. Is this the start of serious civil strife or military takeover by a right-wing despotism? There's a lot more to play out, not least the so-far silence of the enigmatic Mr Robinson, who just happens to look like archetypal patsy LHO.
I already replied to your comment, but the reply ended up in the main thread for some reason. I'll add a thought here, though.
Both Aaron Bushnell and Charlie Kirk were young white men with deep Christian roots. Both were in service to Zionism--Aaron as a soldier, Kirk as a limited hangout. In other words, both were being paid to further the project of the people working to destroy them and their civilization. At some point both of them made the decision to say no--a decision that came at enormous personal cost. In both cases they made their decision because it was the right thing to do--in other words, they both acted religiously, i.e., as Christians.
Everybody is focusing on the political response to Kirk's murder, or the mechanics of it--the realms of Art and Science--and those are important parts of reality, but we mustn't neglect the most important, most complicated realm--the transcendent, what we love and why, what we give our lives for--the realm of Religion.
Politically? Who knows. I just saw something on GAB by something like Good Turning Point USA or some shit trumpeting the 37,000 new TPUSA chapter requests that have poured in since the assassination. Whoop-de-doo. Now Ben Shapiro has a larger fundraising list and 37,000 politically interested Americans will be fed a steady stream of propaganda and lies but kept on the conservative ranch where supporting Israel, fighting antisemitism, voting Republican, opposing trannies, and owning the libs are the most important conservative values.
Because that's what Charlie wanted.
Just watch, these Jews are going to milk the shit out of Charlie Kirk and achieve the very opposite effect of what his death actually signifies.
I think the forensics are important. They are facts on the ground which will point us to whether there was likely an assassination or not. If there was no assassination, there's no sacrifice, no transcendence engaged, and no springboard for expansion of Jewish control thru cucked MAGA ideology. "If it's a charade, there can be no parade."
As I see it, the problem w/ seeking the forensic implausibility of this assassination is that it's a black pill. It leads to irrevocably tarnishing Charlie's already dubious character and turning his martyrdom into another tawdry political imposture: hoodwinking the goyim, corralling them deeper into passionate Judeo-Christian submission.
Then there's the likelihood of their new banner going forward. Charlie loved Israel and MAGA. Don't you forget it! Only commies and trannies will deny his triumph over death.
Think they can't get away w/ denial of his apparent red-pilled awakening? I think Nick Fuentes is already jockeying to be the new face of TP. I heard him say Charlie was pro-Israel to the end. I think he's feuding w/ Candace over that. I do hope Fuentes is made of sterner stuff, but he's a dodgy character and therefore capable of being blackmailed. Anyway, somebody's going to get elevated and they'll have to knuckle under to get that powerful position.
I'm sure they will have no problem finding candidates willing to do anything for some shekels, being included in the monthly conference calls, and a public pat on the head once a year. Sadly, it will take most of them years to realize they are working for the destruction of their own people, not to mention humanity. Sadder still, even when they do realize it most of them won't care. Our religious progress has been so stilted for so long thanks to the ignorant superstition of the "written word" that few of us are capable of seeing anything above the material or social worlds. It is the rare brother or sister who is religiously advanced enough to say no to money, power, applause. And life itself.
Yes, the forensic truth of the Kirk assassination is important. And the political truth of the Kirk assassination is important. But neither needs to be at the expense of the other and most definitely neither should come at the expense of the moral truth of the Kirk assassination, by far the most powerful truth and the only one in which our people still hold the whip hand, if only we can learn what a whip is, what it's for, and how to use it. That's what the religious revolution will teach us.
My regular readers probably get tired of listening to me always going on about the three realms in which humans express rationality: Science, Art, and Religion. But I find it so useful--such a powerful framework--that I'm compelled to bring it up again. So, roll your eyes, but ...
The forensics belongs to the physical realm, the realm of Science, and we do want the information we have about the physical reality of the assassination to be as accurate as possible so we have the best chance to act in terms of the world as it really is--to act rationally in response to the assassination.
The politics belongs to the realm of truth generalized over humanity--Art, and, regarding that, what you say about Fuentes rings true. I caught a clip, I think it was in an Andrew Anglin piece on Unz of Fuentes and he had that certain look. It caught my attention immediately and the first thought that came to me was "blackmail." I haven't heard of anything like that, it was just the look they get when they start that journey at the end of which they all look like Madeline Albright. Only faintly even human.
My first exposure to Fuentes was a video of a speech he gave at an AmRen conference when he was 18 and I was stunned by it. His grasp of the issues, his polish, his fearless intellect, his ringing oratory... but 18 is way too young to be the giant in the room and it seemed he was holding onto himself for dear life under the smooth exterior. I caught him a few times over the years and the Christian religiosity he displayed never sat right. It was too overt, almost cartoonish, and it always made me cringe. Religion is an intensely personal aspect of the human condition and is not meant for public display. Public displays are for politics.
In any case, we don't have any control in the physical and political realms. Even if it is proven Tyler Robinson could not have been the shooter (almost already the case), if the Talmudic conspiracy desires it, he'll be convicted and executed.
I like your take on Fuentes. Wunderkind. Peter Pan who'll never be Madeline Albright. His Christianity is superficial, worn like a I.D. to get in. The blackmail would be re his sexuality, the incel thing. He seems more like a tomboy than a man.
Tomboy LOL
this is accurate for me in the art realm.
https://rumble.com/v6z7p2e-charlie-kirk-and-the-mossad-assassins-by-jakegtv.html?mref=wrdkl&mrefc=2
I never paid much attention to Fuentes, disbelieving in his rise and wondering how can that happen.
Rather than being an extreme cynic, I will rise to being a mere cynic and retain some faith. If that vanishes in a particular occasion, I will move on to the next having some faith occasion. At least for awhile longer.
One of the benefits I was counting on by doing the RV thing was exactly to keep my eyes open for "sterner stuff."
that is definitely what jews do.
Are all Jews Zionists? Are all Zionists Jews?
No, and no, but all Jews are Jews...
That distinction can be misleading because Zionism is nothing more than the political program as laid out in its entirety in the founding document of Judaism--Deuteronomy.
A practicing Jew is necessarily a Zionist if they observe God's "Judgments and statutes."
An ex-Jew can be "anti-Zionist Jew."
Not all Jews, of course. Some Zionists are goys.
What amazes me is that Charlie put himself into that position at UVU that day, in what was essentially a kill box. Didn't he learn anything from Butler? I wouldn't have exposed my stationary physical body outdoors anywhere around buildings like that. All speaking engagements would be indoors. Not to "blame the victim," but he made it much easier for them to kill him. At least make them work for it.
Yeah, maybe, but they've been doing this awhile. I don't think it matters that much to them.
JFK - outdoors
RFK - indoors
Lincoln - indoors
Huey Long - indoors
Garfield-outdoors
McKinley - on a train
Lord Northbridge - on a train
3,000 Americans - by a plane
the rest of us - in a syringe
I should note that I don't know whether Garfield and McKinley were killed by Jews. Or even which one was which.
Read A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind. Here's a link to the internet archive as the original edition was heavily edited. Garfield and McKinley were assassinated by the Rothschild banking cartel, so basically, yes, Jews whose greatest sin is usury.
https://archive.org/details/a-history-of-central-banking-and-the-enslavement-of-mankind-pdfdrive
Note that the author was assassinated.
This looks very interesting. Thank you.
taking precautions may have kept Charley alive for awhile but if they really wanted him dead, that wouldn't have been much of a problem.
Right. And in a hundred years we're all going to be dead. The unknown is whether our people will.
If Kirk's death gets bogged down in endless debates over palm guns and shell casings, a la 9-11, his death is wasted and there is no improvement in the chances our people will survive.
If his death is absorbed in the useless, endless spats between liberals and conservatives or left and right, his death is wasted and there is no improvement in the chances our people will survive.
If his death transcends, there may be some improvement in the chances our people will survive. And, if we do, then he will be one of the few of us still alive in a hundred years.
I guess you got a little creative in the last part of your list. McKinley was shot indoors at the Temple of Music part of a PanAm Expo. Lord Northbridge never made that train. He never even registered as a peer of the realm. Closest name to his I could find was a restaurant in Western Australia called Northbridge's, Lord of the Fries.
Lord of the Fries? Chinese take-out?
Who was the guy who owned the times of London?
Lord Northcliffe owned both the Times and the Daily Mail, one for the classes and one for the masses, as the saying went.
My favorite among the press barons was the Canadian born, self-styled Lord Beaverbrook. The Kinks mentioned him in a song from Arthur, their underrated rock opera. He's considered a Nazi sympathizer by his liberal peers because he conducted a fair-minded interview w/ Hitler's emissary Hess when he parachuted into Scotland seeking a last minute peace treaty w/ England.
I think I remember that Douglas Reed was the personal secretary to Lord Northcliffe on that fateful trip back to England to personally fire the insubordinate editor.
Well, if he feared for his life, then he shouldn’t have left his secure area and only engaged with people virtually. I know that’s no way to live, but his cohort was the younger generation, and this is how they (mostly) live. Online.
James Forrestal - in a secure area
LOL
Forrestal wasn’t in a “secure area.” They threw him out of a hospital window. I define a “secure area” as a place over which the subject has complete control. Forrestal didn’t have control over the hospital. I suppose they could still take you out in a “secure area,” per my definition, but it wouldn’t be as easy for them as sitting in the middle of a college quad around 3,000 people, insufficient police presence, surrounded by buildings the roofs of which no one bothered to check or monitor.
You got a point, bro.
I am NOT denying the holocaust happened, but rather taking issue with it was mostly Jews. It was Gypsies, old (useless esters), Political Prisoners, and so on. It was everyone they wanted to get rid of and that would have included some Jews in the aforementioned groups.
In fact, demographic research does not show a 6 million difference in the post holocaust Jewish population.
Remember, Jew George Soros, was a Nazi collaborator!
In other words, using their predominate control of the media, they’ve been milking it.
And no I am not rabid, my college roommate was Jewish, we worked at the same company, he and his folks have gone on outinsg to the lake with my now deceased parents and I. My father carried on work place banter with the Jewish engineers he interfaced with: he'd tell them they aren't so smart, if they'd turned right instead left when they left Egypt they'd have all that oil.
Actually, the exodus of Jews does turn right. They wandered in Sinai, then left Egypt and crossed the Red Sea. Looking at the map that's moving east which is to the right for a viewer. Libya is to the left and that's where there's oil. Just saying.
I know that and my father knew that. Work place banter is never factal. However, it may be a cultural thing you're not familiar with. I am going out on the balcony and sip some Melot, you might want to relax and do the same.
Very talented Palestinian comedian's standup monologue on Charlie Kirk's assassination:
https://youtu.be/MW81cIJVgLE?si=T05buroLr0XrnIxl
Craig:
"But even if his repentance were insincere and he was only adjusting his strategy, we would still want to prevent the people who murdered him from using his murder to further their agenda”
And you think that a good way to prevent them from using his murder to further their agenda is to reclaim him as “our hero”?
"They are going to say Charlie Kirk loved Israel to the end. Even if it were true, we shouldn't be out there agreeing with our enemies.”
I have no problem agreeing with our enemies on this: Yes, Kirk was an Israeli Firster who for years presented his cynical zionist propaganda (including justifying the genocide) marinated in Christian zionism ("God will bless those who bless Israel”). The fact that such devoted service did not count enough to forgive him some minor recent transgressions showed that they felt they could not take any chances: Israel must finish its genocide before Trump keels over and the American youth must be prepared to serve in a war against Iran if called.
Nevertheless they are not saying that, they are implying it based on the wealth of documented professions of Kirks’ total allegiance to Israel all along. They are too clever to say that directly which might provoke naysayers to contradict them and bring unwelcome attention to Israel.
No, what they say is that he was "a Christian martyr who died for his faith.” Every single speaker at the big to-do in Glendale the other day repeated this ad nauseam. Apparently his “faith” is under attack by the “Left" who hate our Judeo-Christian values…
Well, his declared faith was Christian zionism, is he your 'Christian martyr' too?
I don't believe he loved Israel. I believe he was an opportunist who loved obscene wealth, privilege, and the sense of power that rubbing elbows with big-time war criminals gave him.
Unlike you I will not cut him any slack on the grounds that:
— He was 18 (which you keep repeating forgetting that he was 18 only for one year, Craig, not for the next 12 years or so. And no, you don't have to be 80 to see the horror of Jewish supremacism in bloom, plenty of people under 30 see it. His own young followers saw it and were becoming restive so he had to placate them);
— They threw far too much money at him, why, who could resist that? Indeed… A mansion and adjacent property worth $4.5 mil, revenue of $100 mil/year in 2024, poor kid, how can we possibly blame him, right? Hey, he was White, sort of Christian, so we must not let “them” have him, he is our martyr.
Sorry, Craig but comparing him to Aaron Bushnell is an insult to the memory of that principled, truly courageous young man— a real hero.
I don't believe he loved Israel. I believe he was an opportunist who loved obscene wealth, privilege, and the sense of power that rubbing elbows with big-time war criminals gave him.
Unlike you I will not cut him any slack on the grounds that:
— He was 18 (which you keep repeating forgetting that he was 18 only for one year, Craig, not for the next 12 years or so. And no, you don't have to be 80 to see the horror of Jewish supremacism in bloom, plenty of people under 30 see it. His own young followers saw it and were becoming restive so he had to placate them);
— They threw far too much money at him, why, who could resist that? Indeed… A mansion and adjacent property worth $4.5 mil, revenue of $100 mil/year in 2024, poor kid, how can we possibly blame him, right? Hey, he was White, sort of Christian, so we must not let “them” have him, he is our martyr.
Sorry, Craig but comparing him to Aaron Bushnell is an insult to the memory of that principled, truly courageous young man— a real hero.
Kirk's wife announced she is not the CEO of Turning Point.
Did not say who appointed her. Does the Turning Point have a Board of Directors or a Board of "Stakeholders"-- the big donors?
Her speech in Az today was cringeworthy to me: the Biden-like hushed whisper for effect and the handkerchief constantly tapping dry eyes plus her revealing to us that upon Charlie's arrival in Heaven the Lord received him standing...
.
TYPO above: she is NOW, not she is not the CEO
"in the end he stood up to the Jews by turning down the money." This is the most real article I've read about Charlie Kirk. However, "Jews" is too broad a spectrum. The writer might should have said "Zionists" rather than "Jews." Like all of humanity, we cannot put everyone in the same box. I see this writer's point and honestly, I hope some of these people saying Kirk did not die; no exit wound etc. are right and he is still alive because his fears were real and he knew his life was in danger and his killing was some staged event that kept him alive, but that too is too far a reach. I wish the young man were alive to pursue his change of heart. He might have been like JFK, MLK, and many others who were true diplomats for peace in the world and who were also assassinated for their beliefs. I do not understand how anyone cannot see why JFK did not want Israel to have nuclear weapons (Samson Option). JFK new who he was dealing with as did his brother. And they too were assassinated for the same. We have a very deep state and Trump is bringing it to fruition. May the bullet that struck Charlie be aimed were it belongs.
All Israel has done is make me hate them with the fury of 1000 suns. And I will teach all six of my children the truth about them. The toxicparasite always kills the host eventually unless you violently root it out. It’s beyond time.
Did you even watch the video you posted? Six people with AK-47s (you can clearly see the weapons in the video) are firing and one person is crouching down with an RPG getting ready to fire. Those aren't "men standing talking on a street in their own city".
As for the rest of your fantasy, as a White Supremacist, if you need to make up conversations and facts to fit your ideology can you at least be a bit more imaginative? Your conspiracy theory is a bit lazy and repetitive. Put some more flair into it.
Charlie Kirk Was Not Turning Against Israel
Joseph Correro
https://www.unz.com/article/charlie-kirk-was-not-turning-against-israel/?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=daily
Who Killed Charlie Kirk? Every Theory Analyzed | E20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMFkJFhwfR4
pretty comprehensive