“The left thrives on dialectics, the right perishes through them. Insofar as there is a pure logic of politics, it is that. One immediate consequence (repeatedly emphasized by Mencius Moldbug) is that progressivism has no enemies to the left. It recognizes only idealists, whose time has not yet come. Factional conflicts on the left are politically dynamic, celebrated for their motive potential. Conservatism, in contrast, is caught between a rock and a hard place: bludgeoned from the left by the juggernaut of post-constitutional statism, and agitated from ‘the right’ by inchoate tendencies which are both unassimilable (to the mainstream) and often mutually incompatible, ranging from extreme (Austro-libertarian) varieties of laissez-faire capitalist advocacy to strains of obstante, theologically grounded social traditionalism, ultra-nationalism, or white identity politics.”
NICK LAND
The Dark Enlightenment
It seems that the Dark Enlightenment, and the pro-Russian crowd in America, are offering some interesting commentaries on Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Upon his Gray Mirror, Curtis Yarvin wrote that in 2025 “murder gets 26 million likes,” referring to “normiecons, my poor Abandoned friends….” And then, in a Machiavellian sidenote, “Your values will not help you here.” A more obvious agent provocateur, Alexander Dugin, has called for MAGA to wage civil war in America. Even more than that, and with a wink towards the Kremlin, he wants America to join Russia in a “world civil war.” So I begin with a cautionary note: The truisms of the Dark Enlightenment are sophistical. One might call these truisms “rabble bait.” There is a sharp hook buried in the Dark Enlightenment’s offerings that says American conservatives needs to be nastier, readier for violent measures, more Machiavellian.
Before the Spanish Civil War the Spanish right was meek and compliant. Then, after the murder of a conservative senator, the right armed itself and defeated the left in one of the most violent civil wars of the twentieth century. The American right is not as helpless as its enemies like to imagine. Its values can still be deployed, and they should not be underestimated.
And yet, Yarvin continues to sneer at the conservatives, referring to them as “normiecons.” The American right has no unity, “actual or prospective,” wrote Nick Land, “and thus has no definition symmetrical to that of the left.” Watch, then, in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, how quickly this truism can be falsified. At some point, the Machiavellians are not going to be able to control the process they have labored to set in motion. Those influence agents on the right, trained by America’s foreign enemies, will inevitably find themselves unequal to the circumstances. The connection between what Moscow wrought through its agents in the culture wars, and what Russian missiles are accomplishing in Europe, will eventually come to light. Nick Land understands this and has taken the precautionary step of moving to China.
The late Stan Evans joked that America has only two political parties: the Evil Party and the Stupid Party. But consider the change that has been underway. The Evil Party has grown stupid and spoiled even as the Stupid Party is becoming more Machiavellian. In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Attorney General Pam Bondi wants to use hate speech laws to go after leftists. The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as ever. But so many of today’s intentions are not good. When the ends justify the means, the means will become an end.
Under the long-accepted rules of war and peace, the assassination of leaders (civil and military) was long forbidden. Since 9/11, however, everything has changed. President Barack Obama used drone strikes to assassinate American citizens. American authorities have been making death lists and killing individuals with drones, justifying it as a “war against terror.” This trend is disturbing, to say the least. For years there has been loose talk about assassinating President Vladimir Putin. In March of 2022 Senator Lindsey Graham made remarks that were interpreted as calling for Putin’s assassination. Kill an evil dictator and save millions of lives. Right? But killing one man is not going to change anything. Make a martyr and see what happens. See how your enemy’s cause finds a new justification. Please remember that we tried to kill Saddam Hussein with an air strike at the outset of Gulf War II. We missed and killed a bunch of innocent people in a restaurant. Did anyone think this was wrong?
When you wage war dishonorably you lose the peace. Therefore I assert, in the strongest terms: Assassination is a dishonorable practice. Consider the recent past. President Trump ordered the assassination of the IRGC General, Qasem Soleimani who died with ten others when a U.S. Reaper drone obliterated two cars in his convoy in January 2020. Ten people died in that attack. Was the attack righteous?
General Soleimani was assassinated while flying to Iraq for negotiations. According Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi, General Soleimani landed at the Baghdad airport to attend a parley at Trump’s insistence. But instead of a civilized meeting between enemies, he was murdered on orders of the U.S. President. Many Americans applauded this assassination. It is worth quoting Balthasar Gracian on this subject, from his Art of Worldly Wisdom, No. 165:
“WAGE WAR HONORABLY. You may be obliged to wage war but not to use poisoned arrows. Everyone must act as he is, not as others would make him to be. Gallantry in the battle of life wins everyone’s praise; one should fight so as to conquer, not alone by force but by the way it is used. A mean victory brings no glory, but rather disgrace. Honor always has the upper hand. An honorable person never uses forbidden weapons, such as using a friendship that’s ended for the purposes of a hatred just begun; a confidence must never be used for vengeance. The slightest taint of treason tarnishes one’s good name. In people of honor the smallest trace of meanness repels. The noble and the ignoble should be miles apart. Be able to boast that if gallantry, generosity, and fidelity were lost in the world people would be able to rediscover them in your own heart.” [Joseph Jacobs translation]
Imagine if, at the surrender ceremony on the deck of the USS Missouri, General Douglas MacArthur had pulled out a pistol and shot the Japanese envoys. Could he have justified this by saying they deserved death? Such would have been seen as an act of savagery condemned by the whole world. “But Jeff,” some might say, “these Japanese imperialists were evil.” One must not be a blockhead in such matters. Evil is something that exists in every human heart, and here we see its foothold in our own. However right our cause, we are not archangels fighting against Satan. We are imperfect human beings fighting against other imperfect human beings. The object of every war is peace on favorable terms. How can you have peace if you act without honor?
As necessary and as inescapable as war is, it must have rules. Thus I look askance at the awfulness of Nick Land’s Dark Enlightenment and its Machiavellianism, which carries forward no sense of honor (and no real moral sense). When you are morally bankrupt, when the foulest means are considered fair, then your underlying ideal is nihilist. Once you have gone to the Dark Side, all your legitimate concerns and moralistic claims are mere sophistry. In your Wilderness of Mirrors, the very Devil is reflected back on every side.
More than thirty years ago, when I was writing the first draft of Origins of the Fourth World War, I explained that “the right is a fiction, everyone is on the left.” I said that the conservatives were “political undertakers,” that they were “conservatives without anything left to conserve.” Charlie Kirk suggests to us that this might not be true, after all; for he was in earnest about conserving America’s youth. Many lost souls of today wander through our universities, stirred to greater confusion, caught in the whirlpool of a prevailing nihilism. Kirk was confronting this nihilism. And that is why he was assassinated. The alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, had no sense of honor when he fired from range against an unarmed man. It was a cowardly killing which Robinson hoped to get away with. But why would he do such a thing? Because he was taught a set of false moralistic dogmas in school, and because he loved a man who was supposedly transitioning to a woman.
Those who saw Charlie Kirk offering a more hopeful future, restoring Christian values, probably did not imagine his martyrdom. Charlie Kirk lost his life standing up to a spiritual sickness that is ruining many lives. Those leftist entertainers and journalists who are now trying to distract from the killer’s motive, and who are denying the left’s responsibility, are presently not well received by the country. And yet, many on the left are not backing down. Some have gushed over the love affair of the assassin, who they feel sympathy for.
Since the assassination, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has denounced Kirk as a racist for opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But Kirk was not a racist. He opposed the Civil Rights Act because it was being used to threaten free speech. And leftists like Ocasio-Cortez know this. Yet their heartless condemnations reverberate inside unbalanced minds. After a silent moment of prayer for Kirk on the House floor in the Capitol, shouting broke out. A Democrat combatively shouted, “What about the kids in Colorado?” Others called for gun control laws. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) yelled back, “You caused this!”
At Kirk’s memorial service his widow said, “Charlie wanted to save young men, just like the one who took his life.” She then added, with heartbreaking sobs, “This young man, I forgive him. The answer to hate is not hate.”
A few days before, in her first speech after the assassination, Erika Kirk said this:
The evildoers responsible for my husband’s assassination have no idea what they have done. They killed Charlie because he preached a message of patriotism, faith, and of God’s merciful love.
They should all know this: If you thought that my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea. You have no idea what you just have unleashed across this entire country and this world. You have no idea.
You have no idea the fire that you have ignited within this wife. The cries of this widow will echo around the world like a battle cry.
To everyone listening tonight, across America, the movement my husband built will not die. It won’t. I refuse to let that happen. It will not die. All of us will refuse to let that happen.
No one will ever forget my husband’s name. And I will make sure it will become stronger, bolder, louder, and greater than ever. My husband’s mission will not end, not even for a moment.
We watched Charlie Kirk’s campus debates and his engagement with college youth. He had a real impact. His intellectual charisma was intense. And now he is a martyr, and his widow is openly raising a “battle cry.” But it is not a battle cry of violence. It is a battle cry for hearts and minds. She said that Charlie had laid down his life for others. It seems that this assassination has become meaningful for millions of people, in and outside of America, in a way assassinations usually are not. People identified with this man. To be fair, some people on the left feel genuinely bad. But some are not in a forgiving mood at all. Journalist Megyn Kelly professed unreadiness for reconciliation. “I don’t have a lot of appetite for the others [on the left]…. I see them doing more of what they have done,” she told David Rubin of the Rubin Report.
Rubin asked Kelly, “Do you think there has to be a mea culpa? So many of the people who have called us all Nazis, as everyone knows … I don’t know if I can welcome them yet unless there was a true moment of self-reflection….”
Kelly responded, “I’m not even in that charitable of a place. I don’t actually see a Kumbaya moment coming…. And I frankly don’t see any change coming either…. I don’t see any reconciliation coming. I don’t see any change of behavior coming….”
Kelly reflects a hardening of resolve, an unwillingness to let this go. “I see them doing more of what they have done,” said Kelly, “I see more 22-year-old young men … falling prey to the messaging … trans young men … being easily exploited…. It’s just a new dawn.”
Kelly underscored that “our side” is not committing the violence and “I am just sick of the lies that we are.” It is customary that conservatives do not like violence, and did not riot or burn down buildings in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination (as leftists did in the case of George Floyd’s death). Here is a point of comparison. Perhaps America is undergoing a transformation, where an extended confrontation either makes gold out of dross or turns everything to sewage.
For centuries the West has been drawn toward an abyss through subterranean philosophical channels. Many today blame Marcuse and Gramsci, while others blame Marx or Hegel. Going further back, there was Georgios Gemistos Plethon. He wanted to reestablish the pagan religion of ancient Greece, and told a Roman Catholic Cardinal that it was going to happen. But it did not happen then, and probably will not happen now. Today a psychologically disturbed minority has come to think that their gender ideology has triumphed, that history is on their side. After this assassination, however, the country will decisively turn against them. The idea that there are dozens of genders, that male and female only exist as an arbitrary social convention, is losing traction fast. As Matt Walsh has said, “We live in a culture that has lost its mind.” But now, violence has served to focus millions of minds.
Think of the news stories that have broken lately: For example, the biological man who wanted to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Cavanaugh in 2022 has apparently transitioned to being a woman. Alec McKinney, a transgender teenager, was one of two adolescents who perpetrated the May 2019 shooting at STEM School Highlands Ranch in Denver, Colorado, which killed a student. In March 2023 Aiden Hale, a transgender “man,” killed three children at the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee. In August 2025, Robin Westman, who was tired of being transgendered and possibly triggered by taking transition-related drugs, opened fire at the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, killing two children. Why were crimes of this kind not noticeable in the 1940s or 50s or even 60s? To what extent has our educational system, under leftist management, contributed to these murderous psychotic episodes?
We have evidence of a murderous psychosis more broadly insinuated onto society. How else can we explain thousands upon thousands of semi-anonymous citizens, breaking forth upon the Internet, celebrating Kirk’s death? Think back to comments like, “zero sympathy,” or “Karma is beautiful.” Society would be charitable to regard these people as simply deranged.
Is the left going to win the Culture War after this, or keep their winnings? I wonder; for now we have a martyred champion of God, Country, Family winning more hearts and minds than the left will ever win back. People are asking questions. Who are the real haters in this story? The old nonsense that conservatives are haters simply does not fly anymore. Listen to the alleged assassin’s hypocrisy: “I had enough of this hatred,” Tyler Robinson wrote to his trans lover. “Some hate can’t be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. Going to attempt to retrieve it again….”
You have to really hate a person to plan and carry out an assassination against him in a public setting, in front of his friends and family. You have to be incredibly cruel, perhaps to the point of insanity. As Erika Kirk said, Charlie was trying to save young men like Tyler Robinson from bungling their lives. Megyn Kelly made a striking statement when she said that identity politics is not the real problem here. She said that this assassination stems from the fact that religion has been taken out of the public square.
It is a fact that most Americans now disagree on fundamentals, on basic beliefs. They disagree about religion, ontology, God, and downstream of all that — politics. Karl Marx’s “project” led the way in blasting traditional thought in our academic institutions. Marxist Critical Theory, in all its permutations, has been massively destructive. We must remember that nations, to exist, crave consensus on foundational questions. What happens when you break that consensus? What happens when you intentionally degrade the culture and Balkanize it?
Certainly many of our university professors would leap for joy if America fell. Leftists are always ready to denounce what they call Christian nationalism. They hate Christianity and they hate American patriotism. To call Christians haters is a very important part of their program. Therefore, Christians are said to hate gays and transgenders. But more than that, white Christians are blamed for white nationalism. To make the charge stick, they point to the fact that Charlie Kirk and other Christians want illegal immigration to stop. Especially, people like Kirk are wary of Muslim immigration.
To be sure, America was founded on religious tolerance, and the Christian people of this country have long embraced that tolerance (unlike the Marxists, whose record in power has shown exceeding intolerance). Consider America’s actual heritage, which the left is presently attempting to abuse. The Framers of the Constitution were greatly concerned with freedom of religion. The First Amendment reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The historical context was this: Europe had suffered two centuries of religious warfare between Catholics and Protestants prior to the eighteenth century. There are many scholars who will deny that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was intended to prevent religious war, but this was a real concern (which was ultimately shared by the states, which repealed their established churches by 1833). But there is a caveat to this which Charlie Kirk was bold enough to mention. If the Founders had known that millions of Muslims would immigrate here, and the growing Muslim population would be used to cancel Christianity from the public square, the Framers of the Constitution would have written this clause differently.
People who talk openly of the dangers inherent in putting Christians and Muslims into the same cities and towns can lose their jobs. In Europe they can put you in jail for this. The truth of this matter is absolutely crucial, and the left has used every tactic to intimidate “normies” into silence. Because of the left’s war on free speech, which has stifled debate, Europe may face a terrible religious war between Muslims and non-Muslims sometime in this century. We see what is happening in the United Kingdom. The burning of churches in France is not accidental. Rising violence from Muslim immigrants is a fact in the daily life of Germany. You want to put two scorpions in a bottle? You think it is a fun game? A growing number of people in the West are cursing the political elite for betraying them. In country after country Muslims have flooded in, and the authorities seem to like it. The fact is, whether you want to admit it or not: All religions cannot live in peace with each other. Look at Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, having once been part of the same nation. Look at the violence in the former Yugoslavia, in the Middle East, in Africa. You have to be an idiot to intentionally Balkanize your country by importing Muslims into Christian or secular communities. But this is what the left has advocated under a deceptive banner of tolerance. Charlie Kirk understood this game, just as he understood the weaponization of so-called “gender.”
America has shown that Christians of different backgrounds, and Jews, can live together in harmony. The success of America along these lines, however, does not mean Islam can be successfully integrated as well. Having studied this question, I do not think it wise to make society into an experiment where two scorpions, as noted above, have been placed in a bottle. As the Christians of Lebanon will tell you, there was no problem with Muslims until their numbers grew to near equality. When the Muslims had sufficient numbers, the civil war began. Do you think the left does not know this fact? What do the Christians of Egypt say in this regard? Are they not persecuted? What do Hindus say about Islam? What do we see all over Africa? Does Saudi Arabia allow Christians to set up churches in their country? No. Should we be importing Muslims into the West? No. Borders exist for good reason. How else can a people enjoy their own culture in peace? To speak common sense in this regard, however, gets you labeled as a hater. I agree with Charlie Kirk in saying that there cannot be a moral obligation to change our country into a mix of incompatible elements. I agree that the border must be closed to mass illegal immigration. Consider the words of Italian journalist, Oriana Fallaci:
“I don’t speak, of course, to the vultures who seeing the September 11’s images scornfully giggle, “Good. Americans-got-it-good.” I speak to the people who, though neither stupid nor evil, delude themselves in pietism or uncertainty or doubt. And to them I say: Wake up, folks, wake up! As intimidated as you are by the fear of going against the stream and looking racist … you don’t understand or don’t want to understand that a Reverse Crusade is on [the] march. As blinded as you are by the myopia and the stupidity of the Politically Correct, you don’t realize or don’t want to realize that a war of religion is being carried out. A war they call Jihad. A war that … aims at the conquest of our souls and at the disappearance of our freedom. A war which is conducted to destroy our civilization, our way of living and dying, of praying or not praying, of eating and drinking and dressing and studying and enjoying Life. As numbed as you are by the propaganda of falsehood, you don’t put or do not want to put in your mind that if we do not defend ourselves, if we do not fight, the Jihad will win.” [The Rage and the Pride, pp. 83-84]
Fallaci was an Italian persecuted for speaking out against Islam. She blasted the left, showing how free speech had been curtailed in Europe to advance the Muslim cause. Ask yourself why the police are arresting people in Great Britain for publicly complaining about Muslim immigration, Muslim rape gangs, and Muslim crime? Why does the left give Islamic fundamentalism a pass while calling Christians like Charlie Kirk “racists” and “fascists”? How can a Marxist Muslim like Ilhan Omar, whose family fell from power after oppressing her native Somalia, get elected to the U.S. House of Representatives? What kind of idiot Americans voted for her? What kind of idiot party embraces her? Think of what the Democratic Party is trying to bring about. They want millions of Muslims to flood into America so the new arrivals can vote the country out from under the Christian people of the United States. This is why the Democratic Party advocates an open border. This is why the Democratic Party says illegal aliens should have voting rights. They really do hate Christianity.
Leftist will tell you that I am a white racist for writing these words. They will say I am a racist because I do not want my country to become a non-white country, since most Muslims are not of European descent. If that is a good argument, then Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are racists for wanting to change America into a brown country. Right? The logic has to apply to everyone equally. Ask yourself why Marxists like Omar and Ocasio-Cortez want to make America a brown country? Is it because whites have refused to accept Marxism and they are hoping non-whites will succumb to their rhetoric of race resentment and class warfare?
Again, there is an unmistakable pattern of malevolence here. Bring the intimidation. Scare corporate executives with political correctness. Tempt them with cheap imported labor. The Marxists in the schools will happily play along. The leftist mainstream media will also help. Then you get the Whore of Babylon as your spokesperson. And when somebody like Charlie Kirk stands up and says no, one of your brainwashed acolytes assassinates him. But it only works if everyone stays intimidated.
A Christian consensus once formed the basis of America’s root values. As noted before, a good deal of politics is downstream of religion and culture. Niall Ferguson recently gave a talk discussing the Charlie Kirk assassination and the prospects of civil war in America. He ruled out the likelihood of civil war, pointing to the strength and stability of the Constitution. He argued that Trump was not a prospective dictator who was consolidating power, that the Constitution was still working, that the Judiciary and the Legislative branches were capable of checking presidential power. Ferguson admitted, of course, that there are domestic enemies and foreign enemies who want to see a civil war in America. Yet, he said, the system is too strong.
Perhaps it is not so simple, however, because the left only pretends to respect the Constitution. In fact, I have seen proof that the left despises the Constitution as written. This is because socialism is not going to work under the U.S. Constitution. You either have to dump the Constitution altogether or interpret it to mean whatever a future leftist Supreme Court says it means. In other words, we will only have the Constitution as long as there is a conservative majority on the court. As soon as that majority is gone, you will not have Constitutional protections at all. Therefore, I cannot take Ferguson’s optimism seriously.
The left is a problem for America because, over time, it is becoming more radical and more oppressive in its objectives. As it gains control, it grabs more power and does not give that power back. It has gained control because it controls the universities from whence government personnel are hired. In other words, the left dominates the permanent government (i.e., the bureaucracy). Charlie Kirk was focused on resisting the left in the universities. This is actually a hopeless task, except that he managed to change the thinking of some students and parents. Now that he is a martyr, and millions have been awakened to the problem, more can be done. It will not be done by negotiation, however.
Of special interest, I predict that the left will mobilize so-called leftist Christianity in response to Erika Kirk’s use of an enlarged movement. They will try to attract her attention for the purpose of engaging her in discussions. In such circumstances, the left will use all manner of tricks. Furthermore, there is no way to successfully engage with the left on the level of ideas. Any and every attempt will end badly unless a combative stance is taken from the outset.
Thomas Molnar pointed out, long ago, in a book titled Ecumenism or New Reformation, that dialogues conducted between the Catholic Church and communism were “a scandal.” Molnar pointed out that Marxism is fundamentally incompatible with Catholic and Protestant belief. Whatever communists might pretend, Karl Marx and Lenin were clear. Central to Marxism’s concept of emancipation was mankind’s emancipation from “all previous alienations of which religion is the most important one and also the last, the hardest to destroy.” [p. 116] The communists have sought to infiltrate the churches, pretending religious affiliation (as we see with Vladimir Putin himself). This has always been a cynical game. Furthermore, Molnar points to a challenge that came before the advent of Marxism.
Communism is not a new line of thought that originated in Marx, but the contemporary expression of the exclusive belief in mankind’s self-fulfillment in the secular city. Under various names communism has accompanied Christianity in history, and will accompany it for the remainder of history, offering to Christians the temptation of facilitating their earthly happiness … through a kind of short-cut [i.e., ecumenism]. If the burden of spirituality and of spiritual loyalty to the Civitas Dei is removed, Communists of all times argued, then the objectives of Christianity can materialize in short order, for all mankind will help with a unity of purpose…. Thus there are and there always will be Christians who listen to the Communist lure (while Christ did not listen to Satan’s tempting words!) and who say: Let us give up faith, or at last, let us suspend faith in all that the Church teaches because this is not what Christ taught. If we follow Christ but not the Church … we will find that … Christ was also a Socialist, exhorting us with his example to work for the poor, against the rich, and for the happiness of all men. This is how the Gospel became in the minds of young Catholics a social gospel, either definitively or for a certain historical period.” [p. 117]
Molnar then asked whether the Church should have no contact with the communists whatsoever. His answer was that this would be impossible since the Church would also want to keep the lines of communication open to Catholics stuck in communist countries. And here we see on what grounds the Church has compromised itself. Molnar asked whether Christian intellectuals wrongly tried to save the Church by “camouflaging it, or, having lost their faith under the fire of Marxist critique, have … transferred allegiance to Marxism which they hope ultimately to liberalize into a domesticated form of the secular city?” [P. 121]
The lesson is a simple one. Whoever engages in religious dialogue with the Russians or Chinese, Cubans or Venezuelans (name your favorite communist country), “accepts in advance a weak position.” The communists never make a doctrinal concession, but only give out false appearances. This must be remembered, though it is almost always forgotten. By artful pressure, communism has forced Christianity into a series of retreats and concessions. If you missed this process then you had better start reading your Church Bulletin, for the communists have infiltrated every major denomination, targeting the highest rung of church leadership.
Here we find a generally a dismal situation for Christians, because Christians have shown great naivete in the past. One thing must be admitted in this context. The deadliest enemies of America are, first and foremost, enemies of Christianity. Socialism wants to become, through its historical unfolding, a New Religion. It wants to remake mankind by refashioning the beliefs of mankind. It was Eric Voegelin who wrote about “the political religions” in an essay on “Ersatz Religion.” According to Voegelin, the political religions are deeply dissatisfied with the order of being, which will have to be changed through a historical process (i.e., political process). As Voegelin explained,
“This assumption is not altogether self-evident, because the Christian solution might also be considered, namely, that the world throughout history will remain as it is and that man’s salvational fulfillment is brought about through grace in death.” [Vol. p. 297]
Furthermore, the political religions believe “that change in the order of being lies in the realm of human action, that this salvational act is possible through man’s own effort.” [Ibid] Ask yourself what it means to “change the order of being.” It most often signifies an inversion of the social order, or an inversion of hierarchy, or a perversion of anything you might name. It can also mean turning men into women. The formula of socialism is here revealed as something rather simple. But, as Matt Walsh has pointed out, a man who “transitions” is not really a woman. He cannot get pregnant or menstruate. He has mangled his own manhood without transitioning at all. Everything the socialists promise is impossible to achieve. Humans cannot “change the order of being.” We will never eliminate poverty, square the circle, or build a utopian society. These things are not possible within the given order of being. Only the Christian solution makes sense, exactly as Voegelin indicated. “There is no political solution,” says a song by The Police, “to our troubled evolution….”
Shortly after World War II, Richard Weaver wrote of the “spoiled child mentality,” which is the raw fuel of the new political religions and their campaign to change the order of being. Related to this, Eric Voegelin suggested that G.W.F. Hegel had been a philosophic sorcerer who offered modern man a special kind of magical thinking. Downstream of Hegel the West became inundated with “gnostic mass movements” which did not begin as mass movements at all, but originated with small groups of dreamy intellectuals. Voegelin listed as gnostic mass movements, “progressivism, positivism, Marxism, psychoanalysis, communism, fascism, and national socialism.” As Voegelin pointed out, the gnostic sees the world as filled with evils which include “poverty, sickness, death, the necessity for work, and sexual problems.” [p. 300] It is fascinating that Voegelin listed “sexual problems” in this category. According to Voegelin,
In the three cases of [Thomas] More, Hobbes, and Hegel, we can establish that the thinker suppresses an essential element of reality in order to be able to construct an image of man, or society, or history to suit his desires. If we now consider the question of why the thinker would thus contradict reality, we shall not find the answer on the level of theoretical argument…. We must move our inquiry to the psychological level … [p. 308]
Modern man, as a spoiled child, fantasizes about ruling the world, about subordinating reality to his whims. He is humiliated because he is, after all, a creature rather than the Creator of All. Whatever Hegel might suggest, man cannot change the order of being. “The constitution of being remains what it is — beyond the reach of the thinker’s lust for power,” noted Voegelin. Our schools and universities are in the business of promoting the student’s lust for power. The murderous rage of Tyler Robinson is here in a nutshell. Robinson loved a man who wanted to become a woman. In the midst of this self-deceptive fantasy, Charlie Kirk is heard to say that men cannot become women, and they cannot have babies, and such liaisons are unnatural. The fantasy of Robinson was threatened by the truth. So he decided to assassinate the messenger of that particular truth, Charlie Kirk.
Here is what it means to live a lie. We see from this horrific example, how living a lie can lead to murder. We saw this in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. We see this in Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. You begin with a lie and you end with dead bodies. Here we can touch on the question of Christ versus Antichrist, signifying the struggle between Truth and Untruth.
Everyone has this choice. We can live in the truth, or we can live a lie. What we learn, over time, is that lies are toxic. Lies are soul-destroying. Only the truth can set us free. Charlie Kirk was assassinated for speaking the truth to young men. He was trying to save young men from the most self-destructive of lies.
He gave his life for this.
Podcasts
Donate to the Site: $20
Or Donate to Receive Origins of the Fourth World War: $30
Send a check or money order to:
(Shipping is free)
Jeff R. Nyquist
P.O. Box 1062
Mocksville, NC 27028
488 responses to “As Fantasies of Civil War Dance in Their Heads….”
Hi Jeff,
I haven’t finished reading your article yet but scrolled down to see if you were selling your book. I would like a copy but need clarification, I send the check with return address and you send book back? Shipping costs?
Shipping costs are covered. No worries.
Would love to donate recurring, how can I using a card? I have the book already.
As I reside in a new state, I have to go through the red tape of getting a business license. I plan on having credit cards enabled on the site. Keep watching the page when I update for credit card purchases and donations.
Sorry for the duplicate. Just registered on WordPress and didn’t see my activity originally
Welcome to our chat, Jeanne.
You still have PayPal, right? I donated to your PayPal yesterday
That you. The old PayPal button works for some reason. But they are requiring business licenses and all kinds of red tape to insert the new one.
Just keep the old one if it works. So ridiculous that entities that have nothing to do with the relationship between client/contractor, or payer/payee, etc want to skim off the top.
Welcome to NC btw, Jeff. It’s a gorgeous place. 🤝
Thank you. It is very hot in the summer. LOL.
Jeanne, were you ever on X as a MrsVanZandt?
Yep
10 4. I was on there too. We followed each other. I thought you were someone else i followed at first, but the more you said, the more I started thinking it may be you. I just deactivated my account yesterday, but reaactivated a little while ago, and saw that you had left as well.
Yeah, I just felt a need to get off there. I have my own thoughts about it.
Same. I keep getting drawn to open a new account everytime there seems to be a “watershed” event of some sort. Then I get sucked into spending way too much time on it when I should be doing other things.
It is a pit
Yes, it is.
Is it possible to buy multiple?
Yes.
2 comments :
QUOTE:
The left is a problem for America because, over time, it is becoming more radical and more oppressive in its objectives. As it gains control, it grabs more power and does not give that power back. It has gained control because it controls the universities from whence government personnel are hired. In other words, the left dominates the permanent government (i.e., the bureaucracy).
ANSWER:
This is called communist subversion and the playbook comes from the Kremlin, from the KGB, and orders come from the same Center as well, so that it is so successful in penetrating any obstacles and any resistance to this communist subversion.
Russians have over decades perfected this strategy, they gained much in their secrecy how to conceal the subversive operation and protect the leading elements in it, the communist disguise must be established before the operation begins, before they begin to execute it, they have to have the scapegoat, the “guilty” to sway the real guilt away from the communists, Moscow and the KGB criminals that is.
———
QUOTE:
Molnar then asked whether the Church should have no contact with the communists whatsoever. His answer was that this would be impossible since the Church would also want to keep the lines of communication open to Catholics stuck in communist countries. And here we see on what grounds the Church has compromised itself.
ANSWER:
Dear Mr. Nyquist, the true Catholic Church is Divine Institution and has not compromised Herself as that is impossible, which Protestants will probably never understand, them removing the supernatural character of the true Catholic Church from Her.
So then the factual correction, time-wise, must be then supplied:
Pope Pius XII found out that his Under-Secretary of State, Msgr. Giovanni Batista Montini had secret communications with the Kremlin, without the Pope’s knowledge, when the Vatican already then, in early 1950s (possibly in 1954 AD) had already cut off any communications with the Kremlin, as Pius XII determined that there is no possibility of any progress, to ease the life of the Catholic remnant in the USSR, as the Bolsheviks were already engaged in genocide and open persecutions against the Catholic clergy and the faithful, there was nothing else left but the true martyrdom of the Catholics in Soviet Union.
Then, as Pacepa testified, when Pius XII died and they elected the enemy of the Church Roncalli as John XXIII, validly elected, then he began to change these policies and change the Sacraments and so on, by then they became heretics because such like evil cannot be agreed to, and so they excommunicated themselves for doing so, as the Council of Trent protected the Sacraments from such substantial changes as Roncalli attempted to implement in early 1962 AD, all under the pain of ANATHEMA, which means curse and excommunication, and automatic loss of the clerical office…and this is the beginning of this horrible pro-communist apostate Novus Ordo (new order) Sect that today occupies the Vatican…
They are NOT the Catholic Church as they are nothing but apostates from the Christian Faith, many of whom have communist connections….
So the timing is off, because Pius XII shut down all communications with the Russian Bolsheviks as he realized that they will lie, cheat, deceive and never honor any concordat they may sign with the Holy See – and in 1949 AD Pius XII, the Holy Office, issued a Decree of Excommunication of all communists and of all such Catholics who would promote the cause and ideology of communism, which, when Roncalli had the first chance, he terminated this Decree right away, proving his true pro-communist orientation and contacts to the Communist Party of Italy.
——–
It is very sad what has happened to Mr. Kirk, but then to answer your point in the above article…Catholics who are true Catholics will always fight for God and for their true Catholic Church, and they have done so several times in history, and God is the One Who gives the victory.
The Spanish Civil War was a true Holy Crusade against Russian communism, and the reason why it was victorious is that then they were true Catholics and were defending the true Catholic Church, as the communists in Spain murdered nearly 6 thousand priests, 13 bishops and about 350 thousand Catholics for just being Catholic…the military and police were still good God loving Catholics and they rose up and defeated the Bolsheviks in a very bloody civil war….
TODAY, such scenario is impossible and incomparable, as the melting pot when America is today, cannot come together on these terms, and to defend your well being and to continue offending God by your lifestyle and sinful conduct, immorality and perversion of manners and undisciplined upbringing of your children, that is (and never will be) enough for God to help you fight for the existing order that many people don’t wish to defend nor uphold, nor the disunity of any such country will help the country to recover and face the very well organized and diabolically run communist atheistic enemy, unless true conversion and amendment of every individual life is concluded, in sincerity, in front of God.
More could be added, but this should suffice for now.
QUOTE: Then, as Pacepa testified, ADDITION: Pacepa testified about him being involved in secret operation to infiltrate the Vatican and to obtain data about Pius XII in the Vatican archives, so that the KGB could begin the smear campaign of lies against the Pope.
Pacepa wrote that he had a secret meeting in Switzerland with Agosto Cassaroli, which was the so called “Secretary of State” of the Novus Ordo Sect back then (he was there probably still when Montini was sitting in the Vatican and lying about his “Papacy”), and that it was Cassaroli who helped Pacepa to get access to the Vatican archives for 3 Romanian espionage agents posing as “priests”…and they got lot of data from the archives it looks like.
——–
The true Catholic Church condemned communism and socialism long ago (Enc. Letter Mirari Vos, Pope Gregory XVI, 1836 AD, Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX – 1860s, Divini Redemptoris – 1937 AD or so, Pius XI)…so no true Catholic is permitted to cooperate nor allow these evil systems to rule and to advance etc., which this pro-communist Novus Ordo Sect has subverted and in fact now promotes, these evil systems, trying to disguise such heretical lies as the “teaching of the Church”…which it is NOT.
I guess the Pope and his officials are not Catholic, then. Forgive my confusion.
St. Paul to Ephesians 4 : 4-5 – ONE BODY and one spirit….One Lord, ONE FAITH, one baptism…
The Apostolic Faith is solely and only Catholic Tradition, nothing else, and therefore this horrible Novus Ordo Sect is not Catholic and they do NOT possess any clerical office in the Catholic Church (Canon 188, #4 – automatic loss of clerical office for heresy), and they are all without any exception automatically excommunicated (Can. 2314, 1917 Code of Canon Law), and for valid Papal Conclave you need valid and true Cardinals, which a non-Catholic apostate Sect does NOT have nor can obtain, as Cardinals are named by a true Pope, which this horrible Sect does not have, as they lack any authority to elect the Pope, as the whole Sect is not Catholic, because they don’t practice the Catholic Tradition…and the proof of it is that their “Novus Ordo ceremony”, which is NOT a Catholic Mass, is Luther’s heretical re-enactment of the Last Supper, and that is not Catholic Mass, as the true Catholic Mass is solely and always only the true Tridentine Mass, which is re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross of Calvary, a true propitiatory sacrifice to God…
That is the truth, nothing else, and that’s why this horrible Novus Ordo Sect is NOT and never was and never will be Catholic Church, nor the Catholic Hierarchy…
MOREOVER, Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV, 1559 AD, point #6 nullifies and declares as null and worthless all attempted elections to the Papacy of a heretic….etc.
We trust this explanation of the valid Catholic Church Law will be sufficient, Mr. Nyquist, for you and all others who are not Catholic.
Jeff, this made me laugh, thank you. A great two sentence response to sedevacantism.
😄
Sedevacantism is a heresy, a true Pope exists because otherwise that would be a heresy of its own and denial of the infinite powers of God, Who promised to be with His true Catholic Church all days, even unto the consummation of the world.
But there are way too many people in this world who claim to be Catholic and yet don’t obey the Church and neither Her laws regarding the true Papal Conclave, you Mr. Underhill seem to be one of them, because explicit denial of the Church Laws is the denial of Her Divinely given Authority, which is a denial of the Holy Scripture – he who heareth you, heareth Me, and he who despiseth you, despiseth Me…says Our Lord.
And that’s why this world is in such a bad state, because of the general apostasy, heresy, and overall unbelief….Russian communism will cure it very quickly as God will allow it to come and ruin this horrible world with atheistic communist tyranny – and then the Last Judgment will come….at the end, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
This way of explaining, with all its apparent certainties, leaves me mystified. One must reflect more, and pray.
Well, it is the truth because the Catholic Church teaches so – Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX, Pastor Aeternus….article 2.
QUOTE:
THAT which the Prince of Shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, JESUS CHRIST our LORD, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church, which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our LORD JESUS CHRIST, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides, and judges to this day, always in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by Him and consecrated by His Blood.
AND then the Canon:
If, then, anyone shall say that it is not by the institution of CHRIST the LORD, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter has a perpetual line of successors in the primacy over the universal Church ; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy ; let him be anathema.
———-
The word ANATHEMA means – let him be cursed, excommunicated.
https://archive.org/details/thedecreesofthe00unknuoft/page/38/mode/2up?view=theater
(This book 1907 AD print is an excellent source of theological doctrine and true Church Laws, Pius IX was a great Pope and the enemies of the Church hated him for this Council, he had to flee from the Vatican as the Italian communist revolutionaries came to seize him, he fled to the Kingdom of Naples and remained there for while until the situation was settled…then he was sort of prisoner in the Vatican for the rest of his life, never given up the fight for the rights of the true Catholic Church.)
———
If you want a Scriptural reference, here it is – St. Matthew 24, St. Luke 17 – wheresoever the body shall be, thither shall the eagles also be gathered together…
The Body, the true Catholic Church, it says wheresoever, and the Apocalypse speaks about the camp of the saints….which evidently is not the Rome, the Vatican occupying non-Catholic Sect, they are excommunicated apostates from the Catholic Faith, nothing else.
Are only saints real Catholics?
Stir up animosity.
Made a response to this, but it is gone – did you delete it ?
I have not deleted anything, though this is not a site for blasting your religious convictions to everyone. Please. Let us keep to politics as much as we can.
It has disappeared for some reason, but you were the one who asked the question about the saints. Then there was your response about the stirring up the animosity….
On one hand you ask a legitimate question, on the other you say that we should not be talking about it….
The religious aspect of the fight against communism is there, whether you like it or not, without God’s help you can do nothing. And there are supernatural precedents from the Catholic Spain where the Russian communism and Stalin’s murderers were defeated and had to run like rats out of the country. BTW Pope Pius XI blessed the crusade of gen. Franco, and ever since then communists were loosing one Spanish city and town after another, no matter how hard they tried to resist the Catholic military forces.
We cannot altogether avoid religion. But there is a kind of good manners in talking about the subject before mixed audiences of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and secular people. You really want to avoid condemning people for not holding to your exact versions of theology. And you want to let everyone know that you accept friends who share the same enemy.
Well, you have to understand the constraints of the Canon Law by which a Catholic soul must express the truth, and that is that there is no discussion about the Catholic Faith allowed with non-Catholics, no debate without the permission of the (true) Holy See. It is very strict and for a good reason. But that when you ask, we will answer, of course, and it is never impolite and if people think it is, it is never meant that way – how exactly can you express emotions or anger with words, when you only say what the real meaning or terms or background of what you say is ? Sometimes it comes across as a rebuke or impoliteness, but in reality it is not that at all, at least not from this person.
We say politely that Protestants are wrong and why they are wrong, but that doesn’t mean that we will not pray for them, we pray for them in fact at every Mass daily and hope to God that He will convert them so that they can also partake of the supernatural love of God and His gifts, which gifts they don’t know….
So it is an act of true charity to want people to convert to the truth and in fact to help them to it is out greatest desire, that is one of the main reasons why we post here in the first place.
Please do understand that this is truly honorable and sincere desire and task we try to fulfill, nothing more.
Although I can understand why some might find your rhetoric off-putting, I actually find it quite endearing and admire the loyalty to your faith, and to anti-communism.
There is no choice, but what is called holy obedience to the laws of God and of His Church, and yes, it comes by the grace of God, nothing less. You would be the exact same person if you were Catholic, and probably much better in it, and not by your doing but solely and only because Our Lord would be doing it in you….and this is the supernatural beauty of being truly Catholic, it is truly the work of God in the soul.
And yes, you would know the difference right away, in your certitude of the truth in you and the virtuous conduct and deeds you would be able to do, God helping.
Yes, that’s it.
This is good and hopeful news. Read this. Trump Says Ukraine Can Win Back All Territory Lost to Russia
https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/us/trump-says-ukraine-can-win-back-all-territory-lost-to-russia-5919274?utm_source=andshare
Dear Ma’am,
it is truly praiseworthy to see you enthusiasm in this subject of Mr. Trump, and this here is truly sincere point, so to help you in this little more, the general rule of the true virtue of hope, which hope comes from God, is that in Mr. Trump’s case, regarding these national security issues and the situation of Ukraine, the hope should be established, the strength of hope that is, on the results already produced by the Trump Administration, and that of itself, not that God wouldn’t help regardless to change this deplorable and unsatisfactory situation, that of itself is missing…the recent good results from Mr. Trump towards Ukraine…
So please do observe that while a politician promises anything that he or she will do, the level of trust such a person should receive from the people can only be measured by the good deeds already accomplished in that regard, and so here, with all sincerity, that is truly not there.
And BTW, Mr. Trump is telling Zelenski that they can still win the war, BUT he’s not saying what he, Mr. Trump, will do about it, how he will help Ukraine to win it, which is exactly the above mentioned point – and so the feel good “assertions” remains just that and nothing more. (Not to say that he may do something more, but that so far it remains very little….as all know.)
What is he doing to make that a reality?
My response didn’t post in the right spot. 🤔 It’s at the end.
This is how Trump operates. Talks a big game but does nothing. Of concern was that the Pentagon was informing the Baltic states that the US is not going to give them security assistance (I’m assuming weapons is meant) going forward… in the same month as Russia probing NATO with jets, drones, and cyberattacks. That sends a message loud and clear.
Yes. It sends the wrong message, and we are all in serious danger.
Is there a way to make recurring donations by card? I have the book.
Thank you Jeanne. I will be enabling credit card donations in the coming weeks.
The Kirk event was a total PsyOp. The bottom line is it will be used to
strip the rest of our freedoms remaining and push cashless and social credit score. The security team stood down
and they took their time to seal off the crime scene. It was pathetic.
You think the Utah authorities and the FBI are in a conspiracy to cover up the true assassin? Dan Bongino? Patel?
It troubles me when our “MAGA” know-it-all President tells the American public that he’s “negotiating a deal” with one of our major adversaries over a cyber weapon like the Tik Tok application.
Why would we “negotiate a deal” with Communists? This man is truly ignorant and has such an ego that he refuses to allow any one to advise him on national security issues (other than what he watches on Faux News channel). He doesn’t even take security briefings from the folks who make it their job, their mission to keep our US and its citizens safe.
I’ve posed the question to my own U.S. Senators.
Intelligence analyst, former military Ryan McBeth has warned about this cyber weapon of China for over 2 years…
https://youtu.be/TosiqpqnkyQ?si=yaYUOT2uk59Ldh-l
Trump is now friends with Lula in Brazil. Bolsonaro is going to jail for 27 years, but Trump is his friend.
Are you serious ? This is horrible, this means Moscow rules no matter what. Bolsonaro should have done more while he was still in power, in his case there was something wrong with him why he didn’t activate the military and take over the country, he rather remained “peaceful” and accepted the communist electoral fraud….perhaps he is a controlled opposition, just like Trump and the Republicans that certified Biden’s 2020 fraud, the exact same thing. They just got a million of so fully filled out absentee ballots from 2020 from Michigan, via FOIA….that of itself shows that the communist electoral fraud is and was real, besides their inflated fraudulent voter rolls etc.
But this about Trump and Lula is brand new detail. Should have used it in the article, that is very important….not to try to dictate what you write, Mr. Nyquist, only this is very important point.
The generals would not have obeyed Bolsonaro. I know this from my sources in Brazil. Bolsonaro did have the conservative people on his side. But no institutions. No real power in the end.
Maybe that, but then Bolsonaro could have fired some of them, as their commander in chief, the president, and make an example of a few of them, and elevate those officers to the rank of generals, who would have obeyed his command….he has done nothing of a kind, he even cautioned the people not to go any further than the protests…that makes it a little bit (to say the least) suspect why he wouldn’t uphold justice and prevent others from doing so themselves….when their freedom is at stake ? He failed and now they have him for 27 years, and the country itself….a communist hell.
Bolsonaro was weak, this true.
I was not aware of that. This is terrible that Trump is now friends with Lula.
And now that smirking Castro devotee is openly taking political prisoners too! What a world!
Is this another one of those things that Trump says but means something else by it? I don’t think he could be this wrong, although Putin is with Lula.
Charlie Kirk was the tip of russian disinformation spear in the US. He was friend with Candace Owens, Andrew Tate, Tommy Robinson, Tucker Carlson, Tim Pool, Benny Johnson and the rest. You are totally missing the point Jeff. The Republican party is cooked because Trump and Musk introduced the russian assets at the top of it, politically and through the media (Internet mostly). Charlie Kirk didn’t invite you or Trevor Loudon once on his show. They are fake christians, just like Putin. They say “Jesus” but know nothing about him. Read Matthew 7:21-23, it’s all there. Where are the protestants in the US ? I can only see people believing in human free will, even though the Reformation condemned this as an illusion, and made it the pillar of the opposition to the catholic church. Instead of condemning catholicism and its rotten fruits, so called protestants unite with it. But the catholic church is the main reason for immigration in the west, too bad.
Let’s not start up with the wars of religion just now. We have communists to fight. Charlie Kirk was fighting the left here at home. Yes, he was on the wrong side of the Ukraine issue. Many people are confused by that. It seems I have failed to get many people to listen. This appears to be how things are.
You are cherry-picking Charlie’s guests. Your conclusion is not logical when one considers that he had over 1300 episodes and 1300 guests on his show. He also had guests like Pastor Rob McCoy, theological apologist Frank Turek, Randy Giuluizza, and Stephen Meyer, both creationists. Does that make Charlie a religious zealot? He also had Ben Shapiro on his show who fired Candace Owens. Does that make Charlie Jewish? Come on…
Putin is a fake Christian for many reasons, not the least of which, he lobs 800 drones on Ukrainians daily, in the name of liberation.
1300 guests, but never Trevor Loudon nor Jeff Nyquist, that’s even worse than I thought. If that doesn’t ring a bell, I can’t help you. By the way, only Tim Pool invited Trevor, but not alone, with an unhinged communist. So Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk and all the other so-called right-wing media never invited the 2 best anti-communists experts in the US and maybe in the world. That says it all. Your whataboutism is not appropriate, sorry.
Our views are not considered respectable, Jean. We are treated rather shabbily by the conservative mainstream. At the same time, we ought to forgive those of our conservative brethren who would be on our side — if they simply knew a bit more about Russia. How do we get them there?
The term is called the love of the truth – if they reject it for being more famous or to gain more money, they are not any “brethren” but enemies of the truth, and if they are simply ignorant of the truth then they should realize that no liar can make it into the Kingdom of God, that point itself should make them reconsider what they believe or not believe about the main enemies of God, the atheistic communist criminals….
And moreover, there is no cooperation with people who reject the truth on the premise that they don’t follow what the truth is because they have their own views opposing it…no matter what they consider the main “conservative points” to be…
And when it comes to the true analysis about the Russian communist strategy, the KGB orchestrated false collapse of communism and the communist subversion and infiltration operations worldwide, they are seriously deficient by not accepting them or rejecting them….and they become an obstacle to the only possible and true anti-communist resistance. No tolerance of them is possible in this regard.
He was a man of good will. I consider him to be a kind of martyr. His Christian view of crossdressing, and that he was willing to defend it in hostile territory got him killed. I think it’s entirely possible that as he grew older, and as Russian aggression grows more bold, he could have come around. He was surrounded by bad influences like Posobiec and Bannon.
To be quite honest, it’s possible they didn’t know Jeff. It is extremely difficult to find any videos or appearances by him, and if I didn’t know his website or his history from Financial Sense, it is highly unlikely I would have come across him by chance. Even when I search on YouTube or Rumble for recent appearances it is a challenge to easily find recent results.
They have taken a lot of my postings off the search engines. It is hard for me to find important things I wrote on the Internet.
Did you follow Kirk closely in recent years?
Jean Robin: “The Republican party is cooked because Trump and Musk introduced the russian assets at the top of it, politically and through the media (Internet mostly).”
Do you have more information on this, and also how Charlie Kirk fit into it?
Mr. Kirk was apparently involved in Trump election campaign, he was very close to all the top people whom Trump had picked, which means Trump couldn’t pick somebody who would be disagreeable to the Center.
There is a conspiratorial and purely conspiratorial theory about this whole situation – and so please take it as such only – but what if Mr. Kirk, because of him being present frequently on AF 1 plane and in the WH etc., with such high connections, what if he witnessed something Moscow determined high risk or perhaps out of the scope of acceptable risk, and thus his time was terminated in this life – and it may be professionally terminated ?
That would explain his connections and questionable guests etc., and why perhaps Moscow decided that he is more of a liability than an useful asset ?
There are still questions about the whole situation, how many were involved, Patel is still working on this (and there are serious questions about him), and when people as Gabbard calls Kirk a friend and so on, one has to pause and think hard who in truth Mr. Kirk was…and what was his potential role and why would they want to get rid of him, if they did get rid of him ?
So far it looks like it was an ANTIFA conspiracy, which ties the KGB into it, they rule and decide, but this angle shouldn’t be completely discarded either….because of the details that were voiced here about Mr. Kirk, which details were not known – to us less informed that is.
For example if Mr. Kirk heard Trump saying something that could potentially become a problem and such like breaches of security, KGB security, which they do NOT take lightly at all, they murdered people for lot less before.
The initial analysis about Trump stands, especially now about him and that communist criminal Lula, and so on, the rest is known. Perhaps it was the same principle why this entity thinks they got rid of Ivana, she was a witness when Trump was in the Bolshevik Russia in 1987 etc., in the Kremlin….her death is extremely suspicious, the kind of details that truly bear the KGB marks…professional marks.
It amazes me that you were able to write this comment without the assistance of a will! I would have trouble even getting put of bed.
???
I think what Wenceslaus meant to write was:
“It amazes me that you were able to write this comment without the assistance of (free) will [or willpower]! I would have trouble even getting out of bed.”
Aaaah. Got it. Thanks.
Good interpretation Laura. LOL.
Thank you Laura. This is what I meant. I know Jean doesn’t like free will, but I won’t hold it against him since it’s not his fault he thinks that way or wrote that comment. He had no choice!
😆
Interestingly, I am reading a Military Sci Fi book at the moment and I just got through the chapter (prior to reading this article) that just made the same points as you in this article regarding assassination and honor in combat. The Lost Fleet (Book 1) by John G. Hemry (retired Navy), who uses the pen name Jack Campbell. The protagonist, “Black Jack” Geary, is unfrozen after a 100 years and finds his people’s space navy degenerated from generations of warfare. Think Demolition Man, but political correctness is not the problem. It’s lax discipline due to a high war attrition rate (few live long enough to get old and training is rushed), murdering prisoners as a matter of routine, no care for enemy civilians. He’s in charge of the fleet by virtue of seniority (because he was frozen a hundred years lol), the fact that his past service 100 years prior had been blown up to legendary proportions, and because of the brutal murder of the Admiral and his staff officers by the enemy while attempting to negotiate a surrender. The chapter I just finished has him stopping the mass murder of a surrendering enemy corvette, and explaining honor and morality in much the same terms as this article.
As far as Charlie Kirk is concerned: while of course we shouldn’t be assassinating people, I have to affirm that the man was a hack grifter. Just see his debates on Ukraine and the utter trash he’d spread. He was a rage baiting grifter who made his fortune scratching our itching ears while failing us where we need the truth the most. Had it been Tim Pool to get martyred, Kirk would have been the first to wave around his bloody beanie and call for civil war and the mass arrests of Trump’s enemies.
Trans folks, whatever your review or how freaked out we get from some of the weirdos we see, maybe represent 1% of the population and maybe 0.1% of the total mass shooters we’ve had in this country. They’re a convenient scapegoat to rile us up. Reports from the admin just recently stated they were considering taking gun rights from trans folks. Who is next?
I did that I-Ching consultation that suggested there’d be a period of “Demonization” in the context of seeing kin as “pigs covered in mud” or “a wagon full of demons”. Coincidental or not, we appear to be there. There’s no good guys or bad guys in this. It’s American vs. American. Meanwhile, Russia has been testing NATO readiness, doing mass airline hacks, and sending drones over major airports, one thing after another every single day.
Without speaking ill of the dead, you are not wrong in one sense: Kirk was ignorant when it came to dealing with real communists — the ones in the Kremlin pretending to be nationalists and Christians.
To understand Kirk you must understand that he is a scam with a definite aim–most likely bought and paid for–of establishing a totalitarian system in the USA. Kirk, for example, has platformed Curtis Yarvin, calling him brilliant. Here’s one example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYglp7-TZf0
And another:
https://thecharliekirkshow.com/podcasts/the-charlie-kirk-show/is-america-no-longer-exceptional-with-curtis-yarvi
Kirk has also hosted various freaks and creeps from the Unz report or VDare, even calling one his “favorite ‘noticer’”, all while playing the game of saying “I don’t agree with everything they say, but it is very interesting and thought provoking!”
Imagining summoning the ghost of Adolf Hitler and going, “Don’t agree with everything he says, but very interesting, very smart, great speaker!”
I’m not saying that Kirk was secretly a Nazi. I’m saying Kirk never had any authentic positions to begin with. His trajectory is more or less the same as Tucker Carlson, who is also a big phony (he back talked Trump in his text messages while praising him publicly) who platforms freaks and creeps, as well as Russian propaganda.
The insidious nature of Kirk’s program, and the general program of all the most notorious grifters who also spew Russian talking points, is that they clothed themselves with Christian clothes in order to capture the faithful and bend them towards establishing a Pro-Russian totalitarian state. This is not unlike the Russians using religious rhetoric to justify their depredations and to seduce conservatives.
Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, who are not Christians by any stretch of the imagination, even get in on this act, with Elon talking about the importance of “cultural Christianity” and marriage and family… while reportedly having up to hundreds of children via IVF that have been kept secret from the public. Of course, Thiel was outed as gay some time ago, but has been giving Christian “theological” speeches consisting of telling people that the spirit of anti-Christ is being… anti-AI, anti-crypto, and all the other scams he’s into, that he describes as furthering human progress. (We have not seen such deep theology since Thomas Aquinas!)
Bottom line: Kirk was a rage baiting grifter, a liar, a propagandist, and a destructive force on American conservatism, just like all the other talking heads/online freaks who have captured American conservatism and turned it into a conspiratorial, anti-American mess.
It sounds like you followed Kirk’s career closely. Can you tell us more about his background and the evolution of his political beliefs? He is getting praise now for speaking the Christian truth and challenging extreme leftist beliefs on university campuses, but on the other hand he was spreading a lot of Kremlin lies and disinformation. Looking at the totality of his career as an influencer, what would you say was his primary focus and where did he make the most impact? Was he mostly focused on culture war/immigration issues or was he starting to branch out more into geopolitics?
His history is not particularly interesting other than as an exemplar of how profitable grifting can be, a lesson he seemed to learn from a young age. He dropped out of college at 18 and started TPUSA the same year. He never got a degree, which he used as a selling point. Don’t think for a moment that “liberal colleges drove him out!” He went to a community college for only one semester and dropped out to make millions of dollars, going out of his way to find the most liberal colleges to earn his clout, not because he personally experienced unrelenting abuse from hippies. His parents are well to do and helped support him during the early stages of his empire.
(As an aside, at my university I had conservative professors who taught Shakespeare and the classics. I had professors of all kinds who were conservative, with one who retired and became a nun. I was also on amazing terms with all the liberal professors, who called me brilliant and used my papers as teaching aids, even though my conservative politics were known. I was called more than once “highly gifted,” a person with “a beautiful mind,” and “already writing at the level of a graduate student” (during my first 1301 English class) by eeeevil liberal professors. The head of the English department, a very leftwing man, shook my hand and told other students to learn from me. My philosophy professor was a marijuana smoking (he smoked with the students at his house!) genius from Poland. He’d walk around barefoot and had spent years as a Buddhist Monk. He was also a very loud ethical vegetarian. Naturally, he was one of my biggest fans and provided one of my recommendation letters required for law school. I had no problem with any of my leftwing professors and never saw them bullying any conservative! And even if they HAD been mean to me, there were plenty of Republicans on campus. This was also my experience in law school. I recognize this is just an anecdote by one individual, but this is why I have always doubted this narrative of universities brainwashing fragile minds or persecuting conservatives. That may be true at some universities, probably the biggest and fanciest ones, but it was never true for Kirk, that is for sure.)
Returning to Kirk:
If his friends weren’t lying, he was hyper-political in middle and high school, arguing with teachers, and apparently of poor character from the beginning:
“Charlie Kirk Needed a Friend:
The “beanpole of a kid” finally found his clique not in high school, but among elite Republican donors.
By Kyle Spencer (Politico)
….
“Their senior year, when they were building SOS Liberty, the conservative youth group that would precede Turning Point USA, she says Kirk used her Facebook password and started joining conservative women’s Facebook groups around the country, posing as her so he could then invite them to SOS Liberty’s page and publicize the group. At the time, she shrugged it off, chalking it up to his passion for the cause. But in retrospect, she thinks it was weird. She recalls that, toward the end of senior year, he advised her to throw some classmates under the bus when she got in trouble for posting a silly lewd comment on a classroom chat board. She did not take the advice and was surprised by it, particularly since Kirk was already a self-proclaimed Christian. That’s not very Christian of you, she recalls thinking. (Kirk did not respond to requests for comment about statements that friends and former classmates have made about him.)
“In front of audiences, Kirk frequently gives the impression that he was a hardworking high schooler with a decent shot of getting into an elite American college. (He ended up forgoing college altogether, after being rejected by West Point.) His classmates remember him differently. It’s unclear what types of grades Kirk actually received in high school, but he once told his chemistry teacher that he did not believe in homework. As far as sports, he was captain of the varsity basketball and football teams, praised for his free throw shot and considered one of the basketball team’s stars. But neither of those teams was very good.”
If the above is accurate, and I am positive it is based on the rest of his life, he was a Machiavellian type who probably wanted to enter politics from childhood. There has been suggestions he was being groomed to eventually run for President prior to his death, which I also don’t doubt.
As for his views, his views reflected whatever he thought pleased the most people in the right-wing sphere at any given time, without offending the rich and powerful he wished to court.
As an example, Pre-2018 arguing early on that Christianity should not be imposed by the government–quite reasonable and standard Conservatism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhCKfxy83BQ&t=166s
Post 2018 he went to saying that the separation between church and state is a “fiction”, and becoming louder and more shrill on the subject, such as calling some Olympic trans swimmer an abomination by name, or quoting Leviticus calling the stoning of homosexuals “God’s perfect law.” At the same time, he praised Peter Thiel as a “gay” republican. There is one video, though I cannot find it just now, where he defends Thiel from a conservative in the audience criticizing his homosexuality. Though I suspect what made Thiel one of the good gays was his money and political power, not his Republicanism.
Interesting of note, I suspect that Kirk was either silent or positive about Ukraine in 2014 during the initial invasion. I can’t recall him saying anything negative about Ukraine during this time period, and I was highly vigilant for this at the time. In those days, opposition to Ukraine was limited to weirdo Libertarians/Ron Paul anti-semite types you might meet in the dark corners of the Earth. Kirk became anti-Ukraine alongside the other talking heads in 2022, as it was then in fashion.
Fascinating autobiographical note, Ricardo.
It is true that the left treats intellectually gifted people much better than the right. This is a point I experienced myself in graduate school. The left values intellectual ability. The right does not, and the right loses by it. They seriously lose. And they will continue to lose.
PS – I did not in his debates with serious people on the left there was a rudeness in Kirk’s manner. It was not pronounced, but involved constant interruptions along points not altogether deep or subtle. It was not pleasant to listen to.
Ricardo: The problem of bullying in universities comes into view when you enter graduate school. The kind of conversations that take place, the kind of career destruction that occurs, is very real. Undergraduates are cattle. They are a necessary evil. You treat them good because they are your customer. But as time goes on, you are carefully selecting and building your teaching cadre. Certain people are not welcome.
This story about Charlie Kirk praising Peter Thiel on one side, and praising the idea of stoning homosexuals is not to be overlooked. There is a zigzag, an inconsistency. He is was not following principle, he was following the money. Thiel had money. It’s very obvious. This is how people succeed; that is, by sucking up to the rich.
He never advocated stoning homosexuals, this is a Russian lie which has been propagated everywhere. This was even spouted by Russian mouthpieces on German state channels in order to defame his character. It is quite something how Russian propaganda works on almost every audience.
Interesting that the Russians promoted such a story about Kirk and the stoning of homosexuals. How the Russians love their divide-and-conquer games.
I am convinced that the majority of the initial flood of messages and posts celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder were KGB agents sitting in their offices, or “trolls” as their mouthpieces in the media like to call them. For one, I went to their telegram channels and could see all of their fake accounts doing it. But it also makes sense from other angles.
They needed to cauterize any budding sympathy that might have been building among their leftist sheep. Lenin explicitly said he wanted to inculcate cruelty in the young as part of his education process, and this phase was almost part of a testing process to see how far they could bring their far-left extremists in abandoning their humanity. They wanted to provide an environment which would normalize it to their base and encourage them to adopt those attitudes.
But I wonder if that was not the primary reason because to me it seems the gain is less than the loss. A large proportion of Democrats recoiled at this obviously ghoulish behavior; people like Stephen A Smith lashed out at them and said “I don’t care what his beliefs were, a man was killed”. There are many other videos of apparently “former Democrats” saying that this demonstration utterly alienated them from the Left. And so I don’t know if that was the primary purpose.
I think the main goal was to anger conservatives and the Right. To see these ghoulish accounts celebrating, and then to see actual Americans adopting those attitudes afterwards, was quite disgusting and sickening. This goes hand in hand with the Russian and Chinese campaigns we’ve heard of with them trying to incite civil war. I think the larger goal may have been to absolutely enrage the Right. And yet the response was muted. Prayer vigils, people fired for celebrating, but no counter-responses of violence. Perhaps the furthest the Right may have overstepped was using the FCC to threaten ABC, although one could argue Kimmel was legitimately lying intentionally about a major news event.
But I am not sure that Russia and China got what they were looking for in the aftermath. My main concern is that they might try to stage more events like that, in a tit for tat appearance type of mirage, which truly could spark something, because naturally the American people would not know anyone was behind it. That is my greatest worry. And it could also appear to signify that they may be ready to make a move, if they are actively attempting to foment civil war right now. But I will leave that speculation for others.
The greatest response Trump could do, and I hope he is doing it, is to fully uncover the networks that cultivate and radicalize these alienated individuals. I have not seen a single arrest that indicates that he is dismantling the financial infrastructure one bit, but this will remain to be seen.
As far as Kirk, it appears that the playbook from the Left will be to defame him in his death, over and over, hoping that as we get further and further from the event, people’s memories will eventually get overwritten. This is part of their demonic enterprise where they write the opposite history, where they compound their sin of murder by then slandering the victim afterwards. One would imagine that they would have a fear of God to not engage in such monstrously dangerous acts, and by that I mean dangerous to their souls. But it is by this we understand that we are dealing with perfect evil, that they call upon a dark power of perfect inversion, and that achieving the complete soul-death of mass delusion upon the populace is only possible through full commitment, through a complete embracing of the lie. The good men become evil, murder becomes legitimate execution, the murderers become righteous. It is for this reason that God said woe to those who call good evil and evil good. This is simultaneously the most powerful kinds of lies and also the greatest crimes against God.
I did not know he platformed Curtis Yarvin, but if he read Yarvin he could see it was against many of the things he believed in. Yarvin is leveraging Catholicism, not Protestantism. He is opposed to the Constitution. Was Kirk against the Constitution? It does not seem so.
He did have friends in the Christian nationalist movement who also spew post constitutional trash. As a Christian I have never had a calm about him. His hypocrisy was amazing. I have called him a fraud for years and then at other times, shaking my head at some of his rhetoric thinking it is ignorance. Much like we do with Trump…. when it is clear. His brand was built on a cult of personality. He even praised Glenn Greenwald recently after the X porn. I think eventually he would have pivoted on Isreal, but needed to placate the evangelicals and church leaders where he spoke. Watered down Christianity has resulted in a near death of discernment. He certainly didn’t have it. Christian donors were probly pretty lucrative to TPUSA. How does a Christian sitting in the memorial get past the Carlson speech. Not only is he a psychopath, envious,compromised, elitist..but blasphemous. Charlie was not a martyr and comparing his death to the death of Jesus, referring hummus eaters….is heresy. No man’s death can compare. Christ took all sin on himself. Charlie didn’t do that. Christ said he laid down his life of his own free will. He obeyed the will of the Father. In other words, no Jew killed him. The Roman’s did the physical deed, but the sacrifice was by His will. And then conquered death. The list of characters at the memorial were a bunch of non Christians of the political and oligarch order.
I think you’re right.
None of those people eulogizing him give evidence of being believers. And Tulsu Gabbard least of all as she is a practicing Hindu.
Charlie Kirk’s death is clearly being exploited by all of them.
To listen to each of them, you get the impression he was like a kid brother to them.
Your commentary on Kirk is bracing. I did not realize that Carlson compared him to a Christ. I missed that part of the show. Come to think of it, Christ never collected $80 million. The mixing of material values with religious mission is always problematic. Kirk was a martyr in the sense that he was assassinated while advancing a cause. But that cause was more political in its relation to material values than it was concerned with real debate and inquiry, or deep spirituality.
Maybe not in man made philosophical terms or categorically. But they live and breath it more than the majority of Christians do. On par with Islam fanaticism
I can see your point, Tucker compared his death to Jesus in a veil effort to place blame on Jews I believe and that somehow Jesus died due to his free speech. So they had to kill him for it. This is such a dumbed down and absolute robbery of who Christ is to any believer. Like man had any hold on him. It really is sickly infecting a false message with no power behind Christ. It’s subtleties like this that the youth are being indoctrinated with. I hope Charlie is in heaven. I have just never been able to shake the alarm bells over the years. I have had interactions with pastors about him…begging for theology correction..anything. crickets. Now some of his more nationalistic ” christian” friends are calling out anyone who questioned Charlie. We should all be ashamed and maybe we are not the right kind of Christians. Dangerous territory.
And yes. Dangerous territory indeed.
How is it not similar to Jesus? He was an outspoken Christian who openly advocated for Christian positions from a secular standpoint and was killed for his speech. That doesn’t make him a god, it makes him a courageous person who told the truth and paid a price for it. That’s what Jesus’ disciples were called to do. That’s what Stephen did as the first martyr. They were told to follow in his footsteps. This seems to be an intentional misrepresentation of the comparison, portraying him as a deity when in fact the point was to emphasize his truth-telling in a world ruled by evil.
He Himself claimed deity. He was God in the flesh. This is what the Word teaches. She is right. You are wrong.
You misunderstood my point. The misrepresentation I am saying she is making is saying that Tucker, by comparing him to Jesus, was portraying Charlie as a deity, when in fact Tucker’s comparison was probably more along the lines of two men who both spoke the truth and died for it.
Okay, I see i misunderstood your point there.
Christ did not die for rhetoric. No man’s death can compare to Him. Read John. The first martyr was a martyr bc Jesus wasn’t. No man can forgive sin, no man conquered death, no man can free all men, no man is God but Christ. He was be4 the foundation of the world, spoken of in the plural in Genesis. If you believe he died for what He said….what was it that he said to the political order of pharisee and saducee? Did Jesus confront them? But I am a grouper so my thoughts are disregarded. Then I guess great grandpa was, he fought in WW2. You got your Fuentes info from my post. I have that on good authority by witness and I had to look into it. You do realize TPUSA also bused in people to J6, read testimony, using money from an heiress who finds Alex Jones to be apretty awesome guy. Means nothing to me but you posted something about others who did. My spouse and I certainly haven’t sucked our thumbs. Pretty sure the VA would say so and the youngsters I have helped. I will never yoke with homosexuality. I will trust that God will reward that I didn’t cave. No other force is more destructive as sexual deviance.
Homosexuality is a plague. Very destructive of the soul. Very damaging.
As you told me to “admit” I’d rather conservatives not unite with certain people and be defeated, then admit you are no Christian. For if you deny the deity of Christ, you arent.
Ok, so in your opinion, for Charlie Kirk to build a political movement which includes non-Christians, that is him “denying the deity of Christ”. Well that’s one opinion.
Now where did i say that?? I was talking about you.
Where does one draw the line of compromise? What about the point that Jesus gave time to tax collectors and prostitutes? How to handle such issues? Tolerance seems to have been a Christian Western thing. Or is this a misunderstanding?
Sure Jesus went after tax collectors and prostitutes. He loved them and died for them just like He died for sins of the world. Of us all.
Jesus didn’t ordained these people as pastors and apostles though, in His “movement” to put it in the terms we have been using.
*After* we are converted, He places us into different areas of His work.
I’m saying, you dont place people who are at odds with core tenets of your “movement” (in this case, conservative) in leadership roles, nor do you accept large sums of money from them, for that naturally buys influence.
We both suspect that Peter Thiel has an agenda in putting the money he has into certain people on the conservative side.
What that agenda is, we may not fully realize yet, but he’s buying influence.
Jeff, I just want to be clear about something else. I dont hold myself to be more worthy than a homosexual. I’m a sinner, saved by grace.
But the two points I’ve been trying to make about their place in the conservative movement, are in the above comment.
For, though I am not saying the conservative movement is the same as the church, one thing we are trying to conserve is basic morality.
I understand.
Theil can’t even keep his gay lovers from jumping off balconies.
I don’t trust Peter Thiel for reasons having to do with his Libertarian ideology. The problem is that it is ideological and not really grounded in truth. He has also adopted some Dark Enlightenment and Machiavellian ideas. These people even misunderstand Machiavelli, like a poor bomb-maker misunderstanding explosives. It’s a good way to get yourselves blown sky high.
I also dont trust him for other reasons, but to me, his open, unashamed, sexual deviancy is part of his overall messed-up state of mind/soul.
Carlson was also slandering Jews in what he said.
A true Christian would not slander Jews if he were familiar with Scripture, especially Romans 9-11.
Jeff, just found this.
This young man was right. Kirk railroaded him.
https://youtu.be/FJmcqjP8mhk?feature=shared
Kirk rallied the audience to try and railroad this guy.
This could have been you, asking Kirk, “What are you conserving?”, as ive seen you say “conservatives with nothing left to conserve.”
Forgot to post link, I think.
https://youtu.be/FJmcqjP8mhk?feature=shared
This man was a Groyper, which means he was sent by Nick Fuentes to attack Charlie from the Right.
Fuentes is in my opinion a mouthpiece for the Russians. All of his time is spent attacking conservatives, and the NYT writes glowing pieces on him as a “white nationalist”. It is the existence of these fake people like Fuentes and Duke and Spencer that “legitimize” and give life to the false Dialectic, of the Anti-Racists against the Racists, of the Wokes vs the White Supremacist System.
The Communists NEED people like Fuentes, like Richard Spencer, like Matthew Heimbach, like Jason Kessler, to breathe life into the false illusion of the “Nazi” boogeyman. And once you start investigating them, all of them have questionable backgrounds. Spencer had a Russian wife. Kessler was involved in leftist Occupy protests before organizing Charlottesville. Fuentes was both at Charlottesville AND at J6 and not a single arrest of him, while Biden’s FBI was arresting people who LITERALLY weren’t even on the grounds that day. Take a look at the difference between how they treated Enrique Barrio of the Proud Boys vs how they treated Fuentes.
You have to be careful not to fall for agent provocateurs sent to divide the camp. Fuentes and his Groypers do not care one bit about Christianity. They don’t care about the issues they claim they are to the right of conservatives on, such as immigration. The entire point of their existence is to a) legitimize the existence of a “white supremacist” threat, and b) sow doubt and division amongst conservatives by portraying their leaders as not conservative enough.
Fuentes also allegedly received something like $250,000 from a French man before he died, quite a strange story. I would absolutely love to read an expose on who and how he is getting funded.
You describe the communist operations to infect the right with Nazism exactly.
The only thing that I would slightly quibble with you on, Jeff, is that I don’t believe their primary purpose is to infect the Right with Naziism. I believe their primary purpose is to make the false Enemy of the Dialectic real, to give life to the false Pretext, and by so doing give full moral justification to attack the Right. I believe this is the primary way the engine of Marxism works, by defining an Enemy, which usually begins as an abstraction, and then fully demonizing it and assailing it. And in the process of this demonization, railing, hatred, and self-righteous fervor, they transfer the Abstraction into the real world upon their real targeted physical enemies, and generate the dark Energy to strike out at their desired Enemy. And in order for this to work with some degree of success, they need to convince people to believe the Lie, and to believe that the Threat exists, and in so doing conjure up real, hate-filled dark energy.
I believe the actual recruitment of the enemy and tricking of the enemy into playing the role of the Villain in his own demise, to get him to participate in his own murder of his name and reputation and humanity, is secondary. But that is the only quibble I would make.
Yes. I agree with you. I did not mean to say Nazification was their primary purpose. But as I watch the right, I can see the communists are trying to insinuate the right with antisemitism and genuine Nazi-like sentiments. I do believe this is intentional and organized.
I’ve never fallen for any of these guys. I know they don’t care about Christianity or conservatism.
I agree that they are probably Russian mouthpieces.mouthpiece.
This kid was not them, and was not an agent provocateur. He was an honest guy addressing Kirk’s double-standard on the issue.
We’ve all been tempted to compromise. We’ve probably all compromised on certain things at times.
Kirk had a lot more pressure to compromise than most, by the people he rubbed shoulders with, and the money they had.
But, the kid was right, and Kirk handled it shamefully.
If he was really a Christian, then no doubt he regretted it later.
How do you know that he was an honest guy? Do you know him personally? He seems rather smug and arrogant to me. By the way, the line “what are conservatives conserving”, along with his claim that Conservatism today is what the Left was 5 years ago, is CLASSIC alt-right talking points. I’m not sure if you were aware of that.
The point of those talking points, along with that man’s general line of criticism, is to portray themselves as the truly pure, as the only bulwark against the extreme Left. Heck, they will even let you call the left Communist. But just don’t call the left Fascist in those circles. If you doubt me, try it sometime on X or anywhere else in their communities. It is a tightly controlled, disciplined operation where the lines of ideological control are crystal clear to them.
Do you know him personally? How do you know he was an agent provocateur? Do you know if he was not honest?
Didn’t luck smug to me. It looked like he was nervous. Hence why he fervently, sincerely said he supported Trump.
Just because the alt-right uses it, doesn’t mean it’s not true.
I mean, they hijack the immigration topic don’t they? We really should control our borders and thoroughly vet who is allowed in. They say that too. Because they hijack it for their own ends.
Just because this kid said something alt right also says, doesn’t make him alt right.
I am not going to argue with you and I don’t hate you. You seem slightly agitated against me.
What I am saying is that, when it comes to Communist operations, they have certain rhetorical patterns, because the rhetorical patterns are the ideological patterns, and the ideological patterns are the lines of attack. We never know anything for certain with the Communists because of their methodology, and thus we can only infer general patterns. When a certain ideological movement has specific statements that they repeat in their circles, and then one of their followers repeats those exact sayings, and the overall pattern of all of his rhetoric follows the pattern, that is a general guiding line. It doesn’t mean the kid himself is a Russian agent. That’s not how it works. But it does mean that he is parroting a line of attack which is artificial and strategic. And it also doesn’t mean it’s not true. They take a truth and alter it 10%, 20%, enough to serve their purposes. Should we have less immigration? Of course. Should we encourage traditional marriage? Of course. The point is, the people who created the lines of attack which he is parroting don’t care whatsoever about either of those issues, and the issues are being exploited for a larger strategic political cause.
Merc, I am agitated. It’s been a long day, and I think im not making some points clear, so I’m not in the best frame of mind this afternoon.
No need for us to argue. You’re right.
I dont think this kid was necessarily parroting an artificial and strategic line of attack. If I was his age and kept up with influencers like Kirk, and saw the hypocrisy in that area, I would have wondered the exact same thing.
I personally dont think Kirk was a Russian agent, and I concede to LadyfromLibertyGarage, you, and others that he did some good things.
I think he is a young man, he got around very wealthy and influential people, and he compromised in some areas, and got caught up in things like attacking Zelenskey and making the appearance with Don, Jr in Greenland.
It’s possible he wasn’t killed for his stands for certain Christian values, but rather was killed to try and force us into civil war, or possibly, as Concerned said, he had seen the light on certain issues such as Ukraine, and certain people were afraid he’d speak out.
Yes. The communists do have specific rhetorical patterns that are repeated. You can often catch these patterns in unrelated areas. Then you ask who these environmentalists or feminists or alt-right people are. Then you find some facts about them. There is always a Russian or communist connection somewhere. It’s very interesting to see how things travel around, like a mind-virus that mutates.
Carlson really implied at Kirk’s memorial service that he was killed by Jews for speaking the truth, just like Christ? Wow, that is disgusting. Technically Kirk’s widow was the one who invited Carlson, Vance etc. to speak at his memorial service, but it still says something about the circles that Charlie Kirk was travelling in. I now wonder how much truth there is to Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson claiming that Kirk was starting to see the “truth” about the world Zionist conspiracy before he was killed. Before hearing about what Carlson said, I would have dismissed that as just Tucker trying to make out Kirk to be a martyr for the anti-Zionist cause. But now I wonder.
Laura, I myself didn’t take Carlson to be saying Kirk was killed by Jews…haven’t thought of it in that light…it wouldn’t be surprising.
I just took it as Carlson using the opportunity to make allusion to Christ’s death on the cross, and slandering Jews thereby.
That is what I was saying. My apology for the misunderstanding. However, give it another day. It is Tucker. Maybe he already has 😆
https://youtu.be/yUwocghazRc?si=mUnJmg61vBxLPl6t
Certainly they must have given him an earful.
Ah okay, maybe I misunderstood what Jeanne was saying.
You make some very disturbing points. Thank you very much for this. I will be going over these videos. It reinforces my instinctive take on his organization when I first saw their advertising.
I had read some things awhile back that indicated Fuentes was sending his tribe to TPUSA events to hammer at the cracks. That is what the video Grey Knight posted looks like. Kirk had cracks to be exploited, this is how the left went off the rails. Incrementalism. He supported Greenwald who has adopted 2 boys. Greenwald is a Marxist who supported Lula and helped Snowden betray America and flee to Russia. How does a conservative do this? Tulsi headlined womens events. Kirk also followed big govt economists. It is why he never had problems with anything Trump did. This would later be a problem with the youth and he would need to acknowledge it. He had issues with ganging up on anyone with a microphone. Instead of empathizing, at times he would take a hard line of platitudes. These kids lived it, they know there is no magic wand of hard work where an inner city kid can escape from a childhood of severe trauma and abuse. I was homeless at 15. You have to use different tactics than the guy who came from wealth who just says…work hard and get married. I agree with him. But many of these kids are destroyed by age 10. That child’s brain and development forever changed. The Marxists come in and empathize and give them a place of belonging and a fraudulent nest for arrested development. A fraud for reality. They exploit them. Someone or thing to blame. It’s is catastrophic.
Good points.
Mr. Trump went from Charlie Kirk’s memorial service to speak at the United Nations, where he excorciated the UN for promoting and paying for worldwide mass migrations, causing chaos in multiple nations, especially ours.Then he had this meeting with Zelensky. Looking at the context of his remarks at all 3 remarkable moments occurring in 48 hours, I believe he is sincere when he says he believes the Ukrainians should be able to restore their original borders. He says the US will provide NATO the necessary weapons. He said NATO countries have the right to shoot down Russian planes in their airspace. He has removed many restrictions on Ukraine from the prior administration. Hungary has been ordered by the EU to stop buying Russian oil. Mr. Trump has said Russian sanctions are coming as soon as countries like Hungary comply. He has taken steps to stop the influx of drugs by going after Venezuelan cartel boats. No doubt this hurts other countries like China and maybe Russia.
I wish Mr. Trump had not spent 9 months trying to get a peace agreement with Putin. It has been painful to watch. A long time ago, I realized these talks were useless, but you have to give Mr. Trump credit for trying. It is also a godly approach to get two enemies to talk. He thought he could broker a true negotiation. Now, after all of Putin’s attacks on civilians, he sees Putin
more clearly, as exceedingly dangerous, a man willing to use nuclear weapons on civilians.
As i have said before, Mr. Trump is a builder, not a general or geopolitical strategist. He hates war, death, and chaos. He loves life, beauty, and prosperity.
Of course, we will see what else he does, but I believe God has once again shown he can use a flawed King David for good. Mr. Trump is a much better man today than he was at Charlie’s age. He admired Charlie, and Charlie loved him. Mr. Trump probably owes his re-election to Charlie Kirk; he has even said as much. Mr. Trump today realizes Putin is impossible to trust. His public statement today is very promising and will energize the Ukrainians and their allies. I think this is a turning point. Time will tell who is right.
Re: Trump and the “stop buying Russian” thing.
He knows Hungary is not going to stop buying Russian fuel and that the rest of Europe can’t until 2027 as they phase it out.
Demanding the purchases stop in exchange for sanctions is the same as saying there won’t ever be any sanctions.
Trump condemned mass immigration but also the “liberal order,” meaning all of Europe, and then urged them to shoot down Russian planes. The latter is good and all, but when the plane gets shot down and the Russkies say it was in international air space, what is Trump going to do?
Here’s a clue:
Pentagon officials are saying they’re going to reduce assistance to the Baltics:
Baltic states prepare push to save US security assistance from Pentagon cuts
By Gram Slattery
September 11, 2025
“The BSI began in 2020 during Trump’s first term as a response to rising security threats in the region after Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine. The program has recently provided the Baltic nations with around $220 million in security assistance funding, though the amount has varied by year.
But at a meeting with European officials in late August, Pentagon officials said they did not intend to fund the program during the next fiscal year. They also said they planned to eliminate security assistance funds administered by the U.S. European Command area generally, according to European and U.S. officials with knowledge of the meeting.
The Baltic letter, a draft of which was seen by Reuters, asks that Congress pass legislation codifying and funding the BSI, despite the Pentagon’s intention to eliminate the program.”
Pay attention to what Trump does, not what he says. We’ve been through this wild ride before, staring at tea leaves to divine his next move, and listening to his every pro and con statement, celebrating one moment and crying the next. Meanwhile his actions remain steady.
And Trump is now friends with Lula. Brazilian conservatives are shocked and disappointed.
Trump’s foreign policy is so treacherous. While he plays this mediator supposedly neutral figure in front of the cameras, his administration constantly pulls the rug from under Ukraine and now NATO members, while the Kremlin is escalating the war with drone and airplane intrusions into NATO airspace. When will someone in the media ask him why is he constantly helping Russia while their invasion and military moves only get uglier by the minute? He loves saying he stopped 7 wars by now, how this war wouldn’t have happened if he was president, but his softness, refusal to do any action against Russia (such as blocking a Senate bill for strong sanctions against Russia) and covert help of Russia is pushing the world into WWIII, he’s guilty of letting Russia do whatever they want, no matter how many hours of war crime footage perpetrated by Russia are out there to be seen by anyone who can stomach them.
People have also noted that Trump has a tendency to agree with the last person he has met. After he met Zelensky in the Vatican he sounded all pro-Ukraine, then a call with Putin and he’s all on team KGB. But when it comes to actions, what was the last thing Trump had done that helped Ukraine, really? A Polish journalist called him out of it, how he constantly says he’s unsatisfied with Russia he has still not done anything against them in his entire presidency, Trump replied by saying he can still do something and that the journalist should lose his job, which is telling. The way the Trump administration is failing to handle the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the obvious Achilles’ heel of Trump, because neither he or any of his mouthpieces have explained to the world why he refuses to do anything to harm Russia, and this situation only leads to speculation that he’s deeply compromised.
Well said.
That’s right. The one unchanging aspect of Trump 2.0 has been his deference to Russia, along with his signaling to the European nations in various ways that they are on their own. Everyone is noticing this, and Trump’s refusal to take any solid action is sending the worst message.
Which part is the “deference”? Blocking the Nordstream pipeline? Selling weapons to Zelensky? Trying to cut off India’s financing to Russia? Giving approval for nations to defend their airspace? Boosting domestic oil production to drop the price of oil and hurt Russia? Doing the same vis a vis his relationship with the Saudi Prince? Finally holding European stooges of Russia accountable for quite literally funding the war and attempting to cut that off too?
Sometimes I really wonder what people are seeing.
Do you really wonder? What are you?
How about denigrating Zelensky while praising Putin? How about refusing to clearly, unambiguously condemn Russian terror and murder and wrongful invasion while saying Ukraine “shouldn’t have started a war with a country so much bigger; how about his people saying we’re pulling funding from Baltic defense; upsetting our alliances; suddey okay with Tic Toc; suddenly making a “deal” with Xi which ensures they keep sending agents to our universities; rolling out the red carpet to Putin and giving him legitimacy on the world stage, etc, etc, admit nauseum
You are not an honest person.
So just to be clear, you didn’t address a single point which contradicts the talking point that Trump is a Russian stooge, and then proceeded to call ME dishonest. Lol
I could address your points, but can you address mine? Apparently not. I think Trump was doing his “both sides”-ing while he thought there was still a potential chance at a deal with Putin. That’s why he wouldn’t commit to condemning him, and why he would blame Zelensky sometimes. Trump will shift almost schizophrenically in his talking points based upon where he thinks he is in a process and which side he is trying to pressure. But unlike most people here, I never thought he was a Russian agent.
Why is he still selling weapons to Zelensky? Who is giving them all the know how on how to build these new missiles? Has Trump secretly told Zelensky to attack all these refineries? I will watch Jake Broe and he’s hilarious, when Trump does something “pro Russian”, it’s because he’s an agent. When he does something “anti Russian”, it’s because he’s an idiot or he’s doing it for his ego. At a certain point we have to be intellectually honest.
If trump were truly a Russian asset, wouldn’t he have done more to help Putin and hurt Zelensky at this point? Now Trump has veered radically anti-Russian again because he is once more disillusioned; if Russia makes a concession they might buy more time.
I will be honest though that I do not like his policy on China at all; he stopped the tariffs because he said the country would “fall apart”. He is doing this Chinese student deal most likely in order to pressure / lure China to accept the trade deal. It is also possible he does not want to alienate China at the same time that he is targeting Russia, and thus give them an excuse.
Trump’s fundamental flaw has always been not recognizing pure evil. Pure evil can not be negotiated with. But this is a flaw of 99% of humans. Very few people understand the existence of pure evil, the kind of evil that could smile to your face, that could accept help from you and stab you in the back the minute they get a chance. Trump has many strengths, but this is his one flaw in my opinion. I only hope this process is waking him up to Russia’s true nature.
You asked Laura1986 how he defers to Russia. I gave some examples. I included China because they are one and the same. “Russian stooge” was not mentioned by either of the three of us in those comments.
And you disregarded all of the counter-examples. There is a word for people who only cherry-pick one side of the facts to suit their argument, but I would not be so verbose as to accuse you of that.
“Russian stooge” is the general tone of the dialogue surrounding Trump’s motivations as to why he is apparently handing Ukraine to Russia on a silver platter, or is there an alternate reason for his apparent treason? Simply his love of Putin?
Now you make me sorry for blaming some of my agitation on the long, grueling day ive had.
So magnanimous of you to not accuse me of that.
Why is everyone who has valid reasons to suspect Trump of pandering to Putin for whatever reason, all wrong, and you’re right?
Don’t feel bad or sorry. It is simply heated philosophical debate.
I have noticed that the vast majority of people here do not like Trump and that is their right, and many of them often claim he is beholden to Russia somewhat. I have simply never believed that due to my own analysis. But I also believe that we may be nearing a convergence point regarding Trump and Putin, where his loyalties will be quite clearly shown. And so time will tell. 🤝
I can agree with that, though you slightly mock me, lol. But, I’m nobody important, so that’s a small matter. I suppose i deserve it for saying you are not an honest person. You have good reasoning and clear understanding of things. We just come to different conclusions.
🤝
That is just the way that I respond to a perceived attack; it may not be the best habit and has nothing to do with you as a person.
Well, like I said, I deserved it.
Yes. Trump will have to clarify his position soon. Then we will see whether he was misleading Putin or our allies.
No, I didn’t disregard all the counter-examples, at least I havent. Because I’ve thought of those possibilities. They’ve been kicked around in this blog and discussions all year long. If you’re new to it, then you wouldn’t know that.
They’ve been discussed and kicked around, and I’ve made up my mind.
Apparently, you have to.
Events can change our minds, either way. We are learning as we go.
Yes. Most people in the West, especially those involved in business, do not understand what it means to deal with evil groups and organizations.
We should not engage in personal attacks.
If you dont mind, please just delete it. We came to an understanding later.
More likely he’s ideologically in consent with the communist cause…and the frequent communist clenched fists he uses in public prove it also…again, if he didn’t agree to cooperate with them in 1987 while he was in the Kremlin, on the Kremlin invitation, you would not have known Trump ever existed, he would have been eliminated back then, never to be heard from again – the KGB does not allow any security problems at all, and nobody who accepts their invitation is permitted to turn them down and walk away alive…
Have a source that nearly died of poisoning because they, the communist espionage cell decided that the source is un-recruitable and would constitute a serious security risk — the source didn’t know who they are when the source was involved in private life with them, the source says that without the help of God the source would be dead today…and they would probably get rid of the body and get an illegal to replace the source and use the source’s identity for more espionage and subversive ops….
There is by now no mistake about Trump, his deeds prove the analysis accurate.
I don’t believe that Trump’s clenched fist is a nod to Putin. No. Not at all. It’s his way of acknowledging the crowd. Simply that.
It is a communist salute and always has been, and Putin is just a KGB lieutenant colonel, but the whole KGB Kremlin Mafia is the communist enemy, and yes, by that exact clenched fist what Trump often uses, that is how they salute each other and how they recognize themselves in the crowd…besides the other sign the communists use, which is they don’t like to wear a tie, to them that is a bourgeoisie (that is very evil) custom they do avoid, and again, that is how they recognize themselves among the ordinary people…
Can we just agree to disagree, Concerned? The time is coming when the truth will be self evident.
But this is the truth, the clenched fist salute is a communist salute and a politician shouldn’t be using it at all, at all…
Thank you for a brief glimpse of sanity lest we get overwhelmed in scrutinizing the flimsiest of minutia for ill intent. Not a raised fist! 😂
I hope you are right about Trump. The decisive moment is coming. We will soon see.
I could not agree with your analysis more, Lady. I don’t know if Trump already knew or if he had to learn what Putin was, but it almost seems he wanted to prove it to the world, or to his supporters. I think that the way that Trump has played it has slowly undone a lot of the work that Russia was doing on conservatives. Many MAGA people now empathize with Trump and see him as having given an honest effort to reach out to Putin, and perceive Putin as dishonest.
I just wonder what comes next. Russia was able to stall and delay, but it seems the economic pain may now be coming. And possibly military pain too if Trump assists Zelensky. Surely they must have anticipated this. So what is their next step? As Trump slowly squeezes their revenue, surely there must be a breaking point? Or can China and India’s funding keep this war going indefinitely?
Russia and China are in a difficult position. I only hope they have lost confidence in their own nuclear forces. There have been SS-27 launch failures.
I will look into that issue on the Baltics, Ricardo. That is concerning. Here is the article on Hungary and Slovakia.
EU may cut off Russian oil supplies to Hungary and Slovakia via Druzhba pipeline, says Bloomberg https://share.google/X982fvknbyOPamlyc
IF only we could follow Reagan’s advice about debate. In this clip, he has just learned George Wallace was shot.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOb8fMNEsPC/?igsh=NnBva2p1OTlpNnlz
Jeff,
Thank you for a beautifully written essay. Charlie Kirk was a warrior for Christ and for truth. Recently I read a sermon by John MacArthur on Spiritual Warfare from 1996 based on 2nd Corinthians 10:3-5 :
“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.
We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ”
MacArthur said this: “We are destroying – let’s take the first word, speculations, logismos, it means thoughts and ideas, opinions, reasonings, philosophies, theories, ideologies, religions. That’s what it means. It has to do with thoughts, ideas, concepts, opinions. And those are the forts in which men hide. Ideological forts, philosophical ones, religious ones, and in their forts they try to hide and fortify themselves against God and against the gospel of Christ”.
Charlie Kirk was doing true spiritual warfare in the public arena. He was demolishing ideological strongholds in the same way that the Apostle Paul did in his day. I pray that his courage and sacrifice will light a fire under those of us who call ourselves Christians.
God bless you.
John McKay
Macs loss was pivotal for me. One of his last sermons was….”It’s too late”
By Old Testament standard…it may be
This was one of your best essays.
A tiny tribute to Charlie Kirk:
In John 1:14, it says that Christ was “full of GRACE and TRUTH”. In this respect, Charlie was more like Christ than most, and for this reason he had more impact than most.
There are so many now conspiracies about the Kirk case, it is painful to watch. One of them showed a video that shows in a slow motion the bullet coming out from the back of his neck, then the person tried to convince the viewers that it is the other way around, that the bullet came from the back and came out the front, but the bullet movement was going away from the back of his neck…minor detail, right ?
The take on this is that there are more people involved in covering up and that they were conspirators and made sure that only some details are visible and the rest they covered up, including the rifle situation etc. – then that would mean that professionals are involved, perhaps Moscow’s surrogates, but this is a conspiracy indeed, for now, but that the man Robinson is a communist indoctrinated, and that the story about him is a serious one, and that Moscow is happy about Mr. Kirk being dead because of his influence, those are facts. More will hopefully come out, possibly, unless the orders from the Center will say otherwise.
Kirk was a big advocate for the Kremlin, and he was close to almost all the russian shills in the republican party, you seem to forget.
A bigger advocate of Russia than Carlson, Ritter, or Macgregor? Or was he a younger guy influenced by elder mentors? Would he have figured out the truth? Maybe he would have.
What difference does it make ? He was much more influential than all these guys. Do you think that if Tucker is killed he will have such a ceremony ? I don’t think so.
But Jean. We are not in the business of damning people to Hell for disagreeing with us. That they have been fooled is natural, is because they are not students of the Cold War and communism. Major scholars think our views are crazy. How are people supposed to figure this out if we are not patient with them? Russia has deceived nearly everyone. We need to forgive people if only to open their ears to our message.
If you aren’t patient with them, the Marxists will be. They will take their time and groom the young, esp disaffected who have valid complaints.
They will also not hesitate to murder those who will not follow their advances or rather recruitment and have obtained certain knowledge or understanding who the people are, i.e. communist recruiting machine, so that the communist security will catch up with them…and then they are either shot, poisoned or have an “accident”….(car, boat, walking in a park….etc.).
The KGB does not tolerate loose ends, they eliminate them promptly. Have sources confirming this point.
Yes. This is true. Marxists treat bright young people like gold, hoping to win them over.
“Would he have figured out the truth?”
What’s the incentive? He was making millions of dollars not figuring out the truth.
Mr. Galvan, you seem to have a point. If Mr. Kirk was involved as the controlled opposition (if is the word), then he was not fully aware what he is playing with or the KGB took greater risk in his case which, when it came to make the decision to eliminate him, they didn’t object to proceed with it…
But you truly have a very valid point, and Mr. Kirk was very close to the Trump and the WH, which makes it even more valid, your point that is.
It has to be admitted from this side that very little is known about Mr. Kirk, very deficient in his regard, something that the time schedule does not permit to deal with in dept or more sufficiently, but you have captured the interest here. Thank you.
Good point. Aside from the financial incentive, Kirk and so many other influencers like him are personally and professionally invested in the narratives they are selling. They also don’t have the grace and courage to admit they were horribly wrong about a major issue. The reason they can’t see what is happening with Russia is because they don’t want to know the truth. It’s not just a lack of knowledge about Russia and Ukraine, it seems like they are actively resistant to knowing the truth to the point where it doesn’t matter how many times someone points out Russia’s lies. I doubt that Kirk, being such a prolific host and debater, never encountered anyone who could debunk Russian propaganda about Ukraine. It just never made an impression on him enough to make him publicly change his position.
Great pressure is placed on people who say things in our media that Russia does not like. I have seen this. Gatekeepers are a real thing. As soon as I was published by a newspaper, people were calling the editor complaining about me. Which people? It’s interesting to discover. Anyone can put pressure on editors and sources of money. After several angry calls a donor can be rattled.
“The reason they can’t see what is happening with Russia is because they don’t want to know the truth. It’s not just a lack of knowledge about Russia and Ukraine, it seems like they are actively resistant to knowing the truth to the point where it doesn’t matter how many times someone points out Russia’s lies.”
Absolutely. Hubris is the name of the game, something literally older than humanity.
But there’s another layer that even influential people aren’t immune to: The demoralization that Yuri Bezemenov spoke about. Literally no matter what factual information you bring up to them, it still doesn’t matter (I’m speaking from experience too). How many of them are on the Kremlin take or just demoralized themselves? Perhaps both?
Yes. This is what has happened.
Kirk’s salary was about $220,000 per year. For the first 5 years of TPUSA, he never took a salary. This information is available on Guidestar, the organization that curates the 990s for public evaluation.
Good data point to remember. Thanks.
Re: Kirk’s income. TPUSA is not Kirk’s only source of income, and I do not think it was $200k at the end of his career. He also billed for speaking engagements. I took a look just now and a recent article puts it between $50,000-$100,000k as of 2025, with news articles from prior years indicating him billing between $10,000-$30,000 a pop for speaking fee at various small GOP events. One in El Paso in 2019 for $15,000, and another in 2021 for $20,000. He probably demanded much more for bigger events.
His primary money maker would have been his youtube videos and radio show with advertisers and pay per clicks. A few questionable websites estimate his income as low as $65,000 a month to $600,000 a month, and of course he sold lots of corny books, with one having Donald Trump Jr as a co-writer.
Google results indicate his wealth is estimated at around 12 million, which I suspect is low, with multiple million dollar real estate properties, not including the wealth he commanded through TPUSA in the tens of millions. Of course, I am aware he had a rich family that helped bankroll his grift at the beginning.
Not bad for a guy who dropped out of college at age 18 after only one semester, and who maybe took some online classes.
I wonder about the use of the word “grift” in this context. A grifter is a small-scale swindler. Do you think Kirk was insincere? Was he knowingly saying things he did not believe? That would be the real measuring stick. Right? Can we point to any obvious insincerity, as we can now clearly see with Tucker Carlson?
The purpose of the word “grifter” is merely to discredit. This person’s intentions are abundantly clear. The KGB derives an almost sick pleasure in murdering someone and then convincing his former allies to turn on him. I am not saying this person is KGB, but being a channel for certain strategic arguments designed to turn conservatives against one of their own who was just brutally murdered, whether conscious or not, does not absolve one of responsibility. One can see quite clearly from the clear binary extreme terms this person has used (liar, grifter) that their goal is to cut off all sympathy for Kirk among conservatives. The Russian defamation campaign post-death has been absolutely disgusting. I have seen it all over their telegram channels too.
It is always important to see how the Russians interpret an event. It tells us a lot.
That is true. And that is the problem with our culture of success.
Ricardo. I do not follow most conservatives closely because they have been, for many decades, unimportant and ineffective. They suck all the air out of the room and understand nothing. My sampling of Kirk since his death was not comprehensive.
I read awhile ago that Kirks dad worked for the architect firm that designed Trump Tower. Fun fact 😀
Has any high profile influencer/media person changed his/her mind about the Ukraine war in the last 3.5 years? I mean someone who started out believing the Russian propaganda and then changed his mind and realized that Ukraine is on the side of good, not Russia. I don’t follow conservative media personalities closely, but the odds seem stacked highly against that.
I don’t know many people who change their thinking. Of course, it is charitable to say they are able to think. Few people have training in epistemology.
To answer my question, I think Richard Spencer is one influencer who changed his opinion on Ukraine and Russia, from what I heard. But I don’t think he’s such a big name on the alt-right or MAGA anymore.
Didn’t know Mr. Kirk that much, but the point is that he was doing, by his public work, what Moscow and communists never support, that is to influence the young generation that there is God and that the young generation should live the life of virtue and and of the values that are better than what they seek and are being fed by the communists and socialists etc., and all the sodomite agenda and so on, which he didn’t support, all that liberal leftist garbage…and that is KGB operation, this same garbage they teach in these state run “higher education” places, the leftist lies, and he was actively opposing it. Whether he was their controlled opposition, that remains to be seen, but of itself what he was doing is not their strategy, the KGB propaganda service was doing the exact opposite in the US and worldwide schools, the communist indoctrination of the youth is their long-term strategy.
Right, you didn’t know him that much. Giving a platform to Curtis Yarvin and not to Jeff Nyquist is pretty telling. Plus, you should read Golitsyn, thus you will learn the scissors strategy which apparently you have never heard of.
I might interview Curtis Yarvin if I had the chance. Of course, he would never agree to do that.
Knew about Golitsyn and read his work about 17 years ago, or more. This doesn’t mean that we should engage in some kind of assessment of somebody like Mr Kirk until the analysis about him is understood.
Ah yes, he promoted Christianity, attacked abortion, promoted marriage and families, supported the free market, protected kids from mutilation, and gave his life for it, but he didn’t interview Jeff, so that means he’s evil and controlled Russian opposition. I guess that settles it! 🤪
Jean went overboard on that one.
It is painful to watch the assassination conspiracy hysteria. People are nuts.
Don’t discard the Russian propaganda machine using it, or producing these “theories” in order to discredit the true analysis of what really happened, these are not amateurs but KGB etc. professionals, and their goal is the strategy of demoralization of the enemy’s population, that’s why they are doing this, and also that’s why Mr. Kirk was killed, besides that he was saying things which the communist propaganda machine hated and opposed long-term.
The communist subversion operation must eliminate all obstacles when they exist and present fundamental problems to the successful completion of the operational task….and active measures are employed always, to eliminate the obstacles, and Mr. Kirk was evidently just that, he was undoing what the KGB was doing for long years, regarding the enemy’s young generation, the communist brainwashing was being resisted, and Mr. Kirk was successful in it, so they had to eliminate him. If he was somehow involved with them that doesn’t seem to be probable, but only for the potential possibility him being the controlled opposition, some even say that he would have become the president down the road, due to his influence with the young generation – this seems to be a valid point, and so most likely the Center ordered to not to play with this and have him taken out, to minimize the risk…if he was involved somehow with them, then only remotely and under consideration and on need to know bases only, but this is solely unsupported speculation, nothing more.
Even what Mr. Robin suggests, it seems to be little exaggerated, and even if they would have taken or played with that kind of risk, at the end they were not gaining much while he was continuing influencing the young generation the opposite way than the communist propaganda desires, so they had him removed….it is a truly complicated situation, but this is what it looks like so far.
The conspiracies are spread by Russia, as they always do after every big one in the US. They are the ones who spread the “Israel” conspiracy mere hours after Charlie’s death. They used an InfoWars guy and Max Blumenthal to spread it, then tricked Tim Dillon and Candace into pushing it. It is almost depressing to see their operations and simultaneously how successful they are. This anti Israel stuff is absolutely rotting the brains of prominent conservatives.
Yes.
Very good point. Pacepa exposed this, he said that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was used by the KGB, the forgery as it is, to foment hate among the Muslims and to create a united terrorist front against Israel and the US – all they have to do now is to continue adding to the fire.
And that’s just one part of their KGB ops, they also invented (long ago) to use the NAZI angle, a source has one time witness (undercover source) a suspected KGB agent to hand a stack of bills (US dollars) to a young person, estimated 400-500 dollars cash, and the young person was wearing some NAZI symbols, or such like insignia which was evident that the NAZI orientation is the outward appearance…the source was surprised by it so much, but then didn’t say anything so that the cover wouldn’t be blown….
They are tireless in their operations.
J. R. Nyquist – Deutsche Ausgabe (seit 2014):
“Die Entschleierung – Eine Führung” (11. 9. 2025)
https://jrnyquistdeutsch.wordpress.com/2025/09/17/die-entschleierung-eine-fuhrung/
Very interesting comments !
Yes. Wonderful contributions here today.
Jeff: in this essay you bring up freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. First Amendment. Very important.
Yet it’s widely recognized that there are limits on freedom of speech, most reported not to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
Does calling for the death of someone with whom one disagrees, cross the line of what should be allowed? How about libeling them in such a way that people see them as a danger that needs to be eliminated?
What restrictions, if any, can be placed on ‘freedom of religion”? If a religion instructs its followers to lie, cheat, steal, rape women of other religions, even kill them, does that religion deserve the protections afforded by the First Amendment? A “religion” that urges its people to take political power in the lands into where its people wander? Should we allow people who espouse such religions free access to our country?
Personally, I include communism as an atheistic religion (similar to how some branches of Buddhism are atheistic religions) similar to the above paragraph.
Communism is NOT a religion because communists are anesthetists and the principle of religion involves most importantly a belief in God, which the communists reject, oppose and militantly persecute all who do have that belief.
They don’t fall under the category of the 1st Am. clause, they rejecting it and will exterminate all who believe in God when they get the chance, the history of communism is filled with such examples. Communist must be always called criminals, because they are criminals and nothing but tyrannical monsters/criminals.
You will learn these points more clearly when (no longer if) they take over the whole world, then many will see what they should have done to fight communism, and they didn’t do it, and now (then now) it is too late. People will betray each other just to survive, sell their own family members, report to the communist police all things that the communists seek to remove and all people that the communists seek to exterminate, that’s how horrible the times will be.
Then God Himself will terminate them, after the 3 and half years of the reign of the communist Anti-Christ, God will visit them with horrible punishment which all of them deserve.
This software is a problem – atheists, not anesthetists….sorry, bad eye sight, small letters.
Buddhism is listed as one of the world’s top religions. However, it is not a monolithic religion, rather it has many branches. Thanks to syncretism, some of those branches also include local deities. But its major branches, e.g. Mahayana Buddhism, are atheist, yet they are still called “religion”.
I once knew an elderly man, since deceased, who had been a Zen Buddhist in China before the communists took over. He claimed that Zen Buddhism is also atheist.
If Buddhism can be called a religion, why not also communism? Communism has all the marks of a religious sect. It has an origins myth (evolution). It has a description of ontology. It has a way of salvation, eschatology, that its adherents want to impose on the world, namely atheistic socialism. There are also other signs that it is a religion.
Since atheism is not the divider between religion and not religion, why not call communism a religion?
Buddhism is a false religion, but not as bad as the atheistic communism, which is NOT a religion.
You seem to be very confused about these obvious terms.
Many people have described Marxism-Leninism as a religion, including Joseph Schumpeter, Eric Voegelin, and even Vladimir Putin.
Well, but they are wrong in the sense of the fundamental of what religion truly means – believe in something, here believe in God, which communists as they are atheists, reject. Communism is antithesis of religion in its fundamental ideological principles and history of communism proves it.
BTW, min. 2907 – the video of Mr Kirk with Yarvin – Yarvin admitted that his grandparents were American communists in 1930s…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYglp7-TZf0
MIN 2907 – and BTW, it is truly painful to watch, no edifying points from Yarvin, only blabber about what is already known…
Putin should be disregarded because he is a communist murderer and a KGB criminal, his opinions should be regarded as KGB deception or targeted points leading to implementation of a particular KGB strategy…he lies to advance the cause of communism.
The other 2 sources you quoted, Mr. Nyquist, perhaps that is taken little bit out of context, but in the understanding of the Catholic Church (for example the Encyclical Letter Divini Redemptoris), communism is not named as a religion, as the Church understands it.
If you want to use the term “religion” in a broader sense, than you should say that communism is the atheistic so called “religion” of the devil, then that would make it properly clear….
Good points.
With all due respect, you are incorrect. While Communists themselves are atheists who hate God, the ideology itself is structured intentionally as a religion. One of Marx’s greatest insights was accepting that there is an inherent religious impulse / instinct in every human, and hijacking it for his own ends. The communist ideology has an evil force (capitalism), a righteous force (socialists / communists), a religious hierarchy (the Communist party / movement), and a cause worth dying for (the “revolution”). They even have a heaven (the “classless state” which of course never happens). None of this was an accident. They were intentionally designing the ideology in this manner in order to harness the religious engine in people. Through this method, you can inspire a poor sucker to die for you.
This concept is of course even more evident in final communist states like North Korea. The “god” there is the communist leader (Kim), the primary Evil is still Capitalism and Imperialism, and thus evil incarnate is the US, Japan, South Korea. But the communist system and ideology is 1,000% a religion. It is a false religion, no doubt. It is a fake one created for the sole purpose of turning humans into slaves and making them worship a tiny minority of psychopathic Marxists, of course. But it is absolutely a religion.
Whittaker Chambers, one of the greatest anti-Communists and writers of the twentieth century said that communism was mankind’s second oldest religion. He used those words.
You are taking it out of context, he meant it as a sarcasm, not as a definition, as something the communists believe, but then we shouldn’t be giving them the same status as the religious beliefs in God, no matter how erroneous they may be in the world, as communism is truly unique and it is atheism, an explicit denial of the very existence of God.
Chambers was being sarcastic when he said Communism was mankind’s second oldest religion?
At least that’s what it looked like from the context of what he wrote, not that he didn’t look for another term, but that he was saying that for the purpose to somehow describe communist as an ideology…that is the initial point, and yes it is meant in sarcasm, to degrade communism – in which he no longer believed when he wrote it. It’s been a long time since reading Chambers, but this point was clear in his writing about communism.
I have his book in front of me. Please.
I think the mistake you are making is thinking that it gives it the same status.
There are true religions and false religions. You could even say there is only one true religion. Using one word to describe those belief systems does not grant them all the same status, it merely describes its effect on the individual. It is whether it is true or not, whether it is a righteous religion or an evil religion, that differentiates them.
The AI supplies somewhat a coherent answer:
QUESTION – Is communism a religion ?
ANSWER:
Communism is not a religion; it is a political and economic ideology that advocates for a classless society in which the means of production are owned communally. While it may share some characteristics with religious movements, such as a strong belief system and a vision for a better society, it fundamentally differs in its nature and purpose.
Key Differences Between Communism and Religion
Ideological Basis
Communism: Based on the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, it focuses on material conditions, class struggle, and the abolition of private property.
Religion: Typically involves belief in a higher power or divine being, spiritual practices, and moral codes.
Goals
Communism: Aims to establish a classless society through revolutionary means, often involving the overthrow of capitalist systems.
Religion: Seeks spiritual fulfillment, moral guidance, and often promises an afterlife or spiritual enlightenment.
Structure
Communism: Organized around political parties and movements, often with a focus on collective action and state control.
Religion: Usually has a hierarchical structure with clergy, rituals, and community worship.
Beliefs and Practices
Communism: Emphasizes materialism and often rejects religious beliefs as a form of ideology that can distract from class struggle.
Religion: Involves faith, worship, and rituals that connect followers to the divine or spiritual truths.
While some individuals may treat communism with a fervor similar to religious devotion, it does not possess the spiritual or metaphysical elements that define religion.
Yes, I am saying that Marx was lying about it being a political and economic ideology. And obviously if he was lying, the AI would not know about that.
What are you talking about ? Marx was lying about what he was disseminating about communism, so he was lying in his own 1848 Communist Manifesto ? You don’t make any sense now…
He was lying about it being an economic philosophy. In the Communist Manifesto, he was both propagating and teaching a technique, a discipline for seizing power. Economics was merely the vector by which he was applying the technique to society; but the technique can be applied through any human vector: race, sex, gender, age, whatever.
When he talks about “resolving contradictions”, he is talking about the process of dividing and smashing two groups against each other for the purpose of generating energy to seize power. When he speaks about the family, he is explaining to inside adherents the importance of dividing the families so that the unit dissolves and is weak. The same with all social structures that could resist them, like the church. Many times he will openly describe what he is doing, but reverse the causality or adopt a passive observer tone to hide what he is doing. When he speaks about alienated individuals, he is telling his followers that they must make alienated, that these types of people can be easily exploited.
When he adopts the passive observer tone and describes the stages towards revolution, he is teaching the stages that his Commu-Fascists must follow in order to seize absolute power.
So yes, he was lying. It is all very sophisticated lies. A book and a methodology on par with a satanic version of a Bible, in my opinion. That is how consequential it both was and is, to those who understand.
Thank you, that makes it clearer. Have never read the Manifesto and never will. But that it was a blueprint how to destroy the existing order is evident and a known fact.
With all due respect, it is neither evident nor a known fact. The vast, vast majority of people will still tell you today that Marxists believe what they claim to believe. I am probably one of the few who claims that they actually don’t believe a single word of it, at least the leaders at the top. Conservatives still believe it is an economic philosophy. Even anti-communists have done very little work actually dissecting what Marx was actually doing with his terminology shifting, causality reversals, etc.. I wish there was more literature on it. While there are some who say that Marxists are “dividing” or “inciting hate”, I cannot actually think of a single person who has dissected with accuracy and specificity how Marx is doing what he is doing. And part of the reason for that is because it’s incredibly sophisticated and intelligent.
When I studied Marxism in graduate school, everyone said that Das Kapital was the wrong path. The Marxist project needed to go back to the early Marx. A redesign and rethinking was encouraged. Economics was not where it was at. That was the way they were teaching communist cadres at American graduate schools in the mid-1980s.
How fascinating. But doesn’t that give the game away? Wasn’t Marx’s entire body of work, for the most part, predicated on the false pretext of economics? How could they claim they were Marxists but discard his entire magnus opus? What was the part that they were keeping and building off of? Without evil capitalists and imperialists, what could they even claim Marx said was the enemy? How could they justify overthrowing governments?
Das Kapital was to vindicate Marx’s economic theory, which was the labor theory of value. Marx did not complete this work because his theory became hopeless with the emergence of subjective value theory as developed by the Austrian School and others. Labor value theory is not take seriously. It was a failure. Nobody can take Marx’s late work seriously in economic terms. It was recognized as a failure even by Marx himself.
I was just curious what they meant by earlier Marx, if they were supposed to go back and start from there.
Marx’s “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” his “Comments on James Mill,” and “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” were given special focus. I was tasked with studying Marx’s “Grundrisse,” a work of his “transition text” which I had to lecture on. The emphasis was the importance of Marx’s “project” and how to learn from his errors and build on his underlying philosophical insights.
Thank you, I will study those to see what they meant.
Yes, the Satanic inversion of Marx and Engels stand out. We see this sort of things throughout the political religions. A common formula, which was man effective through various experiments. Lenin and Hitler, Mao and Castro.
Marx lied about so many things. And he definitely did not believe in Marxism himself. He said so, according to biographer Robert Payne.
You are trying to twist the terms, but by definition a religions is a belief, and in Christian understanding it is a belief in God, which the communists don’t profess, they don’t even believe in the devil and that he exists, which makes them the more subordinated to his evil hands, they are possessed by him, that’s why communists are so evil and that’s why they murdered so many millions of people, much more than any other philosophy and ideology ever before has done.
But their ideology is just that, evil nihilistic philosophy, invention of the devil, and thus in this sense it is not a religion, and as you should know, even the devil knows that God exists and tremble, the commies deny the existence of God, and so they cannot be put on the same footing as those who believe in God – the communist ideology is the contradiction of any religious belief. The only thing they believe in is their evil Party, the Synagogue of Satan, as it is mentioned in the Holy Scripture. The devil is their master.
It seems as if your objection to my characterization is that it places them, in your mind, “on the same level” as you as a believer.
A religion is simply a belief system which follows several general well-established arcs or patterns: a god or gods to worship aka a higher power, an evil, ritual, sin, righteousness; it is a belief system which presses certain buttons which are inherent to the human spirit. As Chambers said, there were many original communists who died for it, such was their level of zealotry. As Bezmenov said, no man would die to defend the principle that 2 + 2 = 4, but they would die to defend their faith.
I am not arguing that the initial, official Communist doctrine is that there is no god; I am saying that at a deeper level, the entire ideology is structured like a religion, almost certainly intentionally done by Marx. This means that while a diehard Communist may truly be a complete atheist, he is nevertheless filled with a religious fervor because the ideology triggers certain built-in buttons which are present in every human being. We all have within us a longing for a cause, for a concept of right and wrong, we are all drawn to the idea of good and evil, and given enough conviction, some of us could lay down our lives for a cause if we deemed it just enough. Why is this? What is this “thing” which exists in human nature? Why does Communist propaganda work?
The exception, of course, is the 5% or so of the human population who are psychopaths / sociopaths. They have no sense of morality and their god is power. I do not know if Communist ideology fills them with a religious joy; I would guess possibly not. These are the ones who usually staff the upper echelons of Communist leadership; these are the ones who know the whole thing is a scam. It is possible that they still have a god, because the instinct of the spirit to orient itself around something greater than itself is universal. Perhaps that god is power, or pleasure, perhaps they are satanists. But the official ideology of Marxism-Leninism, of socialism-communism, of environmentalism, of anti-racism, etc.. all of these are micro-religions designed to artificially activate certain trigger points in humans and to harness the religious instinct inherent in mankind.
This doesn’t mean it’s a true religion; there are many false religions. It simply means that it is a belief system engineered to achieve a certain goal, whether its adherents know it or not. That isn’t a statement about you or your faith. It’s a statement about ideological manipulation and ideological engineering.
Communism is a human ideological belief, introduced by the devil and hatched into the minds of people, depraved of the truth, as Marx, Engels, Lenin and so on, and that still does not make it a religion, because the historically confirmed understanding what religion is communism does not fulfill nor accomplish, and it only retains the structural foundation, but ideological one, not a religious one.
At the most it is an humanly invented philosophical opinion, and a very evil and bad one, nihilistic and absolutely opposed to right reason and most importantly opposed to Divine Law.
It is absolutely impossible to call it a religion as such a definition derogates from the term religion itself, and it cannot be applied to an artificially and humanly invented ideological opinion, which opinion in fact violates the very definition of what religion represents and what its foundation truly is – i.e. belief in God.
Otherwise you could begin to say that a dog barking on the moon – to him that is his “religion”, which is absolutely preposterous and ridiculous conclusion, but the principle that the asserted definition of communism as potential religion implies, that opens the door for these kind of inventions to creep in – and it is essential to keep the doors closed to these kind of inventions because they lead to heresy, error and serious misconceptions in regards to what communism is and why it must be destroyed – and one of these points is that it is NOT a religion and it comes from the father of all lies the devil, and thus it must be always denied any recognition, and it must never be allowed to be called a religion, no matter how many people used that term, in error or taken out of context, about communism.
No compromise possible, PERIOD !
Language is metaphorical. Much that we understand, we understand through metaphors. Here is poetry, with the very best language, with the deepest meanings, conveyed through simile and suggestive analogies, and metaphor. So it’s annoying to have someone pick at interesting language, and pull it apart, and dogmatize using flat and uninteresting phrases, and to beat us over the head as we are about to fall asleep from dull literalism, even while we are attempting to convey something of real significance. For Marxists, Marxism is their belief system, their cosmology, their faith, their commitment, the god they sacrifice to, THEIR RELIGION.
It is what they say it is, but that is not what it is in reality, in truth, and what they say they believe does not elevate it to the level of religion, for religion presupposes the act of the soul and in its spiritual sphere, in its faculties, as the higher faculties of the human soul are the intellect and the will, but this is what communism denies, as the communists deny the existence of human soul altogether.
QUOTE from the notations from Red Cocaine, Dr. Douglass, pg. 44-45
According to the Communist Manual of Instruction of Psychological Warfare. ‘As it seems in foreign
nations that the church is the most ennobling influence, each and every branch and activity of each and every church must, one way or another, be discredited. Religion must become unfashionable by demonstrating broadly, through psychopolitical indoctrination, that the soul is nonexistent, and that Man is an animal’. Reprinted in Brain-Washing: A Synthesis of the Communist Textbook on Psychopolitics (MeIbourne, Victoria, Australia: New Times Ltd., 1956).
But you see, this way a communist who rejects the existence of human soul, and of God, is by definition incapable of religious belief, because its foundations in themselves are denied and forbidden to accept by the Party, as quoted above.
Also, in the natural law, which is given by God, even infidels are capable of belief and some religion, as they believe in the existence of human soul (which is given by God to every human being after conception), and thus they believe, in the natural order, that they are made to the image and likeness of God, BUT communists deny this principle of religion by rejecting both, the existence of human soul, them made to the image and likeness of God, and the existence of God Himself.
Facts cannot be called metaphorical, and what the reality is cannot be subverted with what people want to reality look like, in their imagination or conclusions, and just because Marxist, a communist regard communism as their belief system, that of itself does not make it into one and remains still only an ideology, diabolically introduced, evil, nihilistic, based on commission of criminal acts, as confiscation of private property (which violates the Law of God), tyranny, denial of individual liberty of conscience and liberty of religion etc.
Yes, if you are trying to defend the status of communism, as you claim it to be a religion because the communists may regard it as such, that still does not elevate this horrible evil ideology to the levels thereof, not one bit.
You are not considering language as the root symbol system of our understanding. Words are not literally the things they represent. Please keep this in mind. You are also forgetting that communists do have souls, and they cannot help what follows from having one. Of course, there is no agreed upon scholarly definition of religion, but a number of the most brilliant minds of the last century come to a very different conclusion than you do. I wish you were capable of showing more respect for these opponents of communism, and a bit more humility when confronted with their brilliance and learning.
It almost seems that you are claiming, in essence, that only TRUE RELIGION is religion; for you use the word “elevation” as if the word religion itself necessitates belief in something elevated. There are tribes on this earth, like the Aztecs, who have worshipped degraded entities by means of ritual human sacrifice. Do you mean to say that their religion was not a religion, that their priests were not priests? Were they not worshipping a nonhuman entity that was demanding sacrifices? Here is a horribly evil religion, by our understanding. Yet it was a religion. Your definitions and understandings are too narrow, I think, and you never quite grasp the meaning of the words you employ. You are saying things you do not really want to say. You are missing important insights by doing this. It seems, also, that you underestimate your enemy’s effectiveness at subverting what you believe in. If you stopped and considered the following points, you would be empowered rather than disempowered by the insights of others. It is not necessary that you argue so vehemently against people whose ideas you refuse to consider because they offend you in some very personal way.
You say that facts cannot be called metaphorical. Well, there are philosophers and scientists who have realized this is not quite true. But I will leave this point aside, because you do not relate well to abstractions. I will only say that facts require context to be meaningful, to be understood. Besides this, the facts in this case show us that Marxism-Leninism is indeed a religion, if we put those facts into context. One of the most learned scholars and philosophers of the twentieth century, Eric Voegelin, whose learning puts us both to shame, referred to Marxism as a “political religion.” He begins his book on this subject by pointing to the Egyptian state religion in ancient times. Here was a very real political religion, and not the only one. This may seem to be a strange beginning for his argument, but it is not so strange when we consider that Lenin is buried in a step pyramid in Moscow, just as people at that time imagined the Pyramids of Egypt were tombs for the Pharoahs, who were gods within the Egyptian state religion. It is not insignificant that Lenin was also mummified and preserved against decay, like an Egyptian king. But there is more to this. Communists from around the world make pilgrimages to Lenin’s tomb. Such pilgrimages are typical of a RELIGION.
Voegelin wrote, “Speaking about political religions and construing the movements of our times not only as political but also as religious movements is not accepted as a matter of course yet, even though the factual situation would force the attentive observer to take this stand. The reason for the prevailing resistance can be found in the linguistic symbolism that has become established in the past few centuries since the dissolution of Western imperial unity and the growth of modern states. When one speaks of religion, one thinks of the institution of the Church, and when one speaks of politics, one thinks of the state. These organizations confront one another as clear-cut, firm entities, and the spirit with which these two bodies are imbued is not one and the same. The state and secular spirit conquered their spheres of power in the fierce battle against the Holy Empire of the Middle Ages, and in the course of this struggle linguistic symbols developed, which do not reflect reality as such but seek to capture and defend the opposite positions of the struggle.
“The concepts of religion and politics followed the institutions and their symbols: They entered onto the battlefield and placed themselves under the authority of the linguistic symbols used in the struggle. For this reason, cognition today still involves the contrasts formed under the pressure of their conceptual instruments., although a critical look might reveal merely different examples of the effectiveness of closely related fundamental human forces. The currently prevalent concepts of religion and state in general European usage as well as in more limited scientific usage are oriented along certain models whose significance can be traced back to the intellectual struggles waged in Europe. By religion one understands such phenomena as Christianity and other great redemptive religions; by state one means the political organizations of the type of modern nation-state. For an adequate understanding of political religions, the concept of the religious must, therefore, be extended to include not only the redemptive religions but also all other phenomena accompanying the development of states, which we believe to be of a religious nature. Moreover, we must inquire whether the concept of the state really is limited to secular-human organizational relationships that do not have any relation to the sphere of religion.”
This last point of Voegelin’s is decisive. States first emerged with full religious functions. Early kings were, almost always, priest-kings. Not only were Egyptian rulers deified, but Roman Emperors were also deified. There was no separation of Church and State. The body of the people in tribes and nations were conceived of in religious terms. Only during the modern period do we find this idea of the state as something separate from religion. Voegelin wrote, “The standard definition [of the state as purely secular], however, lets us down, and we can only grope our way forward by looking at the historical sources from which the assertion sprang forth. It was Hegel who advanced the thesis that the people in their role as the state were the spirit in its immediate reality and, consequently, the absolute power on earth. Its powerful mind does not stumble over trifles, and it draws the consequences firmly. If the state is absolute power, then it cannot have any internal barriers. For this reason, it would incorporate the mechanical aspects of order and service, complete obedience and dismissal of individual opinions and reasoning, absence of one’s own spirit and, at the same time, an intensive presence of the spirit that blossoms within the state.”
Voegelin therefore concludes that “the spirit that has become the state … invented the mechanical means of killing in order to transform the personal form of courage into the impersonal form: the intention to kill is directed against an abstract enemy, not against an actual person.”
The process by which totalitarian states emerge is the same process, symbolically within the soul and spirit of man, as the process by which certain symbols are used to form a religion with the “people” or their “vanguard” which takes up the role of God, pronouncing absolute judgment on all matters and holding the power of life and death. Here we see what was divinely ordained in previous religions being given to man, who now becomes God (in full effect).
Voegelin further explains, “Now we feel more distinctly what is at stake. The issue is not the correctness of a definition; the issue is a matter of life and death. And even more so, the issue is the question as to whether man may exist personally or has to blend into a suprapersonal realissimum.”
Here we see that nonhuman spiritual structures confront one another, and man is transformed “into a machine component that runs along mechanically in the gearbox, abstractly fighting and killing toward the outside. Anyone who recognizes the state will no longer hold that the state’s power is original or absolute; rather, this is the dogma of a believer. In the believer’s realm of experience, the existence of man loses its reality. Instead the state takes over reality and makes itself into the only true reality, from which a stream of reality is allowed to flow back to the people, providing them with new stimulus in their role as parts of the suprahuman reality. We are caught in the innermost heart of a religious experience, and our words describe a mystical process.”
Voegelin’s summary is masterful, and very difficult to argue against. You certainly do not possess the philosophic or historical learning to make a proper counter-argument. So let us end this argument here.
I earlier referred to Whittaker Chambers, who said that “Communism is man’s second oldest religion,” and you denied that this was meant literally. So I made an important point about metaphor and you even attacked this point. I think you simply argue to be obstinate, and that is your business. But you are the loser thereby. Understanding things is better than repeatedly turning up your nose up at pearls of wisdom. Please do not make me think that I have thrown my pearls to a swine. So I have brought out Voegelin, who is a master of the facts and of their meaning. What I present you are, indeed, pearls. Chambers wrote one of the most brilliant books ever written about Communism. Voegelin is a political philosopher of exceptional ability. You may disagree with these great enemies of communism, but you cannot call them “defenders of the status of communism.” They were doing nothing of the kind.
Please be more open-minded to writers who certainly command my respect. Or are my views so contemptible, and my sources so unacceptable, that you must constantly correct me, and scold me, and teach me?
It seems that I must be very stupid in your eyes that you would lecture me so.
QUOTE:
Please be more open-minded to writers who certainly command my respect. Or are my views so contemptible, and my sources so unacceptable, that you must constantly correct me, and scold me, and teach me?
It seems that I must be very stupid in your eyes that you would lecture me so.
ANSWER:
Mr. Nyquist, this has not been nor ever it crossed the mind of this person ever that you would be this way, you are very intellectually gifted person and a very smart person.
But to be open minded about something that is fundamental and cannot be accepted in any other way but that it is not religion, as communism is not, because communists themselves, no matter what they believe it is, they don’t even use the term religion, and in its essence what a thing is, communism doesn’t fulfill it, that is not possible to compromise on – and the quote from their own Manual of Psychological warfare shows that they don’t believe that a there is such a thing as human soul – but the faculties of the soul, to distinguish or be able to distinguish between right and wrong, that is the essential quality of the human soul, and that comes from God – so then when the communists deny that God is and that human soul exists, how can their belief, their ideology be called religion ?
That is impossible.
In the sense of the Natural Law, of course they posses the human soul, but their ideology is not allowing their belief to reach the supernatural height of God nor they allow themselves to accept that they have a human soul, they call human beings animals, and thus their own belief is insufficient to be called a religion – precisely because of these serious deficiencies in their own definitions and ideology.
The rest has been explained.
And one more thing – this person is not correcting you constantly, that is absolutely incorrect presumption, but the posts to your posts are ONLY additional thoughts on the same subject, to add to what you had already explained etc. – and if there is a disagreement, which is rare, it is NEVER meant to derogate from your intellect or abilities etc., but to solely and only voice that disagreement.
This should suffice for explanation.
Is Islam a religion in your opinion? Is Buddhism? Mormonism? Just trying to understand your definition of the word.
Yes R.O., this is an important fine point. Free speech, in the American context, refers to limits place on the Government to limit speech. Society spontaneously punishes people who say things that are unpopular. All cultures are cancel cultures because all cultures have rules where you are either an insider or an outsider. This touches on another distinction. The friend/enemy distinction and its relation to culture.
Somebody once said that the prohibition of communism used to be in the US Code….even quoted the number.
Yes I believe you are correct. Also, in older editions of the AP style guide, a book relied upon by journalists, it was advised against calling a person a Communist because the libel/slander laws used to say that was grounds for a lawsuit.
General Sejna spoke about Soviet long-term plan to infiltrate the press etc., so this point you presented Ma’am is not surprising at all.
We have laws against murder, theft, rape. Being part of a religion doesn’t magically make you immune to these laws.
We also have laws against making violent threats to someone. The inciting violence against someone is in murkier legal territory, and it is here that the Communists live. They exploit it to its full potential. It is a double edged sword because any restrictions that the Right could use here could also be used against them. I personally believe the stronger move would be to make a larger, sociopolitical case that certain movements are too dangerous to be allowed to own and operate large propaganda stations, and enforce that through the use of broad boycotts. The Communists are shrewd in their incitement. Any legal force punishing them for it could inevitably be turned, which is why I advocate the civil organization approach. But it is a thorny issue.
Jean, I checked with Grok. Here is its reply. “I can confirm that Trevor Loudon has not been documented as a guest on The Charlie Kirk Show based on current records. However, Charlie Kirk and Trevor Loudon have both been associated with similar conservative circles, and Loudon has been a guest on other shows connected to Turning Point USA, which Kirk founded. For example, Loudon appeared on The Jenna Ellis Show, a Turning Point USA program, on October 31, 2023, discussing topics like communism in America.
Having said that, i am well aware that Charlie’s position on Ukraine did not align with ours, but that doesn’t make him Putin’s or Russia’s man. Charlie was most concerned in turning young people away from the far left (Marxist) movement in our country. This was a very important mission. Ukraine was never a major topic of his agenda. Turning people to Christ was his #1 hope. I would venture he played a role deepening Mr. Trump’s faith as well. Charlie was a missionary for our founders, our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and most of all, restoring a biblical worldview ((Judaeo Christian principles))on our Marxist college campuses.
My biggest issue with Charlie was his lack of discernment. A biblically based Christian should be fairly good at this and knowing a person by their fruits. He recently doubled down on Carlson. He could not see the disingenuous intentions of Carlson, nor would he call out his own. He was a homer, he simply could not criticize his own party, unless it was not someone Trump liked. He ran in circles of the far left and right. I recently listened to a sermon right after his death, an evangelical Charlie was close with. This preacher did say Charlie would text him for guidance on issues, namely Isreal. It is clear to me Charlie had tremendous pressure on him, he was at times conflicted and would ask for elder guidance. Some things should have been clear, like standing up for Greenwald…that isn’t even close. Charlie had more resources for vetting and biblical illiteracy than anyone on this blog. Yet he struggled. Telling youngsters all about family values and Christ and then standing up for a gay man who posted degeneracy on X, I believe on purpose, is hard to believe. Kids pick up on hypocritical things before anyone else and then they wonder how this can go together. He would know all about Greenwald, but the politics comes first. Do as Tucker says. TPUSA is headed for disaster when all masks are off. I watched a recent event where all the youngsters are applauding any and all things isolationism as America first. Charlie then relays this to Trump, what the youth are concerned about. Since when do youth drive foreign policy when they haven’t even settled into who they are yet? Carlsons son works for Vance, Trump jr was also close to all of the above. It is troubling. He only started addressing disaffected youth who took issue with the current state of America, as far as the economic disaster looming and the feeling that they have been robbed of a future. The blame of boomers. The blame of Rhinos. Plutocracy. Jews. Not understanding of true conservative principles that could have been better explained to youth who need guidance. But, he was pulled in directions. Funding was needed. Charlie had some difficulty understanding struggle. He has never wanted for anything and often kids faced a bully situation where he was always applauded and they felt marginalized for bringing up valid economic concerns….sometimes. You can’t get them back by doing that by being a homer and not acknowledging what has happened in this country. I think it would be almost impossible to join politics and born again Christianity and not have conflict to juggle. I empathize. Men didn’t need character in politics of the right. He also had friends in the Christian Nationalist sector pulling on him. Some of those guys are post constitutional and rabid. He was pulled on and maybe had no time for further study. Brilliant speaker and charismatic. Great on values. Brilliant debates in defense of traditional family and statistics. If even 10 people came to Christ bc of Charlie, it is the biggest accomplishment he ever had, I believe this for anyone. Although in the end we are just vessels. We can say, well if he had more time….but do we have more time? Erika is continuing the same. The bible says God is the beginning of truth and knowledge. That is where discernment comes from. The Truth giver. Knowledge giver.
Side note…Tucker was a total psychopath at the memorial. It is a shock to me any Christian can not see the enemy within and not feel the presence of deception from him in person. I could see it at Fox. He reformed Marxists in the image of fraudulent conservatives. They say they name of Christ, and watered down Christians embraced their own demise. Much like the left.
Jeane: You make a very important points which have been on my mind in recent years. I have watched Christians fall prey to communist deceptions, All these celebrities are looking for money, asking for money. That is the most important part of their presentation, it seems. Knowledge and careful thought is less and less valued. Perhaps turning of Christianity into a business model is inherently evil. Maybe a project is blasphemous in the sense that the participant’s eyes and ears are shut against the truth even as they are looking towards the bottom line. It has always troubled me.
It’s very possible Charlie was not a true Christian. There are many professing Christians who are not true, born-again Christians. They fool many people, but are merely trying to rake in all the money they can. Wolves in sheep’s clothing. I’ve seen it even in plain old “pastors”. They know many principles from Scripture, and how to apply them, but they don’t know the Lord. Or, to put it more in His Words: He “never knew” them. Clever grifters.
I’m not saying Kirk was necessarily one of these. I was aware of him, but didn’t keep up with him.
But, its not hard to preach:”Get married, have kids, there are only two genders, abortion is wrong.”
Many know this and it will resonate with them. And apparently, make you money. Just as it has with Trump, along with “we must get control of our borders and have law and order.”
Mostly, he has for years made me unsettled. Fraud always came to mind. But, the right is now black and white. No nuance can be tolerated. Extremes are the choices.
You are right, that a true Christian with the Spirit of Christ (Holy Spirit) dwelling in them, and who were plugged into the Bible, should have picked up on the vileness of Tucker Carlson. This (among other things) makes me have doubts about him.
Not keeping up with him, I also didn’t realize the types of people he got behind that Ricardo Galvin pointed out. Major red flags on his “authentic Christianity”.
One thing I was aware of is how he had “dissed” Ukraine. This was a red flag in my mind.
I mean, Scripture plainly says:
Pro 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
I don’t think Kirk was that Biblically literate.
Easy to find verses on the big topics you can champion and build a “fan/customer base” on.
Knew bout Yarvin, wasn’t not surprised given his relationships. Tucker had Yarvin on prior to ever leaving Fox.
I agree. Charlie did not see Ukraine accurately.
I must admit, when I first saw advertising brochures for Turning Point USA I was repulsed.
“I must admit, when I first saw advertising brochures for Turning Point USA I was repulsed.”
Why?
The brochures were very slick, and communicated a promise I did not think could be real. So I thought, perhaps incorrectly, it was another one of those commercialized causes that simply raise a lot of money.
The craziness of the left has set such a low bar, that anyone affirming a belief that was commonly held 1-2 decades ago is hailed as a conservative hero. JK Rowling came close to that just by speaking out against transgenderism (while still supporting gay rights). That’s the milieu in which Kirk became a star, it didn’t require any deep knowledge or insight, just passion and charisma, and of course a top notch business model.
As Jeanne noted, his choice of friends and some of the guests he had on his show (yeesh, Yarvin?) reveal disturbing undercurrent beneath the all-American boy persona. It seems likely that he was not heading in a good direction.
You’re right.
I always thought it was insane how Rowling was an instant hero to conservatives for saying there are only two genders, and simultaneously -as you said- supporting “gay rights.”
The pattern is mind-boggling.
In a sense it is always heroic to say something you could be ruined for saying. You could lose your money, your house, your friends. Your plight could lead to legal disasters, even death as we see in the case of Charlie Kirk. Someone has to dare to say the truth. That person can get destroyed. So it is not such an easy thing when you have celebrity status and a great deal to lose.
You’re right in that regard. But, I was talking about how the “conservative” side then swoons over these people as champions for conservative values, just because they’ll come out and make one common sense statement, while still supporting many things that are detrimental to the nation.
It’s gotta be pretty wild to be quite literally shot for being an outspoken Christian conservative and have people after your death deny that you even believed your faith at all.
Great points.
Are you sure Kirk had more “Biblical literacy” than anyone on this blog?
Charlie was only 31 when he was murdered. I’m an old man now, old enough to remember the spy towers in the fields of Bulgaria for the police to spy on the villagers, old enough to remember the reports of people dying on the barbed wire in Berlin, old enough to meet a German Lutheran pastor with a number tattooed on his arm, a number he got because he was a Lutheran pastor even though he was not Jewish, old enough to have been skeptical when the report claimed the “fall of communism and the Soviet Union”, and more. But when I look back at when I was 31, there was so much that I didn’t understand then that I know now. And how much I was being influenced by people who I considered older and wiser than myself, influences that I now reject. And how much foolishness I did. I had already rejected the eschatology of Hal Lindsey and his crew because I had already read the whole Bible.
Charlie Kirk was only 31. How much could he have matured had he lived longer?
One thing that bothers me more and more, is the shallowness of so much “Christian” thinking. People don’t read the Bible, not even in translation. They are pulled to and fro by teachings of men. They accept how to read the Bible, instead of reading it for themselves. They are easily fooled. That makes it easy for communist moles to infiltrate churches to corrupt their teachings. To my distress, that includes many who should know better, including professors at universities and seminaries. For a really deep study of the Bible, a knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and koiné Greek is indispensable, a knowledge I find lacking almost everywhere I go.
Charlie Kirk was only 31. It’s amazing how much he accomplished.
Yes. He was too young to know what he needed to know. And there is a lot of shallowness out there.
He said many times regarding gay conservatives that he disagreed with their lifestyle from a Christian perspective, but that he welcomed them to the political movement because politics is about addition and multiplication. Should Trump have rejected all gay conservatives and lost his re-election because he wanted to make a moral Christian stand? By your logic, anyone who deviated in any way whatsoever from Christian orthodoxy was automatically ineligible for engagement and support from Charlie Kirk. This is a common Groyper argument, from those who “claim” to attack Charlie from the right. The Groypers would also attack Charlie over his support of Israel, who you also conveniently mentioned.
If the United States is facing the prospect of falling under global totalitarian Commu-Fascism, should those against it refuse to work with potential allies because they don’t share religious beliefs? Your position is quite clear.
Charlie Kirk and his pastor were in s. Korea, three days before his assassination, visiting churches, and an organization called Build Korea Up.
The current S. Korean government has turned and is siding with China. The people support America. Many are Christians. The government is going after them. The pastor of the largest church in Pusan was arrested on the day of Charlie’s death. This pastor was standing up to the Communists govt. in S. Korea. A major issue is this: Currently, Chinese can enter S. Korea without a visa. Charlie believes in religious freedom and hates Communists. He may not know as much as you about their methods, but he was a godly intelligent man with wisdom beyond his years who died for his patriotism and his faith.
Thank you for supporting a Godly man and not turning on him as so many others have done. A prophet truly has no honor in his own country.
Watched about 3 minutes of the Kirk interview with Yarvin….it is not good.
He fits the profile of what has been said about him, he’s making up new terms which then Mr. Kirk has to ask about, who is who etc. and he resembles one of those over-verbose liberal influencers with very complicated way of promoting his ideas etc. – if they are his.
He admitted that he was part of a deep state family – does it mean a communist subversive family ? the term Deep State is a front term for communist operatives, to run their cover.
So far the video makes the impression that something is seriously wrong there – only 3 minutes into it !
Yarvin is a perfect specimen the KGB would use, it is that simple to detect. he fluctuates and makes the statements as an established facts that cannot be changed, categorical in a way, but uncertain in another. God help us !
Asked the AI:
QUESTION – are there laws prohibiting communism in the US Code ?
ANSWER:
The current legal status regarding communism in the United States is shaped by historical laws that remain on the books, although their enforcement is rare. Here are the key points:
Current Laws on Communism
Communist Control Act of 1954: This act explicitly bans the Communist Party in the U.S., declaring it an “instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow” the government. While it remains part of the U.S. Code, it has rarely been enforced, and many of its provisions have been repealed or are considered outdated.
Smith Act of 1940: This law criminalizes advocating the violent overthrow of the government. It has been used historically against members of the Communist Party but is not actively enforced against them today.
Crucial Communism Teaching Act: Recently passed by the House of Representatives in December 2024, this act aims to educate students about the dangers of communism and totalitarianism. It reflects ongoing concerns about communist influence, particularly in educational settings.
General Sentiment: There is a growing concern among some lawmakers about the perceived rise of pro-communist sentiments, especially among younger generations. This has led to legislative efforts aimed at countering such influences in schools and public discourse.
Enforcement and Practical Implications
Limited Enforcement: Although the Communist Control Act is still technically in effect, it is not actively enforced against the Communist Party or its members. The political climate has shifted, and the focus has moved away from outright bans to educational initiatives.
Political Context: The discussion around communism in the U.S. is often tied to broader political debates, including concerns about foreign influence, particularly from countries like China. This has led to calls for stricter regulations on educational materials and foreign entities operating within the U.S.
Public Perception: Recent surveys indicate that a significant portion of younger Americans view communism more favorably than older generations, prompting legislative responses aimed at addressing this shift in perception.
In summary, while there are laws that prohibit communism in the U.S., their practical enforcement is minimal, and the focus has shifted towards education and awareness rather than outright prohibition.
——
In much simpler terms – this means nothing less than disaster at the end ! But no wonder, no wonder….people don’t love God and don’t love the truth and true justice and are willing to sell it or compromise on it when it becomes convenient and profitable etc….Russian communist subversion has open doors and welcoming arms in the western world, the evil fruits have been produced since decades ago already. Curtis Yarvin is not speaking about this so far in that video.
We can sit here and pick apart a murdered man’s actions or speaking literally until death. To what gain? Look at the totality of his work. Kirk’s point was to talk to people who disagreed with him. Here is a clip that I believe presents Kirk well.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kzp7pw8m6REdEDta-7IOTRuWNeddJAKz/view?usp=drivesdk
Lady, I can’t open any of the links to drive.google.
And another one evangelizing. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LAXN16egCjEcWLp3AJ94JDaTt_SZkgll/view?usp=drivesdk
One more on the Judaeo Christian roots of our founding documents. Very well done and concise. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vyO-_HPiwMTMg4zbCkFCjKHx5NrS3zuK/view?usp=drivesdk
With all due respect to Charlie’s detractors, are we really going to spend our time on Jeff’s very fine blog re-persecuting a murdered man? A man that had over 200,000 people attend and a 100 million more stream his memorial service? Isn’t that remarkable? We are all sinners here, and so was Charlie. He wasn’t perfect, but where were you at 18? Or 31? I just can’t stand to see such intelligent and interesting people on this blog get swept up in a flurry of speculations. Show me proof Kirk is for Putin and Russia, a grifter, a scam artist, and a fraudulent Christian. At this point, nothing posted here has been persuasive.
Good challenge.
So questioning Charlie Kirk’s authenticity is akin to re-persecuting the man? We’re not allowed to ask questions about the company he was keeping, we must only say good things about the dead? Going along with the prevailing conservative media narrative would make this blog like every other place on the internet. And besides, Charlie Kirk’s assassination is the biggest media story now. The raging war in Europe and Russia’s increasing aggression barely makes headlines anymore, so why not talk about Kirk and his organization.
See this video that GreyKnight posted above. Kirk practically railroads a young conservative man who questioned whether gays like Peter Thiel, Tammy Bruce etc. really belong in the conservative movement. “What are you trying to conserve?” Kirk says that excluding (big money donors) from the movement because of their personal life choices is on the slippery slope to advocating for theocracy. But at the beginning he dismisses the slippery slope argument when asked why a drag queen performed at a conservative political event that Kirk had attended. He also argues for Christian inclusivity, but by his own admission it’s not like he’s “keeping the lines of communication open” with people like Thiel in order to convert them, he’s doing that to get their money. “Life choices” … “you’re not really a Trump supporter” – very disingenuous arguments by Kirk.
https://youtu.be/FJmcqjP8mhk?feature=shared
It was a very telling dialogue to me.
He asked the young man what business was it of his what those folks do in their private lives. Very contradictory. Very telling.
And the young man very clearly made the point that they were *openly* living perverse lifestyles, contrary to the Biblical standard.
Or the “conservative standard” for that matter.
That’s a good catch. The man was asking why the conservative movement was publicly promoting and approving of homosexual lifestyles, and Kirk turned it around and made it about the right to privacy (ie. you can do what you want in your bedroom).
That is the evidence of his denial of the Divine Law, which forbids sodomy, and Sodom and Gomorrah were both burned by God because of their homosexual perversion….so Mr. Kirk was an evident heretic this way – no, it is NOT a private matter, because by allowing such evil perversion to exist in the country, any country, God’s wrath will come to them.
Good points.
Laura, I just listened to the video. My take on it was that Kirk differentiated between love for America and his personal religious views on marriage. He believes gays can love America and be welcomed into the conservative movement, but they can’t be married in a Christian church. Love the sinner, not the sin.
As far as the first part of your comment, I have no problem asking questions about Charlie Kirk or TPUSA. I would like more facts, less conjecture. Some of the premises of the commenters are based on scant evidence. There is so much misinformation circulating about Charlie Kirk. It’s sad.
I agree with your take on this, Lady
Lady, they are antithetical to conservatism.
You are right that he did some good things, as well in many of his debates, even if we aren’t sure of all the motives.
But just as the church is not to tolerate members living in open sin, as it is a stain on the church, neither should the “conservative movement” accept open sexual deviants.
*stains, weakens, and promotes corruption in the church, I should have said.
These points are true, Greyknight, but a political party is not the same as the church. How could you even screen people for being homosexuals? Implementing procedures would violate their civil rights and the bill of rights.
In Jeff’s essay, he raises an excellent point about how “Americans disagree on fundamentals, on basic beliefs.” We have in our culture too many Muslims who don’t share our regard for the Constitution. Again, like Jeff said, our founders might have written the First Amendment, heck the entire Constitution differently, if all these Muslims lived here then. So, what to do about that?? Do we bar them from joining a political party? Do we test to qualify only those who believe in our founding documents and vision of our country? But if they check the wrong religion and sexual orientation, we say ‘sorry’? I don’t think it’s possible, much less legal. You are going to create a stronger enemy if you try.
Charlie did remind people that nearly all the original state Constitutions did have religious tests for state office holders. If we returned to that principle, it would be challenged in court, but that is one possible standard.
This is why it is important to show up to the meetings and really get to know your members. Check them out before giving membership, but I don’t think you can discriminate on sexual orientation.
I’ve been mulling over the entire issue of conservative voices being silenced on all the major networks and media for the past 15 years. Especially since the Jimmy Kimmel rehire. Not only that, voices like Jeff are not promoted by conservatives. This is a far bigger issue than who can be a conservative. Kimmel hasn’t had a conservative guest on his show in 5 or six years. He is a hypocrite to complain about censorship. The networks have been doing Putin’s job, alienating people, stirring hatred, and completely banning conservative voices.
Since Charlie’s death, I have heard the words marxists and Communists used more by journalists and influencers. That’s a good thing. ANTI COMMUNISTS were not always welcome in club meetings, but people might be more receptive. We have to avoid the tendency to come across as paranoid and suspicious.We do have to become more visible, more vocal, and more numerous especially in calling out the “alt right who are the Left in disguise”. If more people understood the dangers of communism, they would realize that breaking down the family and encouraging homosexuality has been a communist strategy for 60 to 70 years. The exposure of communist infiltration methods will wise people up. This might even help some homosexuals realize they have been played in a scheme to ruin our country.
I think you and R.O. are missing my point entirely.
The verses I referenced, I said the *principle* applies to the conservative movement as well.
And I also said that sexual deviants should not be allowed to have leadership roles or be influential donors -in other words, don’t accept money from people like Peter Thiel.
And I would certainly bar Muslims from even entering the country, unless they would swear off Islam, and swear allegiance to America.
No, im not saying you can bar sexual deviants from joining the movement. But if there was any moral clarity or guts, no large sums of money would be accepted from them, and they would not be given leadership positions
We don’t even have to look at this from a Christian point of view.
Nature and the history of civilization itself teach us that homosexuality is not natural, and when it is embraced it is a blight on the civilization that accepts it.
Sure, so you’re saying the conservative movement should lose politically then, because that is what would occur. That’s fine to have as a position, just be honest about it then.
Well, if Conservatives have to abandon what makes them Conservative to win, then who is winning, and what are they winning?
Geez!
You have a valid point, but you are carrying the logic to the extreme end.. Do you believe that we might with enough guard rails and a biblical worldview be able to accomplish conservative goals with some non Christians and homosexuals in the movement? Look at Rick Grinnell. Didn’t he do a good job for Mr. Trump? If we ever become a one party country, you and I, Greyknight, we will be treated as slaves… along with all our buddies on this blog. Remember Reagan’s quotes on freedom.
Lady, you know i respect you, so please dont think I’m angrily arguing with you.
I ask, though, am I carrying logic to an extreme end by saying that we should not give people who by their very lifestyle are not conservatives, positions within conservatism? Should we accept money from them?
And ive said it several times, but you know I’m referring to openly practicing homosexuals. Aren’t we trying to conserve basic morality for future generations?
If we compromise with the Peter Thiels and such, then we are no longer conserving basic morality.
I remember the boy scout manuals growing up teaching us to be morally straight. I think I remember my grandfather’s old Bluejacket Manual teaching young sailors to be morally straight.
So, whatever Grenell’s other qualifications, he is not morally straight. So, no, he did not do a good job representing America, because he represents a depraved lifestyle, or is sodomy now considered morally straight? Promoting him to the ambassadorship was a poor decision.
Greyknight, I see your point. Yes, taking large donations COULD influence a corrupt person to bend the mission away from its original intent. It happens ALL the time. I read a book about this called Mission Drift. But the money does NOT control a person anymore than does a gun. The organization has to have strong bylaws that prevent a mission from being perverted. From Harvard to the YMCA, mission drift has been a very serious issue. But it is not the money. It’s the lack of strong leadership combined with weak organizational guardrails. So, yes, if Charlie accepted large donations from those with a different ideology, he would just say thank you. Sorry, what you’re asking is outside of our mission. If you still want to contribute, fine, but we don’t bend our mission. I don’t think he could do anything on his own. TPUSA was a robust organization, although it didn’t become profitable until about 3 years ago.
Every non-profit has a mission to uphold. His board holds him accountable. He has a COO and a financial procedure for handling donations to keep everything above board. I know it could happen, but I don’t know enough about TPUSA to say. My husband checked their 990s on Guidestar. That’s my two cents.
Well, in the course of things, I wasn’t so much thinking of Kirk anymore, as I was the entire Conservative movement. I dont know if Kirk took any money from Thiel. But we both know large amounts influence the recipients, no matter what. That’s why God in more than one place commands that judges not take “gifts”. One can’t help but be partial to those who give them.
Just my two cents as well, lol. I’m glad I’m not in that situation.
I will say, that I’ve been able to resist people offering large amounts of money to me. I had a guy call me a couple years ago, who manages property for some billionaires. They own a very large farm in the general area. He told me I had been highly recommended as someone he could trust to do some work on their camphouse at the farm.
I told him I’d put them on my list. He said, “son, you don’t understand. These are billionaires, with a ‘b’”, and they won’t it done very soon ” I told him I heard him clearly, and I had a list to go by, and they would have to wait. He implied that they would pay me more, and there would be more work. I told him, i couldn’t put them ahead of other people for that.
I’ve had other people call and say they would pay me two and even three times more than what I charge if I would drop what I’m doing and come do projects for them. I always decline.
This is how a person in Kirk’s, or whoever else’s shoes must be. You are not obligated to take money from someone just because they want to give it to you. And in such a position, it’s imperative to ve careful who you do take donations from, and have those safeguards in place that you mentioned for the ones you do take it from.
Because it does influence a person if they take large sums from someone with an agenda to influence them.
Completely agree with you!
PS: this is a great discussion.
It is always worrying, from my perspective, when so many political operatives say things that they do not mean, or take positions because of donors. The communists are always infiltrating, and trying to get people to shift their message if it is hurting the communist movement. Sometimes the changes can be subtle, hardly noticeable at first. Later on you find your favorite conservatives making trips to Moscow or Beijing and you scratch your head. I have seen it over and over again. My disappointment has been ongoing for decades.
Christians are suppose to influence the culture, I think he is saying. Not every leader will be a David. Look no further than the Old Testament what happens when a culture degrades into pagan behaviors. Government becomes authoritarian just to restrain behavior. Archeology in Egypt reveals Yaweah Nomads were there. They influenced that culture. The bible doesn’t just refer to homosexual behavior as sin, it calls it an abomination. Not every sin is referred to that way. The greatest generation would have shamed someone like Glenn Greenwald into the dustbin of history. Now, CPAC and TPUSA will put men of poor character on display as they blaspheme Christ. Using His name as a Trojan horse. You can’t know what someone does behind closed doors, but God finds them out. The church has rotted. De Tocqueville said it best regarding American greatness..our pulpits. It certainly helps if strong Christian men are in leadership roles for sure. At least Charlie was not a man who was proclaiming Chist and busted for debauchery behind closed doors. This has hurt Christianity, less so than watering down the bible and abortion
GreyKnight: I don’t think that we miss your point, moreso that we disagree with it. The conservative movement was already corrupted before we had a chance to join it. So do we join it and try to reform it, or do we go off into a corner and suck our thumbs, mourning that it is hopelessly corrupt?
Homosexuality is not the only problem. But it is one that is widely practiced in what is a generally corrupt society. For example, I have heard for years that Russia is a sexually promiscuous country, which is just as bad as homosexuality. Russia is also very corrupt in many other areas. Corruption destroys. It is the reason that the 2022 three day blitzkrieg didn’t succeed. It is the reason that Russia’s economy is in such bad shape. Ukraine’s recent drone strikes only made it worse.
Russia is not the only example. Boy rape is common is Muslim societies, and so is corruption. Muslim corruption is a major reason why Israel won its war of independence in 1948.
Nancy Pearcey writes in her books about the horrific sexual perversion that existed in Roman society as it crumbled. The downfall of Greece started centuries before Roman conquest with sexual perversion being widely practiced. One of the things that held the Japanese back before the Meiji Restoration was that people couldn’t trust each other, neither in business nor in sexual matters. China today is known as a zero trust country, everything is fake with its tofu dreg construction and crappy manufacturing, and sexual immorality. Look at our own country, after the Kinsey revolution. Sexual perversion spread rapidly, along with hollowing out our industrial base while importing millions of illegals to suppress wages, claiming to be conservatives while ignoring James 5:1-6. On a personal note, when Tim Cook, an open homosexual, was appointed head of Apple computer, I predicted that his tenure would have a negative influence, possibly even destroy the company. I personally have been a long-time Apple Mac user, but this response is written on a Windows computer because Apple no longer makes the computers that I want.
GreyKnight: the problem goes far beyond mere homosexuality. So how do you suggest that we proceed? John 17:14-21 Jesus desired that we not separate ourselves from the world, rather we go out and change it. So what practical steps do you recommend? Do we shun established political organizations because they include sexual deviants, or do we try to change them from within?
So, R.O., you give many examples that make my point, then say we should join with them?
You know that the Conservative movement did not have people openly living and promoting that debauchery as major donors and in influential positions before. So, “we” haven’t joined them. “We’ve” allowed them to gain influence within our ranks.
Do you think I’m unaware that there are many other problems?? This is the particular one we are discussing, because of the video in which Charlie Kirk attempted to railroad a guy who was pointing out what I just said.
Again, for the ???th time, (and you, of all people should know), I am not saying they can’t vote for Conservative candidates, etc.
Read closely…
We should not take large amounts of money from them, because that gives them influence in decision-making.
And they should not be given positions of leadership or authority in truly Conservative ranks.
Nowhere did I say we don’t engage.
Christ loved and ate with tax collectors and prostitutes. But he didn’t bring open usurers or prostitutes into His ministry.
Yes, we were to engage with the world. No, we are not to compromise with what we know is wrong.
Does it not say that in the Koine Greek?
The exchange in this clip reveals the now-“conservative martyr” to have engaged in similar rhetorical tactics as what the “Great J.D.” applied against Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office scandal of Feb. 28 this year. And everything that young man said here was the (whatever inconvenient) truth.
I warn every mourner in America of another case of propagandistic exploitation (as is already happening) of a “political martyr” reminiscent of what was so blatantly done 95 years ago and further on in Germany. There are already strong signs of a kind of “National Bolshevism” emerging in today’s MAGA movement. Don’t make this man into another Horst Wessel!
The difference being, as you know already, that Horst Wessel was killed in what amounted to gangland warfare with the communists. The National Socialists could gloss over that fact after they took power. Kirk, whatever his flaws, was publicly murdered on camera by a degenerate communist on video. It’s going to be pretty hard to memory-hole that one, IMHO, especially in this day and age.
I know there is no comparison in substance, but I am suspicious about what he is being made into posthumously and the way it’s being done.
This too is my main fear and suspicion. There’s no doubt that Kirk did some good things. But, i wonder to what end was the Trump administration clearly exploiting his death.
*And, I’m not letting him off the hook for the heinous things he did, such as accept wealthy donor or otherwise influential sodomites into the Conservative tent, railroading this young man, speaking harmful, ignorant words against Ukraine (how many young people did he influence against their cause? I had to steer a young relative of mine away from him because of that, as she eagerly absorbed his every word. That was how I started becoming aware of him), and his comrades comradeship with the likes of Carlson.
He was a mixed bag, and not the saint they are trying to make him out to be.
Some things really good. Sone thongs really bad.
But, to what end is his death being used for? Time will tell.
If MAGA is attempting to fuse a shallow, cherry-picked Christian principles onto the movement, that doesn’t forebode well to me.
One of the speakers called the memorial service an old fashioned revival service.
Hahaha. It was no such thing. There was no confession of national sins. No calls for repentance. Christ wasnt truly exalted and magnified, though his name was mentioned by some. Just a feel good time.
Maybe I was a bit too harsh here.
A great deal depends on the events that unfold next.
This is a very important point. This assassination changes everything in terms of national mood, and if crazy leftists do more assassinations the situation grows darker. As in Spain during 1936, people have a breaking point where they simply arm themselves into “columns.” Civilians with guns made the first year of the Spanish Civil War into a “war of columns.” And we have plenty of people who have armed themselves. Russia and China are elated at this possibility. A civil war in America would give them a free hand to destroy the West — invade Europe, blockade Japan, take Australia, etc.
It seems that MAGA is 20 percent “Bolshevik” per this definition, or maybe it is now 30 percent due to Kirk’s assassination. If it reaches 30 percent you can get something called “mass formation.” This is where a psychological crowd forms, as described by Gustave Le Bon. This crowd then uses intimidation to make everyone fall into line. We see this with the left, and we saw it during the pandemic where people were bullied and silenced. If independent voices are completely stifled on the right, we will have a MAGA Bolshevik mass formation and our worst nightmares will come true. JD Vance talked about smashing the left. He is a voice for Russia, for Dark Enlightenment and all the worst nonsense that the Russian agents want repeated. If his faction prevails through mass formation the U.S. will go in an unconstitutional direction. The country’s ideological split could then move toward civil war.
I watched the “railroading” video, and conclude that Kirk gave an incomplete answer. The young conservative essentially called for a theocracy, and that to be a conservative means only Christians. The young man was unwilling to accept that there are people who live immoral lifestyles, yet could be what could be called “incomplete conservatives”–supporting many conservative values while not living a conservative lifestyle. The young man argued that we should drum such “incomplete conservatives” out of the conservative movement.
Among Lutherans, they have developed a “two kingdoms” theory, that while the Bible teaches individual morality, in civil society there are times that we need to work with people who are not Christians. Francis Schaeffer, who founded the L’Abri ministry in Switzerland, taught that on certain issues, we need to work with those with whom we disagree from a Biblical viewpoint, calling them “fellow combatants”. To give an example, I found that I have to agree with lesbians who oppose the transsexual movement as they are being persecuted by transactivists who basically want to eliminate lesbianism and lesbians, while at the same time I despise lesbianism from a Biblical viewpoint. I would rather that lesbians turn to Jesus.
I think Charlie Kirk’s answer would have been stronger had he articulated the “two kingdoms” and “fellow combatants” teachings, rather than just shutting the young man down as “not being a conservative”.
R.O., no way was the young man calling for a theocracy. He was making the point that people living as open sodomites have no place in the “conservative” camp -and they don’t. They compromise it and have compromised it. As Jeff has said, “conservatives with nothing left to conserve”. Or, as the guy asked Charlie, “what are you conserving?”
Also, what the hell was he doing in Greenland, accompanying Don Jr.? Obviously he was not preaching to the Greenlanders, but supporting a U.S. annexation of the island.
Wow!! I didn’t know about that, CO. Not good.
There is still the possibility that he saw or overheard something that could have triggered the KGB Moscow breach of security alarm and perhaps somebody there, as they are all paranoid enough, decided not to take any more risks and retire him for good…
It wouldn’t be the first time KGB has done it. This is just an opinion, but the more one looks into it the worse it gets.
True.
I think he got caught up under the influence of wealthy and powerful people in the MAGA movement, and compromised in some ways/parroted their narratives in others (like Ukraine.) Very possible he saw or heard something that he just could not accept.
Meant that he may have heard Trump or anybody else to talk about something KGB classified and that Trump or anybody else found out about it, reported it to the Center and the Center decided not to take any more chances and send the “crew” to clean up to barn….which includes giving the OK to that ANTIFA sodomites to go ahead with it….and to his collaborators.
But that he denied to Law of God, that makes him a heretic, sodomy is a heresy and an abomination in front of God. You have no choice but to oppose it, always.
This was a shock to me as well, they all had slap happy smiles on their face. The result: America was embarrassed; Canadians were further repulsed by Trump, as well as Australia; and it played into the left tool box of American strong arming. When a military presence is what is needed. Nuance can’t be tolerated anymore. They didn’t even bother flying to Denmark. Lack of statesmanship and more like a jock basketball team of failed diplomacy.
Vance has the diplomacy of a stinky sock.
I have been suspicious of Vance since I read his book which I read before he ran for any office. I couldn’t get over how he wrote about his mother. It may be a flaw in myself, but regardless of her mistakes and bad behavior, to be exhibited for international dissection for a book sale and career advancement, I find revolting.
I understand they made the book into a move. Did anyone see it?
Kirk went on that ridiculous Greenland safari?
There’s much more to civic conservatism than just Biblical morality. The Bible doesn’t lay out a form of government. American conservatists want to conserve the U.S. Constitution, capitalism (not communist crony capitalism), rule of law, secure borders, justice among citizens, protection from enemy nations, I know I’m not listing all the issues that bind conservatists together, but none of what I listed are mentioned in the Bible. Yet there are many who are not Christians who support all of these. These are the things that Charlie conserved. He also was willing to work with non-Christian conservatists who want to conserve the same values. This is civic conservatism.
This is where the “two kingdoms” and “fellow combatants” comes into play: while we may never fully accept those who are not Christians as conservatists, we can still work with them on the issues with which we agree. Cutting ourselves off from them is like shooting ourselves in our feet.
I understand your point, but people who live against “conservative” values should never have been allowed to influence by money or position, the conservative cause.
They can vote however they like. They should not be allowed to lead it or have roles within it.
To me, shooting ourselves in the foot is allowing people against what we say we are trying to conserve to influence or have leadership within us.
The principle applies : A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
And again, the principle applies, “come out from among them and be ye seperate.”
Two kingdoms, to me, is akin to a “house divided.”
And you can’t build a house on the shifting sands of whatever vice and deviancy the majority is willing to accept.
Interesting the shooter came from a 2 parent family, half the battle in Charlie’s world. The shooter didn’t want for anything. But then parents have to send a kid to public school to make ends meet mostly. I feel Mormons are a cult, I spend a lot of time in Utah. Has nothing to offer. This guy was disaffected. His conservative home did not overcome the world of radicalization. His mother praised him. He was a gamer. He learned ideas at school. He met the other influences. I am sure he had access to a cell phone early in life. He wasn’t challenged. Another male white shooter picked off. He never knew real suffering or selfless service. Friends said he was disillusioned about our 2, but 1 party system. 2 parents are not enough. And Trump wants more Chinese students and all the rest already commented on. Kirk would have been ok with that. Kirk relied to heavily on a person to save America, rather than repentance.
The communists are coming for us all.
Here is a Newsweek article of January 7, 2025:
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jr-greenland-charlie-kirk-sergio-gor-2011017
Of course. Vance and Kirk were close. It makes sense, though it is senseless.
I have a theory that Vance was grooming Charlie Kirk to be his VP in 2028.
It is possible.
I know almost nothing about Charlie Kirk as a person, most of what I have learned has been after he was murdered. I had seen a couple of videos of his campus debates, which impressed me. When I learned that Charlie Kirk was tight in with upper echelons of the Republican Party, that was a red flag for me–how much did he water down Biblical teachings to push the Republican Party?
For me, the most important issue is what does the Bible say about God and Jesus? Along with that what does the Bible say about the universe? Society? How to deal with other people? How to deal with non-Christians? Well down the list is civic conservatism. Well behind that is the Republican Party with its many RINOs. I see no difference between the Bible and the definition of science I was taught in the university (the definition of science has since been changed). The failures of society are described and warned against in the Bible. Do I need to say more?
I think Charlie Kirk was correct to work with non-Christian conservatives on common issues. I just hope he held them at arm’s length so as not to become contaminated.
Unfortunately, the civic conservative movement is not in and of itself a Christian movement. That’s a problem. How do we make our Christian values, which are the true conservative values, prevail in such an environment? Especially, according to the Barna surveys, we are a minority in society and in the conservative movement? (The Barna surveys reveal that only a minority of those who claim to be Christian, actually know what is Christianity and Christian belief, let alone actually practice it.) Do you have an answer that doesn’t involve working with non-Christians?
Love.
R.O., see my reply to LadyfromLibertyGarage. I’m on lunch and have little time.
This is a point touching on Christian culture versus a secular and therefore “inclusive” political movement. Is MAGA a strictly Christian movement? I think not. Is Trump a Christian? I think not. Do you allow a drag queen, fully outfitted, in the front pew of the Church? I think not. The idea is ludicrous, and such a church has lost its reason to exist. Do you have drag queens at a MAGA rallies or at events with Charlie Kirk? So this actually happened? Should we be surprised? Conservatives have conserved what, exactly? This takes us back to Nietzsche’s parable of the madman. The murderers do not realize Who their victim is.
Exactly. MAGA is not a Christian movement. I say it has hijacked some Christian elements.
Trump is certainly no Christian.
Conservatives have conserved nothing.
So I think we need to define terms. MAGA for starters I would say are people who voted for Trump. That would include a lot of Christians…are there poll numbers on this? Am I wrong?
It’s a slogan that became a movement, which Trump leads. Not sure if everyone who voted for Trump agrees with all of it.
First yall say we can’t treat a political group as the church (which is not what I was advocating for), and now MAGA can be a Christian movement?
Many Christians voted MAGA, because we had no choice. I did. You did. Many -probably most- Christians voted for z
Trump, because we thought he was the lesser of two evils.
That doesn’t make MAGA a Christian movement anymore than a lot of Christians who at first supported the Nazi movement made that national socialism a Christian movement.
I don’t think Charlie had anything to do with drag queens other than denounce them. Not to say, he could have been at an event where some were present.
Interesting point. Let’s think on it a moment. Anyone who calls for theocracy in America is calling for civil war. Right? You would have to overthrow the Constitution. How would that work? But even then most “Christians” would not support using police or military violence to impose Christianity on the rest of the population. Christ did not run around with an armed gang threatening people who did not believe in him. One thinks back to Cromwell and the Rump Parliament. The thing could not last and Cromwell’s death brought the monarchy back. Bonny King Charlie. The restoration period was against strict religious rules. A further upheaval under James II was in store. Catholic vs. Protestant was going to raise its ugly head. In terms of an American theocracy, which version of Christianity would be imposed by the state and how long before Catholics and Protestants would start fighting? Such a series of civil wars would discredit Christians and destroy faith even as it destroyed the nation. Hold onto the Constitution as long as you can. And pray for clear-sighted leaders.
Kirk also teamed up with Vivek Ramaswami. This of course doesn’t mean he indorsed hinduism. Similar thing with Theal. Although both could be considered bad calls.
Also, the ‘young conservative man’ was, according to the video description, in fact a ‘groyper’ (a group purported to be ‘led’ by Nick Fuentes).
I don’t believe there to be anything wrong with ‘White advocacy’ but prefer Jared Taylor over Fuentes. The latter called Kirk ‘irreplaceable’.
https://www.amren.com/podcasts/2025/09/the-irreplaceable-charlie-kirk/
correction: the former. ie Jared Taylor
He wrote “Paved with Good Intentions,” and has been to Moscow.
Fuentes is a sinister figure, as is E. Michael Jones. There is a totalitarian flirtation in these men, a mixing with Duginists and Islamists. Their Antisemitism is dressed in religious arguments. Notice how many people are suggesting Mossad assassinated Kirk. Look at who promotes this. I heard Douglas Macgregor imply it. Islamists have joined in. And pro-Palestinian leftists indulge in the same speculation. The usual suspects promote it….
Anti Jew hatred is the fulcrum that the Soviets are attempting to fuse the Right wings and Left wings of American Communism. At this point, unless I think they are deceived like Tucker and Candace, anyone on the Right who promotes this anti-Israel vitriol I just assume automatically has leftist or Russian intel ties. Fuentes in my opinion is 100% supported, either directly or indirectly, with either full or partial knowledge, by Soviet channels. Why did he receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from a French citizen who died shortly thereafter?
Fuentes does appear to be part of the Russian-controlled rightwing project.
I have a theory that these individuals supported by Russia are supported in both potentially talking points, but also video production. Fuentes has tons of “unaffiliated” channels on YouTube, slickly produced, with tens of thousands of views, attractive and appealing in their presentation. He is famous for having swarms of online “Groyper mobs” who will attack his enemies and yet he can barely pull any crowds in public. This is just a theory, but when it comes to underhanded Russian Communist subversion, we must venture into the realm of murky speculation sometimes.
Another data point is The Conservative Treehouse, who I used to read for a while. He demonstrated an amazing knowledge of the inner workings of DC, and intricate knowledge of obscure details of peoples and events regarding Russiagate, etc… Recently I noticed quite a pro-Russian tone on their blog, along with vague demonizing of “CIA/intel agencies/globalists”, and their new commenters would talk about Israel more. And then all of a sudden, the writer behind the Treehouse casually mentioned that they had just returned from Russia. I have a hunch that those the KGB supports on the Right, they support with talking points, research, online support / views, production etc.. all almost certainly laundered through various ideological fronts.
So many have been sucked in by the Russian disinformation and active measures. It is very disappointing. Did these people learn nothing from history? Do they know any history?
Kirk helped a lot of candidates.
I just watched this and it’s completely disingenuous and dishonest. The leftist Groyper says Kirk is “promoting the acceptance of lifestyles like homosexuality and transexuality” by merely allowing them to exist in the conservative political movement.
The point of this “question” is to drive a wedge between extremely Christian conservatives and more secular ones. Either force Charlie to the right to hold on to the Christian conservatives, and thus shave off his secular allies, or force him to the left, and attempt to alienate his Christian conservatives allies.
But the trick depends on accepting a false premise, which is that a political movement is somehow the same as a religious movement. I thought Charlie actually did a great job; he literally openly says he does not condone homosexuality and then in the same breath still welcomes them into the broader political movement. This is extremely nuanced, deft maneuvering in real-time in the face of a planned, cunning division attempt.
There is an order of priorities within political engineering. The Christian right fought for marriage definition, but once the fight was lost, the larger battle was about constitutional rights, a democratic republic, the rule of law. It is much more important to preserve the foundations of a democratic republic than to preserve the definition of marriage, and this is not even counting the obvious fact that if conservatives imposed strict Christian orthodoxy across their movement, they would lose politically, and lose BOTH battles. That’s the trap that this grimy little leftist Groyper is trying to set. And they know that Charlie will not compromise the coalition, so they are hoping at a minimum that they can shave off some hardcore Christian support here.
We have to be careful not to fall for agent provocateurs sent by the enemy into our camp, with clever arguments designed to divide and weaken.
I was pleasantly surprised, after reviewing a number of videos of Charlie Kirk, of some of his speeches and answers. I could not review his entire career, but I realized he was more intelligent and interesting than my initial impression assumed. And now, of course, there are those who are pointing out his flaws. This is what human beings do when processing significant events. We look at different sides of the person. I think the fact of his youth, and his non-academic focus, explain some of his mistakes. Pressure from older political celebrities, too. I do not have a good impression of Vice President Vance, who was a close friend of Kirk. Perhaps I am too harsh, but I judge from Vance’s treatment of Zelenskyy at the White House earlier this year, and the way Vance talks in some of his interviews. I would like to say good things about our leaders, but I honestly find it difficult just now. Trump and Vance worry me. Kirk was wrapped up in these people, and had become an important helper for them. Being assassinated at such a young age, he did not have the chance to become the full person he was going to be had he lived. His intelligence might have steered him to great things, or not, and we might wonder where he would have ended up. Providence spared him the trials that he would have suffered had he lived, for reasons we cannot fathom. There are ancient sayings about this, but I cannot think of them just now. There is Providence in the fall of a sparrow. So there was Providence in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. What that means, I do not know; whether he was spared something worse or we were, or whether we were deprived of a better kind of future leader. I think of all those Russian politicians and journalists murdered by Putin. Why were these things allowed to happen? It rains on the just and the unjust alike, is one answer. This is the tragedy of a life cut short. Would he have come through to understanding what many people here understand? Or would he have disappointed us in the end? His intelligence was greater than Tucker Carlson’s. Men like this tend to go through important changes. I do respect a certain skepticism regarding celebrities of his type; of course, we have been subjected to a rash of charlatans. Is it fair to say his business was a “grift?” I don’t know enough to say that. Earlier comments here were quite fascinating to me. I am not sure the term “grift” or “grifter” should be applied to Charlie Kirk. But the person making those arguments knew a great deal and was clearly brilliant. Perhaps a more sympathetic historian would say that Kirk belonged to the post-literate age, the age of publicity, the age of politics as entertainment, and the age of social media. Was Kirk a kind of entertainer? That might be the case. Was he murdered because this form of entertainment dangerous? I think what he did was dangerous. Obviously, he death proves that it was. So then he was brave? I think that is a reasonable assumption. Was he a genuine conservative or Christian? Was he with the Dark Enlightenment people. I do not know enough about him, and that is why the discussion here has been so interesting. The complexities of a person, and the power of a person, is something to be respected. Who was Charlie Kirk? I do not think we should simplify him.
Crazy, I once asked him that. Who is Charlie Kirk?
Thank you for this measured and thoughtful analysis, in the face of what I would consider to be quite inflammatory accusations made against him earlier by some.
It is difficult to find the line between those true patriots who are fooled by the Russians, and the bad actors who are know what they are doing — who know they are working to help a foreign enemy. I don’t think Charlie Kirk was knowing working to help a foreign enemy. I think he falls into the category of someone who does not understand the issue.
I agree with that
This is a link to a very good article by general Zaluzhniy, published today, which contains analysis of what was and is going on in the Ukraine-Russia war and possible ways out.
https://zn.ua/eng/innovation-as-core-of-strategic-resilience-denying-russia-the-power-to-dictate-terms-through-war.html
I agree with the notion that the left has to do some sort of soul-searching and apologize for a lot of violence that has erupted in America. How many blacks have been killed thanks to the Communists hammering the message that the police would shoot them immediately if they stopped them? How many cops have been murdered thanks to this leftist discourse that instills despair into uninformed blacks? Many have noted that the BLM riots have harmed mostly blacks too, some who were not involved with this movement got killed and businesses owned by blacks got destroyed. This reminds me of your articles about alienation. This Ukrainian woman who was stabbed, can the left look a bit into themselves and admit the Critical Race Theory foments anti-white hatred with its virulent ideas that all whites are inherently racist and whatnot? The trans folk also get their own dose of mind venom that society hates them and so on, and they lash back at people who were labeled as transphobic. I’m not going to say the violence comes 100% of the left, but it sure looks like they have done most of the damage to divide and conquer, and pitch groups against each other in stark contrast to what Kirk was doing, debating and trying to find common ground.
You may not agree with many of his viewpoints but in a way trying to silence is the exactly what the Communists want, a constant state of conflict between those groups the left claims to represent, the blacks, women, gays, trans, et cetera, while leaving absolutely zero margin for any discussion and undo this division they so deeply desire to foster into many countries.
I have thought the agitation the communists have done in the black community has caused many deaths. Yes.
What is the name of that book that the former brown communist wrote, the one who went to USSR and then ran out of there and wrote about how all of it is the greatest lie and fraud ever, it was in 1920s or so, do you remember ?
He exposed the Russian fraud in a very excellent way, forgot his name and the title of the book.
Patterson was his name, posted the link to the audio/video and the info about him, he was very high up in the CPUSA and went to Moscow to be trained for the Black Revolution….
Soviet Bloc was training brown African terrorists, GRU was doing it in the Warsaw Pact countries…then they inserted them into the US as “illegals” to begin the work and sabotage and so on, recruitment also.
I was just listening to the audio of some of the first black Communists who went to Russia, one of them was a New York woman named Louise. It appears the directive from Stalin to focus on black America came down around 1928. From that point on the operation began to recruit pastors from the black churches, and to attempt to inspire a breakaway nation in the Black Belt. They abandoned this idea sometime around the 40s / 50s. But the early former black communists like Manning Johnson and AW Stokes shed much light on this subversion.
The communists love to take advantage of any division within America.
I have read Mannings book. You make good points. Even tho’ Stalin’s successors may have stopped the overt recruitment of black pastors, they planted seeds that took root.
I am currently studying in New Lies for Old. The depth of deception, control, and strategic planning to undermine the West that Golitsyn documents is staggering. How did they get the buy-in? Don’t tell me it’s just about killing opponents. There was plenty of that, but we are talking about 100s of communist groups. How does that get so coordinated?
Just look at our group here. If we had to achieve a tangible goal, there would be 3000 opinions on how to do it. I don’t think it would ever get settled.
So, that is a weakness on our side here. We are so opinionated and individualistic that we get “stuck” trying to move the conservative ball forward.
But Mr. Trump is combatting that inertia, too, that has long been the hallmarkof Republicans. You elect them. Theydon’tdo anything. Ugh.
You have to hand it to Mr. Trump, he has a loyal team this time, and they all seem on point and proactive 24/7. This is how to beat the leftys.
I am curious as to where you got the information that they stopped the recruitment of black pastors. I have never encountered that evidence.
I believe one of the Communists’ greatest powers is their ability to organize millions of people in a general direction. As for your question, I don’t think it was necessarily all that “hard” for them to do it within the confines of their own organization.
The Communist Party is structured as a human machine: the orders start at the top, and everyone below MUST obey and execute them. It is intentionally designed this way to create an enormous, semi-cyborg, united human organism. Obeying party commands is quite explicit and called “party discipline”. It is through this process of essentially having a slave organization that they were able to achieve such enormous feats at scale which would be virtually impossible to recreate in a free organization. And you are correct that human individualism is a weakness when viewed from this context.
The only person who could get close to mimicking this is, as you said, someone with a great team like Trump, but even then, there are many, many things which they can do which he cannot. This is but one part of the asymmetry of good against evil, that because evil has no constraints, they possess certain advantages that the good do not in terms of warfare.
But I have marveled many times at this “machine-like” nature of the Communist Party and the feats which they have been able to achieve because of it. Manning Johnson seemed to understand this aspect of it when he described the apparatus. It is quite clear that the org was intentionally designed this way to create this kind of hive-mind, super-human organism.
And as far as I can tell, this was not an idea of Marx, but I have traced this back to the secret societies before Marx, and of which he was no doubt a member. Namely the Illuminati, which was a very real, very evil conspiratorial organization, and which is shockingly similar to the Communists in many ways. In fact, the second in command, I believe his name was Wigge, said “we are building a machine”. They had many of the same practices that later Communists would have. They declared their goal was the overthrow of all religion and monarchies and the establishment of an elite. There is even evidence to suggest their remnant sparked the French Revolution. I would love to hear Jeff’s thoughts on this and whether he has investigated it. There was a Scottish professor called John Paulson I believe, who investigated the roots of the French Insurrection and wrote “A Conspiracy Against All The Governments And Religions Of Europe.”
Well, I said, “may have.” I just haven’t seen anyone after Manning ‘s book was published in 1958 write as a black pastor of being recruited to go to Moscow for training. Of course, we know there were plenty of Communists here by the 1950s involved in the civil rights movement. I could be wrong.
Yes, the hive mind and party discipline. That’s it. I suppose our love of freedom is a strong innoculation against those things. We used to have sayings like “mind your own business” and “It’s a free country,” or ” You’re an American. You make up your own mind “
I think it was more important in the beginning for them to go to Moscow for training; as they developed more human assets on the ground here, it is possible the need was lessened. We also have to remember that at a certain point association with Russia became a liability. I personally believe they never stopped their efforts to develop pipelines into the black churches. It could be that they are simply so highly developed at this point. I mean, at this point, the Democratic Party basically has an open alliance with James Clyburn, the AME church network, Sharpton / Jackson, etc..
It is essentially public knowledge that some of MLK’s key associates were Communists and quite possibly wrote all his speeches. Now imagine that from the perspective of a mouthpiece spouting literal Kremlin propaganda. People may find it absolutely far-fetched to even consider the possibility that officials in Moscow were writing the words which MLK spoke to millions, but that is because they don’t understand the way they think and the things that these Communist super-organizations are capable of.
And keep in mind when we were talking about implementing Golitsyn’s strategy, I was merely talking about the official party organization. All of their external organizations are extensions of that. They have less control over those external arms, but still a massive amount of influence. They may not be able to move the fingers with precision, but maybe they can move the arm. So when you unite the well-oiled internal machine with all of their external arms you become capable of quite extraordinary things.
I mention that in regards to our “love of freedom” and how Americans culturally move in their mind spaces. There are millions of Americans who can be doing the bidding of the Communists through the influence of these external arms, we can simply think of the coercion exerted through BLM, or through Covid police-thought, or any one of their other fronts, to see examples of this. One of their great strengths is understanding the continuum of control and taking what they can get.
The machine- like nature of the communist apparatus stems from its mechanistic and materialist roots. Dialectics may be what Marx proclaimed, but most people understand materialism mechanistically. The communists instinctively gravitate to the machinery of mass organizing.
Have you investigated at all the similarities between the Illuminati and the Communists, Jeff, and do you think there is any merit to the idea that they were in some way possibly the original ideological ancestors? It was intellectual and ideological descendants of Illuminati-influenced societies like the Jacobins, secret societies with similar revolutionary ideals, anti-religious zeal, and cell-like structures who were part of the League of Outlaws, who formed the League of the Just, and then initially approached Marx about writing what would come to be called the Communist Manifesto. And while many blame everything on the Freemasons, it was actually the Illuminati who infiltrated the Mason lodges in France and Germany and took them over as centers for recruitment. This was the general culture and conspiratorial fervor sweeping the continent at this time, that Marx was born into.
There are many antecedents of communism going back to Plato. The Romans had this Dionysian cult which was discovered some years after the Second Punic War by the Senate. It was infiltrating the Roman Republic and spreading a horrific corruption. They acted very decisively to crush it entirely. It has been forty years since I read those portions of Titus Livy that described it, so forgive any misremembering of details on my part. Igor Shafarevich’s book, “The Socialist Phenomenon,” associates the Albigensian heresy with modern communism as belonging to the same general social phenomena. He also rates the Anabaptists as communist precursors. Carl Jung, in his book Aion also points to the Albigensian heresy as being a forerunner of the communist movement, as did Eric Voegelin, who added that these movements were “gnostic.” What is really intriguing is the role that Byzantine philosophers and scholars played in transmitting Platonism to Italy and its affect on the Renaissance. I am thinking of Georgios Gemistos Plethon, whose dream was to revive the religion of ancient Greek. I am not an expert in this history, but we can have no idea how many people Plethon influenced or what he might have started in terms of an underground pagan revival movement. I suspect some of this can be traced back to these neo-Platonist strands. Perhaps Plethon even inspired people pagans like Dugin. As for the Illuminati, there is much that has been confused in this story. The espionage rings of the 18th century famously would create secret societies or chapters as vehicles for infiltration and recruitment. The Illuminati may have been part of a British penetration operation in Bavaria. This whole history is filled with some very poor analysis, deceptive and erroneous literature, forgeries, false claims, etc. The best we can say is that the whole thing is a mishmash of confused testimonies, stories, and corrupted evidence. If memory serves, Goethe joined this group and said it was a huge waste of time because these people had no real secrets worth knowing. Obviously, Marx was in love with this anti-Christian sort of thing as a young Hegelian and revolutionary. Hegel was a sorcerer, according to Voegelin, and Magee basically makes a strong case in his book. The occult influence is real. People have attempted to build a case for this huge Satanic conspiracy, which ends up becoming ridiculous and has spawned many very crazy books written by people who do not know how to think, write, or analyze or synthesize.
I have not said it was a Satanic conspiracy. I have merely read what actual historians have written about it, and the book written by the Scottish professor who was dispatched there after the French Revolution. He seemed pretty credible to me. I think it is possible the “satanic conspiracy” verbiage may be thrown out to discredit talk about it, because the Elector of Bavaria seemed to think it serious enough to disband and outlaw the entire thing. I simply found it quite interesting according to the professor on the similarities in language: a claim that religion was darkness and exploitation, that the people were oppressed and in needing of liberation and enlightenment, the stated goal of overthrowing religion, overthrowing government, and establishing a small “enlightened” group at the top. There is even evidence that although Weinshaupt apparently stopped leading the group, his lieutenant continued it and moved on to France, at which point the Revolution occurs.
This historian, although his website name is lacking in credibility, has actually done a lot of good writing on them.
https://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/07/28/the-so-called-schwedenkiste-swedish-box-the-most-significant-illuminati-archive/
You are talking about the book, “Proofs of Conspiracy”?
Yes, do you think that is a forgery or shoddy scholarship?
I believe the author was part of the British espionage system. There may have been a political motive in writing it, so I am not sure if it can be trusted. But I am not an expert in this area.
Ah ok, interesting, thanks. I did find his accounts of the discourse on the inside rather interesting, the way they spoke was very reminiscent of Marxists. But that is a good angle to consider.
You will notice this involves the infiltration and subversion of Catholic countries. You can judge by this which power had an interest in supporting such a movement and, in retrospect, would want to cover its own tracks.
Asymmetry and the lack of constraints, that’s the thing. They can lie, cheat, steal, and kill. These give great advantages over opponents who don’t want to use these tactics, but the practice of evil also produces the darkening of the intellect. Our strength has to be that we want to do good, and want to to be honest, and want to give glory and honor to God. We can’t compromise on these things.
Yes. The darkening of intellect is a real phenomena. We see it around us in spades.
Kirk did some good things. The article was eloquent as usual. His takes were often generic, towing a line…nothing avant-garde. I watched him deal with a black male with a black panther tshirt on. Of course the crowd is all about Charlie. This kid is frustrated and ganged up on. This may have been his experiencein high school. He doesn’t have the maturity to take Kirk on, but is calmly trying to convey something. The kid is just wrong about the solution and causes. Charlie missed an opportunity by pounding the same ole troupes. It’s like feminism and how it became so rabid. You have young men now wanting to blame women for everything and embracing some sort of solution of subjugation. Kirk could have acknowledged early treatment of women in this country when they had zero rights. The feminists hear someone like Crowder, who abused his wife and men haunt her on X, complaining that she had the “right” to divorce him….my point is as follows. There has to be a deeper discussion..a return to biblical standard that is not hypocritical when it comes to our side. So if a women embrace a traditional role in the family, which I hope more do…how do we guarantee to the feminists, that the Crowders of the world won’t get their way? That like JFK, you can’t just throw the wife in a funny farm bc she is depressed that he was womanizing. Charlie was in this world. He wouldn’t take a stand against it, he befriended them. Should women be involved in some occupations. I don’t think so. However, the drum beat goes on inside feminist circles. They now have a lot of ammo. Matt Walsh identifies as a Christian fascist. We have a problem. Sometimes the message is not wrong, but the intentions or the lack of ownership and study. So victimhood is the default. The solution….radicalization.
Of course, fascism and Christianity are incompatible. Did Walsh actually say that? Oh my. The right is being herded into a field of slaughter.
Women had “zero rights” in America? When was this exactly?
Some readers here might be interested in John Horvat’s take on Yarvin:
https://lawliberty.org/the-mediocrity-of-curtis-yarvin/
It is an interesting review of Yarvin. What I am told by those privy to Yarvin’s marching orders, is that Yarvin’s cynicism and amorality are intentionally covered in obscurity since he is basically — even humorously — telling conservatives how to commit group suicide. And he is using very sophisticated rhetoric, intentionally obscure and wicked, to harness conservative frustration to transform conservatives into the kind of fascists communists always said they were. He is therefore suggestive rather than clear, indirect rather than direct. Deceptive in his most plausible claims. And Yarvin always swerves away from responsibility. “Don’t shoot me. I’m just the piano player.” But he is not playing a piano. He is playing he readers.
My take on some people’s interest in him is that they think he’s far-out, intellectual, eccentric, etc. A figure who is a few rungs above them on the intellectual ladder, so they take whatever he says as worthwhile. I think some of the people interested in Dugin think the same way. They haven’t done a deep dive on him to understand the contradictions, the madness, and the leftism underneath the bearded (or for Yarvin long-haired) “philosopher” façade. Many genuinely agree with him, but I think most people don’t have the attention span to really understand.
Around 2010, I found Yarvin’s blog and found it interesting for a moment, but then I began to understand that the alt-right was more like the left in disguise.
Yes.
The entire “alt-right” has always been a leftist operation to me. Hillary Clinton was the first to give a major speech about them as a “dangerous threat” when nobody knew who they were, sometime around November 2015 I believe, and almost immediately afterwards Richard Spencer held his conference in Washington where he gave the Nazi salute and gave the leftists the images and videos they needed. Spencer claimed it was a “Roman salute”, which is simply a pretext which proves how dumb he thought conservatives were.
His role was to bring the fictional, non-existent “white supremacist” boogeyman to life, and he played his role well. After that point, he and the Occupy Wall Street activist Jason Kessler orchestrated Charlottesville with Nick Fuentes, and from that point on the Communists had all they needed to engage in endless defamation of Trump and the Right. You will notice that none of these people ever demonstrate any broad support, they never run for office, they never win a single election. And they are never embraced by conservatives, never invited to conservatives events, never fraternized with by the actual Right. I remember in the early days of the alt right, conservatives didn’t know who they were and even people like Mike Cernovich were friendly to them. The minute Spencer did his Nazi photo op, Cernovich immediately realized and distanced himself. That’s how the operation goes: be intentionally vague and broad at the outset to make inroads with the right and form associations, and then trigger a completely toxic PR event at some point.
This is also why Fuentes is obsessed with constantly trying to associate with conservatives who want nothing to do with him. He used to follow Charlie Kirk around. The image of the Devil, once conjured up by the Marxists and made real, must then be placed on the target Enemy. In order to know who they consider a threat, see who they attempt to discredit in this manner. Marxists reveal their hands in many ways if you know how to look.
I could go on, but I will just mention Matthew Heimbach in passing: another “white nationalist” who was openly leftist and socialist. The other key to what these Agents are tasked with doing is it is their assigned mission to inculcate several values: anti Jew hatred and fascism. And I do mean literal fascism.
The reason why they are tasked with actively promoting fascism to their disaffected young white members, after they draw them in with anti-immigration / racial solidarity rhetoric, is again to make the Image of the lie real. The global Marxist lie is that all opponents of theirs are Fascists. And so it is quite obvious why these “alt-right” agents, who have since rebranded as “dissident right”, always have a rigid set of ideological positions. The easiest way to smoke them out is to call Marxists fascist and to say that you are anti-fascist. They will not allow it because their marching orders are to make the word and ideology appear good.
This is also incidentally why I advocate positioning anti-communists as “anti fascist”, and by positioning Marxism as a subset of fascist ideology. This would destroy this tactic in its tracks.
I had to look him up to refresh my memory, but I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who was thinking of the assassination of Calvo Sotelo as one of the precursors to civil war in Spain. I have to admit, with what the likes of Yarvin and Dugin were saying, I was at least a little concerned about retaliation against left-wing figures, but seeing as it’s been about two weeks now, I’m less concerned about any civil unrest or retaliation.
Then again, with Spain in ’36, the left had the notion that they had the green light to go full Red Terror (I wonder where they could have gotten THAT idea, hm?) and they paid dearly for it in the short-to-medium term. Not dearly enough it seems in in the long term, seeing who rules Spain today.
But my point is, I just don’t see that sort of thing coming from the left in this country right now. I see more covering of their collective hindquarters than anything else. But then again, a cornered beast is at its most dangerous, so who really knows?
Damn, left an extra “in” there, but the point remains.
In Spain the communists were burning Catholic churches and already murdering priests and religious, so the murder of Calvo Sotelo only sealed the anti-communist Catholic Holy Crusade. Such situation today is nearly impossible to repeat itself, there is no unity nor real authority that would use the justice against the communists, the Trump administration is not even charging the leading communists with treason or anything else….Bondi is AWOL and evidently on purpose, now they are saying that the indictment of NY AG L James and J. Commey is “imminent”, which means whatever anyone imagines what it means…Trump is their man, there is no mistake.
Spain today is run by communists, they don’t admit they are communists, but it is all the same…it is a cesspool of iniquity and they are no longer Catholic country at all…
What do you mean it cannot happen today? A martyred leader is exactly what people will rally around. Did you miss that massive memorial service? It was the biggest memorial service in American history! This is something that has a life of its own. There is no telling what can develop over the coming weeks. For good or ill, these things follow a path that can develop despite the best or worst intentions — for good or ill.
Yes, just an assassination attempt helped Lenin consolidate power. We saw that with Trump. Revisit this in the future will be interesting.
That’s the ceremony and mourning for the murdered Mr. Kirk, but then the aftermath remains the same, they have not yet administered justice against the killer and co-conspirators – and the meaning was different, because back in Spain that was a true Holy Crusade against the Russian (Stalin) backed and armed Spanish communists in the “government” (there was a communist electoral fraud as they always use it first before anything else.).
Today Spain is no longer Catholic and so by definition you cannot call it Holy Crusade, if anything happens substantial, and the unity of Catholic Faith is gone as this Novus Sect doesn’t practice it at all, that’s a new semi-Protestant religion (see Pacepa and whether that came from the KGB “religion” directorate – to attack the Catholic Church), and on top of this true Holy Crusade must be proclaimed by the true Pope, in defense of God and His honor, and of His true Catholic Church and the true Catholic Faith, which is nothing else but Catholic Tradition – these conditions are missing today, most of them, and BTW, there is unity in the US even in regards to defending the freedom, too many contradictory opinions, even though people call themselves “conservative”…This is the painful reality, and it is unfortunate and very sad to watch, but it is the reality.
The left seems intimidated and cautious right now, with some exceptions. But they will pop out as soon as some issue emerges that favors them.
I think they already have. The firing of Jimmy Kimmel seemed to me to be the turning point. From that point on, the entire party activated, went on offense as “defending free speech”, they threatened Disney, got all of their Hollywood stooges to threaten Disney too, and Disney folded immediately.
Jimmy Kimmel is a loyal propagandist for the Marxist Left, on a major broadcast network, and they protect their own. People like him are worth their weight in gold to the Party. It was however, both ironic and perverse that they hailed Kimmel as a martyr for free speech when his greatest sacrifice was being (temporarily) fired for mocking the death of a man who was ACTUALLY martyred for free speech.
It’s a funny thing. But they must have really taken a hit for his comments.
PS – Jimmy is free to say whatever he likes. But people are free to stop watching is show and disconnect from the media that supports him. Freedom is a two-way street.
Kimmel is the biggest hypocrite. He complains about government censorship. There was none. He censors people. Bill O’Reilly was on h
Show 5 times ten years ago . He does not have any conservatives anymore on his show. None. Kimmel has a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
2 excellent books, probably the best, on Spanish Civil War (Internet Archive might still have them):
General Cause (by the Spanish Ministry of Interior – this is the equivalent of US DOJ) – with photos of the horrible communist atrocities…
Spain,the vital years – by Louis Bolin, former press secretary of the Franco’s forces, also a newspaper reporter stationed in London, UK prior to the war.
https://youtu.be/RTKkt7EmB2o
I Trained In Moscow For Black Revolution – Leonard Patterson
It is an audio live representation, authentic from Mr. Patterson himself, this is the man previously mentioned, he wrote about it, published the book.
Listen carefully, this is priceless material.
Leonard Patterson aka Walter Leonard Patterson
Waiter, chauffeur, and cab driver
1928-1935 = joined Young Communist League and served on YCL National Committee 1929-1935; also served as YCL District Organizer for Philadelphia and Maryland during 1930’s = Organized seamen in Baltimore
1931 = Young Communist League District Organizer in Philadelphia
1932-1933 = Patterson attended Lenin School in Moscow under name Cotton Terry.
1934 = Candidate on CP ticket for State Senator, 4th District Maryland
1934-1935 = Young Communist League District Organizer in Maryland and WDC
1930-1937 = CPUSA member (but expelled)
1931-1932 = attended Lenin School in Moscow
1951 = Patterson was contacted by FBI-Detroit field office for information about an individual who had attended the Lenin School in 1932.
1/27/66 = Patterson appeared on Louis Lomax TV program (KTTV—Los Angeles) and he charged that Watts riots in August 1965 were directed by the CPUSA.
2/28/66 = Patterson stated in Attleboro MA that our civil rights movement was part of a conspiracy starting in the 1930’s. He stated that the Watts and Harlem riots were “a pattern, just a continuation down the line”. He told audience that NAACP, CORE and MLK Jr. were all “under the leadership of the American Communist Party”.
Thank you, I didn’t know about this one. I know of many others during this time frame but not him.
Regarding Mr. Kirk – and firstly about the Yarvin video – up to the 29 min mark Yarvin has not said anything of a value, and when he said that his grandparents were members of the Communist Party, in 1930s, Mr. Kirk was still smiling at Yarvin like that was something that could be set aside, just go ahead and continue….
Now the other point – the heresy of Sodomy…
It is not only that but also that the US Supreme Court attempted to redefine the fundamental laws of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which no secular power has authority to redefine, as that is established by God, by Natural Law of God and it is recorded in the Holy Scripture (and the Divine Law prohibits sodomy, so obviously the prohibition is also against the sodomite “unions”, which is not a marriage at all) – and so this is not a private matter at all because then the secular state included in it the upbringing of children by the sodomite perverts, which is another abomination in front of God and the state has no authority to authorize something that goes against the Law of God, and so Mr. Kirk was not speaking about these important points at all, making them a private matter – in his answer to that person that stated the question about the sodomites….
It is a horrible offense to God to bring up children in believing that sodomy is something that can be tolerated, against the express prohibition recorded in the Holy Scripture, and as Our Lord says, “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea…” (St. Matthew 18 : 6)….
Then it says in St. James – a man who knows to do good and doth it not, to him it is a sin…
You cannot promote sinful conduct nor make laws allowing it to coexist in the country, just because the political climate suggests that it is acceptable….and then people wonder why the world is in such a horrible state today, so the answer is – God is permitting these evils to take place, wars, murders, communist subversion, political corruption, all of this because of sin, because of the general apostasy, and that people live their lives as if the Law of God didn’t matter….
The Supreme Court redefined the word “marriage” which means they changed the dictionary. If The Court can change the meaning of English words any law can be changed into anything you please. My grandfather’s Webster’s International 1943 dictionary says marriage is the union of man and woman for the purpose of procreation. The Court says marriage can be the union of woman and woman, or man and man. This madness was advanced by a conservative Court. Imagine when the court has a leftist majority. There will be no Constitution at all. Right now the Constitution is only a partial protection, until another change in the dictionary is announced by the Court.
Yes, this is known what evil they have done, and those on SCOTUS who claim to be “Catholic”, they are excommunicated IPSO FACTO for usurping the Authority of the Catholic Church, which Authority was given by Christ Our Lord to teach, govern, sanctify and save all men….and no secular court worldwide can ever interfere with that Teaching Authority of the Church, so likewise all true Catholic must absolutely reject such invalid and anti-Catholic “ruling” of SCOTUS, no matter what the consequences could bring, and yes, in fact it is a legalized religious persecution from the court, which is violation of USC 18, #241 – persecution under the color of the law….
You have made a good point about what if the SCOTUS was staffed by liberals/communists – lot more people would be in prison and the communists would already be lot more ahead of the game….
The Webster dictionary is correct, that is the correct teaching of the Catholic Church, and always has been…and the 1917 Code of Canon Law specifies this doctrine as well.
Great article as always Jeff.
To me, Charlie Kirk was murdered because he was quite simply the most dangerous man to the future of international global Far-Left fascism in the US.
Unlike virtually all conservatives and Republicans, he was competing with far-leftists in the critical spaces, in the mind-spaces, where young minds were formed, and disrupting the indoctrination that they had had a monopoly on. When he first began, zero people would show up, until he sparked what was quite legitimately a movement. A producer of his recalls a moment when they realized that something was going on when 1,500 kids showed up and spontaneously began singing the national anthem.
As the movement grew, its fame grew on TikTok. Charlie didn’t just combat leftist operations on campuses, he did so at the key digital Mind-Space, TikTok. His videos grew to a cumulative billion views. He provided young men and women something they had never had before, a visible hero, a role model, a leader to galvanize and unite them, who was young and who they could relate to. I am not being hyperbolic when I say that it is very possible that Charlie Kirk could have been the next Donald Trump.
The younger generation loved him. And his willingness to reach out to leftist kids built bridges and tore down the hatred and division that the social engineers want between us, that their strategy relies on. Countless times people would leave an interaction with Kirk thinking “well he wasn’t the monster I was told he was”. Even Kirk’s appearance on Bill Maher’s podcast had Maher confused at the end at how reasonable Charlie seemed.
But it was more than that. Charlie wasn’t just targeting the minds of the next generation at the critical places where they were being formed, he had fully developed his arguments. Candace Owens recounts how when they were on tour, he would constantly be practicing his arguments and anticipating the counter-arguments. By the end of his career, he knew virtually all of the Left’s conversational discourse patterns and had the counters to all of them. His was a fully formed, fully fleshed out conservative ideology. He was a one-man self-contained anti-communist operation, very similar to Trump, able to defeat their arguments in real-time and also understanding media and how to do it. He was, in other words, the perfect anti-communist. Not in all of his positions, because he didn’t fully understand Russia, but in his methodology and his ability to convert.
Gavin Newsom even understood this. On Charlie Kirk’s appearance on Newsom’s podcast, immediately after Trump’s re-election, when Newsom began his snake strategy of harvesting Republicans to burnish his false image as a moderate, he displayed a keen awareness. He lamented how Kirk was “flooding the zone” in all of the “spaces”, getting a “convert here, a convert there, in the tens of thousands.” This was Newsom’s actual language and he understood exactly what Charlie was doing and how dangerous it was to the Democratic Party. It was so deadly that Newsom even admitted his own son was a Charlie fan.
But the final piece of it that made Charlie so dangerous was that his ideology was fully formed and its foundation was Christianity. He was able to, in a way that I have almost never seen anyone do, be openly Christian, to seamlessly integrate Christian doctrine into his college debates, without it coming off as kooky or extreme. He was quoting scripture and literally preaching to the youth, to the point where South Park literally quoted his verses when they parodied him! It was a fully integrated ideology and yet he understood and stated that he could defend all of his positions from a non-Christian standpoint. I don’t think people understand how sophisticated this was. I didn’t even fully understand it until I dove deeper after his death. This was a truly special man.
All of this is to say that, this was not some small murder. They took out a key strategic piece in the defense and the future of Western civilization. His targeting was far more strategic than might be currently understood. Most people in the conservative movement believed he would eventually be President. This was a huge strategic loss to the conservative movement, to the American nation, and to freedom worldwide. His death and murder has affected me deeply. And I would be remiss in not stating that it appears to have had some global effect worldwide on a spiritual level. Stories abound of people worldwide being affected by this killing. There are stories of atheists and people who hadn’t attended church in decades going to church for the first time and saying Charlie’s death caused that. By his bravery and fearlessness and righteousness, Charlie Kirk forced them to murder him, and in doing so he exposed the very face of evil to the world, he exposed the grisly claw of death that emerged from the hidden leviathan to snatch him away. And so I hope and believe that God can take evil and use it to accomplish a greater purpose for good. But it is a tough pill to swallow for me personally. This was a great young man. RIP Charlie.
Excellent defense of Kirk. This was my impression only after watching Kirk’s debates. He was special. He might have become President. He was effective where nobody had been effective before. It was his physical presence, I think. His direct engagement. Talking with people is acknowledgement. Even if he was tough on some of those he engaged. Young men are often ignored in our society. There has been a downgrading of respect and love. Especially love. Kirk did not ignore them. He thought they could be redeemed from the university hell hole. This was a kind of love. Was this Kirk’s secret? Did he show love — genuine love — for the lost young men of America? If it was problematic it was nevertheless powerful in its effect. Who would have guessed? Such a basic solution, done in a masculine style.
I am saving this. Well done, Merc! This is how I see Charlie as well. I have a theory that Vance was grooming him to be his running mate in 2028. It is a huge loss, but maybe there will be a 1000 new young Charlie’s soon. God, I pray for this.
Well said. I dont agree about Trump being an effective antiComnunist though, lol.
Maybe time will prove me wrong. I admit it’s possible.
But…very well said.
@ J.R. Nyquist: “Kirk went on that ridiculous Greenland safari?”
Yes, but not with the “Great J.D.”, but already with Don Jr. in very early January this year.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jr-greenland-charlie-kirk-sergio-gor-2011017.
Some may take offence, but I feel he was somebody greatly enjoying being “part of the club” – and may have harboured grand political ambitions …
Meanwhile the next conservative ex-President is about to go to jail. Is there a pattern here? It seems so …
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/09/25/former-french-president-warns-of-lawfare-eroding-trust-as-hes-jailed-for-five-years-on-corruption-charge/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-planes-alaska-us-fighter-jets-intercept-bomber-fighter-jets-adiz/
The Russian war threat grows apace….
The communists have us tied in knots.
Good evening Jeff,
Everything you write always makes me reflect and think. I am Italian and I read your blog translated with AI. Among so many cultured and very intelligent people, there is also one ignorant person… I hope you don’t mind… You are free to delete/correct the English. Thank you.
I would like to draw attention to a quote by Maximilian Maria Kolbe that fits well with some of the comments on this article: “There are some who do not seek the truth for fear of finding it.”
I know little about the US and should keep quiet. I view some of Mr. Trump’s actions unfavorably:
-He is often very vulgar and sometimes shows himself to be mean.
-Anyone who contradicts him and shows themselves to be intelligent in providing an objection, question, or observation must be fired.
-He is often arrogant, especially with those he considers inferior or smaller and defenseless. (as a European, I do not appreciate his words on Greenland)
-he does not speak clearly (very far from the yes yes no no of the Gospel of Matthew 5:37)
-the MAGA movement is often squalid
Now in Italy we have a person who defines himself as an atheist who has made a video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq8y7xurbBw. I hope you can, if you are interested, translate it into English. It makes an observation so obvious that it takes you aback (metaphor by Mario Luigi) and you wonder if you can save the good faith of this pro-Russian right wing. The words of Franciscan Kolbe are wonderfully apt here. Are you looking for the Truth? Are you really interested in it?
Final consideration Lk 6:43-45:
“No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree is recognized by its fruit: you don’t gather figs from thorns, nor do you harvest grapes from brambles. A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart, for the mouth speaks from the abundance of the heart.”
I hope William Shakespeare doesn’t read this.
Fantastic contribution to the discussion. The AI translation was perfecto. Let me suggest where the razor’s edge is found in this debate. How innocent is it to mistake Trump for America’s savior? I know many fine people who have believed in Trump. At least I think they are fine people. But I had grave reservations about him in 2015. I pronounced his first administration to be a “train wreck.” But I voted for him three times because the alternative scared me more. I never understood the high hopes people entertained for him.
Re Laura, “He also argues for Christian inclusivity, but by his own admission it’s not like he’s ‘keeping the lines of communication open’ with people like Thiel in order to convert them, he’s doing that to get their money.” Yes, I noticed the clip ended before the young man (could have) retorted, “Go and sin no more.”
I agree with R.O.’s point about the two kingdoms (I think it was R.O.; I can’t find the comment, and if not, my apologies), and the need to work with people who are morally outside the fold for some reason. But there is a difference between making alliances with people who keep their deviance private and discreet (“hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue”) and those who are public and notorious about it. For example, Ric Grennell, who has said that the Republican Party will soon have no room for those who don’t accept homosexuality. In the video exchange, Charlie should have kept Christ out of it if making the above argument. His reference to Christ keeping company with sinners was dishonest. If homosexuals practice the hypocrisy that vice pays to virtue, there will be no need to vet people seeking admittance to conservative organizations.
Darn WordPress is acting up on my phone and won’t let me scroll down to add something..
But, R.O., Lady -all due respect- the way you save your civilization is not by compromising with the things that are destroying your civilization.
I’m not speaking of kicking the doors in on people’s homes and seeing what’s going on or what they are following.
Im talking about open compromise by accepting money from them, and giving them platforms and influential positions in your “movement.”
It. Only. Weakens.
It has to be done by the free will and true conversion….but as long as everybody is his/her own private interpreter of the Laws of God and of the Holy Scripture, even though God says – he who will not hear the church let him be to you as the heathen and the publican….there will be no positive change, and do not forget, God is already much offended by this godless world and the message from Our Lady of Fatima about Russia causing wars and persecutions against the Church etc. and …various nations will be destroyed, that is not a small minor thing.
I wish we would talk more about politics and less about your religious convictions.
Well, i agree, with you, Greyknight. How do we restore moral and civic virtue?
Dear Ma’am,
by converting and becoming true Catholic…but that is a true gift of God, nothing less.
But it has to be done with the free will and cooperation with the grace of God that He will only give to those who are sincere and true in it.
This is to answer your question, not to get you to become upset about it.
Civic virtue comes from a society where the majority of people are moral.
Morality is individual. The only place from where it comes is by each person humbly submitting himself to Jesus and learning about him which is found only in the Bible. Man made institutions will fail, individuals will disappoint, but God’s word, the Bible, remains unchanging. Even languages change, which is why we need newer translations. Yet, no translation is perfect.
We are saved in God’s favor by means of trusting Jesus, what he did for us on the cross, and this not from ourselves, it is a gift of God, not from any works that we did ourselves so that none of us can boast. We are what he made, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God has prepared beforehand in order that we should act them out. (see Ephesians 2:8-10) In other words, we are declared justified, but we don’t become holy until we are with Jesus in eternity. Here we struggle. And sometimes fail.
Civic virtue comes from when those who have been saved influence society.
Our Lord says – without Me you can do nothing.
Jeff, Jonny and Lee program starting on KLW News on Rumble.
Curtis Yarvin, talking about the Manhattan Project, comes up with a highly interesting phrase: “… It’s pretty much carried out almost exclusively by progressives, or, as some people say: communists. You know, ‘communist’ is just a euphemism for ‘progressive’, you know …” – Charlie Kirk corrects him: “And vice versa.” – Yarvin continues: “And my grandparents were American communist, they always said, ‘progressive’ …” Hahaha … (Starts at the 28:45 time mark.)
Yarvin is a piece of work.
The Yarvin’s bio info says that his father was US diplomat in Cypress, his parents were liberals, and he said in that video (2907 min) with Mr. Kirk that his grandparents were communist party members in 1930s.
The video is very hard to watch, very little edifying parts, some historical inaccuracies and misleading or ambiguous terms used by Yarvin, he truly sounds like one of those liberal talk-talk-talk people, they talk and there is no edification from what they say…it is painful to watch, very difficult, you can only take so much and then you have to pause and try another time. How could Mr. Kirk listen to him in the whole hour interview ?
And Mr. Kirk didn’t ask him whether he believes that Russia is still communist run country, or any such like questions, always the “mainstream” kind of questions or statements, like a chit-chat of two old ladies talking about what kind of milk they give to their cats in the morning…it is truly a very bad interview in this regard, but so far only 29 or minutes into it, so far it seems like a waste of time, unless to illustrate the point that such people as Yarvin shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near any advisory posts in the media or government or academia etc.
Should we have expected Kirk to possess the sophistication to understand Yarvin’s game?
You are in a challenging mode today, Mr. Nyquist :-)))
It is hard to say what to expect from anybody these days, but yes, if a person has intellectual honesty and loves the truth, yes, he should have understood by just listening to the empty talk from Yarvin and he would have known after just 10 minutes of that interview that he made a mistake inviting him.
It is not proper to add more because the major part of that interview has not yet been viewed here, had developed certain aversion to it and will have to force the mind to go ahead with it…the other reason is the amount of work load that has to be accomplished, posting here is only a sort of hobby for the secular truth…there are more pressing things needing to be addressed and so it is not possible to fit it all in. But will try…if it means anything anyway.
Generally we should give people the benefit of the doubt and courtesy. Blaming or condemning should be reserved for very serious offenses where guilt is clear.
To the certain extent yes, absolutely so, but then you have a guest as Yarvin who talks for 30 minutes and there is nothing edifying in his talk, and Mr. Kirk just smiles at him, adds some of his points, but at the end the whole interview is really a chit-chat of couple men who just met at the ball game…
Yes, we should wait for the conclusion, but then Mr. Kirk was not substantially prepared with questions, he let Yarvin talk and talk and it came across as empty speech, and some unimportant details that don’t resolve anything. It is a very hard to watch, that’s the outcome so far.
Pete Hegseth has ordered all generals and admirals to a meeting next Tuesday. Any ideas why? https://l.smartnews.com/p-6gVkrPIA/rs285F
I am told it is about Venezuela and about cutting some Pentagon costs. Some generals and admirals might be fired. Lee says about 20 percent.