Posts
There have been several, just in my lifetime. The assassination of JFK is probably the most important one, because it opened the way for the others: September 11 and the nothing-to-see-here Epstein files are two other rather obvious such turning points – maybe better to call these inflection points of greater acceleration…but that would kind of mess up the use of my title to this post.
Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Did I even need to write that this event is what has prompted this post, given the title? Many thoughts come to mind, but I will stick to a couple of quotes from Angelo Codevilla, who I have written about often over the last several years – even before Trump’s first election nine years ago. So, here goes.
This he wrote even before Trump’s first victory in 2016:
We have stepped over the threshold of a revolution. It is difficult to imagine how we might step back, and futile to speculate where it will end. Our ruling class’s malfeasance, combined with insult, brought it about. Donald Trump did not cause it and is by no means its ultimate manifestation. Regardless of who wins in 2016, this revolution’s sentiments will grow in volume and intensity, and are sure to empower politicians likely to make Americans nostalgic for Donald Trump’s moderation.
This from a few weeks after Trump’s first inauguration:
Hear me…you see the entire ruling class essentially rejecting the Constitution, the American way, rejecting the legitimacy of elections. There can be no mild response to that, and there isn’t one. Trump’s voters want certain results and they don’t particularly care how they get them. The ruling class wants its power and doesn’t particularly care how it holds on to it.
This also from around the same time:
In short, the P.C. “changes in law and public norms” (to quote Galston again) that the ruling class imposed on the rest of America, rather than having “gradually brought about changes in private attitudes across partisan and ideological lines” as the ruling class imagined (and as Gramsci would have approved) have set off a revolution—of which we can be sure only that it won’t be pretty.
What do all of these have to do with Charlie Kirk? (Oh, and let’s not forget the image of a young Ukrainian female refugee knifed while on public transit in Charlotte, and the reaction this has caused.)
Charlie Kirk was just talking. He held no involuntary authority over anyone. No one was forced to do as he said, or even to listen to him. He was not a politician; he did not manipulate the suffering masses to be pawns in his game.
He was just talking.
No, I didn’t agree with him on everything, but he moved the conversation in America in a better direction, and he did it the way it should be done – by just talking.
Charlie Kirk was to be just such a voice for the next forty years. Now? We get to hear mainstream media talk about how he supported gun rights so he kind of deserved it, just a few days after they told us that the system failed the black man who came up behind a white woman and stabbed her. And, by the way, here is the background of the system that failed him.
Someday, true conservatives (not the ones who merely wear the “R” label out of convenience, or the ones that support some tiny speck in the Middle East no matter what) are going to decide that Trump’s “moderation” is not going to get the result they want, and they want their results and don’t particularly care how they get them; it most certainly will not be pretty.
They know how to shoot back, and they are way better at it. And, even though much of what they do is destructive, most people in the military and in law enforcement lean conservative and not kooky.
With that said, all of us are being set up by the elite written of by Codevilla.
Conclusion
A 31-year-old young man, a husband, a father of two, was assassinated for talking. This word combination can’t be real, but it is.
Christ or chaos. We each face this choice in our personal lives, and as a society the choice is no different. I pray we move toward Christ, but it seems we are being ever-increasingly pushed (manipulated) toward chaos.
The last set of years, 2020-2025, has been similar to the rise of the New Left in the late 1960s. It culminated in the violent years of 1968-1970. It led to the election of Nixon and I think even Carter was a reaction against the violent left. Then we got Reagan.
ReplyDeleteBut the problem was that the left radicals were never really dealt with. Popular opinion shifted greatly against hippies and commies, and the problem seemed to solve itself. The government cracked down on public protests and arrested a few radicals like the Weather Underground. The police killed Kent St students and the subversives went underground.
But the architects of the New Left, the Frankfurt School professors and Herbert Marcuse were left in place to poison the minds of the next generation. The evil stayed incubated for about 40 years. But then when Obama was elected he took the radical left ideology out of the universities and implemented it into government policy.
The big question is how far the right will let them go, and will they be willing to remove the ideological cancer from universities. I'm not sure how to do that in a way that respects natural rights, but I think we must find a way to protect natural law from those who are tearing it down. There has to be a way that threads the needle.
"I'm not sure how to do that in a way that respects natural rights,..."
DeleteI don't think it can be done because too many people, both those in government/power control systems and those who want to be, have no respect for nor any desire to solve this according to natural law and the respect for natural rights. It will only be done forcefully and violently with many, many unnecessary, unjustifiable transgressions along the way. Everyone is in danger from the backlash.
The bigger question is how far the conservative right will go now that the pendulum is swinging in their direction. One thing seems sure--there will be over-reaction and the New Powers That Be will go too far in the opposite direction, causing backlash of its own and further intensifying the social division, chaos, and desire to rectify situations using politically motivated force and violence.
I have said before that present-day America looks like Tsarist Russia of the early 20th century, with multiple factions increasingly turning to violence in order to keep and maintain power or to gain it. I see no reason to change my mind.
" I'm not sure how to do that in a way that respects natural rights..."
DeleteEnd the government funding of universities, including government guaranteed student loans.
Yet, I agree with Roger. It won't be done that way. What will happen is that even when conservatives / Christians / the right are winning, they turn victory into defeat. They think they can control government (the one ring that will rule them all) toward only their "good" ends.
They will cheer on government abuse of the left, they will cheer on new laws that outlaw this or that bogeyman, and then be shocked that the next leftist regime is using these laws against them.
How does Trump go after the universities? Not by cutting government funding, but by using the government as the threat. This does nothing for liberty; it only satisfies the short term itch. "My side is winning" lasts only until their side returns to power and then gets to use and expands your formerly favorite weapons.
The people are turned into pawns for two false sides (left and right), while the leaders of the two sides know that the two true sides are us against them: the elite vs. the people.
"The people are turned into pawns for two false sides (left and right), while the leaders of the two sides know that the two true sides are us against them: the elite vs. the people."
DeleteI agree with this to some extent, but there are very real differences between us pawns on the left and right. This game of divide and conquer only works insofar as we are all forced to be part of the same political organism. The game breaks if peaceful secessions occur along political and cultural fault lines. Then there is no reason to hate the Charlie Kirks or Van Jones of the world if you are in the opposing camp. They can safely be ignored.
ATL, your pushback is fair. I think over the last 15-20 years, everything became political, and the political drove the divide. I do believe causing the divide was purposeful - caused by the elite and aimed against the rest of us.
DeleteBut now...yes, the elite are still fueling the divide, but it is burning timber that exists. How plentiful that timber would be without the funding - NGOs, bad actors, universities on government support - I don't know. Probably not nearly as bad as what we are seeing today.
We know that much of the divide has been orchestrated by the ruling class. It just so happens that creating the Left over the last 150 years has split society, while also training the Left side to support the ever increasing growth of the State. Some people on the Left are good on free speech and opposing war/empire. But free speech and opposing war/empire is a part of the American founding, not an innovation of the Left.
Deletehttps://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/2025/09/epilogue-jesus-on-money-and-usury.html
Why is there such a hullaballoo over the murder of Charlie Kirk, but very little said about that of Iryna Zarutska? Or, for that matter, the eleven crew members of the boat which Trump blew out of the water with a Hellfire missile, killing all of them? Where is the outrage over those deaths?
ReplyDeleteThink about it. All of these people were killed suddenly, without warning, without cause, without mercy. Two seconds before the missile arrived, the bullet struck, or the knife descended, the victims were oblivious to their imminent demise, then, Boom! Lights out forever. Yet, all we hear about is Charlie Kirk, especially if you tune into the "conservative" side of the blanket. Why?
All I can come up with is that he was one of "ours". He was with us, not them. This smacks of tribalism, the idea that those close to us, those we associate with, and those who think and act like we do, are somehow more special than everyone else. Charlie Kirk's murder hit close to home. Iryna Zarutska's was a blip in the new feed, an item of interest soon to be forgotten, and the fishermen (if that's what they were) belonged to a country which is "our" enemy and probably is one that "we" will soon be at war with. All because Trump, Hegseth, Rubio, and others like them want it.
Murder is murder is murder. Period. However, in our minds and to our depraved and perverted way of thinking, some murders can be justified, excused, even celebrated while others are to mourned, lamented, and wept over.
https://poorrogersalmanac.com/2025/09/11/the-wages-of-sin-is-death-official-or-not/
Roger, Kirk's murder is so much more than these others. Yes, a life is a life, but a movement was in place that could fundamentally transform America (and, from everything I know of it, generally for the better) and its leader was murdered.
DeleteCall Charlie Kirk a symbol of what chance such a movement has without resorting to violence. Yes, we all comment amount the tension in this country and we throw around the term "civil war" as if this is a casual re-enactment.
Kirk's murder is a sign of where we are inevitably headed unless one side just voluntarily and peacefully gives up.
If we are counting lives, yes, murder is murder. If we are examining the possibility of peaceful change for the better, Kirk's murder is infinitely more significant.
Bionic, I appreciate your perspective and insight.
DeleteI think we are comparing apples and oranges. I see red, you see orange, yet both of us are correct in our views. One hall, many rooms. I am willing to let the matter rest and move on to another question, that is, what will become of TPUSA now that Kirk is gone.
The country is going to become more and more violent because neither side is going to voluntarily and peacefully give up. Society-wide peace is not in our near future, and all those young people who were inspired by Charlie Kirk will now either have to stand on their own according to what he taught them or they will search for another strong leader who may or may not (probably will not) walk the same path. Failing either of these options, they will drift into irrelevance and obscurity.
I think that TPUSA may remain nationally as a shell of its former self, but at the grassroots level it will fragment and grow organically according to local taste and leadership OR it will die out and disappear.
I hesitate to compare Charlie Kirk with Jesus Christ, but TPUSA may be at the inflection point the early church was at the death of its leader. Time will tell if the movement is for real and future generations may (probably will) look back at this and see a turning point for better or for worse.
The most likely outcome for TPUSA will be that it gets co-opted. The second most likely outcome is that the funding dries up and it shrivels.
DeleteIt all depends on the passion and drive and willingness of the new leadership to risk being assassinated. For me, it's all too early to say.
And, since you brought up Jesus Christ...well, His death sure was more significant than most! :-)
There has been some online chatter than Ben Shapiro will step in and take the lead at TPUSA, but I don't think there is much truth behind that. It would certainly be eyebrow raising!
DeleteBen Shapiro...as I mentioned elsewhere, the first choice will be to co-opt TPUSA, the second would be to destroy it. To co-opt it, they would need someone who has at least some cred with the youth, yet willing to sell out.
DeleteShapiro would do the latter - if they want to destroy it, he would do a great job of this. As he has done with DW.
It is interesting that Charlie spoke out against, debated, and yes often ridiculed (with good cause) the radical left for about a decade to their faces on college campuses. He created a whole movement of young conservatives, arming them with powerful talking points in the political battle for hearts and minds. Throughout this whole time he was also not shy of being a Christian, nor was he shy of being extremely pro-Israel. During this time no one attempted to take his life.
ReplyDeleteAbout a month ago Charlie started adjusting his views on Israel to the reality of the horror of Israel's conduct in its assault on Gaza. He mentioned that Netanyahu wanted to ethnically cleanse Gaza. He mentioned that Epstein was likely a Mossad operation to blackmail US politicians. He voiced his frustration at many on the pro-Israel right for labeling him an anti-Semite for just allowing the opinions of Israel critics (like Dave Smith and Tucker) to be heard at TPUSA events or on his podcasts. Candace Owens claims billionaire Bill Ackman and Netanyahu pressured Charlie to visit Israel within the last few weeks, which Charlie refused. Some reputable sources say that he was actually afraid for his life if he changed his mind on Israel. After Charlie died Netanyahu put out a statement very soon on how much Charlie loved Israel. A decade of speaking out against the left and no murder. One month of moderating his views on Israel and he's murdered.
The elite that govern us want us to believe that it was some young lone gunman who was a mentally disturbed leftist with a trans boyfriend who did it. It's all a little too convenient. The big problem for them is that the details of the official story don't make much sense. Why the clothing changes? Why the text messages? Why confess to his dad? That 30-06 was not a special heirloom rifle able to be identified by his grandfather. Where was the exit wound? A 30 caliber bullet (150 to 200 grain range) fired from a 30-06 rifle would have blown out the back of his neck if the shot came from where they said it did within 200 yards. Also there appeared to be coordination of multiple actors, one who falsely claimed guilt in order to distract security at the event, allowing the real gunman to escape. The guys to Charlie's right making hand signals right before the shot. Like any of these major inflection points of modern US history, you can be sure that the official story is a damned lie.
ATL, while there is no direct evidence of Israel's involvement, as you demonstrate there is enough circumstantial evidence to open an investigation (add to your list the regular and publicly acknowledged assassinations by Israel as an obvious MO). Of course, it could have been US deep state assets, many of whom are brainwashed into that same cult.
DeleteIn any case, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming - but we know it won't be investigated. What is interesting about this is how quickly Israel was connected to/suspected of this assassination. How long did it take for this connection to be in the public conscience for the USS Liberty, JFK, nine 11? Let's just say, longer than the three minutes it took this time.
I'm sure Israel is well shielded from having taken part in the actual murder. Why would they do it when the CIA/FBI would gladly do it for them? All these people benefit from keeping the war/tax/inflation machine humming along, and so they all have an extreme motive to prevent Charlie from changing his tune vis a vis Israel. They all have a long track record of being well-accomplished lying, thieving, murderers as well, so it's not as if this is outside of their respective wheelhouses.
DeleteAgree.
DeleteThe online conservative world is nearly treating this like a declaration of war, but not against the most likely culprits. No, they are focusing on the admittedly demonic reactions of so many leftists online who are celebrating Charlie's death, and acting like they know for certain that Charlie was murdered by the hate of the radical left, and that the time for discussion is over. I've been saying this for a long time, but my plan is to secede politically from them, not engage in a bloody civil war that would turn us all into monsters.
ReplyDeleteWhat would have happened if Charlie was allowed to modify or completely reverse his stance on Israel and to use the TPUSA platform to promote this stance? Considering that the only demographic in America that supports Israel to any great extent is represented by the aging boomers, Israel desperately needs to appeal to the youth of the American Right if it wishes to keep the hundreds of billions flowing every year. Kirk more than any other public figure had the ear of the youth of the American Right, and they were already mostly against Israel's conduct in Gaza and wary of AIPAC even against Kirk's longstanding and open position in favor of AIPAC and Israel. If Kirk flipped on Israel then that would mark the beginning of the bitter end of the MIC/Israel/Neocon/Evangelical (MINE) alliance and the taxpayer deluge of trillions of dollars they have all been bathing in for generations. That's one hell of a motive to kill Charlie. I think this was a desperate move on the part of those most interested in preserving of the biggest blood-money racket in world history.
If it was MINE, and I think it was, I believe the joke is on them. Charlie getting murdered might just be their undoing anyway, especially if it is confirmed (or nearly so) that Israel and its American allies are behind this hit, even if only in the court of public opinion. That the "Israel did it" theory is getting so much traction on the internet is already pretty encouraging.
ATL, blaming the left is the allowable option, and one that serves the purpose from distracting us from another possibility that has the weight of evidence deserving at least an investigation.
DeleteBlaming the left also is of benefit because it further divides the common people, making them less of a threat to the elite.
Not to say that we aren't seeing crazy from the left. And for those who say the right is just as violent, let's compare the summer of George Floyd to the days after Charlie Kirk - while also comparing the character of George Floyd with the character of Charlie Kirk. If riots by the left were understandable in 2020, then civil war would seem almost a calm response by the right today.
I agree with what y'all are saying. My difference is that I am still hopeful that conservatives will fight the correct enemy. I say that because even if they don't know Israel/Jewish elites are a part of the enemy, attacking "the Left" will attack them too. At some point the Israel lobby will expose itself as Left when they see the right is coming after their movement. The MIC is Jewish leftist, neocons are run by Jewish leftists, mass migration is pushed by Jewish leftists, and on, and on, and on.
Deletehttps://libertarianchristians.com/2025/09/15/jesus-on-money-and-usury/
RMB, Although I would consider Neocons part of the Left, same as I would Nazism, I think it is important to note that they are still embedded in the Republican Party and more broadly in the American Right. The Jewish and Christian Zionists (like Shapiro and Kirk) may be a little different than Neocons, but they align on the Israel first mentality, which naturally leads to supporting endless wars in the sandbox.
DeleteI would also say that many left-wing Jews, and most of the left wing in general, are vehemently anti-Israel. It would seem that the scam Jews are conducting on the West is this: the right wing Jews advocate war in the Mid East to protect and advance Israel's standing in the region, causing migration pressure into the West; left-wing Jews then advocate open borders to weaken the standing of the West through demographic transformation, preying upon Christian civilization's tolerance and regard for the margins, even to the brink of its own destruction.
It's quite a sophisticated game.
People like Douglas Murray are great when they talk about the Muslim/3rd world invasion of the West, but then they push policies of war which are the primary driver of the unwanted immigration.
ATL, agreed. The lines are blurred.
DeleteThe left is against Israel because they view the Israelis as the modern instantiation of Western white colonial oppressors lording it over brown people in the 3rd world.
DeleteThe Kennedy assassination, September 11, the Covid scam, all were eye openers for some of us, and the, perhaps, first overt moves by the Deep State against the American people. What is, I think, unique to the Charlie Kirk murder is the visible acceptance by the Left, not just by Antifa, of violence, not discussion, as an instrument for implementing an agenda. I have heard many on the Right now advocate an eye for an eye reaction, disparaging the "turn the other cheek" folks. But even the Young Turk blog has been appreciative of the principled reaction of most Right commentators to the insanity of AG Bondi's new assaults on freedom of speech, in the name of fighting hate thoughts. I return to what Bionic has said in the past: our struggle is not with earthly villains but with principalities and powers of the air. This whole era smells of Satan big time. The younger conservatives realize this and are getting back to the old time religion. Charlie said, "Go to Church." Let us pray!
ReplyDeleteThere is no question that the right's lack of a violent response to Kirk's murder marks them as the much better and more civilized half of the country. These are the people I want to live with.
DeleteAlthough I think the most likely killer of Charlie was a professional hired by some financial interest associated with the MIC/Israel/Neocon/Evangelical alliance, the reactions of left-wingers across the country does expose something very real and impossible to ignore: our differences as Americans will not be reconciled through discussion. Charlie may have believed this, but he was wrong. You cannot convince people that Covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates were tyrannical when they are still wearing masks and afraid to go grocery shopping. It's either going to be utter political domination by one side, open civil war, or peaceful secession.
I do not want to share a political order with those who are gleeful that Charlie is dead. These are people infested with demons.
One thing that struck me about all this scrutiny over Charlie Kirk's legacy is that I've come to believe that Charlie was actually a real one. I think he genuinely believed what he was saying and was open to change his mind on things. I started getting an inkling of this when he had Dave Smith on at a TPUSA event to debate Josh Hammer. I thought he handled that well, especially when it seemed that the crowd was backing Dave. I had always thought that Charlie was just a Christian version of Ben Shapiro. I thought he was only a hired gun. And maybe he in effect was, but he innocently didn't know that. When he began straying from the Israel consensus among his major donors, I think the backlash genuinely caught him off guard.
ReplyDeleteHow can someone so intelligent, so interested in the truth, and so devoted to Christ be so blind of the horrors of the destruction of Gaza? How can killing thousands of innocent people be considered self-defense by any sane person? Look at Walter Block. How do you explain that? Walter is actually quite a bit easier to explain I guess because that is just tribal loyalty. Open borders for thee but not for me, etc. But what about Charlie? I know RMB will not like this, but I genuinely think that Dispensationalism is to blame. I think many otherwise good people on the right think they must support Israel no matter what because according to their theology, the Jews are still God's chosen people, and to oppose them is to bring curses from God.
ATL, I know dispensationalists who do not support Israel no matter what that state does. I do recall asking RMB once if he thought the two had to go hand in hand; if I remember right (I might not), he replied something like maybe not.
DeleteI don't think they do, though there was a time I did. I believe both have their root (at least in terms of popularizing these ideas) in the Scofield bible, which is why they are so well connected.
If one wants to believe God acts in dispensations, so be it. Does this belief lead to supporting genocide? In many yes, but I don't think it necessarily must be so. But then, I am not really an expert on this....
Bionic, to be clear my answer was in the past and continues to be that no eschatological system requires a person to support Israel committing atrocities. No eschatology requires that you send your nation's tax dollars to Israel for any reason or censor your own people for them.
DeleteI agree that dispensational teaching has been used by Zionists to convince dispensationalists to support Israel, and do so in the face of so much evidence of Israel's malevolence.
But Christians need to remember that God judged Israel multiple times in the Bible for their disbelief and evil behavior. The Biblical teaching is that God judges all sin and disciplines His children to correct them. Giving Israel (or any Christian) carte blanche to do whatever is irrational and unBiblical.
RMB, thank you for that clarification, and I do remember our past discussions about this wherein you stated that you can be a Dispensationalist and not support Israel's atrocities. I wish more in the Dispy camp understood this. I honestly would have only a passing curiosity in that theology if more were like you. But as it stands they are one of the indispensable pillars supporting endless wars. We Catholics have our problems too though, especially with our hierarchy (support of third world immigration into the West, plan of LGBT inclusion into the Church spearheaded by Fr. James Martin). It seems all the branches of the Vine are beset by demons trying to lead us into error.
DeleteBionic, yes Darby and the Scofield bible are for sure the precipitating causes of Dispensationalism in America. I think the Dallas Theological Seminary and Lewis Chafer's "Systematic Theology" played a large role as well. I do believe that Dispensationalism is a dangerous heresy, but I also believe that there are many good and well-meaning Christians caught up in it. And some of them may very well be closer to Christ than I am.
DeleteRMB, thank you for clarifying your view here.
Delete"Christ or chaos."
ReplyDeleteThis is certainly the choice. Even though I am even more convinced now that the radical left had nothing to do with Kirk's murder, just looking at those Lefties who are openly celebrating his murder is a window into a purely chaotic soul, one for whom all issues of meaning are wrapped up in the social and political zeitgeist of the day fed to them daily by Satanic elites and the organs of communication they control. They have nothing else of substance in their empty and uncertain lives. Not only do they not have Jesus Christ personally in their lives, nowhere in their depraved worldview can there be found even the cultural residue of anything remotely Christian. I don't want to live under the same political order as these people. The only love I can offer them is to manifestly refuse to accept that civil war and mass bloodshed is the only viable option in front of us. I just want separation, not war. Although like any man and head of household should, I am doing my best to prepare for the worst.
As an update on the investigation of Charlie's murder, one thing is becoming crystal clear: this kid that the FBI has pegged as the killer is not the one who killed Charlie. He's a patsy that they've likely been grooming for just this occasion. The FBI narrative makes no sense. What's really interesting is the connection between Charlie's murder and the film "Snake Eyes" wherein a politician named Charles Kirkland is murdered on 9/10 (shot in the neck) while watching a boxer names Tyler the Executioner. Some are saying this is evidence that we live in a simulation. I think it is just evidence that we live under a Satanic and Masonic elite who love imparting this sort of morbid symbolism into the major "turning point" events like this that they engineer.
Yes and Yes,
ReplyDeleteAs for the movie connection you point out...yes, they play us all the time. One clear sign is how they throw out ever-increasingly ridiculous explanations of the crazy events that surround us. Their explanation of building 7 sounds sane in comparison to what we are told today.
It is clear that they want to identify (at least) three groups: the truly stupid, the intelligent who have sold their soul and want to play in the inner circle, and the wise to whom they want to say "we are shoving BS down your throat and you can do nothing about it."