This is Why they Killed Charlie Kirk
Shameless Popery | 11 sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaWdyJR7SSY
9:49 Does it ever happen that someone on the poorer end of incomes and social connections actually has his life pretty actively mismanaged by others?
Because, once someone has people telling each other and third party that so and so needs others to step in, take responsibility for him or so, then these people are in a golden position to push the person even further away from actually getting back some kind of control over his circumstances, barring radical measures, not limited to violent ones.
And if you can also push the narrative that "external locus of control" is a "predictor of violence" they have an even more golden position to demonise that person and tell each other and third party why so and so can't be allowed to control his life "right now"
A culture of assassination, so far, so good. I agree such circumstances exist, I actually honour Franco's uprising in 1936 precisely because the goal was to end such a thing in the Second Republic Spain. We agree.
Blaming the internet? You may have a clear point in blaming specific sites for specific positions. Blueskye for assassination glorification. 4chan, perhaps Gab too, for pushing gun liberties to where guns become accessible to Robin Westman. On the other hand, one may have a point, no law will control every gun. But equally, no singling out of one single type of scene will eliminate group mentalities that in various ways glorify violence. Owning a gun, fine, but how many people on those sites would recommend to shoot first and ask questions later or call the police if you saw a homeless man intrude into precincts around your habitation in the obvious purpose of putting down his sleeping bag under the cover of your garage or the entrance of your apartment block? While celebrating murder is evil, so is celebrating oppression, sometimes to the point of manslaughter.
But when what you demonise is not a specific ideologeme, but a statement about your situation which can arguably be a true one in some cases, sorry, but you are backing oppression.
What was the journal you were citing again? Catholics shouldn't cite such statements from such journals. Catholics shouldn't be encouraged to believe in shrinks. These have been used to oppress Christians as such since the time of Khrushchev. They have been in oppressive business (with Christian victims, though for other reasons) even longer. Check Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) on the history of psychiatry, including drapetomania.
You are right that I would not be saying this to you face to face. You would interrupt me before I got very far, and presumably in a cordial manner, I'd be momentarily disarmed, and when we parted, I'd be able to kick my own ass for not having said this or not having said that.
But it doesn't mean I don't really mean it, and it actually doesn't mean I dishumanise you by stating these things. Don't end up in positions which, if bishops of older times (like in a council of Meaux in presumably 845, the canon relevant not being limited to Jews) had now been alive, they would have excommunicated you.
10:09 I actually keep and keep and keep trying, and people keep and keep and keep showing me, they don't intend to hand me back control over my life.
With 13 000 + blogposts, many of which are essays, most of which not about my life or my complains, and most of which on subjects that would be interesting in apologetics, to geeks, or to geeks who are into apologetics, I should be able to make a living as a writer.
I find it useless to turn to Hachette or Flammarion, they are on the Evolutionist side. I find it useless to turn to small trad and patriotic publishers in France, I have tried and tried. Whether their point is, a homeless can't get an education to have something interesting to say, or a person who didn't grow up in a French speaking country can't learn good enough French or this or that or sundry of my positions (like preferring Ukraine over Russia ... though not to supporting the bombing of Moscow) rubs them the wrong way, they seem decided (last time I checked) to treat me like a nice guy, but one they can simply ignore. If I try to get a following among young people who haven't started their carreeres yet, in the hope of one of them starting a publishing house with my writings as a starting point, I'm getting demonised both as a "bad influence on the internet" and possibly even as a potential predator.
There are situations where doing the right thing won't get you anywhere. There are people from whom others have taken control away over their lives, and in my case this has not happened legally, I have never been condemned to what's happening now.
10:51 Thanks for mentioning Lukianoff.
In 2021 Lukianoff coined the term Weimar Fallacy in reference to the idea that too much free speech is the true cause of the horrors of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Lukianoff noted of the Weimar Republic government's campaign of widespread shutdown of Nazi newspapers that: "in a two-year period, they shut down 99 in Prussia alone — but they accelerated that crackdown on speech as the Nazis ascended to power. Hitler himself was banned from speaking in several German states from 1925 until 1927."
I'm probably a victim of that fallacy. I support, like Connor Estelle, Franco, for several things, including ending a period of assassination culture, as well as upholding bans on abortion and introducing bans on freemasonry. For this reason, some see me as an equivalent of Hitler. And find denials or, when that's too blatantly illegal, sabotage of free speech and of the freedoms others have to consult me, including by outright calumny, to be the best way to "avoid making the Weimar mistake".
I've cited wiki referring to:
Eric Berkowitz’s new book ‘Dangerous Ideas’ is a masterpiece, but I have some quibbles
by Greg Lukianoff May 7, 2021
https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/eric-berkowitzs-new-book-dangerous-ideas-masterpiece-i-have-some
12:24 Here I'd clearly agree.
What happened with Milo is unacceptable, as well as obviously what happened to his supporter.
And it's very well related to the kind of hate crime Charlie Kirk was killed in.
13:25 "broken bodies" may be a reference to remarks he apologised for considering the age of consent ...
13:25 bis, if it refers to Gazawis, it seems that they were barking up the wrong tree. Milo is not a known supporter of Israel.
24:41 "Christ or Chaos" is a booktitle too. I recalled Dorothy Sayers vaguely, but her book is "Creed or Chaos", while "Christ or Chaos" is a 2016 book by Dan DeWitt.
No comments:
Post a Comment