I met Charlie Kirk's work accidentally a fewer years ago. Looking at YouTube, I went on videos documenting his debates with students on campuses across the US. I did not agree with all the views, but I was impressed by his kindness and the ability to debate in a meaningful way.
He spoke to everyone and on all subjects, as the discussions were initiated by the students themselves, frequently with the intention of showing him that he was incorrect or proving his views. There were besides arguments of ad personam or invectors at his address. Charlie responded to everything with calmness, respect for the interviewer and utilizing factual arguments. He was always honest and open to conversation.
He was perfectly prepared on all subject, quoting facts and sources, overthrowing myths and misconceptions planted by propaganda. The speakers may have left unconvinced, but with the feeling that the simplified imagination of the planet served to them by the media and universities is not as clear as they thought. Similarly, passive listeners of his debates besides became doubtful of the ubiquitous propaganda universities of America.
His debates through videos and podcasts reached millions. And that was most likely the origin of the assassination. He must have died not only for what he said, but for listening to him and starting to uncertainty the mainstream narrative. He was dangerous. If we consider it aggressive to say things that we do not like to say, we grant ourselves the right to respond aggressively. We can usage whatever means we can to silence him.
At American (and European) universities, it became the norm to deny voting rights to those whose university authorities consider inappropriate. Progressive forces have repeatedly prevented Charlie from conducting debates, sometimes in an organization manner, and sometimes direct attacks on him by unknown perpetrators, or Indignant students.
The creation of “safe spaces” that defend over-sensitive from unpleasant experiences has become so absurd that university libraries bear warnings that they can offend the feelings of immature and self-centered individuals who consider themselves students. For example, specified Mark Twain utilized the word Negro, and in medieval England there were not many people of different skin colour (one Othello of spring does not make) or women's rights.
To specified places Charlie was pilgrimaged to and debated the subjects proposed by students in a meaningful way, causing discomfort in any of them. How dare he?! It cannot be that individual is walking around and making public opinions or talking about facts that any group of people do not like. Of course, they deserve it. safe spaceThe full planet should adapt to their ideas and expectations.
Public reading Adventures by Tomk Sawyerwhether any chosen book is for a selected group of people in the United States an unparalleled aggression, to which there is only 1 correct answer, the death of an aggressor. erstwhile again, if we consider the usage of freedom of speech to be aggression, we justify an aggressive consequence to what individual does not like.
This policy has been pursued for a long time by authoritative media and ordained politicians of groups called progressive and democratic. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is the result.
On the question put straight by Mentzen, the candidate for president Rafał Trzaskowski of the Łobowatelska Kolalitiona for president Rafał Trzaskowski replied that he supports freedom of speech, but not speech of hatred. Of course, he did not explain who and on what basis will justice what this hatred speech is. most likely any authority, the Ministry of National Truth, or even better the European Union.
According to the enlightened European elite, freedom of speech is not the inalienable and natural right of all men, but the privilege given by governments. Therefore, governments can in any way restrict and take under any circumstances, specified as protecting the feelings of a group of people. It is the power to decide whose feelings will be protected. For example, in Europe the spiritual feelings of Christians have ceased to be protected, but spiritual feelings of Islam’s followers are heavy protected. This is evidenced by the many judgments of the courts of European States confirming specified protection.
Liberals, too, believe that they have the right to restrict their statements to uncomfortable or unpleasant. Worse than conservative Poland is in Western countries, where things went much further. There people are obliged to say what the political correctness and professional groups of victims require of them.
For example, they should be active in the delusions of those imagining that they are any 15 imaginary sexes and utilizing imaginary pronouns against them. Calling individual is aggression, so the answer may be aggression, not necessarily verbal. Among bombers shooting late in the U.S., transsexuals are greatly overrepresented, which is understandable given their intellectual condition, but completely ignored by the media.
We should besides constantly punish ourselves for alleged racism. To be racist automatically qualifies the very fact of being white, just as being black justifies the sense of harm and demanding its repair by allegedly privileged whites. Those who have never been slaves request compensation from those who have never been slave owners. peculiar treatment should be given everywhere, at work, at school, at university.
Meanwhile, Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old guy with a microphone and no contract with mainstream television, whose number of viewers surpassed the ratings of most television, dared to talk and answer any questions and charges. He boldly spoke of what was to be taboo, factually and bluntly justified his opinions. You could disagree with him, but you couldn't ignore him. He did not give in to the culture of cancelling uncomfortable voices, so he had to be physically silenced.
Trying to justify the killing of the media and politicians fabricate excuses, make up facts and stories. They like to quote that Charlie was a spokesperson for access to arms, carefully forgetting that most crimes are done utilizing illegal weapons from illegal sources, and legal weapons in the hands of citizens reduce crime.
When the bomber was suspected to be right-wing, the media kept saying that. abruptly they were silent erstwhile it turned out otherwise and had a transsexual partner.
As an example of fabricating and mistaking information, take Karen Attiah, a erstwhile reporter at the Washington Post. She's late been fired and thinks it's unfair. She is defended by many powerful men of this world, including Barack Obama. What about her journalistic integrity? Here is an example of her own claim:
According to Karen, Charlie allegedly said: Black women don't have adequate brain processing power to take them seriously. They gotta bargain the place from a white person.
Meanwhile, what Charlie Kirk actually said looks completely different. Summary below:
Joy Reid: I only got into Harvard due to the affirmative action.
Sheila Jackson Lee: I stand present as the apparent beneficiary of affirmative action
Michelle Obama: I wasn't expected to go to Princeton due to the fact that [my school counselors] ruled I had besides mediocre exam results.
Charlie Kirk: Joy Reid, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Michelle Obama utilized racial politics [the alleged affirmative action] to get seats at colleges that others deserved more.
Media: It's unbelievable how he could say that.
A longer message on the subject was available in the movie evidence The Charlie Kirk Show. He lists Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson and Ketanji Brown as the beneficiaries of affirmative action, he says they themselves acknowledged it. In summary:
You 3 don't haveEnough brain power to be taken seriously. You had to bargain a place from a white man to be taken a small seriously.
Thus, his message is not about race, but only about these 3 mentioned in the surname of women and the racial policy they utilized in their career, or affirmative action.
Charlie Kirk was not a racist, and the race considered the concept deluded, which is easy seen from the following.
This should be distributed and read by all liberals:
The thought of “white privilege” is racist
The black-only dorms are racist.
Math classes only for Hispanics are racist.
Science clearly indicates that we are all human beings.
The race was invented, halt utilizing it. There's no technological basis for race, it's an imaginary label.
It was akin with his expected anti-Semitism. He erstwhile quoted an anti-Semitic view to face him and criticize him. A conviction ripped out of context circulated in the media as “proof” of his anti-Semitism, then somewhere embarrassingly was a correction, well hidden, so that no 1 would announcement it. Of course, correction does not prevent us from repeating an imaginary charge.
It's amazing how co-ordinated Charlie's killing run is. On the social media of the United States, but besides on television, there were voices that he owed himself. He said uncomfortable things, convinced young people, and kept quiet.
In the United States, statements were made Progressors openly enjoying the murder. Similarly, in many European countries, Eugyppius cites German politicians and journalists Here. and Here..
If individual does not believe in coordination, they should look at the events in the European Parliament, but besides amazingly akin in the Polish Parliament. The proposals to honour the minute of silence of the murdered Charlie Kirk met with mockery and rejection by the debaters, and erstwhile conservative MPs did arise, these "progress" could not refrain from interfering.
Similar behaviours have occurred at local authorities. A councilman from Konina even posted his jokes online (*). The media's attitude to death itself clearly shows the headline:
A Konin councillor published a movie referring to the death of Charlie Kirk, a right-wing extremist and advocate for free access to firearms, shot during a speech on the subject.
Charlie Kirk was for free access to the guns, so he asked for it. As for the right-wing radical, it is now being made for claiming that there are only 2 sexes and men cannot bear children.
The tvn24 portal repeatedly posted short several-time notes on Charlie's death, and each time most of the text was enumerated as a terrible right-wing extremist. These notes did not carry information, they were just further excuses to post an epithet calculation.
As ugly as the remainder of Polish and abroad “progressive” media remained erstwhile a decent (former, past) weekly Policy No 38 (3532). The article is entitled Agitator Deathand, which was most likely expected to give readers a image of an agitator praising russian power to the dark masses.
The text is full of half-truths, warps, and agitations of readers who should realize that the victim deserved and begged herself. The article itself deserves attention:
The dramaturgy of Charlie Kirk's execution would not have been invented by top political thrillers. Trump camp gained a martyr.
Trump is guilty and those who support him, and the killer did them a favor, so they should be grateful.
The full final column of the two-page article is dedicated to Trump and his supporters. It starts like this: If it is said that the rhetoric of hatred is contagious, then the main outbreak of plague is in the White House. And the same until the final conviction of the article: The Cold War won't end until there's an arsonist in the White House, So it leaves no uncertainty who is guilty of murder, and who should be targeted now.
Extra Policy begins the article and repeats repeatedly, as did tvn24 claiming that Charlie on campuses spoke. It's just another small lie suggesting that he agitated and acted as a preacher. That's not true. His speeches were debates, not speeches, so he died in dialog alternatively than speaking. However, this could not be written, as it would spoil the full effect of the article. Like many repeated sentences about right-wing extremism, there was no place to mention that 31-year-old Charlie had orphaned 2 children.
On Sunday, a ceremony attended by the president of the United States, during which Trump said:
The same people who call you a "header" for utilizing the incorrect pronoun were filled with joy because of the execution of 2 beautiful small children. [...]
The same commentators who are shouting about this week fascism due to the canceled tv show last week, they suggested that Charlie He deserved it. For what happened to him. [...]
One part of our political community believes that it has a monopoly on truth, good and virtue—and concludes that it besides has a monopoly on power, thought and speech. It's not. [...]
If speaking is violence, any will surely conclude that force is justified to halt speech. No. No. We'll let it be justified.
Thank you for reading Substack Jack! Subscribe for free to receive fresh posts and support my work.
(*) A small close the subject. The behaviour of the councilman from Konin reminded me of my late friend at school. He was forced by his household to be an altar boy, which tormented him terribly. He told me that in order to ease his torment, during Mass he sang in the spirit of Valentina, Valentina... (Philippines - Valentina Twist 1964). However, he did not flaunt it (and did not post it on the web ;). Meanwhile, the councilman of Konin, who was not forced to be a councillor, showed little maturity than an 11-year-old. O tempora, o mores!
