"Seeking to reason with them and win them over was the naive, innocent approach of Charlie Kirk"
The error of the late great Charles Kirk was confusing individuals with the Movement. If you stand in front of a mass gathering of people with psychotic beliefs and try to tell them even the most mundane truths you are acting suicidal. Whereas an individual here and there can and will be cherry picked out of the mass.
It took the sacrifice of Charles Kirk to help us sort this out. I confess that many years ago I prayed and asked God to open the eyes of the atheist left, but if He wouldn't open their eyes at least open their mouths so that the clear truth of what they are comes out so people could hear it and see it and have a fair chance to make an informed choice before they are judged.
Is that what's happening now? Perhaps I didn't understand the sinister consequences of my prayer. I was guilty of being at the same time too pragmatic and too naive. I think I had no idea of the depths of their Satanic evil, otherwise I would have been more circumspect. And maybe that's the way God wanted it at the time, I don't know. All I know is I'm astounded at what I observe.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Lord God has raised you up, MW, to be a light shining in the darkness, a still small voice of truth crying in the wilderness. I have to say that because you write out explicitly what is in my heart regarding these matters, but with such infinite grace that I'm humbled beyond measure. I read a lot of pretty good stuff here and there, but nobody nails it the way you have been doing, especially recently. May God bless you and keep you safe.
I mean every word of it, especially the part about you and your writings. Your work has become a priority on my reading list. It's gone from interesting to essential.
Say, Colin.. I do know what you're thinking and feeling as you encounter that sort of religious language there...
...But just listen now, have you ever looked into the Turin Shroud?
You know, the image on that linen, having all the particular qualities that it does, could only have been created by an incredibly intense burst of light.
I urge you to watch this video by Dr. John Campell. In it, he presents the evidence:
Yes, it does seem that should the Right, and by that I mean the true nationalist Right, gain power it will need to take control and implement laws against the insane Leftist, failure to do so will only place us back where we are were.
My view is, and I come from a very strong viewpoint on this issue, Leftism was simply one form of Jewish Supremacists power, regardless of how much of a life of its own it may or may not have developed. This is also true of the Plutocracy, often mistaken as “the Right” by some, whose power is also immense.
I am mindful that my views may not be completely in line with some of the good people who post comments here, and by posting my views I am in no way trying to pretend they are the opinions of Woes and his followers. However, I feel I should be honest about how I see these things.
If the people who are the creators of such movements are not exposed I sincerely believe we will not be able to win long term. Obviously, if this group of people suddenly lost their power, the negative impact of these movements, and thought patterns they set in place, would still take some effort in beating, but would certainly be something we could eventually overcome.
'...right now I want to see women in tears and eunuchs on the dole. I feel no guilt for saying this. They made me unemployable for trying to protect my ethnic group; I am very happy for them to be made unemployable for mocking a good man’s brutal murder.'
Absolutely.
This is your best essay yet, Woes. And you stated very well what many of us have been thinking.
I used to think we could reason with them, at least delineate why exactly we differ and then as it were politely agree to disagree, e.g. "you like being an atomised individual surrounded by other atoms, you find it stimulating and liberating. I find it depressing and stressful, so obviously we have different attitudes to mass immigration."
I've come to realise they don't care at all about truth, only power. They either have no compunctions about lying or are so addled and female that they don't even really grasp the difference between truth and deceit. When they have power, they use it to the utmost, without shame, without mercy, without proportion. The milder leftists, what I call the Libtards, would happily silence and imprison us for our beliefs. The worst, the Shitlibs, would kill us. You can have a polite if strained chat with them now, only because they can't get away with open murder, but if the law changed these people would instantly grab the nearest weapon and lunge at your throat.
This is my view too, sadly. I used to think you could win an argument with them. But I now believe them indifferent to argument, debate or facts. They are zealots. Fanatics. It is emotional for them, which it is not for most conservatives or right-leaning types. For many this is their identity. They also seem unable to imagine consequences and embrace magical thinking too. An arsenal of defences we cannot easily penetrate. So let's stop trying, as the author suggests.
I don't think Charlie made a mistake in his approach. He was, by all accounts, a devout Christian, hence his approach of publicly advocating for godliness and truth as best he understood it. He put himself out there trusting that whether he lived or died, his witness would glorify God and build up both the Church and his nation.
Well done for a fine article that contains the right directions on how to treat the left. The sentence passed on Kirk’s murderer will be a huge global news story. The left and some on what passes for the right will advocate leniency. If the murderer is executed, we should be open in our view that the death penalty is the right course. This does not mean we should rejoice in a ghoulish way, which the left did after Kirk’s assassination, but we should be satisfied if justice is done.
I think that Charlie knew the depravity & wickedness of the left, better than we gave him credit for at the time, and the levels that they are only too willing to sink too. I think he found it necessary to engage them publicly, not for our benefit, or even their defeat, but rather to let them reveal themselves to the wider public. He obviously knew the possibility existed that they would attempt to take him out, better than we did apparently. I was taken aback at the number of those celebrating and the glee, but I have to wonder if he would have been.
Ah yes, the glory days of Telegraph Blogs. I believe you were also commenting on the Telegraph under another name. Is that true ? You are becoming quite a sage and Millenniyule has become an almost ancient insitution. You've written some great articles recently. I'd like this opportunity to thank you for all the years of effort you have given to our cause. May the Gods protect you Woes
One time on the Telegraph Blogs somebody wrote asking me if I ever sleep. I replied " no ". I really miss kicking the Guardianistas all over the place. I was in my true element.
There was a time when my political reading go-to was the comments on the Telegraph blog. It was a breath of fresh air amid the stale atmosphere of the mainstream.
Having been unfriended on FB by just about every white female professor on my list for merely pointing out a salient detail necessary in order to properly analyze the issue, I'd say it's impossible to reason with them. I also just got in trouble at my university teaching job for making students feel "anxious and uncomfortable" by telling them that they are woefully outnumbered by geriatrics as an effect of feminism and declining birthrates. This is a fact, and it was relevant to the research project we're working on.
One student claimed that the aesthetic decline in corporate restaurant design is "late stage capitalism." So in true Socratic fashion, I asked him if that's the cause, then what is the solution? The student of course did not have an answer, and it also seemed to me that he was shocked to find I wasn't clapping like a seal at this parroted "opinion."
The director advised me not to "challenge" them.
So what is my f'ng job then. Preschool nurse?
In every interaction, the Left cannot refute the explanations and evidence that I provide to them. They spit insults, shibboleths, and wave their hands.
In short, they don't know why they are doing what they are doing. They're just doing it.
They are controlled by feelings, and the matriarchal society enables this stupid hysteria.
Imagine telling a professor that my job is to make sure they always feel good. So what happens if they fail the course?
I got involved with a female psychopath who tried to control me with her "feelings" -- it's the same. They control with their "feelings" -- never mind the veracity of these "opinions." Like soft on crime policies because poor black men in prison, never mind the actual effects of allowing people to commit crimes...
IDIOT COMPASSION.
I realized after the female psychopath had destroyed the project with her manipulations, gas lighting, and all else that utterly exhausted me to the point of nervous breakdown, that the issue was, from the get go -- to take the problem seriously -- I had seen the red flags, but waved them by. No. These people cannot be trusted with power of any kind, because they don't even know why they are promoting what the promote. No one should take these people seriously. That was Kirk's mistake, to a certain extent. Kirk, by the way, grew up in the same town as me, and we went to the same high school. I know this character -- I carry the same earnest trait -- that sincerity and discussion will win.
But we're dealing with psychotic people, either congenital or groomed by media -- it does not matter. They are literally STUPID, according to the theory of stupidity; it's a stupidity that doesn't even help THEM, while it heaves huge harms on society.
Left? Right? That sort of in the box thinking surely went out with the Flintstones for anyone watching this little planet dispassionately for the last 40 years at least.
We know who murdered him, come on, we ALL know. And we ALL know why as Owens has shown us the texts and TPUSA has confirmed they are real.
And why give his grieving widow a pass when she absolutely clearly was NOT grieving. The goy had outlived his usefulness to her tribe and that was that.
If you truly want to bring clarity then bring it, no-one gets a pass, especially not such a bad actress and nor the protection team with their AI glasses no doubt linked to an automatic gun and one tap of the finger and bang and not a flinch from the guy that tapped his glasses. Bring clarity by ......... noticing ......... and not being afraid to say what you noticed.
The focus of this essay is not on who killed him - and I explicitly say at the start that we don't know and I link to several pieces of evidence that the official narrative is untrue - but on the reaction from LEFTISTS worldwide. That is the focus, not who did it.
Colin, I am sure you are being the gentleman regarding Erika Kirk, but I cannot overlook the fact that she had taken on the role of leading TPUSA days before making that statement of forgiveness at the memorial service. She was not just a widow speaking, but more importantly, the new figurehead of her late husband's organization. Be wary of women in leadership positions, especially when they have bypassed any rigorous vetting process, or you will end up with precisely this outcome.
Agreed about women leaders. But I'm not very worried about TPUSA. I think it will either align with the hard attitudes of its young members or it will perish. More likely the latter, and a new organisation will arise to replace it.
Women in leadership positions tend to spell death to the integrity of any organization claiming to be Christian, traditional, or conservative in its values. Aside from a few outliers such as Phyllis Schlafly, women simply do not have those values in their pure form, and they are not good leaders, regardless.
Some years ago I came across an article on Counter Currents which wa exploring how to define moral as opposed to immoral. The conclusion was that the only real definition was that being moral meant having the ability to recognise that which is destructive or beneficial for ones own kin, community, tribe, nation ethnic group and race. Anything other than devotion to our own kind and our survival is evil
"Seeking to reason with them and win them over was the naive, innocent approach of Charlie Kirk"
The error of the late great Charles Kirk was confusing individuals with the Movement. If you stand in front of a mass gathering of people with psychotic beliefs and try to tell them even the most mundane truths you are acting suicidal. Whereas an individual here and there can and will be cherry picked out of the mass.
It took the sacrifice of Charles Kirk to help us sort this out. I confess that many years ago I prayed and asked God to open the eyes of the atheist left, but if He wouldn't open their eyes at least open their mouths so that the clear truth of what they are comes out so people could hear it and see it and have a fair chance to make an informed choice before they are judged.
Is that what's happening now? Perhaps I didn't understand the sinister consequences of my prayer. I was guilty of being at the same time too pragmatic and too naive. I think I had no idea of the depths of their Satanic evil, otherwise I would have been more circumspect. And maybe that's the way God wanted it at the time, I don't know. All I know is I'm astounded at what I observe.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Lord God has raised you up, MW, to be a light shining in the darkness, a still small voice of truth crying in the wilderness. I have to say that because you write out explicitly what is in my heart regarding these matters, but with such infinite grace that I'm humbled beyond measure. I read a lot of pretty good stuff here and there, but nobody nails it the way you have been doing, especially recently. May God bless you and keep you safe.
Thank you, James.
I mean every word of it, especially the part about you and your writings. Your work has become a priority on my reading list. It's gone from interesting to essential.
Say, Colin.. I do know what you're thinking and feeling as you encounter that sort of religious language there...
...But just listen now, have you ever looked into the Turin Shroud?
You know, the image on that linen, having all the particular qualities that it does, could only have been created by an incredibly intense burst of light.
I urge you to watch this video by Dr. John Campell. In it, he presents the evidence:
https://youtu.be/YT1R2kDPHFA?si=G8eX1QR7mtDwQuM0
As incredible as it sounds, and against all expectation, the resurrection really did take place - yes, bodily and all..
I believe the artifact is an important message for the modern day; and one specifically addressed to the very likes of you and I, Colin.
Go on, please do humour me here.
It might be more important than you are even able to realise, from your current perspective.
Such was certainly the case with me..
Yes, it does seem that should the Right, and by that I mean the true nationalist Right, gain power it will need to take control and implement laws against the insane Leftist, failure to do so will only place us back where we are were.
My view is, and I come from a very strong viewpoint on this issue, Leftism was simply one form of Jewish Supremacists power, regardless of how much of a life of its own it may or may not have developed. This is also true of the Plutocracy, often mistaken as “the Right” by some, whose power is also immense.
I am mindful that my views may not be completely in line with some of the good people who post comments here, and by posting my views I am in no way trying to pretend they are the opinions of Woes and his followers. However, I feel I should be honest about how I see these things.
If the people who are the creators of such movements are not exposed I sincerely believe we will not be able to win long term. Obviously, if this group of people suddenly lost their power, the negative impact of these movements, and thought patterns they set in place, would still take some effort in beating, but would certainly be something we could eventually overcome.
I think they are being exposed now, gradually.
'...right now I want to see women in tears and eunuchs on the dole. I feel no guilt for saying this. They made me unemployable for trying to protect my ethnic group; I am very happy for them to be made unemployable for mocking a good man’s brutal murder.'
Absolutely.
This is your best essay yet, Woes. And you stated very well what many of us have been thinking.
There is no political solution in America. It will take more leftist atrocity to summon the righteous lawbreaking required to win.
Now the Kirkinator has risen, he fights against those who destroyed him (teeeeeny hats).
Wow, what a great article! You are so correct, Woes.
I used to think we could reason with them, at least delineate why exactly we differ and then as it were politely agree to disagree, e.g. "you like being an atomised individual surrounded by other atoms, you find it stimulating and liberating. I find it depressing and stressful, so obviously we have different attitudes to mass immigration."
I've come to realise they don't care at all about truth, only power. They either have no compunctions about lying or are so addled and female that they don't even really grasp the difference between truth and deceit. When they have power, they use it to the utmost, without shame, without mercy, without proportion. The milder leftists, what I call the Libtards, would happily silence and imprison us for our beliefs. The worst, the Shitlibs, would kill us. You can have a polite if strained chat with them now, only because they can't get away with open murder, but if the law changed these people would instantly grab the nearest weapon and lunge at your throat.
This is my view too, sadly. I used to think you could win an argument with them. But I now believe them indifferent to argument, debate or facts. They are zealots. Fanatics. It is emotional for them, which it is not for most conservatives or right-leaning types. For many this is their identity. They also seem unable to imagine consequences and embrace magical thinking too. An arsenal of defences we cannot easily penetrate. So let's stop trying, as the author suggests.
I don't think Charlie made a mistake in his approach. He was, by all accounts, a devout Christian, hence his approach of publicly advocating for godliness and truth as best he understood it. He put himself out there trusting that whether he lived or died, his witness would glorify God and build up both the Church and his nation.
God if He exists is not protecting Christians. There are even some who think Christianity breaks the first and second commandments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQdKPEHWSHc
Well done for a fine article that contains the right directions on how to treat the left. The sentence passed on Kirk’s murderer will be a huge global news story. The left and some on what passes for the right will advocate leniency. If the murderer is executed, we should be open in our view that the death penalty is the right course. This does not mean we should rejoice in a ghoulish way, which the left did after Kirk’s assassination, but we should be satisfied if justice is done.
I think that Charlie knew the depravity & wickedness of the left, better than we gave him credit for at the time, and the levels that they are only too willing to sink too. I think he found it necessary to engage them publicly, not for our benefit, or even their defeat, but rather to let them reveal themselves to the wider public. He obviously knew the possibility existed that they would attempt to take him out, better than we did apparently. I was taken aback at the number of those celebrating and the glee, but I have to wonder if he would have been.
testing
Hello, Dan. I remember you!
Ah yes, the glory days of Telegraph Blogs. I believe you were also commenting on the Telegraph under another name. Is that true ? You are becoming quite a sage and Millenniyule has become an almost ancient insitution. You've written some great articles recently. I'd like this opportunity to thank you for all the years of effort you have given to our cause. May the Gods protect you Woes
Thank you.
And yes, I was on DT Blogs back in the day, under one or maybe two pseudonyms. My comments there would probably embarrass me now...
One time on the Telegraph Blogs somebody wrote asking me if I ever sleep. I replied " no ". I really miss kicking the Guardianistas all over the place. I was in my true element.
There was a time when my political reading go-to was the comments on the Telegraph blog. It was a breath of fresh air amid the stale atmosphere of the mainstream.
Having been unfriended on FB by just about every white female professor on my list for merely pointing out a salient detail necessary in order to properly analyze the issue, I'd say it's impossible to reason with them. I also just got in trouble at my university teaching job for making students feel "anxious and uncomfortable" by telling them that they are woefully outnumbered by geriatrics as an effect of feminism and declining birthrates. This is a fact, and it was relevant to the research project we're working on.
One student claimed that the aesthetic decline in corporate restaurant design is "late stage capitalism." So in true Socratic fashion, I asked him if that's the cause, then what is the solution? The student of course did not have an answer, and it also seemed to me that he was shocked to find I wasn't clapping like a seal at this parroted "opinion."
The director advised me not to "challenge" them.
So what is my f'ng job then. Preschool nurse?
In every interaction, the Left cannot refute the explanations and evidence that I provide to them. They spit insults, shibboleths, and wave their hands.
In short, they don't know why they are doing what they are doing. They're just doing it.
They are controlled by feelings, and the matriarchal society enables this stupid hysteria.
Imagine telling a professor that my job is to make sure they always feel good. So what happens if they fail the course?
I got involved with a female psychopath who tried to control me with her "feelings" -- it's the same. They control with their "feelings" -- never mind the veracity of these "opinions." Like soft on crime policies because poor black men in prison, never mind the actual effects of allowing people to commit crimes...
IDIOT COMPASSION.
I realized after the female psychopath had destroyed the project with her manipulations, gas lighting, and all else that utterly exhausted me to the point of nervous breakdown, that the issue was, from the get go -- to take the problem seriously -- I had seen the red flags, but waved them by. No. These people cannot be trusted with power of any kind, because they don't even know why they are promoting what the promote. No one should take these people seriously. That was Kirk's mistake, to a certain extent. Kirk, by the way, grew up in the same town as me, and we went to the same high school. I know this character -- I carry the same earnest trait -- that sincerity and discussion will win.
But we're dealing with psychotic people, either congenital or groomed by media -- it does not matter. They are literally STUPID, according to the theory of stupidity; it's a stupidity that doesn't even help THEM, while it heaves huge harms on society.
Bruh. Comment of the day.
Left? Right? That sort of in the box thinking surely went out with the Flintstones for anyone watching this little planet dispassionately for the last 40 years at least.
We know who murdered him, come on, we ALL know. And we ALL know why as Owens has shown us the texts and TPUSA has confirmed they are real.
And why give his grieving widow a pass when she absolutely clearly was NOT grieving. The goy had outlived his usefulness to her tribe and that was that.
If you truly want to bring clarity then bring it, no-one gets a pass, especially not such a bad actress and nor the protection team with their AI glasses no doubt linked to an automatic gun and one tap of the finger and bang and not a flinch from the guy that tapped his glasses. Bring clarity by ......... noticing ......... and not being afraid to say what you noticed.
The focus of this essay is not on who killed him - and I explicitly say at the start that we don't know and I link to several pieces of evidence that the official narrative is untrue - but on the reaction from LEFTISTS worldwide. That is the focus, not who did it.
Alright, I'm going to have to be that guy.
Colin, I am sure you are being the gentleman regarding Erika Kirk, but I cannot overlook the fact that she had taken on the role of leading TPUSA days before making that statement of forgiveness at the memorial service. She was not just a widow speaking, but more importantly, the new figurehead of her late husband's organization. Be wary of women in leadership positions, especially when they have bypassed any rigorous vetting process, or you will end up with precisely this outcome.
Agreed about women leaders. But I'm not very worried about TPUSA. I think it will either align with the hard attitudes of its young members or it will perish. More likely the latter, and a new organisation will arise to replace it.
Women in leadership positions tend to spell death to the integrity of any organization claiming to be Christian, traditional, or conservative in its values. Aside from a few outliers such as Phyllis Schlafly, women simply do not have those values in their pure form, and they are not good leaders, regardless.
Some years ago I came across an article on Counter Currents which wa exploring how to define moral as opposed to immoral. The conclusion was that the only real definition was that being moral meant having the ability to recognise that which is destructive or beneficial for ones own kin, community, tribe, nation ethnic group and race. Anything other than devotion to our own kind and our survival is evil
Yes!