A new religion is created

Stranger in a Strange Land. SISAL to those of who read it.

Today is 15 Monday 2025. (I am editing this on 19 Sept. 2025)

This afternoon I finished a blog about violence -https://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2025/09/violence-last-resorts-and-necessities.html

Over at Quora, this question JUST popped up in my feed: JD Vance will guest host the TurningPoint USA podcast. Should Vance sit in Charlie's chair or use a different seat? Should he use Charlie's microphone or a different microphone? Thoughts?

These are important in the context of this blog. Lemme link 'em together for you.

IMMEDIATE REACTION

On hearing of the death of Charlie Kirk and finding out more about him, my first reaction was, the dude is now a martyr. I immediately jumped to SISAL and thought about of Mike being ripped to shreds by the crowd and Jubal Harshaw immediately setting plans in motion to buy the ground where Mike was killed. 

I wondered who would try to buy the place where Charlie Kirk was when he was shot. I wondered what kind of shrine will be built to this conservative icon. I wondered and wondered.

Heinlein's magnum opus ranks just below Dune as a commentary on humanity. The Grand Master said he wrote a book to make people think, challenge assumptions and question, hopefully to learn.

Whoa. Now I wonder if Charlie Kirk read SISAL.

RAH's seminal work in his fictional universe also set the stage for a new religion built around the young Valentine Michael Smith. In the book, Harshaw saw it coming and took steps to push the concept forward.

The similarities here are eerie. Of course, there are a metric ton of differences in the specifics. Space travel, real Martians, etc. But the underlying thread... it's just uncanny.

31

Jesus, son of Joseph, was killed in his early 30s.

The first record we have of Jesus doing His ministry was when he was around 12. According to the protestant Bible, there is a gap until he was around 30. That gap is covered in some of the recently discovered scrolls. A lot of people discount those works. Of course, a lot of people discount the entire Bible.

Charlie launched his work around age 18.

Charlie was killed at age 31.

The Charlie Kirk radio show started in 2020. His first TV appearance was in 2012.

He died in 2025.

Trying to tie all that together into something that clearly joins up is also something out of conspiracy theory handbooks. Even stretching the point, the numbers do not line up.

And? Too many "conspiracy" theories are proving true for me to be a complete atheist about 'em.

What if, as Lara asked, this was meant to be? Christians believe Jesus was meant for death even before He was born. And Charlie? If there is a being in charge of creation, we have to accept that possibility.

VIOLENCE

Jesus, like so many other leaders in history, was persecuted by both the government and by the people around Him. His message was radical, offensive to many and presented a very real challenge to the status quo.

A lot of people disagreed with Jesus. They wanted nothing to do with him. They wanted him gone, as in leave town or die.

So it is with true bastions of peace and change. Those who really sought the least violent ways of change, those who wanted people to really look into themselves, they were pariahs to the intelligentsia and the leaders.

Charlie? Much Exactly the same thing.

Conspiracy theorists started almost immediately. This was some kind of plot by a group to kill this man. Some pointed to an actual government conspiracy. No evidence, but evidence doesn't matter to true believers. Some say it was part of a national left-wing or right-wing group. Some say the killer was really acting alone.

2000 years later, we know there was a conspiracy to kill Jesus. We know the government was complicit. 

Oh. You thought I was writing about Charlie. 

You are correct. I wrote about both.

As of this writing, we don't know all the particulars. About which one? Both.

Just as a religion grew around Jesus, well, the stage is certainly set, as Lara says. Centuries from now Charlie Kirk and his legacy and record certainly may become the stuff of religion.

When I heard he was killed and did a bit of research, I immediate concluded some people will turn this man (you pick which one) into a saint. Is he a saint? Jesus is not; He is more than a saint. Charlie? Ehhhh. 

The Catholic Church has a process for canonization. Jesus was not a Catholic. Charlie, not being a Catholic, won't be honored by the Church of Rome. Of course, the Catholic Church also does not speak for all Christians. It does not even speak for a majority of Christians. Increasingly, it does not speak for all Catholics.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/opposition-pope-francis-rooted-rejection-vatican-ii

WRONG

He appealed to people to provide real evidence that he was wrong. If he was wrong, he promised to change.

Look at how he talked to with people. I have talked to people who said they did not agree with everything he said. These people did say they loved the way he talked, drawing in people from everywhere and having a kind, forthright and honest discussion with them. No insults, no invective, just two friends finding common ground and building on that.

No wonder he was killed.

Which one? Yes.

Charlie challenged people to think. Charlie challenged people to look at the real world, the real facts and most importantly, themselves.

No wonder he was killed.

Charlie gave hope to many people. Some people will not tolerate that. 

No wonder he was killed.

Charlie wanted people to live a better life. Some people cannot stand the idea of people being allowed to chart their own course unless it adheres to what they dictate. These are the people hurling vitriol at the memory of Charlie Kirk.

No wonder he was killed.

Charlie tried to bring joy to a world in desperate need of it.

No wonder he was killed.

Charlie wanted to bring an end to pain.

No wonder he was killed.

Charlie Kirk was the kind of radical that a society of sheep will not tolerate.

No wonder he was killed.

So was Jesus.

All the criticism I have read of Charlie Kirk is from people who twist his words, warp them and insist they really know what Charlie was saying. Put Charlie's words in context and every. single. argument. in these lines falls apart. We have enough of his stuff in his own words to put paid to the naysayers.

Attacks on genuine leaders are the price of being a genuine leader. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gncyDkWWY_w (My all time favorite song.)

POOH-POOH

Today, we may pooh-pooh the idea of all this lining up in a certain way.

200 years from now? 300, 400 years? 

Consider all the records we have of Charlie. What will people centuries from now think about this?

Charlie Kirk stands a very good chance of becoming a religious icon, as Lara said.

WORMHOLES

I was headed that way in my thinking about this. Maybe I'da made it there. Maybe not. Lots of idea germinate, get started and go into a sort of stasis. This blogsite has lots of half-completed ideas. I may finish them. I may not. (I'm done with this, 19 Sept. 2025.)

For this one, thanks to Lara, I rolled through a Lara-cut space-time wormhole of thought process and reached the conclusion I needed to complete this. It is a conclusion I may have never reached on my own.

As she and I talked earlier this same day I said, "I gotta write this."

"Really?"

"Really."

"You'll send me a copy?"

"Of course."

"Wow. I gave you something to write,"

Indeed.

TWO addenda

Got 2 items to add that are only tangentially connected to the above. I wanna say it. My blog. I make the rules.

Today, I saw a Washington Post columnist was fired for remarks she made about Charlie's work. Who was it? You can go look that up.

At first, I was infuriated. So, I did some reading.

My fury abated, turned to confusion, shifted into disappointment and finally into satisfaction.

The fundament of journalism is accuracy.

Get.

It.

Right. 

You can be arrogant. You can even be late (sometimes). You can be opinionated. You can be many things.

You. Can. Not. Be. Wrong.

This columnist was racist. While I do not like that, I would not silence the voice. I know many who want to.

This writer was anti gun. Again, don't like it, but opinions must be shared. I repeat - Opinions must be shared. I know many who would silence such voices.

This journalist was definitely well past the moderate left. Hey. We need people like that just like we need people like Charlie Kirk, that InfoWars idiot and others.

I know many who believe radicals should be shut down completely.

This employee - correction - former employee of one of the nation's most prestigious newspapers had no problem in taking direct quotes and changing them to fit her narrative and offer that as fact. I saw it in her posts which I then went and checked against verified records.

These were not honest mistakes. She crafted deliberate distortions of easily verified facts.

Oh, hell no.

Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya!

Meantime, this person who used to be a journalist is now spinning the story so she is a victim. If you read her work, you will say, "Yep, knew that was gonna happen."

That she was fired in once place, canceled in another, not her fault. It is oppression in her view.

In other words, she refuses to accept responsibility for her own actions. 

I'll betcha Charlie would have talked with her like they were friends since they were toddlers. She would have tried to tear him down, as she's done in her post-assassination writings. He would have reasoned, encouraged and offered help.

No wonder he was killed.

Free speechifying (19 Sept. 2025 addenda)

One of the late night TV show hosts was also canned. The left is all splodey heads right now over free speechifying

His firing was a business decision. 

Was that decision influenced by the government? Maybe. The government does issue broadcast licenses. Those licenses come with a LOT of controls.
https://govfacts.org/federal/fcc/how-the-fcc-controls-your-phone-tv-and-internet/

Here's something the Left and the Right will not tell you - Gummint control over content on cable, satellite TV and the Internet is massively less, almost nonexistent.. You can stream adult porn online over cable TV the Internet and via satellite. Legal. Can't get that on broadcast TV. 

It is illegal to stream child porn; I really need permission to personally deal with child molesters. I'll need more small caliber, low-power ammo. Donations will cover that.

Anyway, that fired TV person was watched by massively more people over cable, satellite and Internet than via broadcast TV. 

It. Was. A. Business. Decision.

Here's something else they won't tell you. The right to free speech also means government cannot force you to say, produce, publish (whatever) anything. You do not have to provide space for speech you disagree with. You can say no and the speakers have to leave.

Yes. 1A and 5A are in tandem on this. I can prove this to you and will, if pushed.

Also, those bitching about that TV show guy getting canned? They celebrated when Rosanne (however you spell that entity's name) was fired.

In case you don't wonder, I do not like Rose(whatever), the guy who got fired or any of the late night TV comedian/hosts I've had the displeasure to watch.

I may not agree with them being hired or fired, but that business decision is not mine.

Fired

A few years back I had a columnist at the paper. I fired that person.

The person brought in a proposed column that was obviously copied from somewhere. The columnist denied it. I gave the writer a warning - Do not do this again.

A while later, the person brought in another column, obviously copied from another source. I confronted the writer. The person doubled down. Claimed he/she wrote it.

"Then how could I find this exact same article online?"

Shoulders shrugged.

Columnist terminated.

I did not always agree with what this person wrote. Irrelevant. I am all about sharing views that are different from mine. I may learn something!

I did not and will not tolerate intellectual property right theft, as that person did.