A well-written and much-needed response to Erika Kirk's self-indulgent and morally vacuous "forgiveness" of Tyler Robinson. After all, he was not present to receive such a gift from her. Indeed, he has yet to be tried and found guilty of the crime he is alleged to have committed. How can she presume to forgive someone who may have been falsely accused of murdering her husband?
I now fully understand Christianity as a jew psyop. As much as I dislike them, I admire one thing: the jews forgive no one and they smite their enemies (or anyone they perceive as their enemies.) They defanged the Europeans with Christianity. That's why they rule the world.
It is much more complicated than that, and I do not think that you know who is solely responsible. They have had a very nefarious influence on American churches however. Consider example the misnomer of "Judeo-Christianity." Christian Zionism as well.
None of these people feigning "forgiveness" are true Christians, even by their own standards.
Because when they "forgive" the people who have harmed them or their loved ones, they are lying through their teeth.
The figure we know as Jesus had a few things to say about sticking to the truth.
What these imposters are expressing is at best weakness, and at worst a complete abrogation of their responsibility to those under their care, such as their own children or members of their congregations.
I appreciate your perspective. And I am glad that the language I have used has not alienated you, at least not to the point where you no longer read this burgeoning publication.
This is an excellent essay--Thank you! I immediately subscribed after reading it on Unz.com.
Here is the comment I made on Unz:
This quote:
“I call an animal, a race, an individual corrupt, when it loses its instincts, when it selects and prefers that which is detrimental to it.” –Nietzsche; The Antichrist
demonstrates the pressure put on people by the Christian doctrine to forgive a wrong doer, while it also refers to the irony of dishonoring self instinct over Christ died for you, so he will take care of the wrong doer and you don’t have to.
Religious doctrines, that override and suppress deeply personal moral investigations into the pain that such crimes, as abusive attacks, rape and murder of loved ones cause, are to blame for this socially designed self-lessness, which detracts from, the necessary human need to grieve, meditate, pray and go into solitude to engage deeply with one’s instincts and emotions. This to me is socially- indoctrinated religion’s biggest mistake against an individual’s human nature and against humanity.
It is very possible that it was the pressure to perform as a “good Christian” in front of the whole world, that Erica Kirk said what she did. We can only guess how she really feels.
Thank you for your kind comments.Not every reader is a fan of my writing, either substantively or my style of prose. Kind comments like yours are always appreciated.
The repentance aspect of forgiveness is an absolute necessity. Because as the the greatest story tells, if you forgive without your enemies' repentance, they will hang you on a cross and laugh as you bleed out. Perhaps that was the intended message of the story, that for whatever reason the churches don't pick up on.
I've seen a orthodox priest give a good account of what forgiveness is supposed to mean. A russian modern saint called Elizabeth Feodorovna after losing her husband to a bomb by a commie terrorist attack, went on his cell, forgave him, gave him a Bible and asked him to accept God, Don't know the guys answer but he was executed a week later, she forgave him to give him a chance to repent before dying. This has been abused by many to say that criminals should not be punished, a very stupid belief.
Hi, I'm a Christian who actually has a response to this, from the Christian perspective. I understand your moral incredulity, but I would be happy to write a response to this article in the comments, or even on my own Substack.
Hello. You are free to write whatever you please on your own substack. I hope you appreciate my perspective and see where I used restrained language to be as respectful and diplomatic as possible.
Sure! While I thoroughly disagree with what you wrote, I will gladly write a response to your article, since I have such the liberty to do so. Good day, Mr. Parker.
Update: I'm a slow-wit, aren't I? Well, I don't disagree with all of that you said, but I will reclarify and refine what you wrote in my response.
Im no lover of christianity but there is a deeper truth here. World view is very important but it doesnt fundamentally change us, even if it sometimes feels like it has. All it does is filter our natures through itself. Nigger christians are still niggers for instance. The unpalatable truth is that the White man has become weak & our worldview reflects that weakness. Its a two way street, like phenotype. That doesnt excuse wrong ideas like christianity, only puts them in their proper context. The context of christianity, jews, non-white violence etc... is weak White men. These external problems can only be solved when the White man stops being a domesticated animal, gets up off his knees & says 'i dont care & im not sorry'. This will take some time & a lot of suffering & struggle. As it turns out thats what were in for!
You can beat the crap out of a wrong doer, and place him in the noose while also forgiving him. In Lonesome Dove, that's what happened, Otherwise decent guy rides with killers. Posse shows up and hangs him, all while understanding that his evil was not that he killed anyone, but stood back while others did. And Erika did not say "we should forgive our enemies and not do anything while said enemies who like to maybe do a little murder keep murdering.
She simply said she forgives him. The rest is your own obvious slant that oh look, now the right are too soft. When often the cry is they are too hard. But hey, you want to judge with impossible conditions, you go and judge.
Not really. Of course there are those that argue only Christ can forgive, but I’m talking here on earth. There are no specific rules saying one can forgive and only forgive and that means they can’t do anything to stop a bad guy. That’s impractical. It also would endanger others.
One can forgive someone for a crime, even understand why they did the crime while punishing them for the crime.
That's a silly argument. Edit--the person who posted this comment deleted it. The comment trotted the fractured argument that a person can forgive someone and even destroy this person, if I recall correctly.
So, what is your easy-to-understand definition of forgive, anyway?
Erika said she did not seek the death penalty for Whomever Killed Charlie but only because she didn't want anyone's blood on her hands, so she'd leave it to the State, that amorphous, multicultural, no-one's-to-blame State, to do her dirty work for her. The interview where she said this is available from various mainstream sources.
Isn't that a handy little escape clause, like Buddhists who say that it's OK for adherents of that religion to eat meat if that particular slab of meat you are eating was not taken from an animal killed specifically for you. LOL. I'm not pushing vegetarianism here, I don't care what you eat, but the thinking is the same as regards Erika's statement. it's OK, Erika, not to worry - we all lack God's perfection and Christ died on the cross for your sins, so it's fine for you to try and ride two horses with one ass. Christians do this constantly.
The comment deleted, as I stated, seemed to indulge in the sort of doublethink both you and I describe. Look for an addendum, likely to appear tomorrow, for paid subscribers.
A well-written and much-needed response to Erika Kirk's self-indulgent and morally vacuous "forgiveness" of Tyler Robinson. After all, he was not present to receive such a gift from her. Indeed, he has yet to be tried and found guilty of the crime he is alleged to have committed. How can she presume to forgive someone who may have been falsely accused of murdering her husband?
I now fully understand Christianity as a jew psyop. As much as I dislike them, I admire one thing: the jews forgive no one and they smite their enemies (or anyone they perceive as their enemies.) They defanged the Europeans with Christianity. That's why they rule the world.
It is much more complicated than that, and I do not think that you know who is solely responsible. They have had a very nefarious influence on American churches however. Consider example the misnomer of "Judeo-Christianity." Christian Zionism as well.
I believe the jews are solely responsible.
None of these people feigning "forgiveness" are true Christians, even by their own standards.
Because when they "forgive" the people who have harmed them or their loved ones, they are lying through their teeth.
The figure we know as Jesus had a few things to say about sticking to the truth.
What these imposters are expressing is at best weakness, and at worst a complete abrogation of their responsibility to those under their care, such as their own children or members of their congregations.
It's completely contemptible.
Dear Anna,
I appreciate your perspective. And I am glad that the language I have used has not alienated you, at least not to the point where you no longer read this burgeoning publication.
This is an excellent essay--Thank you! I immediately subscribed after reading it on Unz.com.
Here is the comment I made on Unz:
This quote:
“I call an animal, a race, an individual corrupt, when it loses its instincts, when it selects and prefers that which is detrimental to it.” –Nietzsche; The Antichrist
demonstrates the pressure put on people by the Christian doctrine to forgive a wrong doer, while it also refers to the irony of dishonoring self instinct over Christ died for you, so he will take care of the wrong doer and you don’t have to.
Religious doctrines, that override and suppress deeply personal moral investigations into the pain that such crimes, as abusive attacks, rape and murder of loved ones cause, are to blame for this socially designed self-lessness, which detracts from, the necessary human need to grieve, meditate, pray and go into solitude to engage deeply with one’s instincts and emotions. This to me is socially- indoctrinated religion’s biggest mistake against an individual’s human nature and against humanity.
It is very possible that it was the pressure to perform as a “good Christian” in front of the whole world, that Erica Kirk said what she did. We can only guess how she really feels.
Great article. We do indeed need a religious revolution.
Thank you for your kind comments.Not every reader is a fan of my writing, either substantively or my style of prose. Kind comments like yours are always appreciated.
The repentance aspect of forgiveness is an absolute necessity. Because as the the greatest story tells, if you forgive without your enemies' repentance, they will hang you on a cross and laugh as you bleed out. Perhaps that was the intended message of the story, that for whatever reason the churches don't pick up on.
How about rejecting hoax assassinations?
I've seen a orthodox priest give a good account of what forgiveness is supposed to mean. A russian modern saint called Elizabeth Feodorovna after losing her husband to a bomb by a commie terrorist attack, went on his cell, forgave him, gave him a Bible and asked him to accept God, Don't know the guys answer but he was executed a week later, she forgave him to give him a chance to repent before dying. This has been abused by many to say that criminals should not be punished, a very stupid belief.
Hi, I'm a Christian who actually has a response to this, from the Christian perspective. I understand your moral incredulity, but I would be happy to write a response to this article in the comments, or even on my own Substack.
Hello. You are free to write whatever you please on your own substack. I hope you appreciate my perspective and see where I used restrained language to be as respectful and diplomatic as possible.
Sure! While I thoroughly disagree with what you wrote, I will gladly write a response to your article, since I have such the liberty to do so. Good day, Mr. Parker.
Update: I'm a slow-wit, aren't I? Well, I don't disagree with all of that you said, but I will reclarify and refine what you wrote in my response.
Whoever this chick is she is very pretty but not Erika Kirk 🤡
Pretty? Scrape all that stuff off her face and then we'll see. :)
Im no lover of christianity but there is a deeper truth here. World view is very important but it doesnt fundamentally change us, even if it sometimes feels like it has. All it does is filter our natures through itself. Nigger christians are still niggers for instance. The unpalatable truth is that the White man has become weak & our worldview reflects that weakness. Its a two way street, like phenotype. That doesnt excuse wrong ideas like christianity, only puts them in their proper context. The context of christianity, jews, non-white violence etc... is weak White men. These external problems can only be solved when the White man stops being a domesticated animal, gets up off his knees & says 'i dont care & im not sorry'. This will take some time & a lot of suffering & struggle. As it turns out thats what were in for!
https://archive.org/details/the-death-of-fragility-2nd-edition
You can beat the crap out of a wrong doer, and place him in the noose while also forgiving him. In Lonesome Dove, that's what happened, Otherwise decent guy rides with killers. Posse shows up and hangs him, all while understanding that his evil was not that he killed anyone, but stood back while others did. And Erika did not say "we should forgive our enemies and not do anything while said enemies who like to maybe do a little murder keep murdering.
She simply said she forgives him. The rest is your own obvious slant that oh look, now the right are too soft. When often the cry is they are too hard. But hey, you want to judge with impossible conditions, you go and judge.
It sounds like you want to have your cake & eat it?
Forgiveness rules out punishment.
Not really. Of course there are those that argue only Christ can forgive, but I’m talking here on earth. There are no specific rules saying one can forgive and only forgive and that means they can’t do anything to stop a bad guy. That’s impractical. It also would endanger others.
One can forgive someone for a crime, even understand why they did the crime while punishing them for the crime.
The law is based on Christian values.
That's a silly argument. Edit--the person who posted this comment deleted it. The comment trotted the fractured argument that a person can forgive someone and even destroy this person, if I recall correctly.
So, what is your easy-to-understand definition of forgive, anyway?
Erika said she did not seek the death penalty for Whomever Killed Charlie but only because she didn't want anyone's blood on her hands, so she'd leave it to the State, that amorphous, multicultural, no-one's-to-blame State, to do her dirty work for her. The interview where she said this is available from various mainstream sources.
Isn't that a handy little escape clause, like Buddhists who say that it's OK for adherents of that religion to eat meat if that particular slab of meat you are eating was not taken from an animal killed specifically for you. LOL. I'm not pushing vegetarianism here, I don't care what you eat, but the thinking is the same as regards Erika's statement. it's OK, Erika, not to worry - we all lack God's perfection and Christ died on the cross for your sins, so it's fine for you to try and ride two horses with one ass. Christians do this constantly.
Is this directed at me or the since deleted comment?
Nobody in particular. I am not always sure how to make comments.
The comment deleted, as I stated, seemed to indulge in the sort of doublethink both you and I describe. Look for an addendum, likely to appear tomorrow, for paid subscribers.