The Pope prophesized a Culture of Death. . .

. . . And that's what we get

 I am kind of fuzzy on listening to the Pope. First of all, I am not a Catholic. I do listen to the Pope on the basis of his position at the head of two billion Catholics and note there are often Catholic heads of states, including in Canada. 

Not to mention the Pope is infallible and says things that come out as prophesy, such as when he made an alarming declaration in 1995. This one certainly hit home when Pope John Paul II, said, "We live in a culture of death." I wondered what the hell is he saying? Turns out, he prophesized what has come to pass 30 years later.

A search says, "The phrase “culture of death” entered mainstream discourse in 1995 after the publication of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”). In it, he wrote about issues like abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide and the moral implications of such practices on society."

I knew the Pope had said this because I remember him saying it, and I wonder what he was talking about. Note: I remember this Pope being famous for plain speaking.

When I saw Iryna Zararutska sitting still for 12 seconds of life-draining shock it was surely the saddest and most heart-breaking death I think it is possible to see. It is a historic event as far as being the most evil and disgusting murder the masses have seen in decades. The My Lai massacre and the man in Saigon having his head shot were statements of a period.

Iryna's murder is a statement for the period we are in, this Culture of Death which the Pope predicted we would inhabit. The last 12 seconds of Iryna's life makes it so yesterday to be in the culture of death.

I don't know where Charlie Kirk's public execution fits. He was brutally murdered yesterday somewhere in the realm of "Now everybody's a target any time, anywhere just for speaking out." That's a pretty shitty realm.

Charlie returns death to the here and now, as instant as it gets. I liked Charlie Kirk the past couple of years. I did not enjoy listening to him during the first Trump turn at the wheel. But Charlie Kirk rounded out in his presentation, and in his life, apparently. Winning looked good on Charlie Kirk. He wasn't a boor about it in the end. He had softened with a family around him. 

His positions on the right drew crowds, and lively debates were filmed for social media. His death, like Iryna's, was a public event which took place on social media. These public executions are something new. But why Charlie? First. why Iryna? We know. The criminal was a mad-dog psychopathic human being with a race issue, and a misogyny issue.

The murder of Charlie Kirk was to kill ideas. Charlie Kirk had a political destiny and somebody wanted his ideas to end. This is what happens with these assassinations. It's not a bad person being shot, it's a termination of thought. The murder is the act of killing freedom of expression. It is the act of murdering freedom of speech. Somebody hated ideas so much they wanted them dead.

Charlie Kirk was attracting crowds at his Turning Point assemblies. The audiences were big, and electric, with debate swinging hard from both sides. It was kind of fun  to make open debate such a big show again. People seemed willing and able to work their positions out in public, and it was fascinating.  

Yes Charlie Kirk was riding the Trump wave, and he was doing it like a pro. I think it's terribly sad when a person sharing his ideas has to die for it. I think killing people for speaking their politics in public is a bad idea. So is a Culture of Death.