Charlie Kirk is dead... A sad day in history

[Pearce]

The problem as I see it is that the ever-growing unified body of people striving to see the truth are, well, not that unified. To put frankly, we as STS, trying to be STO, don't really know what it truly means to be STO. To stand for truth always, to give all to those who ask, to call a spade a spade, to defend, to act not against another but for your own destiny; but how?

One of the things I keep thinking is that our biggest weakness is the fear of using a tactic because of the "slippery slope" of abuse. And I get it, however do we just flounder forever without a plan, or ANY reaction?

The quorum keeps program changing in order to provoke resistance so that balance can be restored. OK, so the resistance is that people are placid, and they need not be placid.

You don't need to go hunting lefties. But perhaps to the extent you haven't already, you can fortify your own castle against the radical insane mind virus, whether that come from the left or right. The nuance here is the non-attachment to the outcome. Don't hate the OP for being an OP, but don't stand there and let them destroy your house either.

Call it accountability culture, in contrast to cancel culture. Start with yourself, hold yourself accountable, and be ruthless. Then extend accountability to your immediate peers. Be ruthless, but with understanding. Finally, extend accountability out further. And be ruthless, tempered with understanding, and fueled by compassion.

 

[Laurentien2]

And as the C's said, the right have similar tendencies, so them being seemingly more aligned with reality than the left may be temporary. The right can be exploited in the future to do horrible things to the wrong people. Having said that, it's not so black and white - maybe the right DO have more wisdom overall because of their religious and family-oriented foundation, and are less likely to be easily swayed like the left, who ultimately worship nihilism. They can still overreact and do terrible things when hurt or desperate, but it doesn't mean they're the same or fully equivalent, and that does give me hope. I know I'm generalizing, and maybe wishfully thinking.

Musk tells Brits ‘violence is coming to you’ (VIDEO)

Tech billionaire Elon Musk doubled down on his claim that “the left is the party of murder” in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination

www.rt.com

How did the C s put it. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I think we should keep in mind also that "watching the show" doesn't mean just entertainment, or sitting in our bubble while looking down at the world. It is about learning, and the "enjoy" part comes from that. (Like we're doing here at this moment.) Everything that's happening in the world, and in political/philosophical/scientific discourse as events unfold, is an opportunity for us to fine-tune our understanding (again, like we're doing here at the moment).

The Wave is an invitation to grow. Which also means, for all the psychological detachment necessary, we also can't stand still; we need to evolve. Which also means modifying our outlook as events unfold to the degree it's necessary to align ourselves with truth and the STO path. Details matter, and we can't see the details from the "bird eye's view". Both perspectives are necessary.

The Cs said we must not "shut out the world", as in some Buddhist "nothing really matters, it's all the same, what do I care" stance. This is what I was getting at regarding the current left/right paradigm: we can't just say "well, it's all the same" or "both sides are controlled lol"; we still need to discern what specific developments or takes in the current context represent something positive, truthful and good and what represents evil and untruth; what would be conducive to a more positive society based on all we know and what wouldn't. We've been given "front-row seats", so it would be a waste not to use the unique perspective this provides by retreating to "nothing really matters" nihilism. And this includes emotions, which can be both hindering and furthering progress. "Shutting them out" would be to cheat yourself out of the learning experience we are provided, and in any event can't be done. As the Cs said, we need to discern between limiting emotions based on assumptions and those that lead to limitless possibilities. In fact, I think we might be able to influence the world more than we know if we can pull this off, i.e. gathering knowledge/experience "in the trenches" and combining that knowledge and true emotions with projecting truthful goodwill, based on faith in the process, to uplift those that are ready and deserve it.

Yeah, I mean how can you enjoy a show you don't understand? I think I get both perspectives - on the one hand, whoever killed Charlie, it was still ultimately, directly or indirectly, Israel/PTB. Whether it was a "secret team" sniper, a greenbaumed patsy, or just a ponerized leftie with a chip on his shoulder, you can trace all of that back to PTB/ponerology. And in a sense, it may still lead to a similar outcome. But it doesn't mean the details and specifics don't matter. The outcome may, in fact, be different depending on those details. If Israel did it consciously and directly, it may be easier to then understand the geopolitical events that follow, as it may be part of a larger strategy, just like 9/11 was for the events that followed. If you don't understand the specifics of who did 9/11, how and why, you wouldn't have the proper context to understand what happened afterwards.

One could argue - what is the difference between intentionally executing a tragic event vs simply taking advantage of a convenient tragedy or one that you influenced indirectly? If Osama, himself a creation of US/Israel, actually did 9/11, why couldn't Israel just leverage this to push US into middle east wars and get the same outcome? How did it help us to learn that Mossad was directly involved, etc?

Well, then we wouldn't know the true extent of the evil/depravity of Israel and its actual power, influence, capability, and overall strategy for one. The fact that we can sit here today and say "well it's probably Israel again, one way or another" is actually the end result of the hours of digging through 9/11 details and other historical research that brought Israel's evil to light. Now it's almost common knowledge and becoming more mainstream, but that wasn't the case 10-15 years ago!

Also, same thing for ponerology and psychopathy - the reason we know about how this works today is because it was another accidental discovery while going through piles of details and tugging on various threads. So we can "blame" it today but had we not stumbled upon it, we'd be like many other historical researchers - missing a vital big picture that can explain a lot of things.

So we're lucky that we have so much knowledge at our disposal today that we can rather confidently make an educated guess at what's going on without even digging into it yet, and often being correct to some degree because we have a decent idea about how the world works and where it's headed.

But I think it's literally the process of all this digging that made Laura and others stumble into the insights we currently take as a given. And who knows what new stuff we will discover as a side effect of looking deeply into Charlie's situation? It might be nothing new under the sun, but at the very least it's interesting to know just exactly what happened, if for no other reason than just wanting to know. A mystery just begs to be solved!

Also, I'd argue that going through this process is honoring Charlie and his family, just as uncovering the truth of 9/11 was a way of honoring the victims and their families too.

 

[Joe]

The fact that we can sit here today and say "well it's probably Israel again, one way or another" is actually the end result of the hours of digging through 9/11 details and other historical research that brought Israel's evil to light

Exactly.

If by "standard way" you mean being pulled mechanically into an anger-based reaction then I agree. But I think that it's best to say this clearly and explicitly from the outset, rather than to state that you don't believe that what everyone can clearly see is happening is actually happening. As you put it, 'I don't think there is a "left" as is being described by so many on SM.' That has already been well established as one of the BEST ways to further outrage and alienate people who have been told essentially the same thing from every form of authority over the past decade.

Yes, that's what I meant by "standard way". When I said that I don't think there is a left as being described by so many on SM, I wasn't necessarily saying that I don't believe that what everyone can clearly see is happening is actually happening.

It depends on what you think is "clearly happening" of course.

Also, you left out the 2nd part of my thought that should have helped to clarify what I was saying, but you left that out for some reason. The 2nd part was:

"At least, nowhere near enough of them to constitute a threat to society or to warrant the kind of apoplectic responses by the "right". This is all social engineering 101."

In any case, to clarify, what I was saying was that I don't think the depiction of "the left" by many people in recent years and especially now after the Kirk assassination, is accurate. That is to say, the depiction of "the left" as a large enough group of people intending murder or other violence at "the right" to the point of posing an existential threat to American conservatives that American conservatives must deal with in an extreme way.

I think that the existential threat to America and Americans comes from the PTB who are instrumentalising "leftist" groups in order to create an ideological clash in American society. If more people took this perspective, especially those conservatives who right now are being encouraged to respond with an anger-based reaction against "leftists", then the threat to America and the American people would be reduced because the anger would be directed at the source of the problem and would, therefore, be less likely to provoke a 'clash' that could be disastrous for all Americans, and benefit only the ptb.

 

[Cosmos]

After Kirks assassination it was announced that his show will continue with other hosts. Later, his wife Erika also emphasized that. I also heard Chad Prather saying in his show that he was approached/asked to host the show. I'm guessing it will be hosted at least for a while by a range of people. Today, the first show was hosted by J.D. Vance. Among others, Tucker and Kennedy were guests:

 

[SOTTREADER]

A few things come to mind when thinking about "watching the show."

We have no choice but to be active participants in the shows that are our individual lives. In this regard, we are on stage, not in the audience. I think what matters, when it’s all said and done, is how well you perform with the lot you’ve been given. We’re all dealt different hands, and as we progress through life, we also deal new ones.

The show “out there,” in a sense, is one we can’t directly influence... well, not unless you’re some hotshot (or like to think yourself one), which statistically speaking most of us aren’t. The most we can do is observe, use what we see to inform our understanding of the larger reality we live in, and when things get heated out there, create enough space to decide whether to act or do nothing. Sometimes, maybe often (?), what we perceive from the macro-level narratives to be “out there” is ultimately a mirage, something that won’t wash over our immediate lives, the stage we actually stand on, like a tsunami. It's not to say these mirages aren't real.. they may well be very real...

In summary, in one sense, we are actors on stage, and that stage is our lives. In another, we are the audience, watching a broader show unfold. The problem is, many people give more weight to the latter, convincing themselves they’re key actors on that stage too, and neglecting the former, the stage where they actually have agency. Worse still, they sometimes use the “out there” show as a scapegoat for their neglect of their own performance.

I’m reminded of Gurdjieff, and of what any good coach would say, it’s not the big things that set you apart, but the small things, doing them well, and doing them consistently.

How's the above relevant to this discussion... well chances are, the 21 year old (or however old he is) who shot Charlie thought himself an actor in the "out there" show based on the mirages he was perceiving which ultimately made him come to think that the stage of his life was about to be overtaken by a tsunami. And voila, here's the result of that delusion. Now a whole bunch of people on social media are probably seeing tsunami's labelled the "left" and what they desperately need is to attach that to people, something tangible, and those "people" will then be the thing that need to be corrected, to avert the "tsunami" from crashing onto their life stages. And so it goes around and around.

 

[Joe]

This guy, a Special Ops trained sniper has some good questions about the alleged shooter. 9 mins.

 

[Oxajil]

If Tyler Robinson admitted his guilt in his Discord chat (according to the Washington Post)...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967675279704485984

Then why did he plead not guilty? Surely he knows that if he admitted guilt in a chat, those chats would be saved somewhere. Then there's of course Discord saying they "have found no evidence that the suspect planned this incident or promoted violence on Discord." Then we have Tucker saying that Charlie had powerful donors who put a lot of pressure on him in the last couple of months, and that he kept his integrity to the very end (meaning those donors couldn't influence him). I could be completely off, but I'm more and more inclined to think that Israel is behind it or had some kind of hand in it.

 

[irjO]

After 20 years I finally understand what it means: sit back and watch the show.

That’s the thing, we in this group, know that, but do we really? Very often we see ourselves not enjoying any show, on the contrary. Which technically is not to enjoy it in the literal sense but to just observe. I think that’s why meditation is necessary. So we can understand the concepts we know on paper, compare them to our reactions/feelings and measure how much have we really understood that and others concept.

 

[Laurentien2]

He nail it. Here is a comment by Max Blumenthal explaining Trump unrestricted devotion for Israel (33:37 from the end ) and probably the same reason for Musk coming out during the rally in London calling for violence again the left during an anti-migration rally. Listen to Patrick Henningsen at 1:15:00 from the end where he give is thought about Musk is previous stand again Charlie Kirk and is silence since visiting Israel.

 

[JEEP]

Interesting takes on what's playing out:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967287074647900226

Sums up the main points so far:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967210848574640348

The patsy narrative doesn't seem to be holding up and the blame on Israel appears to be holding at #1. Kinda think our own government is going to be exposed as much as Israel before this likely psyop is resolved.

 

[Oxajil]

Why would Tyler Robinson go through the trouble of trying to escape without being seen, only to admit his guilt in Discord (allegedly) and having himself found and turned in so easily?

This is going to be speculation:

The aspects of the assassination as I see it: Public, in front of family and friends, a day before 9/11, brutal fatal one-shot, and comes with many benefits to the PTB (such as more division between left and right, his death can be used for more pro-Israel sentiment on 9/11 (considering global awareness is increasing on who was behind it), mass suffering or shock (many people were hit by his loss), multiple influential people (Trump, Tucker, Candace et al) get a warning at once).

Someone made a good point, why then and why there? Charlie could've been taken down anywhere. This guy is either a patsy, with the professional and actual shooter already gone (there's a lot money can buy), similar to the Luigi case - or this guy did it and was groomed and beamed. If however Tyler Robinson was the only person involved in this whole thing with no external influence, did the PTB simply get lucky and ran with it?

 

[Sylvia]

I must admit that when this event happened, I didn’t know this man, nor what his political vision and values were. Thanks to all those who contribute on the forum by sharing their reflections and analyses, I was able to form a more accurate and nuanced picture of the situation. I felt empathy for this man and for his family having to go through such an ordeal, but at the same time, when I watched some videos where Charlie Kirk speaks, I noticed his faith and his curiosity in wanting to understand others and share his vision in order to have healthy debates.

Of course, he held political positions and a philosophy (regarding transgender issues and abortion—two very sensitive topics) that were bound to offend many citizens, but in my view, he was willing to take that risk. Except that, by being pro-Israel, did he think he would somehow be “protected”? But at the same time, being part of Trump’s team and having witnessed that the “dark forces” are even willing to assassinate a future president, could he not see that the more his popularity and visibility grew, the more he himself became a target?!

Perhaps it was even a decision on his part to get more involved, since his drive to do good came from his higher consciousness, and he was ready to make that sacrifice.

Being more of a reader (due to my lack of time for writing), this allows me, while reading, to also do some work on myself—reflecting on my feelings, my emotions, and my reactions when facing political crises and the “battles” that take place on the “public stage” (and it’s no coincidence we call it that, since it refers to a spectacle).

I always come back to this alleged Chinese parable:


I think that's partly why the C's say "patience pays" and "wait and see" and "enjoy the show". I think there's a good chance the evidence will eventually point in one direction over others in this situation too. It's still early days!

I confirm that this parable is also, for me, a reflection that I often share with others about the outcome of trials, which is often understood much later, and which we then analyze more deeply to determine whether it was “positive” or “negative.” But at the same time, how can we truly say something is positive or negative, since so often the positive and the negative can transform and even turn into their opposite? As the C’s have often told us: the Universe/Consciousness is always seeking to restore balance; therefore, each force or energy gives rise to its opposite with equal strength or equivalent force such as 50:1.

I think we should keep in mind also that "watching the show" doesn't mean just entertainment, or sitting in our bubble while looking down at the world. It is about learning, and the "enjoy" part comes from that. (Like we're doing here at this moment.) Everything that's happening in the world, and in political/philosophical/scientific discourse as events unfold, is an opportunity for us to fine-tune our understanding (again, like we're doing here at the moment).

The Wave is an invitation to grow. Which also means, for all the psychological detachment necessary, we also can't stand still; we need to evolve. Which also means modifying our outlook as events unfold to the degree it's necessary to align ourselves with truth and the STO path. Details matter, and we can't see the details from the "bird eye's view". Both perspectives are necessary.

I am so grateful for everything each of you shares on the forum, and every time I take the time to read, it helps me grow even more and further refines my observation of this 3D STS reality.

Spoiler: Traduit en français

Je dois avouer que lorsque cet événement est arrivé, je ne connaissais pas cette homme, ni quelle était sa vision politique et ses valeurs. Et grâce à tous ceux qui contribuent sur le forum à nous partager leurs réflexions et leurs analyses ceci m'a permis de faire un portrait plus juste et nuancé sur la situation. J'avais ressentie de l'empathie pour cet homme ainsi que pour sa famille de devoir vivre cette épreuve mais en même temps, lorsque j'ai regardé quelques vidéos où Charlie Kirk s'exprime, j'ai constaté sa foi et sa curiosité à vouloir comprendre l'autre et partager sa vision pour avoir des débats sains. C'est certain qu'il avait des positions politiques et une philosophie (concernant les transgenre et l'avortement - 2 sujets qui sont très sensibles) qui allaient heurter plusieurs citoyens mais selon moi, il était prêt à prendre ce risque. Sauf en étant un pro-israélien, est-ce qu'il pensait qu'il serait "protéger" dans un certain sens? Mais en même temps, faisant partie de l'équipe Trump et qu'il a été témoin que les "forces obscures" sont même prêt à assassiner un futur président, ne pouvait-il pas voir que plus il allait augmenter sa popularité et sa présence et plus il devenait à son tour une cible?! Peut-être que même, ceci a été une décision de sa part de s'impliquer davantage puisque son impulsion à vouloir faire le bien provenait de sa conscience supérieure et était prêt à faire se sacrifice.

Étant plus une lectrice (dû à mon manque de temps pour écrire), ceci me permet, en même temps que je lis, de faire aussi un travail sur moi, avoir des réflexions sur mon ressenti, sur mes émotions et réaction face à des crises politiques et des "combats" qui se font sur la "scène public" (et ce n'est pas pour rien que nous l'appelons ainsi, ce qui fait référence au spectacle).

I always come back to this alleged Chinese parable:


I think that's partly why the C's say "patience pays" and "wait and see" and "enjoy the show". I think there's a good chance the evidence will eventually point in one direction over others in this situation too. It's still early days!

Je confirme que cette parabole est aussi pour moi une réflexion que je partage souvent avec les autres sur le dénouement des épreuves qui est souvent comprise beaucoup plus tard et que nous en faisons une analyse plus approfondie à savoir si ceci était "positif" ou "négatif". Mais en même temps, comment pouvons-nous dire que ceci est positif ou négatif puisque souvent le positif et négatif peut se transformer et devenir l'inverse. Comme souvent les C's nous l'ont dit: l'Univers/Conscience cherche toujours à rétablir l'équilibre. Donc, chaque force/énergie fait émerger son opposée avec la même force ou de force équivalente comme 50:1.

I think we should keep in mind also that "watching the show" doesn't mean just entertainment, or sitting in our bubble while looking down at the world. It is about learning, and the "enjoy" part comes from that. (Like we're doing here at this moment.) Everything that's happening in the world, and in political/philosophical/scientific discourse as events unfold, is an opportunity for us to fine-tune our understanding (again, like we're doing here at the moment).

The Wave is an invitation to grow. Which also means, for all the psychological detachment necessary, we also can't stand still; we need to evolve. Which also means modifying our outlook as events unfold to the degree it's necessary to align ourselves with truth and the STO path. Details matter, and we can't see the details from the "bird eye's view". Both perspectives are necessary.

Je suis tellement reconnaissante de tout ce que vous partager, tous et chacun sur le forum, et qu'à chaque fois que je prends le temps de lire, ceci me fait grandir davantage et affine de mieux en mieux mon observation de cette réalité 3D STS.

 

[Jenn]

Candace Owens will be live in a few minutes discussing the Charlie Kirk assassination:

 

[Joe]

Story in The Blaze today. This is so cliché. What are the odds some dudes that look a bit like the one in the picture are gonna make an appearance in the future?