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

[whitecoast]

In line with some of the speculations in this thread that there might be a broader and/or more complicated agenda at play that isn’t that obvious:

What if what has happened is part of a broader agenda that involves furthering the trend to “the right“ that we have noticed not only in America in recent years? And/or an aggravation of that part of society? Maybe, step by step, things are being arranged/pushed in that direction and the Kirk assassination is serving as one of several key elements in it? And maybe one of the ways in which this push manifests in some if not many on “the right“ is to go way too far, for example in a dogmatic fundy way and/or putting the blame squarely (in a black and white fashion) incorrectly just on one or a number of groups. The “warning“ of the C‘s comes to mind that paraphrasing, “the right has similar problems/tendencies“ and that what the Nazis did was just a dry run.

Yes. I saw a video from Revolt TV, and Charlie Kirk still had a pulse at the hospital while videos of braindead dime-a-dozen left-wing zombies celebrated it. They want us to be focused on hating "the left," instead of the root cause of the ills in the world that created "the left."

It strikes me that part of the problem is in viewing the divide between psychopathic political ideology vs normal people as being "left vs right". This leads to the condemnation of normal people as "dangerous right wingers" when they are giving what has been asked for. The truth is that out here the left has suffered negative selection for about a decade, leaving mostly personality/character disordered or otherwise pathological people as adherents.

It is possible that normal people overreact, and no doubt that's part of the plan. But to say that this ramified network is not real or not a threat when they have been indoctrinating and mutilating children / young adults, advocating murder, and carrying out the wishes of their dark overlords with glee is itself "falling into the left vs right trap" but on the side of this ratified network.

Now is it the ultimate enemy? No but it is one of its many manifestations at home, at work and in politics.


But what type of power? Professors, those who groom their elementary school children, HR departments that decide if you get to have or keep a job? I think this needs more fleshing out.

Fire and brimstone-themed post this evening.

The American "right wing" has been largely responsible for enabling Israel to be founded, and to viciously colonize and ethnically cleanse the middle east. War in Iraq also can be laid at their feet for similar reasons. And that is to say nothing about the massive surveillance apparatus which has flowered since 9/11, which looks to be receiving its crown jewel with the all-pervasive vacuuming of data by Palantir. They will never get a pass as to being the "ponerology-free party," and I am shocked that anyone who lived through the 00's could think so.

An old regular of the SOTT radio show hit the nail on the head with saying there hasn't been a really effective left wing since the birth of neoliberalism in the Reagan/Thatcher era, which broke the back of the trade and labor unions. Ever since then inequality has just gone up and more and more power has been concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, more jobs offshored, more immigration, and technology and AI only enhance this trend.

Occupy Wall St was a flash in the pan which did scare the elite, but did not have sufficient prior collectivization of interests to be weaponized coherently. Since that the PTBs were in overdrive to vector the left straight into pathology with racial and SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) grievances.

An actual united front among the progressive and traditionalist demographics to, for example, dismantle the Federal Reserve or Blackrock, would actually be a powerful threat to the elite, and that is why the C's said America is headed for destruction when that class consciousness and solidarity failed to materialize in the wake of 2008. Instead we got the false consciousness of X-ism and Y-phobia, Scoffield exegesis and Tailgate party-tier nationalism that said America could do no wrong, militarily or otherwise.

 

[Hesper]

The American "right wing" has been largely responsible for enabling Israel to be founded, and to viciously colonize and ethnically cleanse the middle east. War in Iraq also can be laid at their feet for similar reasons. And that is to say nothing about the massive surveillance apparatus which has flowered since 9/11, which looks to be receiving its crown jewel with the all-pervasive vacuuming of data by Palantir. They will never get a pass as to being the "ponerology-free party," and I am shocked that anyone who lived through the 00's could think so.

I am glad we're fleshing this out. I understand this perspective but want to argue that life continued beyond the 00's. My argument is that the modern "right" can't be adequately understood by using examples from the 00's. My point is that normal people have been forced to the "right" because of the big MAGA tent that welcomed normal people, and many western nations are following suit.

Many of these people have been through various types of disintegration in their attempt to make sense of evil and rediscover classic virtues. That process seems to be accelerating post the assassination attempt. Many others are sheep who just want to graze in peace and some are clearly grifters. What will come from this remains to be seen.

But to view this as a static and completely political "left vs right" issue from the early 00's is an error.

What my argument is NOT is that the Republican party that is currently hogtied by Israel is the ponerology free party. That's really about it.

 

[luc]

I don't think there is a "left" as is being described by so many on SM. 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.

No doubt there's a lot of social engineering going on, but I think we shouldn't fall into the trap of equating "left" and "right" in the current landscape, or to play down the destructiveness of this "left". The fact is, almost all "normal" people I know have their heads filled with leftist garbage one way or another. Of course the true radicals are a minority, but they have infested society to such a degree that people live in a sea of lies about all kinds of things. Just how ponerology works. So for example while only a minority of people will cheer Charlie Kirk's death, many, many more will say "well, murder is bad, but it's still true this guy was very evil", which is othogonal to the truth. Leftist garbage.

Should people go out and kill their gay neighbor or their democrat aunt? Of course not. But should they storm government buildings, burn down the Fed or Bill Gates' house? That wouldn't be very wise and maybe just another goal of the social engineers. What they need to do, first and foremost, is de-program themselves and align themselves with truth on all levels. And while we can discuss semantics, today, this process happens on the "right". And if the Charlie Kirk thing helps some people snap out of the hypnosis, and begin their journey towards questioning all the garbage in their heads instilled by what people these days call "the left", then that's a good thing. There are many dangers here down the road, which the social engineers will probably try to exploit, but people aligning themselves with truth is still good.

Here's how Douglas Reed describes the French revolution guys:

"Like the Russian revolution 130 years later, the one in France then displayed its hatred of the poor and defenseless more than of the rich, of the peasants of the Vendee more than their supposed oppressors, of all beauty as such, of churches and religion, of everything that might uplift the human soul above the level of animal needs and desires."

This is "the left", and in terms of lies it's arguably much worse today than it was then.

All that said, we also should remember Paul's words: truth is crucial, but without love, it all matters little. Truth and love need to go hand in hand, and they do, really: we should love the truth so much that we can get to the bottom of things, and also find a place of love in ourselves by seeing the world truthfully. Which is why Joe's words above are still true: seeing the "brainwashed masses" not as the perpetrators, but the victims of powerful evil forces. It's a spiritual battle, and we need to be on guard not to misdirect our justified anger.

 

[Andrian]

LGBTQ activists and those encouraging unrestrained immigration are, I'd say, very few in number among the general population. Even less are those who murder people for disagreeing with them. If you're talking about politicians etc. who encourage such, then the people should unite and direct their anger at them, rather than falling for the bait of 'right vs left' culture (and real?) wars.

See above. We need to separate out the average citizen and those in positions of power.

Don't want to sound like a parrot but, I totally agree with the above.

From what we've learned together here on the forum, people have been manipulated by the hyperdimensional forces through 3d PTB, via divide et impera tactics for millenia. Always for the same objective, that is, to keep the people divided between themselves thus not constituting a threat to the hyperdimensional system of control.

In circumstances like these, asking yourself cui bono if the left and the right will jump to each other's throats? To me, for sure it won't benefit nor the left nor the right, nor the society of normal people as a whole.

 

[BHelmet]

Charlie Kirk: professional political activist... funded at a very tender age by big political money. I just read his wiki bio. Fascinating. It sounds like he was groomed for the spotlight from the get go.

Wikipedia
In 2010, during his junior year at Wheeling High School, Kirk volunteered for the successful U.S. Senate campaign of Illinois Republican Mark Kirk (no relation). In his senior year, he created a campaign to reverse a price increase for cookies at his school. He wrote an essay for Breitbart News alleging liberal bias in high-school textbooks, which led to his first media appearance on Fox Business at age 17. He attended Harper College near Chicago, but dropped out after one semester.

Wikipedia
At a speaking engagement at Benedictine University's "Youth Empowerment Day", Kirk met Bill Montgomery, a retiree more than 50 years his senior, who was then a Tea Party–backed legislative candidate. Montgomery encouraged Kirk to engage in political activism full-time. Montgomery and Kirk subsequently co-founded Turning Point USA, a "grass-roots organization to rival liberal groups such as MoveOn.org". At the 2012 Republican National Convention, Kirk met Foster Friess, a prominent Republican donor, and persuaded him to finance the organization.

("grass roots organization" ...funded by billionaire political operatives.....very funny)

Wikipedia
Charlie Kirk's net worth at the time of death is estimated to have been $12 million. He raised his salary in his non-profit company, Turning Point USA, from $27,000 per year to over $400,000 per year by 2021. His wealth was amassed via various public speaking engagements, media contributions, book sales and real estate. Kirk reportedly charged between $50,000 and $100,000 for live speaking events, and $10,000 to $20,000 for virtual engagements.[223] Kirk's company, Turning Point, gained financial momentum after 2016 once Kirk became politically allied with US president Donald Trump, embracing his presidential campaign. Afterwards, contributions to Turning Point accelerated. According to public tax filings, by 2022, contributions exceeded $79 million. Kirk's real estate portfolio consisted of three properties, including a $4 million estate in Scottsdale, Arizona, and a beachside condominium on the Florida Gulf Coast.


I don't mean to suggest that making a few dollars is a sin, but, to sum up, I think his canonization is premature.

 

[Joe]

The history of political chaos, violence, and crises going back to the beginning of recorded history is the history of the outsized influence of small minorities.

Only if you have a superficial take on such things.

 

[Aeneas]

And if the Charlie Kirk thing helps some people snap out of the hypnosis, and begin their journey towards questioning all the garbage in their heads instilled by what people these days call "the left", then that's a good thing. There are many dangers here down the road, which the social engineers will probably try to exploit, but people aligning themselves with truth is still good.

This discussion has reminded me of Gustave le Bon's book, "The Crowd" which ties in with mass formation psychosis. When an event happens the direction of the crowd can be influenced negatively but also positively as le Bon gives examples of.

In the aftermath of this event, one can see how various actors are trying to capitalise on it and sway it to their side. AI posted an article about the normies and how things might take a different direction that was perhaps intended. That is the alluded to 'crowd'.

Normies, apoliticals, centrists and moderates are disgusted, angered and horrified. The uncensored unaliving of Kirk, hemorrhaging blood while simply attempting to engage in heated debate, has outraged an unexpected group of people in an unexpected direction. What seems to be outraging them most is the realization (yes, they are confessing to “just waking up” about this) that the Left and their Democratic Party sponsors stand for the proposition that disagreement will met with murder. Meanwhile the attempts to smear Charlie as a White Supremacist, homophobe, etc have all been instantly debunked simply by showing him do what he did best: engaging people in debate!

A disabuse of ponerized values...one hopes.

Israel is doing their level best trying to gain the sympathy to their cause but might in their overzealous efforts be getting the opposite effect. The destruction of Western cultural and religious values has also mainly been done by the tribe, so it also has the most to lose if the crowd wakes and distances itself from the values promoted by the ponerized Left.

If in the aftermath of this event, the 'crowd' of the Christian Right could come back to just being Christians and not Judeo-Christians with the nauseating defence of the Judeo part of the equation, then that would be quite something. The burning of that bridge could open up many new bridges.

 

[Aeneas]

Only if you have a superficial take on such things.

Could you enlighten me with what you mean? The French/Russian revolution happened by the work of a ponerized minority gaining an outsized influence. World War 1 and 2 likewise. The minority managed to exploit real grievances in the masses to direct events towards political chaos, violence and crisis. Non?

 

[Joe]

How do you define organic? You're giving two options here: "going postal" and "directly provoked". I think the range of possibilities is way more complex than that, more like what Niall and Luc described.

I know they are, no need to nitpick. But those two broad categories suffice for our purposes here.

As for the statistics estimate, it's fine as a heuristic, but I wouldn't be too confident in its accuracy. When it comes to assassinations, for example, I would not be surprised to learn, in an impossible state of perfect knowledge, that many such murders in the US and around the world were not actually intelligence operations, that others were actually such operations but for reasons I never imagined, and/or that a whole lot of other people who died were actually assassinated that I had no idea about. In the absence of that state of perfect knowledge, I am comfortable being uncertain and not trusting my heuristics that much.

Saying,"I wouldn't be surprised if every possible explanation could be true" isn't very useful in whittling down the options to the most likely. Pointing out that we should remember that we cannot be 100% sure is rather obtuse and derailing of the dynamic of the discussion.

It's fine to put it in that box. It fits a certain template for coming to quick conclusions for events. But it's only a working hypothesis and it will always be so, in the absence of total knowledge. It's impossible and irrational to be more than 98 or 99% certain about anything aside from math or logical proofs, and that 1% of doubt should be enough to be open to the possibility that our working hypotheses are wrong. In this case, for example, I don't know what the reality it is.

See above.

I wouldn't be surprised if Robinson was directly provoked, or indirectly provoked, or really anything in between or outside at this point, given how little evidence there is. I also wouldn't be surprised to find out he didn't actually take the shot, and someone else did, but that would require some convincing evidence. Until then it just remains one possibility of many.

You also wouldn't be surprised, I presume, if barney the purple dinosaur was the real shooter? I jest of course, but there's a point in it. Reminding everyone that, absent "total knowledge", almost any conclusion is possible is not conducive to a free flowing conversation and a positive energy dynamic in a conversation that aims to come to as close an approximation of the truth as possible, which involves pulling on the large dataset around past similar events and all other relevant information.

and you can even confuse some centrists/conservatives that they're dealing with like half of the population against them who all support some strange new ideology. Oh and let's just get a few nice fiery riots going for good measure all of which can be traced to various "sponsors", none of which are organic at all.

But really, if you get rid of the smoke and mirrors and lift the curtain, you basically have a few brainwashed retards and a bunch of government spooks working overtime. With a sprinkle of semi-brainwashed "comrades". But none of it is a proper political movement or even a proper ideology. It's a fabrication with no substance, no legs, ever-changing at the whims of its non-ideological psychopathic masters.

That's pretty much my take. And that's not to say that these "radical leftists" have not caused a lot of suffering and dysfunction in society, they clearly have, but when we realise that they are instrumentalised by the ptb, we should, I think, pause before responding in the standard way and consider that such a response may be precisely what the ptb intend.

What if what has happened is part of a broader agenda that involves furthering the trend to “the right“ that we have noticed not only in America in recent years? And/or an aggravation of that part of society? Maybe, step by step, things are being arranged/pushed in that direction and the Kirk assassination is serving as one of several key elements in it? And maybe one of the ways in which this push manifests in some if not many on “the right“ is to go way too far, for example in a dogmatic fundy way and/or putting the blame squarely (in a black and white fashion) incorrectly just on one or a number of groups. The “warning“ of the C‘s comes to mind that paraphrasing, “the right has similar problems/tendencies“ and that what the Nazis did was just a dry run.

That's certainly something that everyone with a bit of awareness should consider.

Should people go out and kill their gay neighbor or their democrat aunt? Of course not. But should they storm government buildings, burn down the Fed or Bill Gates' house? That wouldn't be very wise and maybe just another goal of the social engineers. What they need to do, first and foremost, is de-program themselves and align themselves with truth on all levels.

Ideally, yes. But what are the chances of that happening? Pretty low I'd say (not many out there into the 'work on the self'). So given that, it would be wise, IMO, to not align oneself with such people, either physically or ideologically. Given all we know and suspect (at least up to 99% ) the rational response is to metaphorically leave the room, sit back and "watch the show" and rely on the faith of Jesus rather than faith in Jesus.

Faith IN Jesus is what Christians subscribe to, i.e. faith that Jesus will sort out the problems. But at times like these, people get tired waiting for Jesus to do something (it's getting late Jesus!), and conclude that, in any case, they are the vehicles through which Jesus acts (I'm in the lords army!), and didn't Jesus say that he would return, not with peace, but with a sword?

Matthew 10:34-36​

Not Peace, but a Sword​

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35; For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36; And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

And if the Charlie Kirk thing helps some people snap out of the hypnosis, and begin their journey towards questioning all the garbage in their heads instilled by what people these days call "the left", then that's a good thing. There are many dangers here down the road, which the social engineers will probably try to exploit, but people aligning themselves with truth is still good.

It's to be hoped that will happen with at least a few. Social engineers exploiting situations as we move forward is a very high probability IMO, so it will test the mettle of many. Although I would only put it at 98% or 99%, so no need to draw any definitive conclusions! (must wait for "total knowledge"!)

seeing the "brainwashed masses" not as the perpetrators, but the victims of powerful evil forces. It's a spiritual battle, and we need to be on guard not to misdirect our justified anger.

Amen.

 

[Hesper]

The ADL is NOT happy about people noticing the likely Israeli connection:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966571761933135989

 

[Joe]

Could you enlighten me with what you mean? The French/Russian revolution happened by the work of a ponerized minority gaining an outsized influence. World War 1 and 2 likewise. The minority managed to exploit real grievances in the masses to direct events towards political chaos, violence and crisis. Non?

Indeed, but to explain those events as "organic" in the sense that certain individuals, through their own inherent character traits, decided to begin the process that ultimately led to all the horrors, is to miss the many other factors that were involved, absent which a jumped up group of radicals would have gotten nowhere.

Consider how many groups are likely to have formed in back rooms over the centuries with revolution on their mind, and how many actually succeeded. It seems to me that it's not really about the particular radicals at any given time, but the broader ponerological, social, political and environmental factors that conspire to make it "just the right time" for the jumped-up radicals to succeed. Radically removing the radicals does not remove the conditions that allowed for their ascendance. On the contrary, radically removing them can even be the spark that ignites the brewing chaos.

 

[Joe]

The ADL is NOT happy about people noticing the likely Israeli connection:

awesome!

 

[luc]

Ideally, yes. But what are the chances of that happening? Pretty low I'd say (not many out there into the 'work on the self'). So given that, it would be wise, IMO, to not align oneself with such people, either physically or ideologically. Given all we know and suspect (at least up to 99% ) the rational response is to metaphorically leave the room, sit back and "watch the show" and rely on the faith of Jesus rather than faith in Jesus.

Faith IN Jesus is what Christians subscribe to, i.e. faith that Jesus will sort out the problems. But at times like these, people get tired waiting for Jesus to do something (it's getting late Jesus!), and conclude that, in any case, they are the vehicles through which Jesus acts (I'm in the lords army!), and didn't Jesus say that he would return, not with peace, but with a sword?

Indeed, and this is (hopefully) pretty much how we see the world here. Having faith that God/the Universe will sort things out in its own way, whatever that means, however long it takes. The more truth you gather, the more you come to that conclusion - that forcing things will never work. The only caveat I would add is that "sitting back and watching the show" might be our "lesson plan", but this isn't necessarily true for everybody. Somebody must pull off the show . And some things that those more inclined towards action will do might be part of God's plan to sort things out. Hence I see nothing wrong with cheering on certain things that represent a "cosmic rebalancing", while staying on guard, as you say, not to blindly align with an ideology at the expense of seeing Truth, the bigger picture, etc.

 

[Joe]

The only caveat I would add is that "sitting back and watching the show" might be our "lesson plan", but this isn't necessarily true for everybody. Somebody must pull off the show

For sure, there'd be no show if people didn't play their part, and unfortunately that probably means lots of chaos (probability assessment at 98.5%). But everything I'm saying here is aimed at the show watchers, hoping to avoid them from jumping over the fence and joining the fray, even if only emotionally and psychologically.

 

[Joe]

awesome!

What I'd like to see happen is the real circus masters, out of increasing desperation and desire to control, increase their attempts at sowing chaos and suppression, and in that way further expose themselves for what and who they are. This would be a preferable way for people to wake up rather than them fully taking the bait and engaging in internecine conflict. But maybe that's a pipe dream. Not sure what % I'd give it. Somewhere between 0 and 100 I suspect (although there's always the negative numbers)