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

[Hesper]

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.

By "clearly happening" I mean the ponerization of the left. I take your definition of "clearly happening" to be as follows:

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.

Now I am not going to argue that this situation is not staged by those higher order forces. I believe that is something we can both agree on. However, I do not believe that you can isolate the organic evil that people see and face in their everyday lives away from the PTB and say "do not react to evil in your personal reality, because higher order evil is responsible for it." Myself and probably everyone are well aware of those close to us who cheered on the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and who wholeheartedly embrace a demonic ideology. Perhaps some social media was faked with AI, but it was certainly a fairly common enough sentiment.

I believe that, in accordance with "life is religion", people have to deal with the evil that is presented to them, and each according to their ability. Those who are capable of identifying the higher order need to point that out and keep fanning the flames of awareness. Those who are dealing with it on a lower level are also responsible for their actions or inactions in the face of it.

Simply put, I do not view it as a black and white issue, especially in regards to people outside of the Work living in the "jungle".

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

I wanted to make the point that, if you want to keep forum members from getting sucked into a potential karmic nightmare, that giving out blanket assertions that:

1. There's no such thing as the Left as it appears on social media
   1. Which you've clarified means that there's no threat from the left
   2. And which I would argue is primarily a pathocratic organization which means it is almost entirely threat
2. Maybe there is a threat but they are a minority of the population
   1. This seems particularly irrelevant if dealing with a ponerized group, which we know is always a small % of the population and has a massive negative impact on society if not reigned in
3. And anyone who disagrees is falling for a psyop

It just seems like a very strange and counterproductive way of framing things in order to help people reach clarity on the situation and reign in any wild emotions. Primarily because one can't help but disagree because it is self contradictory - a non-threatening movement of openly pathological individuals?

My point was, if that was your goal, it would be more beneficial to advise people to be cautious when entertaining any emotions or ideas in the following weeks and not to get carried away with either left or right wing narratives that emerge.

Apologies if you felt like I was mischaracterizing your argument.

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'm having issues with dealing with these assertions. What are you basing this threat assessment on?

I think that part of the problem is in determining when a movement is sufficiently ponerized and at what point does a ponerized political movement warrant a crackdown? If it comes out that this assassin WAS a leftist (let's say part of a cell of similar-minded individuals) brainwashed into killing Charlie Kirk because the PTB have been turning the Left into the party of child mutilation, murder and mayhem while calling normal people Nazis for a decade then would that justify a crackdown on these Antifa / sleeper cell types and their political allies?

I understand that your concern is that the crackdown will lead to extremist right-wing control. I don't know. I've been hearing about how normal people are going to turn into Nazis for a long time. It is clear that the higher forces that stage these kinds of epoch-shifting events would very much like that. It is possible - especially with long-term US and Israeli history.

But that doesn't really make the left any less of a threat. It just doesn't have to be black and white.

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.

I would agree that there is clearly a setup for an ideological clash and that immediate anger-based reactions are probably not viable in the long-term. But I can't say that I can confirm that the message of advocating for violence is a universal one by any means. From what I've seen most messages have been to act in honor of the image of Charlie as a peacemaker, to mobilize the government to begin cracking down on the various movers and shakers pulling the strings on the left, and to stop bowing down to Israel.

 

[Ruth]

Libtards will be libtards. They are at least partly divorced from reality and naturally hysterical. They are not rational beings, at least not currently. Perhaps sometime in the future. Not holding my breath, however.

This is a big problem for the Right too. Maybe it's a function of being controlled and manipulated by emotions (fear, anger, hubris etc)? I saw this a lot in a previous online group I was associated with, until I couldn't stand it anymore and discontinued the association. Sadly, as there were a lot of good people in that group, but it had become dominated by bad behaviour. There's only so much anger, hubris and misogyny I can take, especially when it takes over a group and nothing is done to mitigate it, discourage it, or even recognise that it exists. These people would reflexively insult, belittle, gaslight and were overbearingly obnoxious to anyone they didn't agree with. And oh yes, they are VERY familiar with the libtard meme. Because they blame EVERYTHING on them. I suppose they had to be familiar with it in order to externalise blame?

I did wonder at the time, if being manipulated by emotions was a feature of OPs, but it seems to me that they would be more likely influenced by programs, not so much by emotions. In addition, they would not be interested in looking at stuff to any great depth, and are mainly concerned with what is functional, physical and practical.

As an illustration, if you've ever had someone look at you in a very perplexed manner and ask why on earth you would want to know about, find out about, or investigate 'The Secrets of the Universe'? It's almost as if they can't understand why you'd want to be doing that when are are a myriad of really great bus timetables just waiting to be memorised (do something "useful" why don't you?). I mean, why wouldn't you? You never know when you might want to take a bus, or spout some useless information!

I'm a little bit bamboozled by people who think others on this planet just want to "be good" (move towards STO) and "awaken their highest potential", seemingly without thinking about who actually runs this planet (STS).

Maybe people want to "awaken their highest potential" in the direction of STS instead? This is something I've been reflecting on a great deal lately. How some people might actively chose the path entropy over of STO. Can "souled" people do that? Maybe they can, but possibly they aren't aware of what's going to happen at the end of the line.

Charlie Kirk's murder and subsequent reactions have brought these thoughts to mind.

 

[Beau]

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

She's solely focused on Israel

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967719038169321844

 

[Ruth]

Tim Pool comes to mind as a liberal individual who holds positions of the ‘right’ and similar moral values. I often see annoyance expressed in his comment section annoyingly accusing him of fence sitting on many issues. I think the split in people may be built around basic decency and morality which has been more visibly eroded in the public consciousness by ‘leftist’ authorities (even if the powerful on neither side care for them).

I think Tim Pool does two things, 'click-baiting' (intentionally saying something divisive in order to get engagement) as well as, he's very careful not to offend powerful people (the Establishment). It could (maybe it has?) led to accusations of 'grifting'? I've definitely heard accusation of being "milk-toast" (milquetoast) in his opinions. Something tells me this old "Left" - "Right" divide is no longer relevant, especially as the issues seems to be about good and evil.

 

[Beau]

She's solely focused on Israel

Watching further, she's also eviscerating the FBI.

 

[Ruth]

By "clearly happening" I mean the ponerization of the left. I take your definition of "clearly happening" to be as follows:

The whole of society has been ponerized. I think what those in charge fear most is both sides realising they've been "played", getting together, ignoring theoretic differences, and uniting against their overlords. So, social media and mainstream media is being used to "promote agendas".

 

[seek10]

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

This is one of the toughest video Candace created. Her emotions are very raw (angry). we know they beam her and probably every body.

• It is a public execution Infront of the world- Charlie's death.
• she took on Bibi saying he misrepresented the content of the letter ( Charlie sent in May to Bibi) and challenging him to publish letter. Her take is he was under tremendous pressure from the donors etc. and Bibi's quote is a complete misrepresentation.
• she wept through the weekend, couldn't sit through the tribute.
• Lot of pressure from people and she is warning them to back out. some are praising Charlie to take his chair. she will be first enemy of them.

Well, it looks they are after her. She took on the REAL BOSS (of this planet). Macron suddenly starts to look like a silly small fry.

Some speculation after watching the video. May be these things happens in batches? RFK, MLK during anti-Vietnam protests, then drugs in to that movement, birth of crazy feminism, music corruption, new age and so on. All this is just before US govt. realizes the trickery of Aliens (early 1970's). It's like in a program change (layers with in layers happens non linearly). May be there is something to sudden acceptance of Meth during the recent years?

 

[seek10]

Since I am still 'hung up' on his security doing the killing given all the 'Cui bono' factors I asked Grok what type of 'toys' available. Evidence of the bullet can be tampered from hospital or coroner. If some body did it, all these can be easily arranged. I too find the security guys removing the camera from the tent immediately (as if it is normal procedure) is biggest suspicion ( i.e. it can be tampered rather easily).

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967079695050268971

This blue/green shirt guy jumped as if he is planned to jump that way with something in the hand under armpit (before) and hand coming down as if he practiced it a lot. I know system 2 narrations can lead us so many directions. Just a possibility. Some say it is too nearer to shoot. Others say he is not looking and but it can be 'triangulated' even without that.

After few questions, (no fumes, blood gushing out scenario and so on) , Grok led me to 'advanced silent fire arms'

IMHO, In this age of AI, developments of exotic tools is rather too easy.

I took the video screenshot of this tweet and tried to peek in what is in his armpit(after some denoising). what ever that is it is not a circular barrel. looks like more of remote control, if any.

so I asked grok about. I know It could be simple "garbage in and garbage out" and wild goose chase. It may be nothing. Just looking for some info.
"Can you tell me the item that is under his armpit in the context of "advanced silent fire arms"

The item under his armpit appears to be a SilencerCo Maxim 9, an integrally suppressed 9mm pistol designed for reduced noise and recoil while remaining functional for carry in specialized holsters, such as shoulder rigs.

searching for it I got this image - https://gvx.blob.core.windows.net/item-images/value-p-5130646-7.webp

Asked it to compare it to this shooting. This is what it gave and it couldn't conclude, but gave different variables involved in it.
"compare the sound of the charlie kirk' shooting video"

The sound of the Charlie Kirk shooting video, as referenced in the threads and the specific post you highlighted, can be analyzed based on the context provided and general knowledge of gunfire acoustics. Here's a detailed comparison:

### Sound Characteristics in the Video
1. **Initial Perception**:
- The video captures a series of gunshots during a public event. The initial perception from the threads suggests that the sound might not have been immediately recognized as gunfire by some attendees, which aligns with common reports in mass shooting incidents where the sound is mistaken for other noises.

2. **Acoustic Analysis**:
- **Loudness and Clarity**: The gunshots in the video are likely loud and distinct, given the outdoor setting and the presence of a crowd. However, the exact loudness can be influenced by the type of firearm used and whether a suppressor was employed.
- **Suppression**: The threads raise questions about the use of a suppressor. If a suppressor was used, the sound would be significantly muffled, reducing the acoustic intensity. This could manifest as a series of "pops" rather than loud bangs, which might explain any confusion or delayed reaction among the crowd.

3. **Environmental Factors**:
- The event appears to be outdoors, which means the sound would propagate differently compared to an indoor setting. Outdoor environments can sometimes make it harder to pinpoint the source of the sound due to echo and ambient noise.

### Comparison with Typical Gunfire
1. **Uns suppressed Firearms**:
- Typical uns suppressed gunfire produces a sharp, loud report. For example, a handgun might produce a crack, while a rifle could produce a louder boom. The sound is immediate and often unmistakable in a quiet environment.
- In the context of the video, if the gunfire was uns suppressed, it would likely be heard as a series of loud, distinct shots, potentially causing immediate panic or recognition among the crowd.

2. **Suppressed Firearms**:
- Suppressed firearms, especially advanced silent models like the SilencerCo Maxim 9 mentioned earlier, significantly reduce the noise. The sound might be described as a muffled "pop" or "thump," which can be less alarming and harder to identify as gunfire, especially in a noisy environment like a public event.
- If the video's gunfire sounds muffled or less intense, it could indicate the use of a suppressor, aligning with the concerns raised in the threads.

### Contextual Clues from the Threads
- **Thread 0 (Target Post)**: The post questions the item under the armpit and the reaction of the individual, suggesting a focus on potential security or involvement in the incident. The presence of a messenger bag and the individual's behavior might indicate they are not part of security, which could be relevant if considering the source of the gunfire.
- **Thread 1 and 2**: These threads discuss the aftermath and the impact of Charlie Kirk's actions, but do not directly address the sound. However, they provide context that the event was significant and potentially targeted.
- **Thread 3 and 4**: These express concern and prayer for Charlie Kirk, indicating the severity of the incident but do not provide

We know these events won't be that simple. And there is other video that I posted from different direction on the right side of Kirk.

 

[SlipNet]

Following up his recent article in The Grayzone, some cautious dot-connecting from Max Blumenthal with Chris hedges today.