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

It could just be that her 'Romania Angels' role for orphans was largely ceremonial, and that she had no idea the US colonel stationed there was a degenerate.

We keep wanting to give Erika the benefit of the doubt, which as basically good people we tend to do and sadly, that facet of our being has been weaponized for use against us. As the Cs responded, "A bit shady. Notice her current behavior", what exactly are we to make of that? Is she merely a useful idiot that was groomed by her "shady" family to be the honeypot to snare Charlie? Is she a full-fledged psychopath that knowingly set up a charity that sent innocent orphans into the child trafficking pipeline?

We know that very attractive persons are instantly given a highly favorable reception in people's minds, a psychological fact. Does her outward beauty cunningly hide a devious and evil persona inside? We'll have to go with "By their fruits ye shall know them." IOW, wait and see how she proceeds from this point on, keeping in mind she's surrounded by the wolves who plotted to take out Charlie. My take anyway. 🤔
 
Here is an afterlife interview with Charlie Kirk: part 1
and part 2:
. I was hoping for more answers about the shooting, but Charlie was not forthcoming with much detail. The main message was one of hope, unity, love of God and family, etc. He had soul contracts with his family and this was a chosen exit point. I'd love to see a similar interview with a different channeler as I'm not sure about this one. And maybe a different interviewer. This was a bit of a softball.
 
Is that spot marked in yellow exactly where Kirk lay? How soon afterwards was this still/footage taken? Have objects (and the tent itself) since been moved around or altered? They're making a 'strange lack of blood' assessment based on very limited data and faulty assumptions.
I agree. I havent seen any footage of first aid being delivered tbh.
 
"A bit shady. Notice her current behavior", what exactly are we to make of that?

I started watching this vid in which Erika's public speech response is being critiqued - unfavorably. I watched most of it, but it really got to be too much to stomach, both Erika's part and the analysis. I skipped watching those post death speeches, so it's the first time I'm hearing/viewing her behavior in what amounts to a eulogy - and it is um, abnormal at best, deliberate acting at worst. I already previously noted that her up-close vid at Charlie's casket was beyond the pale, so the starting point regarding her actions was already set at weird.

Concerning this vid critiquing her speech, I don't believe Erika was on scene to witness Charlie's death - on campus, but not in that collected audience. Whether she witnessed it from afar or ever saw the video of his being killed, I don't know. Nonetheless, as has been remarked by others, what comes across is very performative behavior, overly dramatic - particularly the whispering - for maximum effect and I think that's hard to dismiss. Is she some kind of programmed she-bot who's still playing her part in this horrific, shock and awe psych attack on everyone's sensibilities for the very nefarious objective it was meant to achieve? The beautiful blonde, sweet and loving wife and mother image purposely cultivated to deceive the gullible true believers? It should be noted that she did finally say evildoers, plural, so not the official lone perp narrative being fomented.

I'm afraid my benefit of the doubt is leaning more and more to devious she-bot. However, I did hear a clip of Tucker Carlson's impression of Erika when he first met her and how blown away he was by her. She is no ordinary woman according to Tucker (or maybe just a first encounter with a Stepford wife), and so that needs to be added in to the analysis of this person we're trying to figure out. I think it's safe to say she's one of a kind, and if we're lucky, one way or another, she'll come out on the side of good and may even prove integral to revealing the true evil that took place in what can only be described as a mindf*ck psyop.

Which lioness will come out on top - Erika or Candace? Wait and see.

1759766919560.png
 
Here’s a reasonable take at this point:

The Girlboss Paradox​

That’s where things get fascinating. The conservative movement she now leads often promotes a vision of womanhood rooted in submission, family, and “biblical femininity.” Yet Erika is the opposite of a silent partner. She’s a beauty queen–turned–executive, a faith-based influencer, a mother who also happens to run a multimillion-dollar political organization.

The contradiction feels ripped from The Handmaid’s Tale. If Charlie was the commander, Erika was never Offred — she was Serena Joy: articulate, stylish, powerful, shaping narratives while speaking the language of tradition. Her rise exposes the paradox within modern conservative politics: railing against feminism while simultaneously celebrating women who embody its gains — ambition, leadership, visibility.

Why This Story Sticks​

Part of why Erika Kirk’s backstory fascinates is timing. She just inherited one of the most high-profile conservative platforms in the U.S., while still in the eye of a global grieving process. Part of it is narrative: her life arc — beauty queen, influencer, widow, CEO — is tailor-made for headlines. And part of it is the way the internet works in 2025: every past connection, rumor, and contradiction gets pulled up, memed, and dissected.

So what’s real? Erika Kirk did model, did direct casting, did found multiple ventures, did build an influencer brand, and did meet Charlie through a “job interview turned date.” She has not been charged with anything in Romania, and the trafficking claims remain unproven internet chatter.

But whether true, false, or exaggerated, these stories stick because Erika herself is a living paradox: the conservative widow who also happens to be a girlboss CEO, the faith-driven homemaker who runs a political empire, the figure who looks just as at home in a boardroom as in a Bible study.

In the end, Erika Kirk’s past may not be the Netflix scandal some corners of the internet want it to be. But her present — equal parts influencer, entrepreneur, and political leader — is already stranger, and more compelling, than fiction.
 
I don't think that's Kirk's arm coming up, more likely someone closer down to Kirk? If so, that would explain why these three security guys we see 'don't have any blood on them' - they're not among those closest to Kirk.
Or, it is Kirk's arm, but some troll has intentionally manipulated the video to make it seem like Kirk is raising it himself.

 
Soon after CK's assassination, I remember Candace saying that the only ones that could get her to stop investigating the assassination were Erika Kirk or someone else that I can't remember - maybe Tucker? In her latest live, TPUSA have asked her to stop asking questions, but she ain't going there because there are too many holes in the official story. Her latest live streamed 4hrs ago and has already had a million views.

"Today we will discuss a psychological strategy known as the “David Hoggin” somebody. TPUSA is David Hogging us right now.'

 
Soon after CK's assassination, I remember Candace saying that the only ones that could get her to stop investigating the assassination were Erika Kirk or someone else that I can't remember - maybe Tucker? In her latest live, TPUSA have asked her to stop asking questions, but she ain't going there because there are too many holes in the official story. Her latest live streamed 4hrs ago and has already had a million views.

"Today we will discuss a psychological strategy known as the “David Hoggin” somebody. TPUSA is David Hogging us right now.'
It was Erika Kirk or her husband. I was wondering if Erika Kirk could still do it and am not overly surprised that she/TPUSA can't.
 
Interesting graph from the past.

screen shot from the above video.
1759803403212.png

See how fast the Israeli support recovered after 1982 drop. I asked Grok.

what is the reason for drop in israeli popularity in 1982?
The drop in Israeli popularity in the United States in 1982 was primarily due to the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which occurred during the 1982 Lebanon War. This event significantly impacted public perception of Israel in the U.S. and around the world. Here are the key details:
  • Sabra and Shatila Massacre: In September 1982, during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the Lebanese Christian Phalange militia, with the support and facilitation of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), massacred between 460 and 3,500 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in the Sabra neighborhood and the adjacent Shatila refugee camp in Beirut. The IDF was aware of the atrocities but did not intervene to stop them, and even provided illumination with flares during the night of the massacre.
  • Media Coverage: The massacre was widely covered by international media, including American television, which brought the horrific images and reports directly into American homes. This was one of the first times such graphic footage of Israeli-related violence was broadcasted, leading to a significant shift in public opinion.
  • Public Reaction: The exposure to these events led to a sharp decline in favorable views of Israel among Americans. According to Gallup polls, Israeli favorability dropped from 46% in 1981 to 32% in 1983, while favorability towards Palestinians increased from 12% to 18% over the same period.
  • Historical Context: Prior to this, Israel had enjoyed relatively high favorability in the U.S., often above 50%, due to its position as a key ally and the perception of it as a democratic state in a volatile region. The massacre challenged this narrative and highlighted the complexities and controversies of Israeli military actions.
This event marked a turning point in American public opinion towards Israel, prompting a reevaluation of the U.S.-Israel relationship and leading to increased scrutiny and criticism of Israeli policies.

Tell me the immediate actions Israel took in 1982 after the drop in favorability, not later one's
Immediately following the drop in favorability due to the Sabra and Shatila massacre in 1982, Israel took several urgent and direct actions to mitigate the damage to its image and restore public support in the United States. These immediate responses were crucial in the short term to address the crisis. Here are the key actions taken in 1982 and shortly thereafter:1. Formation of the Kahan Commission
  • Establishment: In response to international outrage and domestic pressure, Israel established the Kahan Commission in late 1982 to investigate the events of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. The commission, chaired by Israeli Supreme Court Justice Yitzhak Kahan, was tasked with determining responsibility and recommending actions.
  • Findings and Recommendations: The commission's report, released in February 1983, found that Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon bore "personal responsibility" for not preventing the massacre and recommended his resignation. This was an attempt to demonstrate accountability and address the perception of complicity.
  • Impact: While the commission's findings were seen as a step towards transparency, they also sparked controversy and further debate, but it was part of the immediate response to show that Israel was addressing the issue.
2. Public Relations and Media Damage Control
  • Immediate Media Engagement: Israeli officials and diplomats engaged in intensive media campaigns to counter the negative coverage. This included press conferences, interviews, and statements to explain Israel's perspective and distance itself from the actions of the Phalange militia.
  • Narrative Shaping: There was an immediate effort to frame the massacre as an unfortunate incident carried out by Lebanese forces, not Israeli policy, emphasizing that Israel did not intend for such an outcome.
3. Diplomatic Efforts
  • Apologies and Condemnations: Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and other officials publicly condemned the massacre and expressed regret. This was aimed at mollifying international opinion and particularly the U.S. audience.
  • Engagement with the U.S.: Israeli diplomats worked closely with U.S. officials to explain the situation and reaffirm the strategic alliance. This included high-level meetings and communications to ensure continued support despite the public backlash.
4. Lobbying Intensification
  • AIPAC and Pro-Israel Groups: Immediately after the massacre, pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC ramped up their efforts to maintain congressional support. They organized emergency meetings, briefings, and campaigns to counteract the negative sentiment.
  • Congressional Briefings: Israeli officials and lobbyists provided extensive briefings to U.S. lawmakers to explain the context of the Lebanon War and the massacre, aiming to preserve bipartisan support.
5. Military and Strategic Reassessment
  • Withdrawal from Beirut: In response to the massacre and the ensuing international pressure, Israel began a partial withdrawal from Beirut in late 1982, which was part of an effort to de-escalate and reduce the military footprint that had led to the crisis.
  • Reevaluation of Military Strategy: There was an internal reassessment of military strategies and the use of allied militias, aiming to prevent similar incidents in the future.
6. Cultural and Symbolic Gestures
  • Memorials and Acknowledgments: Israel made efforts to acknowledge the tragedy, including memorial services and statements of condolence, to show empathy and a willingness to learn from the event.
These immediate actions were part of a broader strategy to address the immediate crisis and lay the groundwork for longer-term recovery of Israel's image. The focus was on accountability, damage control, and maintaining the crucial U.S.-Israel relationship despite the significant setback.
Will it succeed to woo Americans back this time? In any case, It looks Israel is in hurry to finish off Iran. It is true Gaza is in hopeless stage. If it is the greater Israel is what they want, one can expect to achieve that first (instead of token bombings of non-Palestinian countries). right?

It sounds like Nazi's who were making study progress against Britain, stopped in that direction and went against Russia during World war II. Will the history repeat again?
 
Soon after CK's assassination, I remember Candace saying that the only ones that could get her to stop investigating the assassination were Erika Kirk or someone else that I can't remember - maybe Tucker? In her latest live, TPUSA have asked her to stop asking questions, but she ain't going there because there are too many holes in the official story. Her latest live streamed 4hrs ago and has already had a million views.

"Today we will discuss a psychological strategy known as the “David Hoggin” somebody. TPUSA is David Hogging us right now.'

I had a laugh, when she ended the episode with this . From the you tube transcripts.
1:03:39
I will say in closing and going back to France, if I found brigitte's penis, I will find who killed Charlie Kirk. We'll see you guys tomorrow.
She is realizing that we may never know who killed CK. Well, every body knows, there is nothing any body can do any thing about it.
Another one

50:58
Even this headline is crazy. uh this this this came out that like their Tik Tok which we we covered this before their moderation team like IDF soldiers. uh and Bibi Netanyahu saying we're taking over Tik Tok like my agents are going to get that in a purchase. That's what needs to happen so that we can win announcing. Essentially psychological warfare on on the American people. Because, they don't think we can think for ourselves and decide who we want to follow on X all by ourselves. Apparently, they're going to ban the juice box emoji Right?

Because people because they can't talk about the modern state of Israel have been using like the apple juice because juice can sound like Jews. And so they're now moderating that. And I will say this, that's going to be funny because it's just it's going to be a game like whack-a-ole and all we can do is laugh at it because these people are savvy.

These Tik Tockers are like they're pretty savvy on the internet. They're going to be some gonna be announcing like let's use this emoji instead from now on. This represents the modern state of Israel. And before you know it, there's going to be no emojis that are allowed on Tik Tok. Actually, it would be funny. The funniest thing that they could possibly do right now is every time you want to talk about Israel on Tik Tok, use the term Tik Tok and see if Tik Tok will ban Tik Tok from Tik Tok. That's how we win. Like, if that happens, we win. Okay? We get to laugh forever that we made Tik Tok ban Tik Tok because Tik Tok is actually code for Israel. The modern state of Tik Tok.
 
I had a laugh, when she ended the episode with this

I don't know how much I'm supposed to be laughing anymore. Tik Tok is an idea in Hebrew, of two nouns put together. When it's read, as it's formed, it means a box, portfolio, or a case (police record or task) of fraud, deceit and/or oppression.

Of course the tick-tock in the English is a gesture in itself, that refers to "time is short", or "hurry up, time is wasting". A person usually points to their wrist watch or phone when they're reminding someone else of what the time is.

----

There is another thing that I've followed up on. I briefly looked through the author's postings when I looked up azov in Hebrew over the weekend, and this showed up. Iirc, CK used the phrasing of "fearing for his life/safety", a little bit before the affair ensued. It has ramifications, per the Book of Job, that speak of the hyper-dimensional realities and manipulation, and Paul's writings.

Hebrew Word Study – Fear for One’s Safety – Yagar – יָגֹר Yod Gimmel Resh

Job 9:28: “I am afraid of all my sorrow, I know thou wilt not hold me innocent.”


“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains. It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” C.S. Lewis

Job’s friends approached him with simple human logic. All suffering is the result of sin. Job is suffering, therefore Job has sinned. Job sends that bit of logic into a tail spin with a bit of his own logic in 9:28; Suffering will not redeem one’s sins, therefore if I sinned, I’m toast.

This is pretty much the general consensus among Christian commentators as to what Job means when he says that he is afraid of his suffering. That is, that his sin will only bring more suffering. If he is suffering because he sinned, and this suffering will not cleanse his sin, then he is doomed to keep suffering. There is no hope. Of course this then gives a good opening to the Gospel message. I still believe that is what Job is saying but I am also persuaded that he is expressing something else as well in this statement.

It is curious that the word yara’ or paqad is not used, which are your usual words for fear. The word used here is yagar. This word is rarely used in the Old Testament and as such most of your lexicons will simply tell you that it means fear or to be afraid. But golly gee, we already have two perfectly decent words for fear, why another one. Maybe there is an alternative rendering here. It struck me as odd that this word is used here. This word is used only seven times in the Old Testament and each time it is used for fear. You can trace this word back to its Canaanite origins and find it is used for piling on rocks. We get the idea of fear from this as Job realizes that his suffering will not remove his sins and if he is suffering because of his sins, his sufferings will only increase and get heavier and heavier as more rocks are heaped upon each other.

The word for yagar for fear is spelled Yod, Gimmel and Resh. I found in Jewish literature an article which addresses the Yod in yagar. This rabbi tells us that he yod is the only letter suspended in the air. The danger of the yod in yagar is that we will be so focused on our pain and sorrow that we will stumble over the rocks that are being heaped up on the ground. These three letters all represent a message, a message from heaven, a message from friends, and a message from the Spirit of God. The numerical value of the word as it is used in Job 9:28 is 613. The Hebrew word for warning is also 613. So Job could be saying that his fear is that his sorrow is a warning or message from God, but he will be so focused on his sorrow that he will not hear the message that is being given. Instead he will stumble over the rocks of his afflictions. The word sorrow is ‘asav which means grief, sorrow and pain but it is also used for the word idol and worship. That raises a very interesting thought that would really fit this context. Job’s fear is that as his sorrows keep piling up. His pain will actually become an idol. This rock pile will become an idol that will trip him up. Rather than read the message behind his suffering, he will just focus on the suffering itself and that suffering will in effect become an idol. That may well explain why Job uses this obscure word for fear which also represents a rock pile, as in an idol. An idol is anything that becomes your primary focus and the object of your passion. An idol is anything that causes you to behave in a certain manner. It is anything that will control your actions and your life. It is very easy to allow you sufferings and sorrows to control you. People let their lives be ruled by their sufferings and sorrows. They go into hiding, they let their healthy habits go, they avoid socializing and there are many other negative behaviors that take control of you when you let your sufferings and sorrows become an idol.

In the midst of all this suffering Job could not defend himself against the accusations of his friends, he could not explain the reason for his sufferings, but one thing he did know and that was that he must keep his focus on God and not his sufferings. He must watch carefully as the rocks of his affliction keep piling up so that he does not trip over this rock heap and let it become an idol. He must continue to worship God and not his sufferings.

Clearly Job was in the midst of a spiritual warfare. We learn that in the first chapter. The Apostle Paul also reminds us that we are in a spiritual warfare. In that warfare we may suffer wounds and afflictions. We may not understand the reasons for our battle wounds, but like Job, we need to guard against the infections of idolatry that these wounds can produce.

Yes, I see a Gospel message here, that no amount of personal suffering will atone for our sins, only the suffering of Jesus Christ will bring that atonement. But I also see another message here. Our sufferings may not be for redemptive purposes but God is shouting to us. He is trying to speak to us. Yet, we may become so focused on that rock heap of sorrow and pain that we do not hear God because we have been listening to the rocks crying out. We worship and serve the rock heap rather than God. Like Job, we must fear our sufferings and pain. Not fear them for what they can do to us physically, but what they can do to us spiritually.
 
Back
Top Bottom