There's lots of shills coming in with "THIS IS THE TAKE!" If you see low-scored shills like that.. click deport for the mod team to take a look.
Some examples are:
• 5 year member, but only 300 points.
• Hasn't said anything for months/years but 'had to share' their take here.
YES!!! Thanks to all the mods! You guys have got to have your hands full right now.
Edit: if the video player doesn't load or shows an error, refresh a time or two.
People want to believe they can divine whats going on through their five senses. Pretty limited. In tje end charlie was murdered by the ideology of the democrats. Thats who killed him and we cant let them forget it.
Any wise frog will check a LOT of posters they respond to and deport these almost by default. More times than not it’s worth a deport, if only tagged with a “For review”.
I'll be largely abstaining from any further speculation until more 'official' (ha, yeah right) info comes out because the Infosphere is positively flooded with garbage that's doing everything but keeping us united.
If I was the enemy, I would be giddy with glee at all the in-fighting here.
It's not "where we go "'some'"…
It's "Where we go 1, we go ALL."
Good advice. I too decided earlier today to back out of the fray. I realized having an opinion on certain matters only causes division. Best to let those who enjoy squabbling have their fun. They'll run out of gas soon enough. They always do.
🫡
I usually voice my opinion in 'definitive terms' based on high confidence, but I haven't been able to develop any sort of high confidence toward any theory, particularly after the revelation (from his wife) that there was no body armor. That was it for me.
I like being able to state my opinions based on something I can believe in, and IMO, at this point not much is believable/solid.
With the monumental amount of garbage information out there, I feel like we're just spinning our wheels until we get a little more "semi-reliable" information.
I get more pissed when people here shit on trumps team without an iota of anything to back it up. Shit, o
If someone drank a starbucks or ate ben and jerrys there are people here who would accuse them of being traitors. Its low thinking amd hyperbole. I often just consider them art of rhe left simce their thinking is so trapped.
Bingo. If my theory is wrong, I'm perfectly willing to accept information that shows that to me. But it seems rational to me at the present, and I see nothing wrong with sharing that. I don't present it as indisputable fact. I don't insult anyone else for not seeing it that way. I'm still gathering info and theories and willing to amend it or abandon it if it doesn't pass the smell test to me, but I'm not going to pretend I don't think that just cause the implications of it might piss some people off. Pfff. Fuck that.
Lots of people insisting Charlie Kirk's death was a hoax. Not a single one of those who do will take it a step further and discuss the implications/ramifications if that were the case.
Take that group, round them up, ask them "Who perpetrated the hoax?" Crickets.
Motive -- who benefits from Charlie Kirk being killed?
Did the democrats do it? (Well, yes they did actually murder Charlie, but did they do it as a hoax?). No, why would they? The democrat party is imploding because of it. They really don't benefit from the murder (other than it scratching the itch of their minions who have been gaslight for decades into hating conservatives), but strategically they lose.
Did Israel do it? Explain what Israel has to gain from predictably shifting the Overton window 10 steps to the right. I don't see the benefit. Even if Charlie started calling out Israel recently -- so what? The whole democrat party calls out Israel and AIPAC still funds democrats far more than republicans. Can anyone who blames Israel take it 1 step further and explain what Israel has to gain from it? I haven't seen any legitimate explanation.
So if democrats wouldn't do the hoax, and Israel wouldn't do the hoax, who supposedly did?
This is where those who cry hoax all go silent, because the implications and ramifications make them look crazy.
Implication #1: Charlie would have to be in on it. Would this man, who started Turning Point back in 2012, sacrifice everything he's built for a hoax? 13 years of building the largest and most effective conservative organization in the US -- was only a buildup for a hoax?
Can anyone imagine a world where Charlie Kirk emerges back into the public eye with a good explanation? I can't. It could be 10 years from now, Charlie could pop out and say "Hey, it's me! Sorry about faking my death, but I just had to because _____." What would _____ be that wouldn't have everyone pissed? I can't imagine anything.
And what would he gain from the hoax? Perpetrating a faux crime against conservatives to shift the Overton window? Using deceit to make the democrats look worse than they actually are?
Implication #2: Who has the most to gain from Charlie Kirk's death being a hoax? Conservatives.
It is harsh to say this, but it is the truth. Conservatives benefit from Charlie Kirk's death. It is a sick thing to say, but it is reality. Moderate democrats leaving the democrat party. That only benefits conservatives.
Charlie Kirk's socials have increased 3.8 million, like 7x bigger than before his death. The conservative movement is gaining traction.
Which brings us to the implication that those who scream hoax won't touch with a 10-foot pole. That conservatives perpetrated the hoax. That Q and Trump perpetrated the hoax.
It's absolutely nuts to suggest such a thing. It's incredibly bad taste to suggest such a thing. So -- they don't. They cry hoax, but you won't hear them say the obvious, that if it is a hoax, it was perpetrated by conservatives.
I don't think it was a hoax, not even close. But if it were, you'd naturally see people who insist it to point their finger at who did it -- and for some very odd reason they refuse to.
Well first of all, I've never INSISTED that it was a hoax. But I see reasons for why I suspect it was, and it was for the very reasons you just said I would be too scared to say out loud. Why would I be too scared to say that part out loud?
The Cabal has been using hoaxes and false flags to try to divide and bury America for as long as America has existed. If Q says we're watching a movie, and disinformation is necessary, why wouldn't I be open to the possibility that Q, Trump, and the white hats might use a hoax to help unite and save our country rather than how the black hats have used them in the past?
I'm not afraid to say that. I'm not afraid of those implications at all. My personal working theory, which I'm totally open to being wrong, is that the white hats got intelligence that Israel was going to take out Charlie and so they beat them to the punch by faking his death and sticking him in WitSec for the foreseeable future (i.e. "Valhalla", where Patel said he would see him--double meanings exist after all) allowing them to protect Charlie and still reap the benefits of his martyrdom.
I don't ASSERT or INSIST this theory is true though. I don't need anyone else to buy it. I'm open to being wrong about it. But I've seen some very good points that make me open to it, for sure. The fact that some of you can't fathom or wrap your head around that theory without thinking the worst of Charlie or Trump or whatever is of no concern to me.
If they know it's going to unite the country and bring down the Cabal they can fake my death too if they want. It's not something I would be opposed to. And certainly not something I would say no to if the alternative was having Israel take me out for turning down the 150 million dollar bribe they had just offered me.
Imma keep my mind open on this one, thanks. Ya'll can do things your way. But I'm not afraid of the implications of my theory. Not in the slightest.
*Edit - And as to your hypothetical of Charlie coming back in 10 years and saying "Surprise! I'm still alive! We faked it!" I for one hope that's exactly what happens. I hope my theory is correct because I don't want Charlie to be dead, but I want our country to be united and for both the left and the right to finally get a clue about Israel so we can hasten the end of this grand story and get to the part where Q said "saving Israel for last." And if he comes back and says "Yeah, after I turned down the 150 million dollar bribe, Trump gave me a call and let me know about the intelligence they got and what they were planning to do in order to save my life and hasten the end of this war and I said yes" I wouldn't hold that against him. Would you?
Cool. Like I said. Maybe his death was real. I don't know. I don't think that Q post proves that it was, but thanks for the reminder that shit CAN get real sometimes.
If there are people on the site insisting it was faked, well, I think that's a bit far on their part as well. After many years on this site, the thing I love about it most, is that MOST people try not to INSIST on anything, especially not right out of the gate.
I love the constant "72 hour rule" reminders. I love the crowdsourcing of theories and evidence. It's great. What I don't love, is those INSISTING on anything, one way or another, basically ever.
I think the most honest approach any of us here can take is to say "I don't know the truth of all things, but based on X, Y, and Z, I tend to lean this way on the topic, but I'm always open to new theories and evidence that might change my mind."
Anybody insisting others take a hard stance on anything these days is, in my opinion, missing perhaps the greatest lesson and gift that being on this site has taught/given me.
Ben Franklin has a great teaching on this in his autobiography. Present your ideas as possibilities, not incontrovertible fact, and you and everyone else will be much better off for it.
One can simplify the math here and break it down into two main camps:
Anons who dont trust the MSM or FBI but believe Kirk was assassinated, possibly by a state actor.
Anons who believe he wasn't assassinated and is alive because that's what their favorite paytriots are peddling.
That's essentially the two sides of the coin, well here at least. Put me in camp 1 because I'll never blindly believe the venom that paytriot sneks spit. Not the last thousand times and not this time either.
It's a hoax, and it's a WH one. But the explanation, although logical, is not simple. And as you suggest, it cuts to the essence of what Q is, and the nature of the information war. A few of the videos, particularly the one by Mike King, go into it. https://rumble.com/v6yyili-mike-explains-the-charlie-kirk-drama.html And even though he's pretty clear, he presumes (as he says in the beginning) the listener already has a strong Q-centric context.
I've said whats probable, and from research, quite likely, but really, the specific details with Kirk aren't really that important. What's happening around it though, IS.
If he truly was not wearing a protective vest, then there is no way the "official narrative" is true. That's just undeniable. Side note: I can't believe anyone could believe this was a faked assassination!
I think there are events that are allowed to happen, like the 9/11 jet crashes (building collapses a whole nother issue of course), but do not believe events like the Sandy Hook massacre were staged.
Interesting. It took me a while, but I've become convinced that many of these events are 100% theater, including Sandy Hook. But there's certainly a lot of cognitive resistance to that way of thinking. I resisted researching these topic for years because of the implications. I don't blame anyone for not getting into it.
I just can't believe the Sandy Hook incident was faked since you would have to have an ENTIRE town in on it. There may be aspects of it that were faked, but all the evidence is there that children and teachers were killed. The theory that the shooter was "programmed" to do it is so much more plausible than "the shooting was staged" theory.
We're trying to keep the wild goose chases to a minimum.
There's lots of shills coming in with "THIS IS THE TAKE!" If you see low-scored shills like that.. click deport for the mod team to take a look.
Some examples are:
5 year member, but only 300 points.
Hasn't said anything for months/years but 'had to share' their take here.
YES!!! Thanks to all the mods! You guys have got to have your hands full right now.
Edit: if the video player doesn't load or shows an error, refresh a time or two.
People want to believe they can divine whats going on through their five senses. Pretty limited. In tje end charlie was murdered by the ideology of the democrats. Thats who killed him and we cant let them forget it.
Yes thats the official story.
We are kinda “anti establishment” around here…
Any wise frog will check a LOT of posters they respond to and deport these almost by default. More times than not it’s worth a deport, if only tagged with a “For review”.
I'll be largely abstaining from any further speculation until more 'official' (ha, yeah right) info comes out because the Infosphere is positively flooded with garbage that's doing everything but keeping us united.
If I was the enemy, I would be giddy with glee at all the in-fighting here.
It's not "where we go "'some'"…
It's "Where we go 1, we go ALL."
Good advice. I too decided earlier today to back out of the fray. I realized having an opinion on certain matters only causes division. Best to let those who enjoy squabbling have their fun. They'll run out of gas soon enough. They always do.
🫡
I usually voice my opinion in 'definitive terms' based on high confidence, but I haven't been able to develop any sort of high confidence toward any theory, particularly after the revelation (from his wife) that there was no body armor. That was it for me.
I like being able to state my opinions based on something I can believe in, and IMO, at this point not much is believable/solid.
With the monumental amount of garbage information out there, I feel like we're just spinning our wheels until we get a little more "semi-reliable" information.
This.
I would suggest that the first video that was blasted out using ones eyes and sense of logic is a good start
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1jfRn154vt5s/
for me , that ultimately was the smoking gun
I made this decision nine days ago, saved myself a lot of trouble.
My gas needle actually broke today. Can I blame you for this?
Ive been debating 9/11 since about 2005
Vaccines since around 2014
Just sayin’… this never gets old for me
I get more pissed when people here shit on trumps team without an iota of anything to back it up. Shit, o If someone drank a starbucks or ate ben and jerrys there are people here who would accuse them of being traitors. Its low thinking amd hyperbole. I often just consider them art of rhe left simce their thinking is so trapped.
Nah, we're just talking it out ...
If I knew the truth of the situation I wouldn’t need to talk it out…
If I knew the best way to convince someone of that I’d only say the right thing…
If I had indomitable self control I’d only do those best things…
…But I’m here, stumbling, like everyone else. As long as nobody trips over me.
Bingo. If my theory is wrong, I'm perfectly willing to accept information that shows that to me. But it seems rational to me at the present, and I see nothing wrong with sharing that. I don't present it as indisputable fact. I don't insult anyone else for not seeing it that way. I'm still gathering info and theories and willing to amend it or abandon it if it doesn't pass the smell test to me, but I'm not going to pretend I don't think that just cause the implications of it might piss some people off. Pfff. Fuck that.
+1
Kek
IMHO regardless of what's going on or not going on, Charlie lives on through the Awakening he fought so hard for.
Lots of people insisting Charlie Kirk's death was a hoax. Not a single one of those who do will take it a step further and discuss the implications/ramifications if that were the case.
Take that group, round them up, ask them "Who perpetrated the hoax?" Crickets.
Motive -- who benefits from Charlie Kirk being killed?
Did the democrats do it? (Well, yes they did actually murder Charlie, but did they do it as a hoax?). No, why would they? The democrat party is imploding because of it. They really don't benefit from the murder (other than it scratching the itch of their minions who have been gaslight for decades into hating conservatives), but strategically they lose.
Did Israel do it? Explain what Israel has to gain from predictably shifting the Overton window 10 steps to the right. I don't see the benefit. Even if Charlie started calling out Israel recently -- so what? The whole democrat party calls out Israel and AIPAC still funds democrats far more than republicans. Can anyone who blames Israel take it 1 step further and explain what Israel has to gain from it? I haven't seen any legitimate explanation.
So if democrats wouldn't do the hoax, and Israel wouldn't do the hoax, who supposedly did?
This is where those who cry hoax all go silent, because the implications and ramifications make them look crazy.
Implication #1: Charlie would have to be in on it. Would this man, who started Turning Point back in 2012, sacrifice everything he's built for a hoax? 13 years of building the largest and most effective conservative organization in the US -- was only a buildup for a hoax?
Can anyone imagine a world where Charlie Kirk emerges back into the public eye with a good explanation? I can't. It could be 10 years from now, Charlie could pop out and say "Hey, it's me! Sorry about faking my death, but I just had to because _____." What would _____ be that wouldn't have everyone pissed? I can't imagine anything.
And what would he gain from the hoax? Perpetrating a faux crime against conservatives to shift the Overton window? Using deceit to make the democrats look worse than they actually are?
Implication #2: Who has the most to gain from Charlie Kirk's death being a hoax? Conservatives.
It is harsh to say this, but it is the truth. Conservatives benefit from Charlie Kirk's death. It is a sick thing to say, but it is reality. Moderate democrats leaving the democrat party. That only benefits conservatives.
Charlie Kirk's socials have increased 3.8 million, like 7x bigger than before his death. The conservative movement is gaining traction.
Which brings us to the implication that those who scream hoax won't touch with a 10-foot pole. That conservatives perpetrated the hoax. That Q and Trump perpetrated the hoax.
It's absolutely nuts to suggest such a thing. It's incredibly bad taste to suggest such a thing. So -- they don't. They cry hoax, but you won't hear them say the obvious, that if it is a hoax, it was perpetrated by conservatives.
I don't think it was a hoax, not even close. But if it were, you'd naturally see people who insist it to point their finger at who did it -- and for some very odd reason they refuse to.
Well first of all, I've never INSISTED that it was a hoax. But I see reasons for why I suspect it was, and it was for the very reasons you just said I would be too scared to say out loud. Why would I be too scared to say that part out loud?
The Cabal has been using hoaxes and false flags to try to divide and bury America for as long as America has existed. If Q says we're watching a movie, and disinformation is necessary, why wouldn't I be open to the possibility that Q, Trump, and the white hats might use a hoax to help unite and save our country rather than how the black hats have used them in the past?
I'm not afraid to say that. I'm not afraid of those implications at all. My personal working theory, which I'm totally open to being wrong, is that the white hats got intelligence that Israel was going to take out Charlie and so they beat them to the punch by faking his death and sticking him in WitSec for the foreseeable future (i.e. "Valhalla", where Patel said he would see him--double meanings exist after all) allowing them to protect Charlie and still reap the benefits of his martyrdom.
I don't ASSERT or INSIST this theory is true though. I don't need anyone else to buy it. I'm open to being wrong about it. But I've seen some very good points that make me open to it, for sure. The fact that some of you can't fathom or wrap your head around that theory without thinking the worst of Charlie or Trump or whatever is of no concern to me.
If they know it's going to unite the country and bring down the Cabal they can fake my death too if they want. It's not something I would be opposed to. And certainly not something I would say no to if the alternative was having Israel take me out for turning down the 150 million dollar bribe they had just offered me.
Imma keep my mind open on this one, thanks. Ya'll can do things your way. But I'm not afraid of the implications of my theory. Not in the slightest.
*Edit - And as to your hypothetical of Charlie coming back in 10 years and saying "Surprise! I'm still alive! We faked it!" I for one hope that's exactly what happens. I hope my theory is correct because I don't want Charlie to be dead, but I want our country to be united and for both the left and the right to finally get a clue about Israel so we can hasten the end of this grand story and get to the part where Q said "saving Israel for last." And if he comes back and says "Yeah, after I turned down the 150 million dollar bribe, Trump gave me a call and let me know about the intelligence they got and what they were planning to do in order to save my life and hasten the end of this war and I said yes" I wouldn't hold that against him. Would you?
Congratulations, you're not who I wrote the post about then. There are many who insist, and you don't happen to be one of them.
It's not all a movie.
u/#q3568
It's almost like Q is telling us that there's a possibility that bad things can happen and it's not all just a movie.
Cool. Like I said. Maybe his death was real. I don't know. I don't think that Q post proves that it was, but thanks for the reminder that shit CAN get real sometimes.
If there are people on the site insisting it was faked, well, I think that's a bit far on their part as well. After many years on this site, the thing I love about it most, is that MOST people try not to INSIST on anything, especially not right out of the gate.
I love the constant "72 hour rule" reminders. I love the crowdsourcing of theories and evidence. It's great. What I don't love, is those INSISTING on anything, one way or another, basically ever.
I think the most honest approach any of us here can take is to say "I don't know the truth of all things, but based on X, Y, and Z, I tend to lean this way on the topic, but I'm always open to new theories and evidence that might change my mind."
Anybody insisting others take a hard stance on anything these days is, in my opinion, missing perhaps the greatest lesson and gift that being on this site has taught/given me.
Ben Franklin has a great teaching on this in his autobiography. Present your ideas as possibilities, not incontrovertible fact, and you and everyone else will be much better off for it.
Aristotle: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
I have been entertaining several opposing thoughts on this topic from others here in the past 11-12 days.
One can simplify the math here and break it down into two main camps:
That's essentially the two sides of the coin, well here at least. Put me in camp 1 because I'll never blindly believe the venom that paytriot sneks spit. Not the last thousand times and not this time either.
Lots of words ....Poor logic....Much conjecture.
Who perpetrated the hoax?
It's a hoax, and it's a WH one. But the explanation, although logical, is not simple. And as you suggest, it cuts to the essence of what Q is, and the nature of the information war. A few of the videos, particularly the one by Mike King, go into it. https://rumble.com/v6yyili-mike-explains-the-charlie-kirk-drama.html And even though he's pretty clear, he presumes (as he says in the beginning) the listener already has a strong Q-centric context.
Good post. Very appropriate.
https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/1969809385418555404
Idk homes i'm just vibin.
I've said whats probable, and from research, quite likely, but really, the specific details with Kirk aren't really that important. What's happening around it though, IS.
Don't lose the 40k ft view.
Fr fr
If he truly was not wearing a protective vest, then there is no way the "official narrative" is true. That's just undeniable. Side note: I can't believe anyone could believe this was a faked assassination!
Why not? Have you not gone down the rabbit holes of Sandy Hook, Parkland and other staged events?
I think there are events that are allowed to happen, like the 9/11 jet crashes (building collapses a whole nother issue of course), but do not believe events like the Sandy Hook massacre were staged.
Interesting. It took me a while, but I've become convinced that many of these events are 100% theater, including Sandy Hook. But there's certainly a lot of cognitive resistance to that way of thinking. I resisted researching these topic for years because of the implications. I don't blame anyone for not getting into it.
I just can't believe the Sandy Hook incident was faked since you would have to have an ENTIRE town in on it. There may be aspects of it that were faked, but all the evidence is there that children and teachers were killed. The theory that the shooter was "programmed" to do it is so much more plausible than "the shooting was staged" theory.