So I started noticing over the past week or two a sudden increase of posts about Erika Kirk. In my experience this kind of sudden influx of a topic is usually a result of some concerted narrative pushing, so I was curious where this is coming from and more importantly why now.
In finding the answer, I have engaged with many of you Candace-bros, who have been most vocal about this, as always to understand all the facts.
I will first share a small tip in research that has helped me greatly debating on reddit and twitter, but I was able to apply here as well. If you want to learn all about the view point you are debating - say "Global warming" or "Vaccines are safe" you don't have to read every information thats there about it before you can debate. them. That would be a waste of time. Instead, you can outsource the task to your opponents. Challenge them clarify exactly what their strongest position is and to bring you the best evidence for what they are claiming. They will do the research, since they have the motive to you prove you wrong, and you now have something concrete you can work with.
I used the same technique here as well. I wanted to know if I was missing anything of what Candace has been putting out regarding Erika Kirk. And thanks for everyone who played with me, because I got the answer I was looking for.
Sum total of what Candace has been putting forth:
-
All the apparent strangeness surrounding the assassination
-
That the assassination was part of a conspiracy and not a lone shooter
-
That FBI has not been sharing all the information, and instead covering up the assassination
-
That Erika has been acting suspiciously - most importantly Not demanding answers from the government and instead attacking those who are demanding answers.
I had no disagreement with the first 3 points - there is definitely more to the assassination, and FBI is definitely not releasing everything they have (whatever the reason may be) just like in the case of "Epstein Files".
As for Erika acting "suspicious", its subjective and not really something I can use to make objective analysis - esp. when you see her on the show with Charlie and the way she acts is very similar to now - like she is an actress. But thats not the point.
Lets for a second assume that her actions are suspicious so that way, I have as much in common with the Candace-bros and we can focus only on the real difference of opinion:
Erika Kirk does not demand that FBI/Government release all the information they have
According to Candace, and all the Candace-bros that engaged with me, this is an absolute sin. Her not "demanding answers" is the biggest problem.
According to this view: Its not enough for us Anons to ask questions. *We have to force everyone else involved to ask the same questions. *
Stay with me - I am now getting to the actual point, it very much concerns this claim.
So many of the comments I received echoed the same thing: "She must ask questions, but she is not"
It is very clear at this point that there is enormous pressure on her to "ask questions" about Charlie Kirk's assassination. No one can deny this - whether you are a Candace-bro or not and whether you agree that she has to ask questions or not - one thing we can all agree is that there is a lot of pressure on Erika to ask questions
What is the purpose of a system? The purpose of a system is what it does. POSIWID
What is the purpose of this whole psyop? To put enormous pressure on Erika to "ask questions".
But why?
So lets do a thought experiment. Assume you are Erika and you decide that you want answers about the assassination of your husband and you publicly demand that FBI/Government provide those answers.
What will be the result of this?
It will damage Trump's DOJ instantly more than anything else. Every MSM and altstream media will run with the headlines
Grieving widow of MAGA's star implies that Trump DOJ is behind his assassination cover up
They will achieve what none of the "Release Epstein Files" or any of the smear jobs about Kash or Pam Bondi failed to do.
Resignation / Firing of people in DOJ who are currently doing exactly what Trump wants them doing.
What is the biggest thing Trump DOJ did recently?
US seizes Iranian oil tanker in ‘illicit shipping network’ off Venezuela coast
Aka, Cutting off one of the last remaining bloodline to the British Banksters - defunding the Narco terrorists.
Yes, this is all about the fight against the British Banksters who are attacking Trump on all fronts and cutting the legs under the Trump DOJ would be a huge win for them.
And that is the goal of this psyop.
And, finally, to wrap this all up neatly, (shout out to all those who reminded me that we have to follow the spouses) who is Candace's husband ?
I don't think it undermines President Trump or MAGA for Erika or Candace to ask questions. The Deep State is still clearly at war with us (see Lara Logan's speech), and our closest ally is likely behind it.
The whole thing is fishy. Reasonable frogs can ask questions while simultaneously fully supporting President Trump and MAGA.
In fact I think it is our patriotic duty to ask questions in service of seeking the truth.
But that's not all it is. When Candace tells her audience "I have lost faith in Trump", does this not undermine President Trump? Or when she throws her weight behind Ron Destantis" Or says it was all Trump' s fault that the midterm 2022 elections did not go the 'Conservatives' way?
There is a great difference between asking questions on one hand, and expressing distrust, lack of confidence, and accusation toward the President and his administration on the other.
As I wrote elsewhere, I agree that the whole thing is fishy. But In my case, I'm not talking only about the Kirk Assasination, but also about the 'inflooncer wars', the supposedly innocent activities of Owens and others not to mention the reaction of many to them. It's ALL fishy.
And that is the point. Ask questions, sure, but look out for who is manipulating who in the midst of all this chaos.
Could it also be that Candace, Tucker, Fuentes etc. are bringing up things in the public sphere to bring awareness to the Trump admin and the public simultaneously about dirty players/operations in their mist? I believe this is what is happening. These influencers and the Trump admin have to keep plausible deniability. They have created a plan that cast a wide net for Truth telling. With such a wide web, it would be hard for the deep state to cover all of it, even though they are the masters at big webs of lies.
The British crown was backstabbed by Israel long ago when they achieved their very own nukes. Since then, the same evil has been taking England down, just like they are doing here. Could it be that factions of the British know that Israel has too much power and they want to try to save their country as well? This fits nicely with the FACT that the British joined with Trump in the first admin (que the videos of the queen with Trump and all the other key leaders around the globe. i.e. Saudi, Koreas, China, Russia joining forces with Trump to save the world).
The whole Candace/influencers things is a PsyOp, I just don't think it's in the way that the OP has suggested. Candace has ALWAYS been used to keep the Trump admin honest in the public sphere. Same with Charlie. The same with Tucker and Fuentes. It helps the larger public trust the movement more and brings credibility to it as well because we don't all have mocking bird fakeness like the left. When push comes to shove, all of them support Trump and his efforts - hence why they all voted for Trump multiple times.
They killed Charlie, publicly. We have to ask questions. Even hard questions that may make Kash, Bondi, Erika etc. look bad. If they are our people, they will course correct. If they don't, they are the dirty players in our mist that we (Trump included) NEED to be warned about.
wait... So you think they guy who has infinitely more intel than any of them, who has been targeted by the most powerful & evil cliques on the planet for 10 years, who knows the reality of the deep state through and through by direct experience needs Owens, Tucker and Fuentes to tell him what is going on?
I do not see it like that. I think it would be more accurate to say that Candace has always been used to sow doubt, distrust, and to undermine Donald Trump. Consistently. Over the past 4+ years.
I think many persons like yourself completely focus on the <ahem> questioning that people like Owens is <ahem> doing and completely ignore the actual rhetorical impact of their message: Trump is dumb, Trump doesn't know what he is doing, Trump's administration is a failure (because x, y, z reasons).
Fuentes is very much on the public record as saying do NOT vote for Trump, and that he himself did not vote for Trump. Owens threw all of her weight behinds De Santis and publicly blamed Trump for the lack of success in the 2022 midterms. "He's the problem, and we have to go with new blood" - I'm paraphrasing, but that was her position.
I think you may have conjured up some inaccurate conclusions here because of your bias. These influencers are NOT helping Trump. They are hurting him, and that is their purpose, imo.
"wait... So you think they guy who has infinitely more intel than any of them, who has been targeted by the most powerful & evil cliques on the planet for 10 years, who knows the reality of the deep state through and through by direct experience needs Owens, Tucker and Fuentes to tell him what is going on?"
---- No, it's not that he 'needs' them. It's the system the white hats set up.
"I do not see it like that. I think it would be more accurate to say that Candace has always been used to sow doubt, distrust, and to undermine Donald Trump. Consistently. Over the past 4+ years.
I think many persons like yourself completely focus on the <ahem> questioning that people like Owens is <ahem> doing and completely ignore the actual rhetorical impact of their message: Trump is dumb, Trump doesn't know what he is doing, Trump's administration is a failure (because x, y, z reasons)."
--- Do you hear yourself. Our movement is bigger than Trump. With that said, Candace factually voted for Trump in 2024. She also helped (like Charlie) bring it home for us in 2024.
"Fuentes is very much on the public record as saying do NOT vote for Trump, and that he himself did not vote for Trump. Owens threw all of her weight behinds De Santis and publicly blamed Trump for the lack of success in the 2022 midterms. "He's the problem, and we have to go with new blood" - I'm paraphrasing, but that was her position.
I think you may have conjured up some inaccurate conclusions here because of your bias. These influencers are NOT helping Trump. They are hurting him, and that is their purpose, imo."
--- Fuentes DID vote Trump in the past. He actively critiques the Trump admin to keep them honest. He just said on Piers Morgan DAYS ago that Trump is a personal hero of his. You need to learn how to read between the lines. Candace also factually voted Trump in 2024.
I think you may have conjured up some inaccurate conclusions here because of your bias.
Not for Candace or anyone else. But if Erika "asks the questions" (assuming she hasn't already been read in) its a whole different game.
Yep, but thats not the point. The point is not about people asking questions but pressuring Erika to ask questions.
And honestly, talking about "asking questions", I think there are plenty of bigger questions we all want to know the answer and we know we have to wait for the right time in disclosure. But, somehow this question is the one that cannot wait, esp. everytime Trump is doing something sensitive.
Erika is either controlled or a player. Who the fuk says "Charlie Kirk would take his phone, shove it in the junk drawer, say Shabbat Shalom!" when 70% of America is blaming Isreal? Regardless if he really said this week to week. This was a kiss ass to the Josh Hammers. She is not as good of an actor as they think she is.
So if 70% people say something its true? I heard my liberal friends say the same thing.