Ok. Let me see. This is what is supposed to convince me.
Her 'performance' was ghastly, inauthentic and phoney....
I know how "to phonies" because I grew up in the entertainment industry.
"She feels like.... and definitely ....."
"There is something seriously wrong... every cell in my body shudders... "
"No one has made my skin crawl like Erika...."
Well, I mean, if that is not 100% conclusive evidence right there, I don't know what is.
/s
In short: My opinion, my feels, my reaction and response.... = what? exactly?
Is there ANY deluded leftist, for example, who could not say the exact same thing about Trump, and believe fully in their own view, because of 'my opinion, my feels, my reactions'?
Me, I prefer not to give much time over to these sorts of sensationalist LOOK HERE!!!! narratives when they emerge. (By 'these sorts', I mean the whole "Erica Kirk is evil/fake/an operative/intel asset" narrative.) Instead, I simply take note, store up this and that occasional data point as they emerge, and add them to my mental storage bank on the topic, like an invisible mental docket or dossier.
But so far, for me, there are a few things that I find persuasive. One, that Kirk is being attacked by certain quarters, like <ahem> Candy Girl, over and over. Two, that all sorts of narratives emerge in the wake of significant events (which kirk's assassination was, imo), like piranhas swarming on a goat that happened to step into the river. Three, that the predominant arguments appear to be 'my feeling, my sense of, my reaction to' etc, coupled with innuendo and accusation.
For me, these are salient points. Because I'm a skeptic at heart. Q totally raised me to be like that, I'll say. (Or rather, any natural tendency towards that was developed and augmented by the Q operation, for sure.)
One of the greatest simplest psyops being "Look here! (and not there!)
Just saying. Until I find or come across evidence that meets a certain threshold, I tend to be skeptical on the more sensational of narratives, knowing how prevalent they are employed to manipulate. I'm also inclined to at first think, OK, are there any other plausible explanations for what I am seeing here, aside from the sensationalist one?
I really don't have much opinion on E Kirk herself, and am inclined to think this is really not important even if there is something to the bruhaha, but it is the reaction and waves that the narrative(s) create in the wider 'truth' community that really interest me, and of those things, I'm more inclined to take note than the original sensational narrative itself.
It would appear that Erika is being pushed as a potential running mate in 2028, and THAT is why so many of us are skeptical of her. She has lied about her education, for sure (claimed a double-major and honors, neither is true). There is a discrepancy in her birthday stemming from legal docs (Nov. 22 or Nov. 20). And her mother, Lori(n) Franztve, has ties to the NSA and bother government entities through her defense tech companies. Erika herself has altered stories to fit the narrative ("raised by a single mom" but documents, old interviews, and book acknowledgements don't support that).
Too much, too fast, and on the heels of the assassination of her husband, who was working to sever many of the ties she is strengthening now in his absence.
The skeptic in my wants to check through these things, (partly because I'm not overwhelmed by the levels of research that some folks - not saying you - put into such points before actually attaching or accepting, partly because, as I wrote above, I'll er on the side of skeptic with regards to sensational narratives and claims first) but, as I also wrote above, I tend to think that such issues as perhaps skirmishes in the info/psywar, and I prefer to attach to the 40kft view when possible. That's usually possible because other anons and frogs bring straight forward claims/data out, like you have here.
There is evidence that the person who killed Charlie was (at least) working for Erika Kirk. The medical response was primitive at best for Charlie because they didn't have an ambulance to deliver him to the hospital and for him to get treatment while en-route. This is for a bullet that hit Charlie in the back of the neck.
Finally Erika herself gave a speech expressing her grief just days after the death, yet the video is a masterclass in bad acting. If you saw the video, you would realize that Erika was wiping her eyes in order to prove she is crying. It was fake and almost always in one eye. If she truly loved Charlie, Erika would have been a blubbering idiot and would not be able to even read her statement.
A lot of subjective assumptions there about personalities. For example, do you have any direct experience with what traumatic shock does to people?
Traumatic shock can affect people in lots of different ways. It creates a root-level fracturing of the psyche, which can (usually) leads people to react and behave in ways that they most certainly would not. To me, the argument that "If she truly loved Charlie, Erika would have been a blubbering idiot" is simply imaginative projection or supposition, and I think that clinically, its not really evidence.
The problem here is that in psyops, narrative control and narrative spin rely on all sorts of subjective responses (how you or I respond emotionally, mentally and subjectively) to perceived data points, and the only real defense against being manipulated is a combination of concrete, hard data facts (empirically grounded) + aggressively critical thinking and self-reflection.
The whole nature of psychological warfare is manipulation of the vulnerabilities that the target presents, vulnerabilities which are grounded in the internal processes of thought, emotion and volition. Without a very objective self-reviewing of these aspects, psyops tend to simply achieve success.
So, the question is, is it possible that certain actors have an invested interest in psyopping the non-Mainstream community into attacking or doubting or undermining TPUSA (and Erika)?
If its possible that Erika is performing, is un-genuine in her motives, purpose, etc, then the above possibility (the opposite alternative) ALSO has to be considered and weighed against that, too.
Otherwise, you simply end up making purely subjective assessments and investing them with a certainty of belief.
For whatever it is worth, (not much) , I do not find Erika Kirk believable/trustworthy either, but certainly not enough to attack her so harshly and personally. Why Vivian would be so nasty toward her is out of line, in my opinion.
Erika seems to be, to me, just a typical type of female opportunist, wanting to be a "somebody", but may not have the background/education to achieve independently on her own. Hitching herself to Charlie Kirk's success seems a viable strategy - (women have been doing this for centuries). She appears (to me) now as trying to take advantage of the worst possible hand fate sent her way by the assignation of Charlie.
Perhaps she might be forgiven for doing her best in face of such a sudden loss, considering her grief may be clouding her judgement and choices under such pressures?
I would respect Erika more if she chose to focus instead on her young children, who now need more direct parental involvement and attention than the best nanny available. These little ones need the best and I hope Erika will move out of the spotlight and avoid trying to replace Charlie's political power, for her children's sake.
I do think Vivian has "jumped the shark" in reaching such heights of vitriolic emotional charged rhetorical accusations... she is embarrassing herself, and should stick to overwrought exaggeration. She has accomplished nothing in attacking Erika, and should refrain from piling on.
I'm inclined to think, without any real close knowledge, I admit, that if Erika is genuine, then she might reasonably feel that Charlie's life purpose and vision is what's really, really important, and so want to strive towards that, too. I mean, I think that's plausible.
Ok. Let me see. This is what is supposed to convince me.
Her 'performance' was ghastly, inauthentic and phoney....
I know how "to phonies" because I grew up in the entertainment industry.
"She feels like.... and definitely ....."
"There is something seriously wrong... every cell in my body shudders... "
"No one has made my skin crawl like Erika...."
Well, I mean, if that is not 100% conclusive evidence right there, I don't know what is.
/s
In short: My opinion, my feels, my reaction and response.... = what? exactly?
Is there ANY deluded leftist, for example, who could not say the exact same thing about Trump, and believe fully in their own view, because of 'my opinion, my feels, my reactions'?
Me, I prefer not to give much time over to these sorts of sensationalist LOOK HERE!!!! narratives when they emerge. (By 'these sorts', I mean the whole "Erica Kirk is evil/fake/an operative/intel asset" narrative.) Instead, I simply take note, store up this and that occasional data point as they emerge, and add them to my mental storage bank on the topic, like an invisible mental docket or dossier.
But so far, for me, there are a few things that I find persuasive. One, that Kirk is being attacked by certain quarters, like <ahem> Candy Girl, over and over. Two, that all sorts of narratives emerge in the wake of significant events (which kirk's assassination was, imo), like piranhas swarming on a goat that happened to step into the river. Three, that the predominant arguments appear to be 'my feeling, my sense of, my reaction to' etc, coupled with innuendo and accusation.
For me, these are salient points. Because I'm a skeptic at heart. Q totally raised me to be like that, I'll say. (Or rather, any natural tendency towards that was developed and augmented by the Q operation, for sure.)
One of the greatest simplest psyops being "Look here! (and not there!)
Just saying. Until I find or come across evidence that meets a certain threshold, I tend to be skeptical on the more sensational of narratives, knowing how prevalent they are employed to manipulate. I'm also inclined to at first think, OK, are there any other plausible explanations for what I am seeing here, aside from the sensationalist one?
I really don't have much opinion on E Kirk herself, and am inclined to think this is really not important even if there is something to the bruhaha, but it is the reaction and waves that the narrative(s) create in the wider 'truth' community that really interest me, and of those things, I'm more inclined to take note than the original sensational narrative itself.
It would appear that Erika is being pushed as a potential running mate in 2028, and THAT is why so many of us are skeptical of her. She has lied about her education, for sure (claimed a double-major and honors, neither is true). There is a discrepancy in her birthday stemming from legal docs (Nov. 22 or Nov. 20). And her mother, Lori(n) Franztve, has ties to the NSA and bother government entities through her defense tech companies. Erika herself has altered stories to fit the narrative ("raised by a single mom" but documents, old interviews, and book acknowledgements don't support that).
Too much, too fast, and on the heels of the assassination of her husband, who was working to sever many of the ties she is strengthening now in his absence.
https://vancekirk2028.com/
And in case that doesn't work...
https://rubiokirk2028.com/
AI Generated website for a f***ing presidential campaign. Yeesh. Good points you brought up too BTW.
Thanks, Q&Way
The skeptic in my wants to check through these things, (partly because I'm not overwhelmed by the levels of research that some folks - not saying you - put into such points before actually attaching or accepting, partly because, as I wrote above, I'll er on the side of skeptic with regards to sensational narratives and claims first) but, as I also wrote above, I tend to think that such issues as perhaps skirmishes in the info/psywar, and I prefer to attach to the 40kft view when possible. That's usually possible because other anons and frogs bring straight forward claims/data out, like you have here.
There is evidence that the person who killed Charlie was (at least) working for Erika Kirk. The medical response was primitive at best for Charlie because they didn't have an ambulance to deliver him to the hospital and for him to get treatment while en-route. This is for a bullet that hit Charlie in the back of the neck.
Finally Erika herself gave a speech expressing her grief just days after the death, yet the video is a masterclass in bad acting. If you saw the video, you would realize that Erika was wiping her eyes in order to prove she is crying. It was fake and almost always in one eye. If she truly loved Charlie, Erika would have been a blubbering idiot and would not be able to even read her statement.
A lot of subjective assumptions there about personalities. For example, do you have any direct experience with what traumatic shock does to people?
Traumatic shock can affect people in lots of different ways. It creates a root-level fracturing of the psyche, which can (usually) leads people to react and behave in ways that they most certainly would not. To me, the argument that "If she truly loved Charlie, Erika would have been a blubbering idiot" is simply imaginative projection or supposition, and I think that clinically, its not really evidence.
The problem here is that in psyops, narrative control and narrative spin rely on all sorts of subjective responses (how you or I respond emotionally, mentally and subjectively) to perceived data points, and the only real defense against being manipulated is a combination of concrete, hard data facts (empirically grounded) + aggressively critical thinking and self-reflection.
The whole nature of psychological warfare is manipulation of the vulnerabilities that the target presents, vulnerabilities which are grounded in the internal processes of thought, emotion and volition. Without a very objective self-reviewing of these aspects, psyops tend to simply achieve success.
So, the question is, is it possible that certain actors have an invested interest in psyopping the non-Mainstream community into attacking or doubting or undermining TPUSA (and Erika)?
If its possible that Erika is performing, is un-genuine in her motives, purpose, etc, then the above possibility (the opposite alternative) ALSO has to be considered and weighed against that, too.
Otherwise, you simply end up making purely subjective assessments and investing them with a certainty of belief.
For whatever it is worth, (not much) , I do not find Erika Kirk believable/trustworthy either, but certainly not enough to attack her so harshly and personally. Why Vivian would be so nasty toward her is out of line, in my opinion.
Erika seems to be, to me, just a typical type of female opportunist, wanting to be a "somebody", but may not have the background/education to achieve independently on her own. Hitching herself to Charlie Kirk's success seems a viable strategy - (women have been doing this for centuries). She appears (to me) now as trying to take advantage of the worst possible hand fate sent her way by the assignation of Charlie.
Perhaps she might be forgiven for doing her best in face of such a sudden loss, considering her grief may be clouding her judgement and choices under such pressures?
I would respect Erika more if she chose to focus instead on her young children, who now need more direct parental involvement and attention than the best nanny available. These little ones need the best and I hope Erika will move out of the spotlight and avoid trying to replace Charlie's political power, for her children's sake.
I do think Vivian has "jumped the shark" in reaching such heights of vitriolic emotional charged rhetorical accusations... she is embarrassing herself, and should stick to overwrought exaggeration. She has accomplished nothing in attacking Erika, and should refrain from piling on.
Interesting.
I'm inclined to think, without any real close knowledge, I admit, that if Erika is genuine, then she might reasonably feel that Charlie's life purpose and vision is what's really, really important, and so want to strive towards that, too. I mean, I think that's plausible.