I will rewrite it if people care enough for what was said. But if it is just for clarification so I can jump on the "rah rah RITTENHOUSE" bandwagon, then I would be wasting my time.
The salient point is the meaning of the trial, not just that Rittenhouse won. This was a litmus test, and a teaching/framing point for where we are at in this country.
It is deeper than self-defense. It is deeper than law, and it directly connects to our fundamental understanding of life and liberty.
Justice was served, but, if anything, this trial is deep proof that this country cannot sustain itself. It is headed towards a divorce, and even the people who believe in this country and values barely has any idea how important this case was.
Not for nothing, it was 100% upvoted until your comment came in, suggesting something entirely different from what I wrote. It wasn't the best narrative structure, my bad.
But the ultimate point is also that important, and that deep. I don't think many even have the frame of reference that I am coming from, because no one really talks about values in any meaningful context.
The word values are as deeply meaningful to an American as the phrase "as American as Apple Pie". It sounds wholesome, but lacks complete depth for those that didn't live in the era that the phrase was coined from.
I use terms that are thrown around all the time, but in general, we fundamentally no longer understand them.
"That laws could exist that could lead to the direct death of another is something that legitimate people of good faith now no longer understand" - ???
There are people that are good people who believe in this country and their laws, and do not see other citizens as enemies. These are people who act in good faith.
These people are legitimately shocked that said laws, enacted as originally intended, would allow someone like Kyle to be there with a gun, which results in two people dying, and Kyle is set free.
It makes no sense to them, because they have a fundamental change in value. That value is the value of life vs. property (the pursuit of happiness, as the founders wrote it).
To them, life is always of higher value from property. They do not all of a sudden want the country to burn, and for our institutions to be destroyed (those would be bad faith actors)
Like I said from the outset - this case was a litmus test for values. Not understanding of law. Legitimate people of good faith understand that Kyle followed the law, but they believe that justice did not occur because their value statement suggests that some punishment needed to be wrought to Kyle.
Why? Because, fundamentally, he defended firstly the community and property, which is what resulted in his needing to defend himself. To those people, Kyle needed to be punished.
After all, had he not been there to defend property, two more people would have been alive. And life is of a higher value than property to said people.
I figured that the narrative structure would have made it clear enough that it was a description of "one one hand, then another".
In general, nah, I wont edit it. I would need to rewrite the whole thing because the chosen narrative structure just was wrong.
At what point do I make the assertion that he didnt do the right thing? I was making a description of how this plays out as a values litmus test.
What you value will determine how you view Kyle.
He was an absolute Hero who answered the call of duty to protect a community. He put his life on the line and made himself a target, instead of not being there and letting the buildings and communities be the undefended target.
That is because, from a value standpoint, I understand that property is not just property.
However, there are those of good faith that do not understand that. They believe that life is life, and it is better to be breathing as a coward than to be a hero that caused death.
Further from that, there are those of bad faith that view those who wished to bring chaos and destruction as the heroes - and Kyle was the evil villain who got in there way.
I guess I needed to be clear where I stood at the outset to get others to read that post as intended.
Important points to note here:
Firstly, this entire trial was not a trial of law. Everything Rittenhouse did was very clearly in line with the letters of the law that this should not have gone to trial to begin with.
This was a trial of values. This case has shown a fundamental shift in the values of this country as it pertains to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
For those who still believe in the constitution and have good faith in the laws and practices of its citizens, this case showed a fundamental shift in their understanding of the value of life. That laws could exist that could lead to the direct death of another is something that legitimate people of good faith now no longer understand.
We have reached a point where breathing is more important than protecting our communities, businesses, means of providing a livelihood and the physical manifestations of the spiritual forces that built those communities and businesses.
People of good faith legitimately believe that it is better to watch our communities burn than for life to be lost as a consequences of defending them, or ourselves.
On the other end of it, we have those of bad faith. People who do not believe in our laws, and do not believe in our values. This case highlighted those people of bad faith in it's entirety.
"Kyle should suffer, not because of any laws that allowed him to defend himself, but because his presence directly lead to the death of two people. Period."
Further from that, those same people have shown a bias towards wanton destruction and chaos, meant to bury, burn and destroy any vestiges of what this country represented before.
They have outed themselves as allies of demons, and enemies of anyone that would take up the role of the warrior to combat against it.
Make no mistake, this case is a litmus test on where you stand with your values, especially in relation to how this nation was founded.
And further, there is a right answer, and a wrong answer. And further from that, there is an evil answer.
Being fair minded and exploring the whole of the reality the establishment let's you explore will only lead to asking more questions.
This is his personality, the result is natural. It doesn't have to be planned.
God works that way.
I honestly don't believe he is a part of the GA. He is aware of the sand box that he can play in, and has planted his feet firmly in that area.
The Overton window shattered in 2020 after having expanded tremendously. When that occurred, everyone found themselves in a new little island of reality that is shared with others that can afford it.
IE, I can afford this particular island (GA) because I am independent, and largely not dependent on any mega corp for my income. I have a greater ability to free think without consequence, alleviating any pressure to force my mind into the narrow space of reality that the establishment needs us to be in to legitimize their power.
Tim was reporting on that expansion of the Overton window all throughout 19 and 20. Then when it shattered, he went straight into the segment of reality that his corporate masters would allow.
He stopped talking about election fraud evidence. He stopped talking about audits. He even slowed down on talking about even fringe stuff like aliens.
All because the pressure from YouTube and the corporate overlords immensely increased.
Remember, he is controlled op. Meaning he needs to be able to talk about things counter to the main narrative, but he can't stray too far into territory that is actually consequential to the establishment.
He covers only current topics, and does not get deep into events from the past of tremendous consequence to the establishment. His videos would be removed, and he would be swiftly deplatformed.
However, what I have noticed is that the steady stream of insane events by someone else turning up the heat too quickly has forced the establishment to slowly expand the Overton window again. People like Tim can talk about inconvenient topics to the establishment because of the events occurring which forces that expansion.
Not someone like Tim who is being "brave" by covering said topics. That expansion leads others to places like .win, and allows them to enter into their own thought journey without someone like Tim (or, by extension, Alex Jones or Joe Rogan).
The "plan" knows that people like Tim exist, not the other way around (that people like Tim know and believe in the plan).
He's controlled op. I don't think there as many CIA-grown actors as this sub makes reality out to be. Controlled op is, essentially, a part of the platform allowed for those that don't believe in "the plan" that exists specifically to pacify the part of the public that isn't apt to take part in (and oppose) "the plan".
Tim's growth was organic. He was true to his values, and found his niche based on what he truly believed.
Then he got a major platform. Got his own company. Got his own business model. Got his own mega mansion....
Then altered some of those values to keep what he got. Like they all do.
Because the ones that don't alter those values? You stop hearing about them because the platform is ripped off from under their feet.
So he becomes another Alex Jones. Playing his role in the hopes that the tides turn ever in his (and his soul's) favor when others join him in their own way.
Sure, let him save the 5 year old. I was talking about the majority of the comments here that basically indicate that people are getting married very unwisely.
I am utterly convinced that, even amongst that vaunted conservative base, most people marry for the pussy first, and whether or not they can talk about noodles and beef while maintaining a smile second.
Honestly...reading all of these posts...
Did y'all just get married because the sex was fucking good and you could stand each other in a conversation? My girl and I have only gotten even closer over the past four years because our actual values were entirely in line - and we can identify what is going on by relating it straight to our values.
Seriously - the onslaught of divorces about to happen is going to be great in the long run.
I am absolutely not sure I can believe that. Always remember that the mainstream media is the mouthpiece of the cabal.
When they are telling you a nugget of truth, it is to set you up for something else in their benefit later on.
I don't know you from Adam, so I have to assume who you are based on the sensibilities of the forum.
I reiterate - the .win forum isn't as open minded and all about free speech as they make themselves out to be regarding certain subjects - the occult is one of them.
Hah! It's really just right wing reddit.
Instead of wokism being the religion of the site, it's Christianity. And any deviation from the accepted principles of said religion will get "Jesus is king, and that's a deception from Satan" instead of reddits usual "that sounds low key racist/homophobic/etc."
It's the same shit.
And that said, this is coming from someone that absolutely believes in Christ. I just don't believe all of spirituality is captured solely within the bible.
St. Augustine made mention that calling Christianity a new religion was a misnomer - all other religions were leading up to it.
I'm not sure you are aware, but mentioning anything about researching the occult and being open to it (IE, not actively going in to throw out anything that goes against the doctrine you were raised in) is a great way to get some disapproval on these forums.
The .win crowd can say all they will about reddit, but many have migrated straight from it and have some lingering inherited habits laying about.
If you are willing to open your mind a bit, give that video a listen when you have time. Masons are occultists, no doubt, but the occult is not, by definition, tied with Satan.
At one point, they had a totally different allegiance. Not anymore, tho.
They are Luciferic, through and through now.
You should also consider listening to some more esoteric sources to learn about freemasonry. Rudolf Steiner had some lectures about freemasonry that depicts it very differently from how it is depicted today.
The freemasons that built this nation are not the same people who are freemasons today.
If anything, it is a description of a simple fact of the right vs. left dilemma.
Like it or not, the left and right have deficiencies and strengths. The right is incredibly strong when it comes to having a moral compass and having faith/ an actual relationship with God.
The left, in turn, has an advantage with intellect (and I will emphasize that they absolutely do. People just need to know that there are other virtues that God demands apart from having raw intelligence), but greatly lacks a moral compass while being almost completely divorced with a relationship God (but if they are spiritual, it is often demonic).
Both sides have issues with character, but in different ways.
I have had many conversations with those on the left about this and havent had this much trouble grasping these concepts, which is why I actually get downvoted less on reddit than I do here - even though I am unquestionably on .win's side.
It reminds me of what Dennis Prager has constantly said since the 90s. There are two parties in this country: The Dangerous and The Stupid. I am a member of The Stupid.