This is true to some degree, but I think overly cynical in this case. I'm all for being cynical, but I think she did love him as a Christian wife.
Charlie Kirk Thread
- Thread starter Cooper
- Start date
It's definitely cynical, but a very real possibility nonetheless. No doubt she loved him but the life of celebrity is a whirlwind, it moves fast. When your life is so large with so many people and places flying past you it's much easier to "move on" to the next new thing. Eric Clapton has talked candidly about this after losing his 5 year old son in 1991 to an accident in which Clapton felt responsible for. He said he never really grieved for the loss of his son in the moment because he was famous and living such a good life that it was easy for him to move on and fill the grief with endless excitement and change. Even writing the song Tears In Heaven to help him cope with the loss wasn't enough because it was so successful that it carried him even deeper into the emotional distraction of high level fame game. As a result Clapton never really processed and grieved the loss of his son Conor until 10 years after the child's death.
These famous people, who get famous intentionally and by design, are a whole other breed of animal.
Right. Kirk never should have taken all of the jewish money and got into bed with jews in the first place.
Of course when he starts openly speaking out against Israel/ jews wants to stop taking jew money, he gets executed.
As for “Kirk was killed by a leftist crackpot not by Israel” why on earth can’t it be both? Crazy jew faggots? Mossad/fbi/ mk ultra? It’s all the same thing is it not?
I don't really care for the uncharitable view about Erika Kirk. I think it's poor form to look at any and every chance to insinuate she's some harlot which is what some are doing here.
Dirty pool in my book but I do understand why some jaded folks think this is the case.
Dirty pool in my book but I do understand why some jaded folks think this is the case.
This is her own doing and for me at least, it is in large part due to her beauty pageant past coupled with her behavior in the aftermath of Charlie's assassination which I have found to be in poor form.
We can only make judgements about celebrities by what they show and tell us. But the one thing they all have in common is that they became celebrities intentionally because they have a need to be the center of attention which makes many of them untrustworthy. And so again, Erika has done this to herself, she is not a victim of unwarranted criticism. This is the life she dreamed of and asked for.
Candace has an inside view of all of this and she is not exempting Erika, the new CEO of TPUSA (a role she willingly took on a mere 5 days after her husband's murder) from her TPUSA critique. In other words, CEO's of large jewish funded "Christian" organizations with over 150 million in endowments are apparently fair game:
I think it was an odd choice for her to wear black leather pants but she's always presented herself with some type of glamour.
So is the 'theory' here that this was a professional hit and the official story is completely false or that some type of online brainwashing/nudging took place?
So is the 'theory' here that this was a professional hit and the official story is completely false or that some type of online brainwashing/nudging took place?
Yes, I think the theories range from the entire thing is fake and a show for us (Charlie isn't even a real person), to Charlie was real and killed and nearly everyone around him is a fake person (therefore a professional-type killing), to most events and people being real but people are using a crisis for their gain with various levels of interior intent and ulterior motives behind that (include online nudging/brainwashing here), to every combination in between those options.
Everything in our news/online/media world that we consume has some level of production over it (the nature of it is designed for our consumption). It's very difficult at this point to determine what is real. We don't live in a world designed for authenticity. I very much doubt we will ever know everything that really happened. I do not think the official story is the whole story.
Regardless of Erika's interior intents she has now gained in public notoriety after Charlie's death (she's not the only one). We are here talking about her. We had no idea who she was before. I will say that Erika being so public facing like this is not natural for a woman, but I also concede that we do not live in a natural time.
I find the nudge/brainwash theory a little implausible as well if I'm honest.
What's the 'based' take on the whole Trump ear thing at this point? Was that actually fake and 4d chess to ensure he got re-elected?
I'm probably not the right one to give a based take but I initially thought it was real. I still do now but there are weird things about that event as well (a photo of the bullet being one). I think at the very least there have been some back room deals with various levers of power to let Trump and his family continue without being killed/destroyed. I don't think Trump operates THAT autonomously from the general political/corporate/financial global system (none of us really can though).
Charlie saying that the only just thing to do should someone take his life would be not to forgive them, but to kill them:
The psychoanalysis of Erica is unnecessary. If you threw a camera in my face after a personal tragedy, I would be putting on a show too for the viewers. People are fake. Yeah, she's playing it up, it's cringey. Just don't watch it. Being sad and fake are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. People are not cardboard archetypes. They have layers.
Hypothetically she could be so depressed she wouldn't feel the need to do all this, but I wouldn't wish that on a person. There's a lot of people that self-destruct and eventually altogether die after a personal tragedy. They get addicted to the pain and just wither away. This is not something you want, for anyone.
TPUSA seems to be some kind of "non-profit" tax exempt money laundering operation under the guise of "spreading the gospel" in order to teach students "fiscal responsibility" via limited government... Yada, yada, yada. It's another 501c3 non-profit scam based on cult of personality and talking. It actually does nothing except rake in tons of cash just like other evangelical type mega church's that are paid to shill for "judeo-Christian" Israel. The organization not only acts like an NGO, but is knee deep in jewish funding. Erica is now the CEO of it's 150 million dollar endowment, and so yes, having taxpayers "psychoanalyze" her is not only necessary, but fiscally and morally responsible.
So you think the OG plan was for that to have happened? Cos it seems Trump has been in with Israel and they've kind of allowed the rise of right wing nationalism/end of excessive woke so long as Israel's interests are not harmed.
Maybe the 'failure' of that led them to try it again but it's kinda hard to fathom cos surely the success rate of online nudging has to be pretty small especially when considering all it takes to carry out such a thing.
It's pretty obvious the Kirk family are in deep with the Jews. The assassination is a "too close to home" moment for some white people. I came to terms with that and just let it be.
Fuentes decided to be sanctimonious about it, a recurring theme with him. I guess he was too busy mourning to remember Kirk's zionism. Now he wants to read the body language of the widow to make sure she's paying proper homage to Kirk?
I've read your comments in the other thread. At the end of the day, all I care about is ideological consistency. If someone wants to use the widow as some kind of red pill about female nature, that's fine.
Using the widow as a vehicle to attack the late Kirk while pretending to mourn him is slimy faggot behavior, as Nick is doing.
Fuentes was afraid they would spin the assassination against him/movement. This is why he always said it was just a lone killer and not Israel. It was a calculated move to protect himself.
There are a lot of things which didn´t make sense. The widow is strange. But you can´t accuse someone whose husband was killed without solid evidence.
There are a lot of things which didn´t make sense. The widow is strange. But you can´t accuse someone whose husband was killed without solid evidence.
I’m not even sure where to put this, but young people apparently are getting some Israel fatigue
I don't see Charlie preaching against forgiveness in this clip. I just see him pointing out that the State has a God-given responsibility to carry out justice. In fact, Erika Kirk said that she would rather the government decide what to do with Robinson. Her forgiveness is about her not seeking out personal vengeance, not about trying to stop the State from giving out the death penalty.
That’s just it, Charlie had started to turn down hundreds of millions of jew/israeli money just a week before his assassination.
His death was perhaps a message to other influencers to not talk bad about Israel and their genocide .
As for Erika Kirk, she is a professional actress. (She’s done reality tv and commercials and beauty pageants) She took over turning point USA and started taking all of the jew money that Charlie had just refused.
We are seeing her go on this publicity tour as well. She isn’t a grieving widow. I’ve seen people lose loved ones, they didn’t need to use fake tears to cry they were bawling for months.
All of her grieving and interviews reeks as highly choreographed, and a publicity stunt for money/attention etc. we should be calling it out for what it is