Charlie Kirk: Aftermath, Gravedancing, and Manhunt

Criticizing the LGBTQ does produce a ton of anger and rage.
Pretty much the entirety of his criticisms is the milquetoast "marriage is between a man and a woman". Otherwise, he's been very accepting of homosexuals.
1784060033052.png
He was effective in selling right wing ideas in left wing territory (colleges and universities).
Yes, when you're not a massive sperg who's willing to talk with people like an adult, you can be effective in spreading ideas. Also, the idea that colleges that "left-wing territory" to you says a lot.
He was a genuine threat, politically.
"Oh my god! He's talking to people! What a threat!"
 
Also, the idea that colleges that "left-wing territory" to you says a lot.
Conservatives need massive security details to do events at college campuses. Liberals don't. It's so bad that Steven Crowder stopped doing them over the risk. Charlie Kirk didn't stop doing them over the risk. Where is he now?

If one political ideology polices with violence who gets to speak in an area, it's their territory. Regardless of whether you think that's right or not.

Change my mind.
 
This has to be one of the most schizophrenic threads on the site, and that is even in comparison to Stembly's nutter threads on UTTP and O9A. Why must there be some grand conspiracy over a political commentator's assassination? Why is it so difficult for some people to just accept the simple notion that a nihilistic freak was upset by his political beliefs and therefore wanted him dead?
Here's a more interesting question: why do they want it to be a grand conspiracy. From a rational view, Kirks killer being a psychotic left wing tranny chaser is substantially more useful politically speaking for effecting change in the country. "This is what the left is, violent sexual degenerates. Those who don't do the acts, cheer on those that do." Its a free propaganda win, but instead "DA JOOOOOOOOOOOOSS" is somehow the preferred and more compelling case for these retards
 
Does anyone have any theories on why Leftists hate Kirk so much? Constantly parading a dead man's corpse just to mock him is much more extreme than just thinking he's a chud.
I've pondered that one myself, I think the fact that he was well-spoken, polite and (subjective, I know, but IMO) quite a nice person, to boot makes a big difference. I disagreed with him about a number of things, but he always struck me as being fundamentally quite honest and kindly. Even with the screeching blue hairs yelling at him about genocide; he'd laugh at them because it's impossible not to, but never seemed actually spiteful or vindictive about it.

Maybe other people feel differently, but I can tolerate a wide array of views without offense, so long as I perceive the person as essentially well-motivated towards others and acting in good faith. Even if some opinion you've just voiced to me was the most insane, out-of-pocket, or downright revolting brainfart I've ever heard, I'll hear it out with a bemused smile as long as I think it's genuinely what you think is "for the best" or in the "common good". This kind of sense appears to be entirely foreign to PMC leftist types, though, and if anything it seems to have the opposite effect on them: they only seem to get more angry in response to polite criticism from genuinely good people, than they do about a string of expletives hurled at them (along with a half gallon of spit) from someone who then flips them off. My theory is that the criticism of "nice" people is a bigger threat to their ego, because it doesn't allow them to project their own self-hatred onto others. If you scream and swear at them, it just cofirms the image they are trying to generate internally of you, so that they can reassure themselves later, "yes, that was a total Nazi chud, and I sure told them...", whereas that kind of self-soothing is much harder after dealing with someone like Charlie. He remains stubbornly respectful and nice, and gives them nothing to hang their self-loathing hats on, and they begin to experience the discomfiting realization that maybe Charlie/TERFs/mom and dad aren't actually the problem...? So they then have to work overtime to convince themselves that Charlie actually was this monstrous, transphobic, muh heckin misogynist, so that their bile can be justified.

The stakes are raised even further - much further - when said nice opponent is killed. After he got shot, the PMC lefties were essentially left with two choices: either a) accept that they relentlessly demonized a good man, for the selfish ego-protective reasons described above, to the point where one of the more gullible retards among their number publicly fucking murdered him and they are each and every one of them (albeit indirectly) responsible, or b) double down on the self-soothing horseshit.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the above is hardly a difficult choice, for trannies or their orbiters.
 
Conservatives need massive security details to do events at college campuses. Liberals don't. It's so bad that Steven Crowder stopped doing them over the risk. Charlie Kirk didn't stop doing them over the risk. Where is he now?
Charlie got shot by a troonfucker that wasn't taking any courses in the college, dumbass.
Change my mind.
Bro thinks he's Socrates when he's really just Diogenes.
Does anyone have any theories on why Leftists hate Kirk so much? Constantly parading a dead man's corpse just to mock him is much more extreme than just thinking he's a chud.
Because it's not about Kirk, the person. It's about Kirk, the idea.
 
Here's a more interesting question: why do they want it to be a grand conspiracy. From a rational view, Kirks killer being a psychotic left wing tranny chaser is substantially more useful politically speaking for effecting change in the country. "This is what the left is, violent sexual degenerates. Those who don't do the acts, cheer on those that do." Its a free propaganda win, but instead "DA JOOOOOOOOOOOOSS" is somehow the preferred and more compelling case for these retards
Oh, it's the inevitable problem with the "one issue above all else" mindset.

For another example: Look at what happened in Virginia. """White""" "Moderate" Democrat who was a former CIA Spook that RWers saw that she was "white and moderate" above anything else. Voting for her and aiding her win, only to be shocked when she tried snatching their guns.

And expect more scenarios like this as the Overton Window shifts
 
A lot of posts only receive surface level engagement when they should receive scrutiny. There is a general unwillingness to scrutinize and look beyond the surface.

For example, I posted the screengrab of the messages from lance's phone. One of the messages goes over the header instead of under. Maybe it means something, maybe it doesn't, but it's productive to look into these things together. It is strange thing #561 in this case.
You vagueposted about 3 things being wrong, I took a look and couldn't find anything obviously faked, so I didn't engage.

Are you talking about this? I did spot this but I thought it could be a blur artifact from the shitty photo, and even if it does overlap I'm not familiar enough with iPhones to know if that's a normal quirk. So I didn't engage.
1784071195760.png

What were the other 2 things? Why wouldn't you just tell us what you found, why try to make it into a fucking game with us?

Another thing I can't explain is this blue strip below the last message.
1784071558034.png
 
Bending over backwards to minimize the psychological damages a broken system has dealt to generations, when one of the most damning examples of such happening in front of a massive audience, is fucking bonkers to me. Whenever a crossdressing lunatic decides to shoot up a library full of children on a solo rampage, the real culprit is going to be Mossad all of the sudden, not the same system that allowed another Tyler Robinson to happen.

Just say the cigar is boring and be done with it, goddamn the Hawaii wildfires had a more suspicious conclusion.
 
Why do you think it's impossible that there's more than 1 person involved?
I don't know why I would think that given that I didn't say that.

Why do you think Israel moving to assassinate an American politicial activist, in America, over his mild criticism of Israel, something that at several orders of magnitude has never occured before, is more likely, than a derranged and degenerate, becoming brainwashed by propaganda, and choosing to asassinate the object of his ire, something that has happened several times throughout American history?
 
I don't know why I would think that given that I didn't say that.

Why do you think Israel moving to assassinate an American politicial activist, in America, over his mild criticism of Israel, something that at several orders of magnitude has never occured before, is more likely, than a derranged and degenerate, becoming brainwashed by propaganda, and choosing to asassinate the object of his ire, something that has happened several times throughout American history?
They have zero answer to the question of "if criticising Israel is enough for you to be assassinated, why is Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens still breathing".
 
Why do you think Israel moving to assassinate an American politicial activist, in America, over his mild criticism of Israel, something that at several orders of magnitude has never occured before, is more likely, than a derranged and degenerate, becoming brainwashed by propaganda, and choosing to asassinate the object of his ire, something that has happened several times throughout American history?

Why would it have to be one or the other?

Why would someone think CIA is involved with color revolutions in muslim countries? Muslims are generally deranged unstable people with unstable countries. Why wouldn't it just be muslims being muslims?

Well assuming the CIA has a motive, why wouldn't they exploit existing fractures in the social cohesion of a country to burst it apart? That's what UK and US did when they backed the Iran coup of 1953.

--

Assuming Israel had a motive, why wouldn't they use an existing fracture of the united states?

And why wouldn't take lessons from whomever directed the assassination attempts on Donald Trump? Isn't it better not to leave the entire plan into the hands of said deranged lefty, but also make sure the target is taken out?

Finally, you ask about israel specifically, not france, russia, china or specific american factions. They are certainly not the only power that would benefit geopolitically from charlie's death. Why did you think to ask israel specifically?
 
Última edición:
Why would someone think CIA is involved with color revolutions in muslim countries?
Dunno. Not relevant, since thats not some generic political commentator.
Finally, you ask about israel specifically, not france, russia, china or specific american factions. They are certainly not the only power that would benefit geopolitically from charlie's death. Why did you think to ask israel specifically?
Because that nation is who 90% of the retards in this thread are saying arranged the assassination.
 
Are you talking about this? I did spot this but I thought it could be a blur artifact from the shitty photo, and even if it does overlap I'm not familiar enough with iPhones to know if that's a normal quirk. So I didn't engage.

Thank you for engaging. It would be a better thread if we spent more time going over the evidence together, rather than starting with end conclusions and arguing for what is more politically expedient.

Sorry for vagueposting, I was evaluating what the best way of posting things is as I had quite a bit of criticism to take on board. It's also a temperature check. You can see from the amount of stickers it gets that people are barely engaging with these pieces of evidence.


The extra bar below you point to is a typical compression artifact from saving image files with loss. It does raise the question why a lossy format is used?
But the 7:00 going over the header isn't, or not one that I've seen before.

There's also the double wednesday, the time not being underlined as it typically is in imessage and when it is in dark mode, tyler's messages should be grey instead of a purple hue.
 
Pretty much the entirety of his criticisms is the milquetoast "marriage is between a man and a woman". Otherwise, he's been very accepting of homosexuals.

I really hope his death will put an end to the whole conservative tendency to try to be diplomatic towards fags while expressing moral opposition towards homosexuality at the same time.
 
I really hope his death will put an end to the whole conservative tendency to try to be diplomatic towards fags while expressing moral opposition towards homosexuality at the same time.
Part of the reason for this thread is the ignorance of the gravedancers, who, were they more informed on the groyper wars, would have had very little material with which to damn Kirk in his absence.
When people point out the fact that TPUSA was a Judas goat outfit, it not only describes their stance on Israel's hegemony, but the erosion of the American ethnos from every vector imaginable.
 
The extra bar below you point to is a typical compression artifact from saving image files with loss.
I disagree, I know what JPEG artifacts look like.

It does raise the question why a lossy format is used?
It really doesn't, lossy formats are extremely normal. The artifacts aren't even that bad in this image, your complaints about the blur were way more valid.

It's also a temperature check. You can see from the amount of stickers it gets that people are barely engaging with these pieces of evidence.
Nigga you're fucking retarded. Have another retard sticker.
 
Why do you think Israel moving to assassinate an American politicial activist, in America, over his mild criticism of Israel, something that at several orders of magnitude has never occured before, is more likely, than a derranged and degenerate, becoming brainwashed by propaganda, and choosing to asassinate the object of his ire, something that has happened several times throughout American history?
Is this how you reason? You think something is true because you think it makes a more plausible storyline within the lore you've grown up with?
 
Is this how you reason? You think something is true because you think it makes a more plausible storyline within the lore you've grown up with?
Yes, I do tend to think things that tend to be more likely are indeed true. That is typically how rational deduction works. I refer you to Occam's razor.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo