Conservative activist, Charlie Kirk, has been shot and killed at University

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

Like most other perpetrators of evil, Kirk was deeply unconscious of his, and he thought he was doing the work of righteousness

You contradict yourself here.  If he's deeply unconscious of it he can't be subjectively evil. .

Edited 21 hours ago by Inliytened1

[thedoorsareopen]

This is all a distraction from Epstein.

[Joshe]

15 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

You contradict yourself here.  If he's deeply unconscious of it he can't be subjectively evil. .

Sorry, I don’t see any contradiction. 

On one hand, from a higher perspective, we can’t really blame Kirk for his evil, because “forgive them father, for they know not what they do”. In this sense, Kirk is like an unconscious child who was totally blind to what he was doing, so therefore, we can grant him forgiveness of any wrongdoing, just like we would a child. 

But from another valid perspective, his deeds have massive negative impact on humanity and we can acknowledge those. It’s obviously this perspective from which I’m speaking. 

Edited 20 hours ago by Joshe

[Inliytened1]

10 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Sorry, I don’t see any contradiction. 

On one hand, from a higher perspective, we can’t really blame Kirk for his evil, because “forgive them father, for they know not what they do”. In this sense, Kirk is like an unconscious child who was totally blind to what he was doing, so therefore, we can grant him forgiveness of any wrongdoing, just like we would a child. 

But from another valid perspective, his deeds have massive negative impact on humanity and we can acknowledge those. It’s obviously this perspective from which I’m speaking. 

Its fair to to speak on the deeds themselves but you see here there is no subject behind them there are just the deeds themselves.   So what is that? Is that the devil or is that God. Or perhaps that too is subjective and relative. You start to see here how an objective reality starts to break down.  But that's fine.  Let's not get that deep. If you want to feel his deeds were evil you have that right.  And I agree to some degree. But from some angles I don't.  

Edited 20 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Joshe]

11 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

If you want to feel his deeds were evil you have that right.  And I agree to some degree. But from some angles I don't.  

I’m glad we had this exchange. Part of me is happy not everyone will join me in this hell. Lol. Thanks for the chat bro. 

[Inliytened1]

On 9/15/2025 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Balan said:

Leftists should learn to confront the right in civil debates, in a conquest of ideas. Not with sniper rifles or brat behaviour. Like Charlie Kirk or not but the reason he was so successful was because he had the courage to debate anyone, anywhere, anytime, in a civil, and humane manner. He was a man. He had balls. Something the left seem to have a lack of. 

Leftists sit on their high moral thrones thinking that Kirk or Trump are "dumb fascists". The left are out of their minds. When have you guys seen a leftist with as much courage and grit as Charlie had? I have huge respect for Charlie! He died with a microphone in his hands, because the leftists weren't man enough to confront him in a battle of ideas. How does the left expect to win elections if they are too weak and pathetic to debate a man one on one, without killing him? Who in their right mind votes for people that are unable to have a debate without crying "Fascist" "Nazi" "Mysoginist" ? As I said, the left is out of their minds.

Powerful but it doesn't make Leftists weak if they aren't really as outspoken.  I think the bigger and more important thing is the issues being discussed.  Strength is not always shown via physical prowess. That said I agree the leftists need to be more active if they want to win next time around. They need a guy with charisma that is strong.  Kirk was strong even stronger than Vance and they struck him down.  But they need a guy like that to come forth and take the throne with masculinity.  This is only because of how it is now with the right.   Fight fire with fire.  But be wiser once you win.

Edited 19 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

25 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I’m glad we had this exchange. Part of me is happy not everyone will join me in this hell. Lol. Thanks for the chat bro. 

Lol.  Ok.  I'll let it be your hell.

Many more chats to come though.

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, ExploringReality said:

No matter how tense these topics can be, your response is very mature and level headed here. That's something I can take with me so I don't get sucked into a negative storm of emotions and defensiveness. Thanks bro

Glad to be of assistance.  Just try to find humility somehow.  It will only grow you. 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

On 9/14/2025 at 5:27 PM, Emerald said:

100%

Since 2015, too many people have been like "Yeah, they might quack and waddle and have bills... but it's not like they're ducks."

So, it's honestly super important that we call things what they are without using all kinds of complicated language to muddy the waters.

If it's a duck... just call it a duck.

It's never offensive, wrong, or harmful to call something what it is.

And it's clear and has been clear for a long time that these far right people in power are Fascists... and those that support them are Fascist supporters whether they admit it to themselves or not. 

And the only thing that slows these Fascist politicians from throwing all their scapegoated groups (the left, trans people, gay people, immigrants, Muslims, Jews, minorities, mouthy women, etc.) in concentration camps and creating a Fascist dictatorship is the pushback they're getting. And they're only getting that pushback because a sizable minority of people are clear-eyed enough to call a Fascist a Fascist.

I remember having an argument with Leo last year when I made a statement like, "Trump probably would put people in concentration camps to throw red meat to his base, but probably doesn't care either way about them. But Ron DeSantis would put people in concentration camps just because he wants to see people in concentration camps." 

 

Those are strong words @Emerald without a lot of backing.  There is no one going into concentration camps anytime soon. 

[aurum]

4 hours ago, DocWatts said:

The Orange Shit Stain is having comedians pulled off the air for not showing due reverence for the thin skinned dictator in the wake of Kirk's shooting.

Just goes to show that the far right pretending to care about 'free speech' was always a load of horseshit - this is and has always been about naked, unaccountable power.

 

 

Kimmel has been a consistent critic of Trump for a long time now.

Not surprised.

[Twentyfirst]

https://x.com/broseph_stalin/status/1967993089404047778

Charlie Kirk spent his whole life trashing Muslims and defending Jews only to get sniped in front of his kids by a Zionist military asset 

[Twentyfirst]

4 hours ago, thedoorsareopen said:

This is all a distraction from Epstein.

And Epstien is a distraction from Israel 

And Israel is a distraction from America

And America is a distraction from Blackrock

Anybody not up to speed on Blackrock is not going to be able to adapt to make the evolutionary cut. But keep arguing with pill rotted trannies and wannabe KKK members and it will somehow all work out

Edited 16 hours ago by Twentyfirst

[zazen]

@Twentyfirst Charlie Kirk was speaking of the predatory monetary system ie extractive rentier economy led by financialization and their elites - on Turkey Carlson’s show. He could have been a future president with his following and young age meaning he had a long runway for politics.

It could speculatively be a deep state job, along side a Zionist one. The two are intertwined. Any threat to either of those axis’s is a threat to the current power structure.

Surface politics of socio-cultural issues (trans, abortion etc) is not a threat to the power structure the same way questioning the financial architecture or Zionism is - which is an outpost for US dominance. That outpost ensures (violently or by the mere threat of it) the petro dollars use that underpins that very financial system.

Not sure if anyone’s been able to verify but what about that George Zinn guy in the crowd who was taken and released - apparently he was at other tragic events and in a 9/11 video. I can’t verify. But between that and the other guy who pulled out a decoy gun - it just seems this wasn’t a lone wolf job - even if a lone wolf was chosen for it as the patsy.

No one’s conclusively saying it’s a conspiracy - but speculating it to be one is definetely not outside the realm of possibility considering the nature of the beast and what it’s historically done and continues to do right in front of our eyes. Foolish to just dismiss it.

If there’s more to this then that’s also the very same reason why we won’t ever get to the bottom of it. That’s not gonna stop people from milking it for their own causes and narrative - just look how the following doesn’t come out and say who did it but sequences clips in such a way that suggests it:

Candace is getting millions of views on her videos within days - pretty nuts.

Edited 14 hours ago by zazen

[zurew]

12 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

A good guy is relative.  He may have been a good family man and a good man in regards to beig true to his values and standing up for what he believed.  

I dont understand why you need to be this dishonest. This why no one should take your "Im open to change my view on this" seriously.

 

This is what happened - you made a snarky comment of "I dont understand why the left has issues with charlie lol", and you also tried to glorify him and when you are faced with facts about what charlie said, suddenly by good you meant something extremely different (a notion of good that could be applied to hitler as well - no honest actor would use the term good this way) and suddenly everything is relative and you also said that his comment about Biden's assasination and imprisonment was taken out of context, because he must have had a good justification for it?

Do you even know what taken out of context means? Because it seems to be that you dont.

Also notice that you would never ever accept that kind of response to any other thing and its a brainless response that someone makes when you arent read up on the facts.

Surely you would accept the response of " the shooter must have had a good justification to do what he did" , right? Of course you wouldn't, thats why you implied that the left is insane and out of their minds.

When confronted with facts about what the right did "they must have a good justification for it and its out of context bro" , when the left does something they are out of their minds plain and simple.

 

Also before knowing about the facts you already made up your mind about the shooter and about his intentions and about the causal factors behind his intention. Thats mr Inliytened1 doing politics in action, like a true MAGA conservative - whitewashing facts about the right and mistaking the conclusion of your inferences with facts.

 

To you this is all just memes and lols to other people it isnt. How about once in your life you actually fucking stop for once and take time to actually read up on things before you do you casual ignorant whitewashing and bothsiding?

No one cares about your centrist virtue signaling, if you arent read up on things, its time to do it  - you know like how any responsible adult would do. Its time to stop the "Im in my armchair infering my way through politics without knowing any facts about anything".

Edited 12 hours ago by zurew

[PurpleTree]

Fuccer Fartson and Smegan Smelly are going at Pam Blondi because of free speech/hate speech 

 

[MightyMind]

8 hours ago, thedoorsareopen said:

This is all a distraction from Epstein.

There's also this. 

"Bipartisan US support reminds Israel that true friends stand by us, official tells 'Post'" - https://archive.is/xSxHQ

 

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

I dont understand why you need to be this dishonest. This why no one should take your "Im open to change my view on this" seriously.

 

This is what happened - you made a snarky comment of "I dont understand why the left has issues with charlie lol", and you also tried to glorify him and when you are faced with facts about what charlie said,

I didn't try to glorify him bro God bless his soul because he's gone but he was very limited by being a Bible thumper.  The left was against him because he was so far right in my opinion this is what got him killed.  But the left has to stop the rhetoric just as much as the right does.  When is it gonna end? How many have to die?  What's the point in demonizing each other?  

I do grasp what out of context means he was smearing Kirk's name by saying he wants all these executions but not including the context with it.  The left calls for heads all the time. Your problem is you don't want to smell your own farts. Well brother I have news for you..they smell.  So stick your nose in there and sniff them.

Edited 12 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

@zurew where do you stand on politics? What is your position? If you are directly attacking me then I would like to know your position. If you have a problem with me in the political forum having no position then that's on you.  Maybe I'm showing you a higher level of politics.  The one from multiple perspectives.  Just let it flow.  I know there are both sides in you too because you aren't that one sided you are flexible and advanced like me. So you cannot be nailed down to one thing.  There are many nuances in political views and there is no way you can be one position based on all of these nuances.   I may not have all the facts but I know that much.  

Edited 11 hours ago by Inliytened1

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

Maybe I'm showing you a higher level of politics.  The one from multiple perspectives. 

No you are doing the 2 digit IQ, spiritually insecure ,epistemic caretaker is warranted move - where you are desperate to virtue signal how above all biases you are, and where you think you are higher than everyone,  while you are completely out of your depth on every fucking single issue, you are ignorant about everything and try to infer your way through everything and curiously as an "apolitical" person you only exclusively have issues with one side and you firmly hold the position that the left is worst and you think you look enlightened and good doing it.

You arent offering multiple perspectives, because you dont even know what the actual facts are that you would need to use to form perspectives from - thats how fucking behind you are. You would need to do basic reading to even begin to have a seat in this discussion. This thread is about other people informing you about facts that you should have known a long fucking time ago and your response is immediate whitewashing and excuse making and not actually doing your homework.

Edited 10 hours ago by zurew

[Inliytened1]

On 9/14/2025 at 5:37 AM, zazen said:

So what’s the causal factor in rising political violence and populism in general? You guys are masturbating over semantics of whether the right are facist yet - it’s fair to say they are increasingly becoming so, with disagreement on where they are on the spectrum. 

We can all agree things are getting polarized - but why?

Liberal types pride themselves on their empathy and systemic analytical skills looking at root causes of inequality and crime in their urban cities but don’t extend that over to rural MAGA die hards who are just racist red necks though.

 lack of consciousness.  Ego.  Its an egoic struggle for survival. My hope is that one day we have an advanced society with one view but here's the problem- there are different degrees of consciousness and this is spread out across the population.  So when you have different levels of consciousness all over you have people not understanding each other and thus crossing each other.  We won't ever be able to escape this unfortunately.  It is fermented into humanity. 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Inliytened1