I think he was in the process but not there publicly. They sensed he was slipping but he definitely was no Candace Owens. At most he was neutral and didn't like Israel meddling in the US - this is a moderate patriotic position. I bet he had nothing against the jews and would hate being called an anti-semite. He still supported the state of Israel and believed jews are God's chosen people.
(Biden's voice) Come on, man.
Christian cosmology and Logocentrism. God as the absolute uncreated being behind everything that exists, who grounds reality, regularity in nature and abstract universals.
Not really. Charlie never turned heel (maybe eventually) and the patsy was a libtard.
It's implications spill outside of science and physics. It's a philosophical paradigm. Einstein did to physics what Kant (foremost enlightenment/freemasonic thinker) did to philosophy.
Kant posited that reality is constructed by each individual mind, which interprets it via universal categories (which he grants himself because convenience I guess), and there is no way of knowing what the objective truth (the thing in itself) is.
Einstein's relativity says that there is no privileged vantage point from which space and time are "really" measured. Instead, every point (or observer) can set up coordinates, and the laws of physics will hold consistently in that frame.
Many will argue that the synagogue of satan fraud jews today have no blood relation to St. Paul.
The jews who crucified Jesus, making them antichrists and servants of Satan, were most certainly of the tribes and related to the pharisee Saul, even if most of today's jews have a different origin. Rabbinical judaism originated from the pharisaical tradition after the Temple.
They and their followers (be it khazars or other gentiles) are the true synagogue of Satan regardless of their bloodline just like Christians are the true seed of Abraham and God's chosen people regardless of them being jews or not. This is the core of the Christian teaching - your heart and free choice, and not your blood or circumstances, either saves or condemns you.
Also, St. Paul was complicit in the arrest and persecution of hundreds and possibly thousands of Christians before he claims he saw Jesus in the desert. Quite a claim.
"Quite a claim" is not an argument. Jesus rising from the death is quite a claim too. Paul was received into the Church and met with Peter. Cutting him off from the rest of the NT (which is divinely inspired in its entirety) is arbitrary. If you're skeptical of his letters why not be skeptical about everything else?
St. Paul's letters are the worst books in the New Testament.
I didn't know there's a Top 10 list in the NT. Sounds very authoritative.
You cannot name a wonderful great jew today who is such a great and wonderful person?
It doesn't matter. It is possible for a jew, even a pharisee who has prosecuted and killed Christians and hated Christ, to repent and become a saint and pillar of His Church. This proves my point and no further examples are required. I believe God made the same point when He revealed Himself to Paul and converted him (a point Jesus also made on the cross in Luke 23:43).
Funny how they are Republicans' greatest allies until Republicans have to name jews who are actually Christian who aren't subversive zionist hypocrites. Then they cannot name any of their greatest allies by name, specifically.
Agreed on that.
Based and Orthopilled.
This sums up perfectly the true Christian position towards the jews. Notice how it is the exact opposite of what most Protestants and modern Catholics teach about judaism and zionism. This alone should be enough to tell you what the true Church of Christ is.
St. Paul is a good example. Many jews converted to Christianity in the past. Christ preached to jews after all and many followed Him.
If they repented, then they are not larping. That's why I put it this way.
Can you name a single jew who deserves to NOT be impaled? I can't
How about the guy who exposed the Holocaust hoax on his trip to Auschwitz pretending to be a practicing jew - David Cole?
Normies don't care about truth. They've been instructed that objective truth, even if it exists, can't be known and all we have is subjective takes on it. The kabbalistic kike Einstein was instrumental to this with "his" theory of relativity which conceived of everything as being relative to everything else with no absolute position to ground them. Thus everything became a matter of perspective. Ironically it rehabilitated the heliocentric model as equally valid to the geocentric one which sure rubs the "muh science and muh progress" crowd wrong.
Yes, this is in line with the Protocols.
I believe Rothschild is their commander in chief, their world emperor (as Cherep-Spiridovich calls him). But just like Christian monarchs are crowned by the Church, so the Elders (rabbis) crown their emperor, which makes sense since they always emulate Christianity (much like how their master Satan is impotent and can't create but can only emulate and corrupt).
Satanist are under Jewish Rabbis.
The higher ups are indeed. But like with the freemasons, most of them have no clue what they participate in and how fucked they are. They are marching into the abyss like the Gadarene swine.
Satanism does not depend on Judaism. It doesn't need a third temple. It doesn't even need the state of Israel. They want you under their one world system one way or another. Noahide laws, Technocratic communism or a Catholic fascist state will all lead you into the same place.
Revelation teaches us otherwise. Judaism is satanism and vice versa. You either serve God or Satan and whoever rejects Christ is a satanist and an antichrist no matter how he describes himself - satanist, jew, atheist, agnostic, freemason, jesuit, theosophist, new ager, pagan, etc. The one world technocratic government that is coming is none other than the Antichrist's Beast system described in Revelation. There may be something similar before he comes - a forerunner (like the covid regime) - but still we know it is part of the same agenda.
The coming of the Antichrist will occur in Israel after the rebuilding of the Temple and it will be made known to everyone in real time (through TV and internet or any future media there is).
It's a meta-ethical and meta-epistemological question. I can give an account from my worldview. I asked you for how you justify it in yours?
Does universal objective truth exist?
How does it exist (in what way/mode)?
Is it knowable by man's limited mind and to what extent?
How does one come to that knowledge and how can one verify it's not a delusion of the mind?
Why ought we choose truth over falsehood?
A gnostic of your caliber should be able to answer those questions easily.
Yes this should be common knowledge. There were also a lot of black african slavers who sold their fellow niggas to the jews.
But it's somehow always the white man's fault.
I'm not competing dude. If you don't want to reply, don't. I'm fine with it.
You asked why they would mix AI and practical effects. And then claim that doesn't make sense...but there are very good reasons why. I'm sure if you tried, you could think of them. I just kinda sick of this getting no where Convo. You shut everything down.
That sounds like a cop out. I argued that good SFX don't require AI to be believable. What's the counter to this?
But looks like you believe in the satanists theory, but have you researched Kirks satanic symbols and connections? He is one of them, that's why this could be faked.
He could be. He and his wife are part of secret societies and both could be gov't agents. But we don't know the details - maybe he got uncooperative and became a liability. Maybe he has done his part and they backstabbed him. Or maybe he was coerced into sacrificing himself in order to protect his family. There are many reasons why they may have killed him even if he was one of them.
None of your arguments proves it was staged and he wasn't killed but you assume it's what happened and get confirmation bias from every detail around it, disregarding other possible explanations.
Alright, let's cut to the chase: Why ought we value truth and knowledge at all?
What is this supposed to be?
Yes, this is the correct Christian teaching. We have a duty to condemn sin both in ourselves and in others. Why? Because sin is death and God is life. If we love our neighbor we will not tolerate his sin. The "you shouldn't judge" libtard false Christians (influenced by jews obviously) are wrong.
This is why the freemasonic (jewish) idolization of individual rights and freedom of speech or libertarian NAP is incompatible with Christianity. "You do what you want, as long as you let me do what I want to do" is jewed up philosophy that appeals to human pride and base desires.
So, the people you claim are witnesses as the bandwagon. That your argument, that the assassination was real, hindges on.
Asking "what did the people in attendance see then?" is not an ad marjoram. It's a reasonable question asking if the shooting is AI generated what actually took place irl? Read a damn logic and critical thinking 101 book and try again.
You ignored the 3 point made in the video because you want me to trust that the "witnesses" watching the show unfold on stage are more reliable than slow motion frame by frame visual evidence of AI.
I addressed the glitches in the video actually. Videos can be manipulated (AI is video manipulation itself). Of course witnesses are more reliable, especially when there are hundreds of them - this is a tenant in criminal law.
What if Charlie did get shot but they manipulated the released videos to make it look like the angle was different? Even if the video has signs of it being tampered with, it still doesn't prove the event didn't take place.
"But the audience saw Charlie Kirk fall. And they saw blood. ". Well, actors pretend to die all the time. And there are blood packets that explode, all kinds of special effects.
This leads me to the next argument - why would they use AI instead of practical effects that will look convincing both on video and irl? You mean to tell me they used practical effects but then decided to add glitchy AI on top to make it less believable? Again, it doesn't make sense. You have to run with one or the other - either it was fake AI blood that goes nowhere or it's fake blood that looks and behaves exactly like the real thing.
I'm going to now explain what I think the audience saw, but Im surprised you can speculate this basic theory yourself. The audience saw a fake assassination. Like watching a magic show, or a play, they saw some special effects and heard a gunshot.
Same as above - good practical effects don't require AI. In this case AI tries to emulate what practical effects can accomplish which is realistic physics and acting. So this theory competes with the AI theory you started with.
As for Charlie being here as a host, not a "real" person, I suppose you mean like trump, Elon, Putin, Obama, fucking Oprah and people like lady gaga...or anyone else in the main stream and political world. I agree they are at a level that we cannot Access, maybe not humans...but what then? Spirits? Another species that share our plane? How do you believe that works?
I don't have any reason to believe they're not human. But humans are fallen and weak and they do the bidding of those above them (Hidden Hand/Committee of 300) who run a satanic agenda to enslave and destroy humanity.
My verdict is he was killed for real based on the evidence. There is enough motivation for them to do it too. They also have the means and have done similar ops in the past. It's not a tough case.
They created the narrative they wanted - if they wanted people to realize it was all staged they would have made sure normies are convinced of it by blasting it all over msm. They don't care about what a small minority of conspiracy guys think because it changes nothing and we can't start a civil war.
You are believing the news.
You believe the news too because you don't realize Charlie Kirk is not even a real person. Wake up, sheeple.
No, I don't believe the narrative that's given by msm. Not agreeing that the shooting was staged doesn't mean I believe their story. It's a non sequitur.
And I was wrong, your appeal was to popularity, than bandwagon argument, or argumentum ad populum. Thanks for making me double check you fallacy.
Lol, no it was not. What part of "They didn't have the budget to have proper AI?" is an appeal to majority opinion? You can simply refute me without making up non-existent fallacies. An argument can be logically sound and still be false you know. I already told you my argument was a reasonable objection.
Avoiding data and information, purely because it contradicts your held views is called cognitive dissonance, a common symptom of liberalism.
Wrong again. That's called cherry picking.
If you don't understand something it's best not to use it to sound smart because it backfires.
Also, an appeal to common sense would be to recognize the fucking content I pointed out. Ring finger to pinkly finger, huge globs of blood evaporate as they fall. ..etc. The content. Not how it "must" be fake ori must have mis viewed it, because it just can't me be possible. That's seriously not thinking. There are impossible facts in your face. And you only want to not look at them. That's lazy.
Could be poor quality artefacts from the video released. Still makes sense they'd put out better quality AI that doesn't mess fingers up like it's 2018. But suppose it's AI - what did the people in attendance see then?
Sure. The argument you made just now is logical fallacy. You just appealed to the authority.
That's not appeal to authority. Appeal to authority would be saying Charlie Kirk got killed for real because the news/government agencies said so.
That was an appeal to common sense - if they want to fake something, they can do it at such a level that you'd never notice anything sus with it. I mean, they do it for movies, of course they can pull it off irl too.
It's also Occam's razor - it'd be easier to pull off a good ol' assassination from hundreds of yards away than to make an AI hologram (or practical effects and AI for the video footage) of the guy getting killed in front of hundreds of witnesses. If you can do something for real you don't fake it and we all know they can easily assassinate people and that's their specialty, long before AI, computers or even guns existed. In the end the effect is the same and if the method is cleaner and safer, it makes sense they'd go with it.
As for why they didn't do a better job at AI, I can only speculate. Perhaps they don't mind being a bit obvious, CK was throwing symbols and the media is doing it's "33" thing again. I don't know about you, but I'm totally over being a sheep. I will no longer just shrug shoulders and assume they are being honest.
That's a non sequitur and a strawman. Of course they're not honest and it's all planned from above. Of course they embed their symbolism in their psy ops. Symbolism is only obvious if you can interpret it correctly which normies can't obviously. But what does any of that have to do with it being AI circus and not a real assassination JFK/MLK/Lincoln style?
Why are you cog dis? Why are mentally lazy?
On the contrary - mental laziness would be going with a sweeping statements like "everything is fake and staged" instead of using discernment and reason. Why not go even further and say Charlie Kirk never existed and he was played by actors using a mask or maybe an AI hologram? Where is the threshold of what is reasonable?
Idk why but such pragmatic reasoning is kryptonite for conspiracy theorists.
This is a bad AI video
So what, they didn't have the budget to have proper AI? Make it make sense.
Come on, man! (In Biden's voice)
You waste the time of, and insult anyone who has done the work.
You can't do any work or come to any true knowledge about those things if you start from a faulty worldview built on false and unjustified assumptions.
Why would I listen or read what someone has to say about the world, reality or God, if they can't give an account of metaphysical concepts that they presuppose like knowledge, truth, meaning, logic, etc.
If someone argues that Christianity is sun worship I will ask them to justify the claim and most importantly - ask how did they came to know that. If I say that Christianity is true you would ask me the same thing, right? So why would I grant you the opposite claim? You reasserting your position doesn't make it any more convincing or justified. Imagine me saying "Christianity is real because the Bible says so". Would you accept that?
Ok. What is "the Unified Field" and how do you have knowledge of its existence?
Gnosis is doctrine.
Gnosis is knowledge. In the context of gnosticism, it is a hidden or secret knowledge. Doctrine is a set of beliefs. "Gnosis is doctrine" is an incoherent proposition.
Thats YOUR job to find out now that you've been redpilled.
Great. How do you verify your interpretation is correct is what I'm asking? What grounds truth in your worldview? You?
It's kinda strange that his wife was a freemason, don't ya think?