Charlie Kirk

Perspectives, Not Truth: Why Our Moral Codes Are Always Incomplete

Standard

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.

Marcus Aurelius

I will attempt to bring multiple threads together in this blog and the quote above is a good starting point. If there is objective reality it’s not going to be something possessed by one human. We do not know all circumstances nor can we vet and independently verify every fact we receive.  Or at least not without becoming totally hamstrung by the details. We put our trust in parties, traditions, systems, credentials and the logic which makes sense to us.

The deeper we dive into our physical reality the murkier it all gets. The world ‘above’ that we encounter feels concrete. But there is not a whole lot of substance to be found as we get beneath the surface. The rules that we discovered—of time and space—end up dissolving into a sea of probabilities and paradoxes at a quantum level that we don’t have an answer to. And this is the ‘concrete’ observable reality. We all see our own unique perspective, a slice, and build our model of the world from it.

But it is even murkier when we get to topics of social science. Morality and ethics, built often from what we believe is fact or truth, is more simply opinion and perspective than it can be hammered out in words everyone is able to agree on. Even for those who are of the same foundational religious assumptions—despite even having the same source texts—do not agree on matters of interpretation or application. So who is right? And who is wrong? How do we decide?

1) Patrick: We Don’t Need God To Be Moral

My cousin, Patrick, a taller, better looking and more educated version of myself, an independent thinker, and has departed from his missionary upbringing—gives this great little presentation: “Where Do You Get Your Morality?“

His foundation for a moral value system is concepts of truth, freedom and love which he describes in the video. I find it to be compelling and compatible with my own basic views. Our cooperation is as natural as competition, it is what makes us human, and a conscience gives potential for better returns.

However, while I agree with his ideal, there is also reason why deception, tyranny and indifference are as common in the world—they are natural—and this is because it can give one person or tribe an advantage. Lies, scams, and political propaganda all exploit trust and can be a shortcut for gaining higher status or more access.

No, cheating doesn’t serve everyone. But the lion has no reason to regret taking down a slow gazelle. By removing the weak, sick, or injured, it inadvertently culls the less-fit genes from the herd, strengthening the prey population over time and even preventing overgrazing of the savannah. It’s just a raw service to ecosystem balance, much like a short seller who exposes those overvalued stocks, forcing the market corrections and greater efficiency—acts of pure self-interest yielding a broader good.

Not a friendly neighbor.

Herd cooperation or predator opportunism are different strategies, both 100% natural and amoral in their own context. I’m neither psychopath nor a cannibal, but I do suspect those who are those things would as readily rationalize their own drives and proclivities. Nature doesn’t come with a rulebook—only consequences.

I’m certainly not a fan of the “might makes right” way of thinking and that is because my morality and ethics originate from the perspective being disadvantaged. But I also understand why those who never struggled and who have the power to impose their own will without fear of facing any consequences often develop a different moral framework.

We need to be invested in the same moral and civilizational project. Or else logic, that works for only some who have the strength or propaganda tools, will rule by default. I don’t disagree with Patrick, but his core message caters to a high IQ and high empathy crowd—which does leave me wondering how we can bring everyone else on board?

2) Kirk: A Way To Focus Our Moral Efforts

Charlie Kirk wasn’t a significant figure to me before his death. It may be a generational thing or just a general lack of interest in the whole conservative influencer crowd. I feel dumber any time I listen to Steven Crowder and assumed Kirk was just another one of the partisan bomb throwers. But, from my exposure to his content since, I have gained some appreciation.

Bring back the Ten Commandments, because it worked so well the first time?

Arguing for the Ten Commandments has never been a priority for me. It’s a list with a context and not standalone. Nevertheless it is a starting point for a moral discussion and also one that it seems Charlie Kirk would go to frequently in his campus debates.  The two most difficult of these laws to explain to a religious skeptic are certainly the first two: “I am the Lord your God; Have no other gods before me and do not make idols.”

We generally agree on prohibition of murder and theft, or even adultery, but will disagree on one lawgiver and judge.

Why?

Well, it is simply because divine entity is abstract compared to things we have experienced—like the murder of a loved one or something being stolen from us. You just know this is wrong based on how it makes you feel. The belief in celestial being beyond human sight or comprehension just does not hit the same way as events we have observed. And it’s also the baggage the concept of a God carries in the current age. I mean, whose God?

It seems to be much easier just to agree the lowest common denominator: Don’t do bad things to other people.

But then we don’t. We justify killing others if it suits our political agenda, labeling people as bad for doing what we would do if facing a similar threat to our rights. If I’ve learned one thing it is that people always find creative ways to justify themselves while condemning the other side for even fighting back against an act of aggression.

Self-proclaimed good people do very bad things to good people. Like most people see themselves as above average drivers (not mathematically possible), we tend to distort things in favor of ourselves. Fundamental attribution error means we excuse our own compromises as a result of circumstances while we assume an immutable character flaw when others violate us. We might be half decent at applying morality to others—but exempt ourselves and our own.

So morality needs a focal point beyond us as individuals. There must be a universal or common good. Which might be the value of a theoretical ‘other’ who observes from a detached and perfectly unprejudiced point, the ideal judge. Not as a placeholder, but as the ultimate aim of humanity. One God. One truth. One justice. This as the answer to double standards, selective outrage and partisan bias. If we’re all seeking the same thing there is greater potential of harmony and social cohesion where all benefit.

At very least it would be good to promote an idea of an ultimate consequence giver that can’t be bought or bribed.

3) The Good, the Bad and the Aim for What Is Practically Impossible

The devil is always in the details. And the whole point of government is to mediate in this regard. Unfortunately, government, like all institutions, is merely a tool and tools are only as good as the hands that are making a use of them. A hammer is usually used to build things, but can also be used to bash in a skull. Likewise, we can come up with that moral system and yet even the best formed legal code or enforcement mechanism can be twisted—definitions beaten into what the current ruling regime needs.

The United States of America started with a declaration including the words “all men are created equal” and a Constitution with that starts: “We the people…” This is reflection of the Christian rejection of favoritism and St. Paul telling the faithful “there is no Jew or Greek” or erasing the supremacy claims of some. An elite declaring themselves to be exempted or specially chosen by God is not compatible with this vision. We never ask a chicken for consent what we take the eggs. We do not extend rights to those who we consider to be inferior to us or less than human. Human rights hinge on respect for the other that transcends politics.

That’s where the labels come in. If we call someone a Nazi, illegal, MAGAt, leftist or a Goyim we are saying that they are less than human and don’t deserve rights. This is the tribal and identity politics baseline. Those in the out-group are excluded for decency, their deaths celebrated as justice (even if there’s no due process) and we’ll excuse or privilege our own. All sides of the partisan divide do this—we create a reason to deny rights to others often using things like truth, freedom and love (Patrick’s foundation) as our justification: “Those terrorists hate our freedom and democracy, we must fight for those we love and our truth!”

Bringing this to a practical level: Looking at Minneapolis, the ICE and anti-ICE activities, we have competing moral narratives and a different vision for application of American values. On one side of the debate you have those who say that “one is one too many” if an illegal immigrant kills a US citizen—then suddenly do not care when Federal agents shoot a fellow American. The defiant “don’t tread on me” opposition to mandates and masks during Covid somehow shifting to “comply or die!” On the other side you have those outraged about Kyle Rittenhouse and who have been traditionally opposed to the 2nd Amendment defending Alex Pretti while the Trump administration condemns a man for carrying a permitted firearm.

Judgment is for the other, it seems, rights for those who look like us or agree. It’s this inconsistent eye, the call for understanding of our own and grace for ourselves with the harsh penalties applied to those within the forever shifting lines of our out-group, that shows how our political perspectives cloud our moral judgment. The ‘sin’ is not the act itself, but whether or not the violation suits our broader agenda. This is why ‘Christian’ fundamentalists, who will preach the love of Jesus on Sunday, can be totally indifferent to the suffering of children with darker skin tones—their God is about national schemes not a universal good or a commonly applied moral standard.

The aim needs to be justice that is blind to who and only considers what was done. If pedophilia is excused for powerful people who run our government and economy, then it should be for those at the bottom as well. If the misdemeanor of crossing an invisible line is bad, a justification for suspension of due process for all Americans, then why is it okay to violate the sovereignty of Venezuela or Iran over claims of human rights abuse?

The US fought a war of independence, took the country for the British and yet has been acting as a dictator, installing kings, when it suits our neo-colonial elites.

That’s immoral.

We’re all immoral.

The moral code of Patrick, Charlie or myself is incomplete—because every moral code is incomplete when filtered through human eyes. We start from our different premises: Patrick’s secular triad of truth, freedom, and love; Kirk’s religious appeal to the Ten Commandments and a divine lawgiver as the only reliable check on self-deception; my own reluctant recognition that empathy and cooperation are real, yet fragile, against the raw arithmetic of power and advantage. Yet all of our approaches circle the same problem: without some external, impartial standard that transcends our biases, tribes, and self-justifications, our morality devolves into competing opinions dressed as facts—exactly as Aurelius observed.

We cannot fully escape the murk. Objective reality, if it exists, slips through our fingers like quantum probabilities—and moral truth fractures along lines of culture, experience, and interest. Even when we agree on broad principles (don’t murder, don’t steal), the application often splinters: whose life counts as being worthy of protection? Whose borders, laws, or children deserve a defense? And whose “justice” is merely revenge in better lighting?The temptation is cynicism—just declare all values relative, retreat to my own personal pragmatism, and then let might (or votes, or algorithms) sort the rest. But that is a path leads to the very outcomes we decry—dehumanization, selective outrage, and the erosion of the entire civilizational project that allows agnostic high-empathy and high-IQ arguments like Patrick’s to even exist. Yes, nature may be amoral, but us humans build societies by pretending otherwise, by our aiming higher than baser ‘animal’ instincts—reaching for God.

So perhaps the most honest conclusion is not to claim possession of the full truth, but to commit to pursuing it together—knowing we’ll never quite arrive. We definitely need focal points that force some accountability beyond ourselves: whether that’s a concept of one ultimate observer who sees without favoritism, or by a shared commitment to universal human dignity rooted in principle beyond biology or tribe, or simply just the hard-won habit of applying the same rules to our side as to the other. Blind justice isn’t natural or self-evident—it’s cultivated. Morality is an aim which requires vigilance against our own double standards, humility before the limits of our perspective, and courage to defend principles we claim even when they inconvenience us.

In the end, we don’t need perfect agreement on the source of morality to agree that inconsistency in application is poisonous.  What goes around will certainly come around and if we live by the sword we’ll die by it.  If we can at least hold each other (and ourselves) to a standard higher than “what works for my group right now,” preserve the space for mutually beneficial cooperation over cruel predation—a shared conscience over mere convenience. Anything less, and the gazelle never outruns the lion for long—and neither does the society which forgets why it tried.

MAGA Betrayed: A Full Court Press to Silence the Free Press 

Standard

A month or two ago a family member sent me a video of Steven Crowder going on the attack against an Orthodox Christian nun in Palestine. Mother Agapia Stephanopoulos was hosted by Tucker Carlson and talked to him about the violence against indigenous Christians in the occupied West Bank. And very soon after this interview, Crowder, who supposedly represents conservative values, went on the offensive claiming to “debunk” a faithful woman who has dedicated her life to what is remaining of Christian legacy in the Holy Lands.

Crowder, an Evangeli-con social media grifter, being so totally vicious about this woman’s physical appearance in his opening salvo made me wonder about his motives. What is it to him that she was sharing her experience? So I followed the money and found the reason. Crowder has a few notable sponsors, one of them called “Express VPN” and if you dig a little deeper this originates from a developer that goes by Kape Technologies.

Who owns that?

A guy named Teddy Sagi—an Israeli billionaire with an unscrupulous record.

So one has to wonder, is the sponsorship about selling the service or is it a way to buy influence? A bit of both, perhaps?

Temu Charlie Kirk

Either way, Crowder is getting paid to represent a certain perspective and likely got a memo: “We need you to do a hit job on that Orthodox nun, this is your list of talking points about her from our guys in intelligence. We will talk more about our ad budget for next year if you can get 100k clicks.” That’s my own crude caricature, but we know that Sagi is getting something in return for his investment and a VPN makes a nice front company to pay for propaganda. They also make a nice way to access your personal data—a specialty of Israeli-sourced ‘security’ software.

Here’s a brief overview by Grok:

Kape Technologies, a UK-based cybersecurity conglomerate specializing in privacy tools like VPNs, was originally founded in 2011 as Crossrider, a company notorious for developing ad injection software that was frequently bundled with malware, enabling intrusive tracking and data harvesting on users’ devices—a practice that continued plaguing the web as late as 2019. Rebranded to Kape in 2018 amid efforts to pivot toward “ethical” digital security, it aggressively acquired major VPN providers to dominate the market: CyberGhost in 2017 for $10.4 million, Private Internet Access (PIA) in 2019 for $95 million, ZenMate, and notably ExpressVPN in 2021 for $936 million, now controlling about 40% of the top VPN services alongside affiliate review sites that suspiciously rank its own products highest. The company is fully owned by Unikmind Holdings, a shell entity controlled by Israeli billionaire Teddy Sagi—a convicted fraudster from a 1990s insider trading scandal, Playtech gambling software founder, and major donor to the Israeli Defense Forces—who bought out remaining shares in 2024, privatizing Kape and reducing transparency by delisting it from the London Stock Exchange, followed by layoffs of around 180 employees (12% of staff) in early 2025 amid whispers of restructuring. This history raises serious potential risks for users seeking true privacy: from backdoors or data-sharing compelled by Israeli intelligence ties (Sagi and co-founder Koby Menachemi hail from elite Unit 8200 spy unit, echoing Pegasus spyware scandals), to conflicts of interest where “privacy” tools could flip to surveillance, especially given Kape’s opaque operations and the irony of a former malware peddler now gatekeeping global internet anonymity.

Things are not what they appear. Look up Pegasus and Paragon. If it says security it is probably about backdoor access to your personal information. But, of course, you’re supposed to be afraid of Chinese ownership of TikTok. Anyhow, as the expression goes—every accusation is a confession. If they say it is about your security it is really only about their ability to maintain control over the flow of information and to manufacture consent for their policies. The fox is now guarding the henhouse.

Weaponization of Social Media

After the assassination of Charlie Kirk there has been a full-court press to ‘weaponize’ social media on behalf of Israel. This isn’t my choice of words. This comes from the mouth of one foreign leader who is always allowed unusual access to US politics and that is Benjamin Netanyahu:

Social media is the most important weapon Israel has at its disposal. […] Now, if we can get those two things [TikTok under U.S. control and X access], we can get a lot, and I can go on about other things, but that’s not the point right now.

Oh, so remember that bipartisan campaign to ban TikTok, supposedly over the concern that the Chinese wanted to spy on our kids, which started right after Israel started their bombing of Gaza and killing of journalists? Well, the real reason for this should now be clear: Hasbara doesn’t work when those not already brainwashed and indoctrinated can see the truth in a thousand images. TikTok bypassed the censorship regime.

And let’s not pretend we do not know what that is. After Covid we all know how there was enormous pressure put on our social media platforms to protect the government narrative. Mark Zuckerberg recently went on Joe Rogan to tell how Facebook was forced to suppress truth, under the Biden administration, he likened the fact-check process to being “something out of 1984.”  If you recall, people got banned for saying the virus may have originated in lab in China—when now this is being accepted a plausible theory of the origin.

The same people who would scoff at “China virus” being racist are okay “free Palestine” being labeled as anti-Semetic.

So when TikTok was forced into selling and has hired Erica Mindel, a former IDF soldier, to run their new “Public Policy Manager for Hate Speech” position—do you think she will be there as a neutral arbiter and ban the use of the word “terrorist” describe the children in Gaza? Not a chance. No, it is her job to censor information behalf of the site’s new owners, including the Zionist Trump-backer billionaire Larry Ellison, and their aim being anything on the platform that could hurt the Gaza real estate deal or can be interpreted as pro-Palestinian.

The War Against Free Speech

Why this full-court press? The US is Israel’s most vital resource and is exploited to the tune of billions annually in direct aid. And that’s just the start. Wars in Iraq and Syria, which did not benefit average Americans in any way shape or form, cost us trillions and that is not to mention the young men killed or broken for life—like those two rampaging Marine veterans over the weekend.

With their once reliable Boomer vein dying off and younger generations seeing through their propaganda. The Zionists, to fully tap into our human and industrial resources, must first strip away the resistance. This is not left to chance. No, they buy support of influencers. The dangle incentives in front of young rising stars online, bring them on a trip to Israel and the then will sponsor their content through shell companies. Once you are hooked on their money they own you, all you need to do is sprinkle in a little of their propaganda and the checks keep coming—and if you deviate too far from script?

US influencers partying it up, on a paid trip to Israel, while Palestinians die

Well, Charlie Kirk was doing a lot of talking about this before his untimely death:

I have less ability… to criticize the Israeli government than actual Israelis do. And that’s really, really weird. I’m terrified of stepping on a minefield here, trying to please both my owners [donors] and my audience.

(Charlie Kirk, The Megyn Kelly Show, Episode 832, August 6, 2025)

Yes, Kirk had been a stalwart Zionist, just as many in the Evangeli-con fundamentalist camp are, but recently had begun to openly express his doubts, questioning the October 7th narrative and suggesting that there was a stand down order given that had allowed to happen, and he even started to platform conservatives who see Gaza as a genocide or don’t want our tax dollars used to bomb babies. Kirk was loudly opposed to Trump getting involved in Netanyahu’s war against Iran. And was called on the carpet—by his billionaire owners—for his defiant show of independence.

The Unforgivable Disloyalty

Trump and Kirk have the same billionaires bankrolling them. Miriam Adelson, born in Mandatory Palestine and widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, gave the Trump campaign $100 million dollars. This might be why he is backing up her Maccabee Task Force (MTF) in his crackdown on speech on college campuses. Her MTF doesn’t just counter the criticism of Israel—it obliterates it, slandering pro-Palestinian students and faculty as “Hamas supporters” or as being “Jew haters.” It is basically cancel culture on steroids.

A billionaire’s club.

With $100 million in lobbying muscle, MTF deploys doxxing campaigns, and pressures universities to discipline activists, pushes “(re)educational” programs that whitewash Israel’s actions. At Columbia U, Adelson’s MTF helped fuel Trump’s calls to deport student protesters like Mahmoud Khalil. This is not advocacy. No, it us a speech cartel, ensuring that no Gaza encampment or divestment call will threaten the billions funneled to Israel’s war machine. Adelson’s checks don’t just buy Trump’s loyalty—they buy campus silence, turning campuses into censored zones where dissent is punished and truth is the enemy.

Trump marketed MAGA to those weary of war, proclaiming America First as his motto—absolute opposition to foreign aid and DEI favoritism. But, like the scene from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, when the ruling pigs change the egalitarian commandment “All animals are equal” (adding to it “but some animals are more equal than others.”) we’ve found there is always one exception to this and that is on behalf of those who paid for his campaign. With President Trump it is America First—Israel Firster.

Trump’s betrayal goes beyond this directed attack on free speech. It’s also about family gain. Enter Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East “peace” envoy, who had brokered the Abraham Accords, not as a genuine diplomatic win, but as a sweetheart real estate deal for his own firm. Kushner’s Affinity Partners hedge fund scooped up $2 billion from the Saudi sovereign wealth fund mere months after leaving the White House—blood money that was funneled through UAE backchannels, with zero U.S. oversight. And let’s not forget his now infamous Gaza proposal: turning the rubble-strewn devastated Strip into a “waterfront property” paradise for wealthy Gulf investors, complete with luxury condos atop the mass graves. It’s not policy; it’s a flip: Kushner as the fixer—turning Palestinian suffering into billionaire beachfront.

And none of this is good for the American people who are already footing the bill for the demolition of Gaza.

Property of Israel—Till Death?

Once one truly understands the extent of the influence of this foreign lobby, and how much it has cost us in terms of cash, lives and reputation in the world, there is never a return to politics as usual. Trump has not ended cancel culture, foreign aid, forever war or drained the swamp. No, AIPAC and a slew of billionaires tied to Israel are calling the shots, along with Netanyahu, and—while they plan the next big war on behalf of a few elites and Israel—the shelves are bare for wounded warriors of the last one.

The world leader on cancel culture is waited on by his faithful servant.

Charlie Kirk, like his friend Candice Owens, like Tucker Carlson, and Elon Musk, seemed to have increasing awareness of this sordid reality—where we got the same policies no matter who we voted for. Unfortunately he was never given the chance to put together everything that is laid out above. Whether he was killed by a crazed trans leftist or the same big money that made Turning Point a political force on a national level we’ll likely never know, but we do know that he wasn’t just some paid shill reading off a script.

Apparently the desperate Zionist regime is now paying American influencers $7000 for every post the make to help hide the crimes of Gaza. And the deeper you dig the more disturbing it gets. They fear-monger about TikTok somehow being a platform for CCP spying and then hand it over to the control of a foreign country with one scandal after another involving surveillance of unwitting users of their software. This is affront to MAGA and the American values that those on the right-wing claimed to defend during the Covid shutdowns—we must not let the powerful monopolize the conversation.

This is free speech and should not be punished.

The war on free speech—whether through Crowder’s bought-and-paid-for smears, Adelson’s campus crackdowns, or TikTok’s censorship under Ellison’s ex-IDF enforcers—is a desperate bid to shield a grotesque truth: Trump and Kushner’s betrayal of MAGA’s anti-war ethos for a Gaza land grab, funded by Adelson’s millions and Saudi blood money, turns Palestinian suffering into profit. But Gen Z’s unfiltered posts and campus rebellions are cracking the Hasbara facade, exposing the bombs, the condos, and the lies. Reject their tech fronts, defy their censors, and amplify the raw truth—on social media, in the streets, everywhere. America’s soul isn’t for sale; reclaim our Constitutional birthright by speaking out, or let the billionaires’ war on dissent silence us all.

The Pendulum Swings: Charlie Kirk and the Turning Point of a Nation

Standard

Watching my son’s football game, it felt as if there was an inflection point. The game got off to a rocky start—their offense stumbled on the first drive, the defense gave up a score, and that was the story of the first half. But in the second half, the game’s momentum changed—the defense sparked a three-and-out, their offense finally got on the board, and it was a whole new game. Even luck tilted in their favor, unlike the first half.

So what happened?

How does a team that gave up eight points rally to score fourteen in a comeback?

An inflection point is a change where it feels as if a giant pendulum has swung, reached a peak in one direction, and shifted to a new or opposite course. The momentum shift may become clear only afterward, but often it’s something detectable in the air—an event or palpable shift in attitude that changes the entire complexion. In the game, it could’ve been a small adjustment by the coaches or simply an opportunity to reflect on mistakes and correct them. It could be that the ball broke in the right direction, a matter of probabilities, with the change mostly an illusion. But football is an emotional sport, and even dumb luck can inspire better play from everyone.

We also witnessed a similar shift during the presidential election. Biden was apparently leading in the polls (if such things are to be believed), and then Butler happened. The event came after the disastrous first presidential debate, where Biden clearly was not as advertised, yet it was the image of defiance—“fight, fight, fight”—that sealed the deal. Elon Musk saw this as reason to put his full weight behind Trump, and with a few McDonald’s drive-through moments and photo ops with garbage trucks, the greatest upset win since 2016 was complete.

Love him or loath him, Butler should have been a warning shot for the left—trying to kill your political opposition only makes them stronger and Trump won with a younger browner vote.

The paragraphs above were written before the murder of Charlie Kirk. Over the past few days, he went from the “prove me wrong” guy debating college kids to the center of a national debate. Since his death, there has been a groundswell of support. As those on the left reveal themselves through celebrations of his death and mockery, Kirk’s Turning Point organization has been flooded with 54,000 requests for new chapters at high schools and colleges. His death is a catalyst, much like the two assassination attempts against Trump, and a potential inflection point in the national conversation.

Before the U.S. Civil War officially began, there was an early attempt to free the slaves. John Brown, an evangelical Christian, believed he was on a mission from God to end slavery in the U.S. and led an insurrection that ended with a raid on a federal armory at Harpers Ferry in October 1859. Even before this, the issue of legal slavery had resulted in violent confrontations. In 1837, the abolitionist Elijah Parish Lovejoy was shot while facing down a mob of pro-slavery vandals who were attempting to destroy his printing press. This event sent shockwaves through the U.S. and galvanized John Brown to publicly declare:

“Here, before God, in the presence of these witnesses, from this time, I consecrate my life to the destruction of slavery.”

John Brown fired the opening shots of civil war, his fierce opposition to slavery inspired by the murder of abolitionist Elijah Parish Lovejoy.

As a writer, I do not create the sentiment of my audience. I merely put into words what other people are thinking or help them organize their thoughts. In other words, if it resonates, it is only because I’ve stated something they’ve already noticed. It also emboldens—when people realize they are not alone in what they see—which is how regimes fall. When people know that others share their understanding and are given a means to articulate it, all it takes is a little push to turn popular sentiment into decisive action.

Synchronicity is one way to describe this. I have often observed many of my friends—likely tuned into similar sources and sharing the same basic assumptions—simultaneously reach an identical conclusion in response to events.

The assassination of Kirk is a moment that galvanizes. It has starkly illustrated how far apart the two partisan sides have become. Some celebrate the murder, spewing vile hatred for a man who was truly a moderate with views similar to those of many Americans. Others are rightly appalled, realizing there is no reasoning or unity with those who believe disagreement deserves a death sentence—that Kirk deserved the bullet.

In a civil society, matters can be debated. If a person says things we don’t like, we still honor their human rights and show respect despite disagreement. But to those on the far left, a statement of fact or an opinion they hate is declared “hate speech,” and saying it out loud constitutes a crime of “spreading hate” that deserves death. This is not an embellishment—a direct quote: “Let this be a lesson to all those conservative freaks, all those weirdos… you’re next in line.” This is a threat we must take seriously when the other side laughs and mocks Kirk’s death—they are not like us.

This is an inflection point, one of those culminating moments where conservatives are independently reaching the same conclusion, and a movement can become galvanized. It will arm Trump to crack down on Antifa and the left-wing in ways he could not have before, with the critical mass of public support he needs.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean people must associate with you.  I’ve never seen the ‘right’ react with such energy before.

In reality, Charlie Kirk wasn’t an extremist leading anything; he represented the quiet majority who are still able to appreciate the difference between men and women and who want laws applied equally for the protection of all Americans—not favoritism or special preferences for some based on identity or political ideology. They are Charlie. He did not radicalize anyone. All he did was try to explain his perspective and articulate what many believe. But he will now be a rallying cry—like the death of Lovejoy that led to John Brown’s vow—that point in a conflict where the tolerance has been exhausted and it is necessary for the sane to make a stand.

Even for me, as someone who attempts to stake out a position independent of both popular sides, I must go with the side least likely to kill me as a default. There’s nothing I share in common with those who are gleeful and cracking jokes about a man deliberately killed in front of his fans, wife, and young daughters. Cheering for domestic terrorism cannot be tolerated. The backlash against those who couldn’t show civility even after a man’s murder will be a turning point, like the momentum shift in a football game—the people are done playing nice with these monsters.

RIP Charlie Kirk

State of Hasbara: Unveiling Opportunism in the Crises of 9/11, Iraq, and October 7th

Standard

I’m not a big conspiracy theory guy. 

What I mean by that is that I don’t see everything as orchestrated or part of a secret global plot.  I believe accidents can happen and that people can do terrible things unaided or completely of their own volition.  But, all that said, I also believe that the rule “never let a crisis go to waste” is not an invention of Rahm Emanuel. 

Political opportunism is rampant on all sides.  And then there’s the just plain letting something bad happen to use for advancing agenda.

What I’m about to detail is all verifiable facts and not conjecture.  I’m just going to lay it out then let you reach your own reasonable conclusions.  I’ll also prime this topic with a response to 9/11 that has made less sense in retrospect and that is the invasion of Iraq that followed.  Saddam Hussain was not at all involved in the attacks.  The war cost the US trillions of dollars, 4,419 Americans lost their lives, 31,993 wounded, and that is not to mention the Iraqi losses.  We traded that much blood and treasure for claims of there being WMDs—which our government knew were mostly or completely destroyed.

So what was the actual reason for regime change in Iraq?

But, before we answer, let’s get to some of the facts on 9/11.  And, again, I’ll stick only to what is verified and not speculate beyond what is very easily corroborated with videos and news articles from the time.  This is all things known according to official records, eyewitness accounts, and confessions on foreign television.

While the rest of the country watched 9/11 unfold in horror, five men were seen filming the burning World Trade Center towers from a white van, they were seen high-fiving, and appearing jovially celebratory from the New Jersey side.  Their behavior was so totally alarming, and in contrast to what one may expect seeing the US under attack and with people literally being forced to jump to their deaths, that a concerned citizen reported it to authorities.

Trump said Muslims were celebrating in Jersey City.  Not true.  What he should have said is Mossad.

Later in the day the van was stopped by the police and these five men, Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omer Marmari—dubbed the “Dancing Israelis”—were arrested.

These Israeli men were employed by Urban Moving Systems, a company that was also owned by Israeli national, Dominik Suter, and the men possessed items like $4,700 in cash stuffed in a sock, they carried multiple foreign passports, maps highlighting New York City, and a box cutter like those used in the 9/11 hijackings, further FBI searches of this firm’s Weehawken offices uncovered a fraudulent operation with minimal evidence that it was a legitimate business.  Add to it, 16 seized computers, and reports of anti-American sentiment among staff, including boasts about subverting U.S. media. Suter’s abrupt flight to Israel just before a second FBI interview, abandoning the premises with client property and phones left behind, only amplified suspicions.

Perhaps most damningly, in a 2001 Israeli TV interview on LaHadashot, one of the five men, Oded Ellner, chillingly stated they were placed in the U.S. specifically “to document the event,” a strange phrasing implying their prior awareness of the impending attacks.  Which the FBI could not conclusively prove or disprove despite the months of detention and polygraphs, such led to the speculation—backed by a 2002 Forward report citing U.S. officials—that at least two of the five Israelis were Mossad operatives using the firm as a front.  And officially to keep tabs on Arab extremists.  I’ll let you judge if that is just a cover story or the truth.

Why we would ever believe him again, after the Iraq WMD lie…

Enter Benjamin Netanyahu.  The day after the attacks, he was quoted in the NY Times as saying “it was very good” before he corrected himself and explained what he meant is that it would “generate immediate sympathy” that would benefit Israel.  And it was a year to the day after this that he was pitching a war with Iraq to Congress, calling himself an “expert witness” and warning the legislative body of something that sounds so awfully familiar:

“There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons—no question whatsoever.”

Netanyahu continued his case:

“If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”

There was zero evidence found to support Netanyahu’s dire warnings about WMDs.  I will let you decide if regime change in Iraq was an amazing success that has only led to peace and prosperity for the region.  But 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq and Netanyahu was cheering this on—much like the Dancing Israelis.  None of this says for certain that Mossad had foreknowledge or withheld vital intelligence so the attacks could continue and draw the US into Israel’s conflicts.  But we did spend trillions for a war that did absolutely nothing to advance our national security interests.  

Many of these men may do it all over again, but would they if they knew what they were actually fighting for?

And then there’s October 7th.  Netanyahu has called this Israel’s 9/11 and maybe this an admission.  Recently, before his untimely death, Charlie Kirk made an observation in a discussion with Patrick Bet-David about the incredible security perimeter around Gaza and surveillance, expressing disbelief that it could be breeched and openly pondering if an order given to stand down.  This, wasn’t just speculation.  Israeli intelligence had the Hamas incursion plan a full year before and didn’t act, according to the New York Times, and on the night of the attacks former IDF guards have said they were told not to do their routine patrols.

So was the terrorist attack on 9/11 allowed to happen to generate sympathy to later be exploited to further Netanyahu’s agenda as far as Iraq?  And as an order given to stand down on October 7th, likewise, benefits the ultimate aim of Likud which is written in the original 1977 party platform, “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”  Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the first Israeli Prime Minister born in what had been called Mandatory Palestine, was assassinated by a radical Zionist settler for seeking a peaceful resolution.

Maybe some see terrorists.  I see a mother and a child, their lives as important as any other.

Israel brazenly attacked the USS Liberty for reasons never appropriately explained.  The Lavon Affair exposes a level of deception and indifference to civilian casualties that shocked the international community—only surpassed in Gaza now the child amputee capital of the world with bombs paid for by the US taxpayers.  Do we really need to speculate—with all of the facts above—if the Netanyahu regime is willing to sacrifice a few American lives in pursuit of their regional or political ambitions?  With calculus as cold is there any limiting factor?

The recurring exploitation of crises like 9/11 and October 7th, paired with a history of deceptive hasbara, casts doubt on the credibility of official explanations, urging us to further scrutinize the manipulative tactics of those who may prioritize self-serving agendas over truth.