Bullshite.

More than one woman has explicitly affirmed that the psy op is fake. Perhaps the number of women who take this position here is equal to the men who are unequivocally calling fraud.

Of the two biggest hand wringing, emotionally intoxicated banshees, one is male and one is female.

Do the math!

I'm speaking generally.  Most women don't believe in cօռspιʀαcιҽs, don't believe in the Church infiltration, don't believe that politics is all rigged.  And if they do, even then, they don't believe it all the way.  Women can't wrap their heads around the fact that society at large is controlled because women are wired to trust the system.  It's how God made them work.  

I'm speaking generally.  Most women don't believe in cօռspιʀαcιҽs, don't believe in the Church infiltration, don't believe that politics is all rigged.  And if they do, even then, they don't believe it all the way.  Women can't wrap their heads around the fact that society at large is controlled because women are wired to trust the system.  It's how God made them work. 

I think what you say equally applies to men, except the part about how God made them. 

Consider that women are supposed to predominate in the sensitive department, but men are not. They should predominate in the reason department. 

But the world is gutted with effeminate, passion-soaked geezers of all ages. 

All of my close relatives are male. They are all stupid, effeminate, brainwashed, indoctrinated zombies. 

Bottom line, the mob has gotten away with everything because of the weakness of men. 

Why isn't this forum teeming with men calling out the hoaxes? Why do the divisions take such hold? Look to the men for the reason. 

Female banshee posters exist here because they are not being led by a strong contingent of right thinking men. 

Now, if you come up with some facts to explain why this, that, or the other "theory" is correct or incorrect, that's absolutely fine and in fact necessary, especially since the powers that be also toss out a bunch of nonsense as "chaff" to discredit the correct explanation ... that's fine.  But to simply dismiss it by gaslighting with terms like "crazy" or "nuts" ... you're disqualified from any worthwhile input in the quest for truth, and need to take a seat on the sidelines.

100% that ... Charlie Kirk is not dead... Erika Kirk's entire pathetic performance was at once absurd and evil ........................

Ok Great Enlightened One, let us hear your facts/evidence - especially as you are dismissing other positions by gaslighting them with "a lack of faith". Put you money where your big mouth is.

Ok Great Enlightened One, let us hear your facts/evidence - especially as you are dismissing other positions by gaslighting them with "a lack of faith". Put you money where your big mouth is.

I've listed some of them briefly, and they're out there ... but the ones who claim "it's crazy" or "you're nuts", I'm talking about YOU that YOU need to bring some facts to the table instead of this crap.  THAT is the gaslighting going on here.

But it's 100% the case that those who are easily taken in by this garbage, especially with so many examples already behind us, where better minds than our exposed the earlier ones ... if you're easily manipulated by obvious psychological operations and fall for this same nonsense, or slight variations thereof, over and over again, yes, that absolutely speaks to a lack of faith, since the faith provides a bulwark against being derailed from truth by emotional manipulations, although I suppose that women by their nature are more inclined to be manipulated that way.

"Oh, look, Erika Kirk with tears and crying and stuff ... and how very said that some red stuff flowed from his neck."

This is precisely why the US jury system has been shattered.  Women, first of all, should be excluded from all juries, since they're unable to separate the emotion of great crimes and the impact on their victims from ... the rational consideration of whether THIS GUY HERE actually did it.  So many people are wrongly convicted this way, nor can women discern "beyond reasonable doubt" because if they "FEEEEEEL" that the guy did it, perhaps because he has a mean look about him, or the victim was a female, or whatever, that's good enough for them and qualifies as beyond reasonable doubt.

What's taking place here is absolutely the same thing.  You create psychological trauma by getting picutres of some red fluid spraying out from Kirk's neck area (with any kind of actual round greater than a pellet gun, both flesh and blood would have been splattered all over the backdrop and on the people near him, and the round would have passed right through his neck and clobbered the people next to and behind him), but due to the emotional tug of this psychological trauma, the emotions and crocodile tears and over-the-top histronics of Erika, and the chillen (childrun), oh, how the poor chllen would have been affected by seeing their daaady killed ... that's all it takes, reason and science and every other rational consideration be damned.

Indeed, they are out there ... though relatively few and far between.  I've been posting much less here on CI due to a lot of nonsense, but I've been calling out the details all over X, and there are a handful of others doing the same.

I replied to Pax last night but my login timed out and I lost the post. I can never remember what I wrote in such cases, but I did say that there were a few men posting here that were masculine, but not many.

I also said something to the effect that "women will follow strong men" is no canard. The problem is not the principle, but in the application of the principle. When "strong men" amounts to a few good ones here and there, yet who are opposed by a veritable legion of effeminate, cowardly, craven, hand wringing, brainwashed camp cadets - application of the principle is impeded.

The power of male leadership rests in the authority it wields. This authority is not real, not true, and not a principle/agent unless it is systematized, institutionalized, or cohered in some formal way - by God's design.

The head of the family is inconceivable except the paternal social order is presupposed.

Whenever women perceive that there is an authority vacuum - whenever women perceive that the men who would otherwise have authority over them are divided and themselves very weak - and that the paternal order has broken down - they will refuse submission. Perhaps no other creature on earth has a sixth sense for properly constituted, upheld, and wielded authority than woman. It is part of her Genesis curse. She will always "check the perimeter fences," like the velociraptor she is, looking for weak links. If the weak links outnumber the strong bonds, the vacuum materializes and she eludes her boundaries. 

Lad seems to have lost his attraction for this forum. I guess that it has to do with a strong sense that the paternal order - the coherence among the male members here - has broken down. 

Am I right, Lad?

I've listed some of them briefly, and they're out there ... but the ones who claim "it's crazy" or "you're nuts", I'm talking about YOU that YOU need to bring some facts to the table instead of this crap.  THAT is the gaslighting going on here.

But it's 100% the case that those who are easily taken in by this garbage, especially with so many examples already behind us, where better minds than our exposed the earlier ones ... if you're easily manipulated by obvious psychological operations and fall for this same nonsense, or slight variations thereof, over and over again, yes, that absolutely speaks to a lack of faith, since the faith provides a bulwark against being derailed from truth by emotional manipulations, although I suppose that women by their nature are more inclined to be manipulated that way.

"Oh, look, Erika Kirk with tears and crying and stuff ... and how very said that some red stuff flowed from his neck."

This is precisely why the US jury system has been shattered.  Women, first of all, should be excluded from all juries, since they're unable to separate the emotion of great crimes and the impact on their victims from ... the rational consideration of whether THIS GUY HERE actually did it.  So many people are wrongly convicted this way, nor can women discern "beyond reasonable doubt" because if they "FEEEEEEL" that the guy did it, perhaps because he has a mean look about him, or the victim was a female, or whatever, that's good enough for them and qualifies as beyond reasonable doubt.

What's taking place here is absolutely the same thing.  You create psychological trauma by getting picutres of some red fluid spraying out from Kirk's neck area (with any kind of actual round greater than a pellet gun, both flesh and blood would have been splattered all over the backdrop and on the people near him, and the round would have passed right through his neck and clobbered the people next to and behind him), but due to the emotional tug of this psychological trauma, the emotions and crocodile tears and over-the-top histronics of Erika, and the chillen (childrun), oh, how the poor chllen would have been affected by seeing their daaady killed ... that's all it takes, reason and science and every other rational consideration be damned.

Is that all you've got? A grubby attack against women? 

I don't want to hear about your obsessive hang ups with women. Go get some help for that. I want facts about the case in question. You make the bold, bizarre claim that its ALL fake psychological trauma - and without any hard evidence. You just say it and then insult anyone who doesn't believe you. Worse, you speak disrespectfully about a widow and mock her pain and suffering - "...how very sad that some red stuff flowed from his neck."  And all because you buy in to every wild conspiracy theory being poured down on us like rain. Such talk bares bad fruits.