What was it?

I’m curious because I did not. But my husband did. Immediately. I thought he was very uncharitable and said so to him. He felt bad. Later I had to eat my words. I asked him why he had such an immediate and strong reaction to her & he couldn’t put his finger on it. I’ve since heard a lot of people come out and say that they had an almost visceral reaction to her even before the glitter pants but kept their mouth shut because they felt bad. But there isn’t a lot of people explaining what exactly led them to this.

Can anyone put their finger on what gave them the immediate ick?

I honestly don’t know and I wonder if it’s been discussed: If TR had the rifle down his pants ….wouldn’t he have had more than touch DNA on the rifle?

You know…the gross type of DNA? If the gun was all up in his businesses? Why no body fluids?

I know we joke around here about Blake Neff, Andrew Wilson, etc but after the debate the absolute nonsense that came from young men about the debate (both here & on X) is truly concerning. I know some of them are trolls but some of them genuinely don’t seem to understand what “evidence” is…like conceptually? Not that they don’t agree with the inference but one can get the idea that they don’t know what that word means. It’s pretty terrifying. Men, especially young men, used to engage more than women with topics such as debate, logic, dialectics, philosophy, etc. i’m starting to be concerned that there’s an effort to dumb down the male public to the point where a lot of young men don’t seem to understand the definition of logic, debate, polemics, etc. They seem confident that they know about it, but clearly do not.

This whole “debate a prostitute” style of podcast debate is starting to look very nefarious to me. It is obviously styled to bring in young male audience. Then they are misled to believe that what they are watching is an intellectual exercise. They are misinformed about what logic is, what it is used to accomplish and what a “rational actor” looks like.

I always thought young men were in on the gag and even understood the men in these “debate” podcasts were as dumb as the prostitutes. Wasn’t that part of the gag afterall?

They aren’t in on it the gag, guys. Teaching men that they are learning logic when they are learning nonsense could be a very nefarious project for bad actors.

And before anyone brings it up, yes, I think this has happened to young women, just differently. And I just didn’t notice it with young men until…today actually.

Let’s go over any new stuff that came up.

First thing is that came to mind, obviously:

The detail of Dan Flood’s texts with Charlie Kirk (read in part) that spelled out THE SECURITY TEAM’s response to CK seeking ASSURANCES that he was safe because he was scared of being assassinated.

CK was assured that the following was taken to ensure his safety:

1. Law enforcement has been fully supportive and agreed to A SECURITY PLAN AND POSTURE

2. The event will be covered by Dan Flood’s team and campus PD

3. Additionally, 11 on site patrol units organized by Dan Flood

4. Charlie replied to make sure everyone understood HE WAS THE ONLY ASSET THESE RESOURCES ARE ALLOCATED TO PROTECT (that seems important for a lot of reasons).

Andrew refused to argue his position and claim that there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler is the shooter. About 30 minutes in he announced his claim was actually that there is no compelling evidence TO HIM of an alternative theory. He is basically arguing now that his claim is now in opposition to Candace’s opposition to his claim. I hate my life.

And he has continued to insist now FOR HOURS that he does not have to debate the claim he agreed to argue. The truth is he must and if he doesn’t he forfeits. His claim that he only has to debate if Candace makes a valid claim is a farce. He thinks he’s the moderator of a one sided debate.

This is not a bad performance from him.

This is FORFEITING. And he should be called out for it.

I don’t know what the Internet has devalued debate to mean but debate is a real discipline. It has rules. He is the affirmative speaker, meaning he is arguing FOR a position. Candace is arguing against his position. She is the opposition. She makes her own claims to support her opposition, but she is the opposition in the debate. She does not need to define a resolution outside of her opposition except that Andrews position be rejected. And we know Andrew is the affirmative speaker because he is also advocating that a specific policy/political outcome be adopted (the trial of TR) using the frame of guilty/not guilty. And he chose the affirmative one. And if anyone is wondering if there’s confusion that her claim could have been misunderstood by him as affirmative that is incorrect. Her claim cannot be affirmative because then both positions would have the same implication/resolution: that TR was involved somehow. Not allowed because it’s not a true controversy and doesn’t ask for any particular position to be adopted. These are the rules of debate.

This is why this debate is so stupid and unfruitful. Andrew forfeited 30 minutes in and I will never get all this time back. Absolute clown.

I understand that people believe that a leftist killed Charlie Kirk, but from my understanding of the state presented evidence the state does NOT believe TR is a leftist and will argue his motive was not political.

Tyler Robinson was not political ACCORDING TO THE STATE. It was the state’s evidence of Lance twigs testimony that made the case that Tyler Robinson was not political and it was the state witness that said that Tyler Robinson never mentioned Charlie. The state will present another motive. Right?

The preliminary healing was an opportunity for the prosecution to present some of its arguments. These arguments will not be allowed to change.

From watching the preliminary hearing I sense that the state will argue Tyler Robinson killed CK because he wanted fame and infamy given that they argue he confessed to everyone, including an entire discord chat. And the provocative chronically online nature of the carved bullets.

Why is Andrew arguing that TR is a leftist then? If he is supposed to be arguing the state’s case?

And he obviously got insider evidence and information on this, so does TPUSA not believe the state’s case?

What is the point of having six fact checkers if Andrew is just bringing a bunch of new evidence from TPUSA; how does he have a leg to stand on when criticizing Candace for having unverified sources?

So he claims to be a sniper. His wife says he’s a sniper. Then he claimed to be a gunsmith. Then he claimed he was a robotic machinist. Then he says his service was only a year. Then he admits HE NEVER SERVED.

https://x.com/ConservativeG99/status/2088028653942931664/video/1?s=46

I feel sorry for young guys today. The absolute frauds they are offered as “leaders” and role models…the Manosphere, cryptobros, stolen valor types and fake trad men…this has to be on purpose.

Man. TPUSA can really pick ‘em.

In this video, Andrew talks a lot about being a free mason. He seems very proud to be a free mason. The problem is: He also says he’s orthodox Catholic. You cannot be both. Like the Roman Catholic Church, the orthodox Catholic Church prohibits its members from being Freemasons. So which is Andrew lying about?

Andrew also calls himself a paleo-conservative. This is a type of conservatism that has gone out of style. Tucker Carlson hasn’t described himself as a Paleo conservative, but I would describe him as very close to one. Probably the most famous Paleo conservative is Pat Buchanan. Many of you won’t know who that is…that’s how out of fashion it is. Paleo conservatives are often smeared as antisemitic & jingoistic. They oppose foreign interference in American affairs and are usually keenly critical of Israel. They are anti-immigration. The pro Israel, pro immigration, conservatism diminished any influence Paleo conservatives had by the early aughts. Andrew Wilson has repeatedly referred to himself as Libertarian, which is bizarre. You cannot be a libertarian paleo-conservative. They are oxymorons. One is for the free flow of labor markets (mass immigration) and the other is defined by its opposition to it. Additionally, Andrew demands that the law be guided by Christian ethics, which makes no sense in a libertarian framework. So which is Andrew lying about?

If you listen to Andrew Wilson, it becomes clear that his political idea is more closely align with a Christian anarcho-capitalism. Some anarcho-capitalist invented a paleo-libertarian brand that never took off and wouldn’t describe Andrew either because it opposed Christian political frameworks in favor of a milquetoast “religion is a bedrock but not exactly Christianity” Judeo-Christian type of framing. The whole reason for the fiction of a paleo-libertarian brand was to avoid describing oneself as “anarcho-capitalists” imo. Anarchy is not in the Overton Window of American politics.

Andrew also will cuss out anyone who calls his wife out for having several children from several different men and implying she is promiscuous. She’s not! (According to him!) However, in another interview, he talks about how he had to get a DNA tests for both of his children from her. What an amazing thing to say publicly by the way, both about your children and the mother of your children. So which is it Andrew? You think your wife is a ho or not?

I could go on for days.

This man is a total fraud.

I didn’t watch the entire thing. Who could. But I have a few speculations that came to me after watching:

1. The future of American politics will be split not by Right/Left but by Establishment/anti-Establishment: it’s very clear that the dichotomy of establishment and anti-establishment is forming and alliances between establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans are clear. That is why it was so easy for establishment Republicans (TPUSA) to make an ally with the establishment Democrats for this hit piece. It’s all very cozy.

2. Tuckers push for a third-party seems very mature and in this doc I really felt a very mature rebuttal completely formed. The Kirk assassination was the vehicle for a very calculated and established strategy to take down Candace & anti-establishment media in general. When I say mature, I mean something that is very deep and well defined. Something that takes time to form. I make that distinction because I’m not buying that Tucker or the response to forming third-party is organically spontaneous. I think it’s been planned for a while. I think it’s been in the wings since at least Tucker’s dismissal.

3. This leads me to believe that this is not a spur of the moment thing and this 3rd party convo formed before Charlie’s assassination. I think that Charles assassination has just been integrated into the conversation. I think the money is in the Establishment. The power too. And everyone at TP USA is interested in getting both and would have aligned themselves with anyone to take out Charlie Kirk, or cover it up to attain or maintain either money or power. If Charlie Kirk gave even a hint of defecting from the Republican Party he had a target on his back.

I find Tucker’s characterization absolutely craven and bizarre. Because either Candace is one of the most ghastly liar in the world or Erika is complicit in covering for the truth of her husband’s assassination. Like they don’t have a political disagreement?

I know I’m going to get downvoted. I don’t care! I’ll be that b!#&$.

Erika Kirk‘s mom claims to have something called chronic live disease.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic\_Lyme\_disease

In 2011 I contracted Lyme disease from a tick and I had to take doxycycline. The doxycycline was HARSH and awful. The whole ordeal lasted a month. At the time, I read online about people believing that they had something called post Lyme syndrome which is now called “Chronic Lyme”. Concerned, I asked my doctor about it. He had some opinions.

He said it’s made up. It’s a bunch of rich women who have a variety of symptoms, sometimes psychological, who cannot accept that no illness explains their symptoms. He said it’s rich people who have psychological or drug issues that doctor shop for narcotics (because somehow it causes debilitating pain that quacks will prescribe pain meds for). He said this idea started in California where Lyme isn’t even a big issue but rich people have more money than sense. These clinics that they set up just to treat this fake disease actually end up making people sick because the anabiotic’s are very strong and are administered by IV. These anabiotic‘s destroy your immune system by disrupting your natural microbes. Sometimes even causing an autoimmune response. Then these people stay sick when they never were sick in the first place. And get this. Most of these people admit they never tested positive for Lyme. I remember spending hours on these forums of people claiming they have this chronic Lyme and these people are clearly nuts. My doctor said a large percentage are women who can’t admit to themselves they are just going through the menopause. They don’t test positive for the disease-they are just narcissistic women who lose the attention of men as they aged and found “illness” to get attention. I also spoke to someone from the CDC (they track you and ask where you’ve been. He said it does not persist.

I notice that Candace and Baron (even recently on Julian Dorey’s podcast) are WAY too careful when talking about this Lyme disease that Erika’s mom has. They always insist that she’s very very sick (usually having a ton of verys) like she’s got cancer or something. 🧐

So I’m not saying she’s a faker.

But I am saying that of ALLLLL the conditions one can have…. “Chronic Lyme” is the one most associated with FAKERS with many scientists disputing it exists. Even if it does, it is so ill defined anyone can claim to have it. It’s nuts that you don’t even have to test positive for it!

There are a lot of people online who discuss negative experiences with family members who have this “chronic Lyme”. They feel it’s just another manipulative ploy from characters who want attention or maybe parents demanding care from children when they were abusive leaving the children to feel like the parents escape accountability for being awful in general. Lots of people claiming it’s a ploy to get sympathy and feel manipulated.

Huh. But why would EK’s mom want to use sympathy in a manipulative way to escape accountability for something?

I have a child with borderline intellectual disability or “mild” intellectual disability who can tell the most elaborate lies & accomplish a tremendous amount of deceit and manipulation lol. And they are real lies. Not fantasies. Opportunistic lies that follow a keen strategy. She keeps doing it because it’s kind of the thing she’s best at lol. She can’t win an argument with debate or logic obviously…but she can win lie her way in & out of things. There’s an intelligence here that she is demonstrating but I don’t what it is. All of our support peeps care about is getting her out of this habit and I agree. But none of them will tell me how she can manage to be so manipulative…from an intelligence perspective. She’s better at schmoozing and manipulating than any of my kids including the gifted ones. It’s taboo to describe it as a gift but it kind of is. So that I can redirect this “gift” somewhere else…what is it? It has to be a type of intelligence that isn’t captured on IQ tests. But surely it can be redirected. If only I knew the other side of this coin. Yes manipulation is bad but…what is it good for? 🤔

I found a very interesting research article. It’s dry, so I’ll summarize it. It basically talks about the motivations of loan gunman based on analysis of their manifesto.

I think it’s relevant to bring it up here because it reminded me how unique and almost impossibly fringe it was that Tyler Robinson had no manifesto. And after the preliminary hearing, it doesn’t appear that the state will argue he had a very strong motive. That would make him an extraordinary outlier.

Additionally, this particular scientific research best illustrates how much we know about what motivates extremist or non-extremist actors. It illustrates the extraordinary amount of information we have on exactly what works to recruit “lone actors” or any participant in terrorism/political assassination. There’s a lot of people who believe that Tyler Robinson was recruited online to be a Patsy (though he wouldn’t have known he was a patsy). I think Candace Owens has has alluded to this by saying he may have played a part by hiding clothes. This article not only shows how easy it is to recruit actors but also, if you know what you’re looking for, how common it is. It’s a daily occurrence now and in no way a fringe conspiracy theory. The internet is a playground to recruit people into criminal behavior. And there’s a playbook on how to do it. Here’s the article:

https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.12593

On a related note: One of the things that bothers me the most about the Charlie Kirk assassination is that we are asked to accept that every remote possibility or anomaly happened at every turn. From the magic bullet, the ambulance not being on call at the scene, the roofs not being swept, the drones not going up, George Zinn who randomly immediately claimed he did it with no motivation that acted as a perfect decoy, no manifesto, the unexperienced shooter getting Charlie after taking only one lucky shot, paving over the crime scene immediately, cameras not on or the battery dying at a critical moment, the dogs not finding the gun TWICE, all the people online who seemed to have foreknowledge…& as Erika says “and the list goes on and on and on…”

There’s over a dozen anomalies and that’s not how anomalies work lol. I have seen the videos where people justify the magic bullet by basically saying “sometimes bullets act weird”. If it were just one weird thing, I’d be on board. The whole thing is a literal freak show though.

My daughter (10) over eats and I think some of it is dyscalculia related. Let me explain: She takes far more food than her siblings while actually thinking she is taking less food. She does not gauge portion size appropriately & when she wants to sneak more, it’s an insane amount of food. We don’t restrict food in general but we do enforce “balance” & restrict junk food. Recently she snuck into her Halloween stash of candy & ate 35 pieces of candy in one sitting (counted wrappers). She’s allowed 3 a week. (She gets other treats) When I speak to her it’s like she has no idea how much MORE candy she just ate than the allowed 3. She thinks she’ll just not have candy next week and that should be fine. I try to explain to her she had months of candy in 15 minutes. She absolutely does not believe me. We took away her Halloween candy & she thinks we are monsters because once her brother snuck 5 pieces and isn’t this the same thing?

She just had 7 juice boxes. She’s allowed one. She knows she took more but she doesn’t get how INSANELY more she took. She can’t comprehend how far outside the line she is and how much MORE she has consumed than someone else. Stuff like this happens all the time.

She really didn’t think I’d notice 7 juice boxes gone. Yeah she shouldn’t have taken it but kids do sneak stuff. She’s just so bad at it. Anyway, her health has suffered this year & since Halloween she gained weight & the doctor says we have to do something about it. Just wondering if this is all food or is some of it honestly not comprehending quantity and it will get better. I’d hate to give her food issues if it may improve with her development.

Because why would they not ask for comment if THEY were the source? Isn’t that THE ONLY reason they would not ask for comment?