By Mark Aurelius
There is nothing new or unusual about blaming the enemy—even if those blamed really did not do anything.
This is precisely the backbone idea of “false flag operations” so endemic to modern politics (that is to say, commit a political crime, usually of war crime with a staged attack, and then manipulate the naïve masses by dominant media blowhards by blaming your stealth deed onto your opposition—as in switching out the visible flag to your chosen ‘no-good-doer’ as thus blamed).
Remember that one of the quintessential descriptors of Satan of the Old Testament is that of the ‘accuser.’
For example, a chosen no-do-gooder might be one publicly accused of committing an assassination when in fact the crime is more complex and secretly far more manipulated often with some patsy included.
But notice now how quickly are politicians and the mainstream media emphatically indulging discussions about the left being ‘radicalized,’ as equally well the right being ‘radicalized’ (both sides being thus being accused of some form of “attitudinal disease”) just after Charlie Kirk was publicly assassinated in broad daylight, in a theater of hundreds of witnesses in personal attendance thence scattered into disarray, and hundreds of millions more witnessing the traumatic event on vivid video (giving the crime so much more psychological impact into a traumatized and dramatized nation).
J.D. Vance hosting a Charlie Kirk podcast allowing Stephen Miller to say: “… With God and as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks, and make America safe again for the American people. It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”
The bold blatancy of an act itself was radical, not so unlike the JFK assassination (which plenty people have come to think Israel was behind that death because John K. was trying to stop Israel from producing atom bombs—and Israel was adamantly not interested in a change of plans). That too was an audacious and sensationally traumatic black pill carried out during a family affair public parade.
Still, we note that before the word ‘radical’ became so politicized it was more synonymous to words like: thorough, complete, total, entire, absolute and exhaustive because the root meaning radix meant ‘root’ as in getting to the root of the problem (or pulling the dam weed out of the ground with its entire root system intact so none of it stays within the soil and continue to propagate its mangled manifestation—so discountenanced by the aesthetics of gardeners and landowners alike). That’s rad as in rad-i-cal! And frankly borrowed from good old-fashioned dirty work and clothing.
This was, of course, before modern science and Wall Street marketing alike, created a need for all manner of sophisticated deadly poisons left over from chemical warfare stocks of World War 1 (after which the idea of killing humans by way of chemical death was outlawed) even while the killing of other species of things with various chemistries was still ranked far less so on the moral scale of human justice.
Incidentally, there are so-called radicals out there, at large, who believe in outlawing of all manner of chemical poisoning used to kill any and all form of biological life, and the planet in general. Moreover, they purport to have moral and even rational reasons to feel as the do. Yes, those radicals having reasons (or reckoning).
But yes, they probably have hatreds in their hearts? No doubt. We need to contact Wall Street Public Relations firms right-a-way so all will know society needs to flush away those angry feelings.
Whereas now especially with the politicization of the root-word ‘radical’ we are well aware it displays more disparagingly descriptions: revolutionaries, revisionists, leftists, right-wingers, fanatics, militants, zealots and extremists! Whew. Problems.
So suddenly not just Wall Street public relations firms but an entire employment of a well-funded arsenal of covert intelligence operations including all manner of bags of dirty deeds. We are talking smear tactics and outlandish lies. You got to love the drama.
Still, on the other hand, as logic had it, and if you think about it, normally when people contend with their real problems they want to solve they generally want to do it in a way that actually deals effectively with the problem—not halfheartedly with lame strategies or outcomes—so they could assume engaging in so-called radical methods could be a positive thing in the sense of being efficacious and thorough?
But when in limelight of politics things turn to a sour whiff and the term ‘radical’ becomes no-go zone.
Incidentally in today’s world that has many real and serious problems, that arguably need real and radical solutions, the word, and hence and method that could be so-labeled, is nevertheless ‘anathema’ [or “an accursed thing” from Latin anathema “an excommunicated person; as in the ‘curse’ of excommunication.”]
Radical solutions are NOT allowed! EVER. PERSONA NON GRATA. You see labels have power.
You mean like the world doesn’t need gardeners who insist on pulling weeds with their hands or by using simple digging tools? “Use the dam poisoning tactics Billy Bob, besides they are so sophisticated and simple to use.”
Meanwhile Google AI answers question: “How many herbicides are there?”
There are approximately 150 distinct active ingredients used in herbicides, which are formulated into hundreds of different commercial products. These herbicides are further classified by their mode of action (how they kill plants) and site of action (the specific biochemical pathway they target).
Yes, a huge array of war-like technological remedies to attack unwanted disgusting weeds—and none of them require that you radically pull out the roots manually or get your hands dirty or your back sore while on your knees. And nothing radical in the pervasive use of these new shiny solutions many people seem to tolerate as normal.
Simply then, our term ‘radical,’ as now castigated around, is besmirched as it has become especially politicized in both its connotations and denotations.
Such is this psychological world with its panoplies of word games, such as smearing people who attempt to deal with real world issues by practicing what they believe to be “thorough, complete, total, absolute and exhaustive” remedies (that is from the first grouping of synonyms mentioned above).
Here then is the irony: the United States of America, like much of the Western world, has accumulated a whole hall of a lot of serious issues that have not ever really been resolved as most fester and get worst. Arguably some serious radical solutions might be the best way forward?
One such serious and real issue is the dire need for our society to rid this country of both the Democratic and Republican parties (both highly corrupt for several decades—both way beyond reform—along with a highly corrupted main stream media that complements their corruption, and now in several offshoots on the internet.
And along with these corrupt realities, including the gigantic public debt that will literally destroy the masses, we also have the government of Israel, and some cabals of powerful Jews, dominating much of the political environment in most Western countries, and not for the benefit of gentiles anywhere, etc.
But apparently suggesting any kind of radical solution such as this one above of firing democrats and republicans—that is ridding the world of both of these corrupt parties, and throwing some in jail, as a start, is not allowed because it could be labeled the R-word (and now we know anything with this label cannot be good).
Instead, news cycles feature advocates to discuss the need to hunt down radicals and talk about this nefariously pressing problem of the “radicalization of young people” such as those who are using the Internet to freely and fluently, or at least visiting certain websites, and especially those sharing ‘forbidden’ ideas (such as those ubiquitously considered hateful).
Whereas, in an open-minded world, people might think it is possible certain, well-selected, although thoroughly effective (remember those synonyms) reforms are exactly what is called for to get the world back to some semblance of sanity—rather than continuing to exist in a world dominated by false politicians and prophets, false solutions, secret conspiracies of control and surveillance, and constant corruption that keeps getting worse.
However, this argument is not meant to belittle concern about the semantics of the label ‘radical,’ as in suggesting it is not a word people should be unduly concerned, as certainly all manner of radical solutions can produce all manner of radical outcomes, many that could potentially be harmful and arguably evil. Or at least—when new solutions are tried there may be fresh losers and winners and not all may be happy with the outcome.
Someone’s ox gets could get gored and it could be people who are not used to getting the short end of the stick. We are talking about actually changing the status quo. Likely the people currently in power or currently benefiting in any significant way will not welcome change.
For example, what if Israel could not get away with its design on dominating all of Palestine—no matter what extremist actions it has become used to getting away with? What if others finally put a stop to their overbearing supremist racism? Do you not think they would gladly submit, and readily be willing to appease the world? Hardly. No peoples engage more sophistry of language and deception tactics—nor tolerate any limits on their array of power politics.
When deceivers can no longer get over the masses with lies, they will likely engage all manner of censorship. On this day that this essay is being composed, September 16, 2025, we can find the headline:
Bondi faces criticism for saying DOJ will ‘target’ anyone who engages in ‘hate speech’
“Attorney General Pam Bondi faced bipartisan backlash Tuesday over her comments that the Justice Department “will absolutely target” anyone who targets others with “hate speech” in the wake of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
This of course presumes the murder was primarily motivated by hate (which could be a wrong assumption); but this aftermath fallout is having such opportunistic consequences.
Or this recent piece:
White House promises crackdown on left-wing ‘terror’ after Kirk killing
“Senior White House officials have said they will dismantle an alleged “vast domestic terror movement” that they claim led to the killing of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk last week.”
That is an awfully presumptuous allegation like so much of what the White House engages? The facts seem to align with this being more of the same crackdown on leftists who are associated with criticizing Israel’s genocide.
What really has changed? Are right-wingers, en masse, criticizing Israel to any significant degree? Well, some of the younger generations were.
Don’t get me wrong. There seems to exist plenty of evidence there are forms of politicalized and covert infrastructures of radicality wanting to go crazy and kinetic, some well-funded, able to engage violence and chaos in the United States, including, and especially from the left (as already witnessed in the last years); but to claim this latest assassination was obviously connected is presumptuous at best (especially since more and more contradicting evidence keeps appearing about the so-called facts of the assassination case.
The whole official analysis is now already in deep question, and for people to believe what the mainstream media, or the FBI, or Democrats or Republicans are propagating is naïve. It’s not just naïve it is stuporous to stupid.
Both Patel and Bongino are ass-kissing Israeli suck ups. And they are lying about Jeffery Epstein. Their current handling is worse than then that sheriff in Las Vegas who was obviously being intimidated by the Feds from Washington after the so-called mass concert shooting in 2017 (spoiler—no one died at that concert—it was all staged including bullet shots sounds emanating from the sound system—there were thousands of cells phones present and no good photos of real death—funny how that works).
Remember—suddenly the Harvey Weinstein sex scandal broke big and took the bright lights off Las Vegas bungled reporting and the question marks? Was that deliberate? Whereas now the grueling, dire, genocide in Gaza has been overshadowed with a black pall, as equally the new flotilla meant to break through and deliver aid which entire countries cannot do, plus other important news such as related to Qatar and Saudi Arabia, etc. Where were the announcements that the United Nations voted for Palestine to be recognized as a nation? Huge but no fireworks.
What if there is no vast domestic terror network at all behind this campus killing? For example, what if it turns out the Discord social media text messaging platform, that supposedly engaged in coordinating this assassination with multiple leftist tranny people, was not so much an active cell of co- conspiracists but rather manipulated by hired agents who were neither leftists, nor transsexuals, nor anything like people have been led to believe as alienated outsiders—similar to how revelations came out about how many insider “federal agents” had infiltrated the attack on the U.S. Capital on September 6th 2022 (which, nevertheless, to this day, many of the left refuse to acknowledge because they have to believe in their jaundiced hearts that most of Donald Trump’s MAGA fans, naïve as they may be, are at best narrow-minded fascists at heart).
Projection much?
It is precisely because many on the right are not as naïve as many on the left seem to assume, whereas plenty on the left are far more illiberal and intolerant then themselves presume, and frankly they are flat-out prejudiced against the entire right (which allows rightwing awareness of leftist predilections that will likely motivate many on the right to fall for this ploy of the current White House to go after radical lefties, at least initially mostly the left, but with a net result all Americans get penalized with more limitations on personal freedoms.
It was radical leftists that took the gay and transgender rights issue and pushed it to extremes of insult in-your-face, lewd public parades and tranny hour with children at the library, along with all manner of ludicrous demanding of recognizing 31 flavors of sexual identity, etc.
Whereas, what better boogie-man-or-mom than a person who has variations from the standard issue of a male body with male genitalia and male personality, or female body with female genitalia and female personality? There is no way a crossed gender person can fit into a statistically normative lifestyle. It is natural for alienation and resentments. For example, if a person who appears to be female has male genitalia or vice versa there is no way they can have a so-called normal romantic relationship (regardless of medical intervention).
Add that to the fact that the so-called God of the Bible is cruelly repressive towards any suggestion of gay activity of any kind and you have a repressive cocktail for sexual repression and prejudice.
Regardless as to whether Stephen King said: “Charlie Kirk believed homosexuals should be stoned to death” that fact is it was the Old Testaments prescription. So naturally the idea of transexuals being a radical paradigm in a Christian country is inevitable creating various forms of negative feelings and attitudes on both sides (and fodder for political intrigues).
Check out: Purported Text Exchange Between Kirk’s Alleged Assassin and Trans Boyfriend
Read the actual exchange and ask yourself if you are gullible to believe such horsasshit? The relationship that the purported shooter had with others by way of text messaging seems to be a series of concocted lies manufactured by some low IQ comedian. It is beyond an insult to present this type of rubbish to the American people regarding the serious subject of murder—clearly political murder.
Luckily then there has been, of course, a lot of “citizen journalism” going on about what really happened at the Utah Valley University shooting, just like there has been “radically different” reporting on the so called facts on other earlier cases of assassinations (such as the faked assassination of Donald Trump in Butler Pennsylvania—had some fake blood dabbed on the top of his ear—it was not even dripping when he stood back up—the minor wound completely healed in record time) and major shooting events over the past years varied significantly to that of the mainstream media. And like these current acts of distortion and echo-chambered lies coming at us today from important pundits and politicians, they were lying to us back in those instances as well.
This tragic event has already created all manner of competing and contradicting statements of fact and speculation. Seemingly this reality will continue, with many peoples coming to believe radically different things—just as what happened in regarding, say Covid-19, previous elections.
Likely within all the disparate and competing explanation the truth will come out; but as usual the naïve masses, will come to fall prey to believe the powers-that-be.
But guaranteed the facts stated as facts by public servants and the mainstream are already being shown to be radically deceiving and highly questionable—and the promotion of answers are already being shoved into our faces.
Frankly it is too early to know with any certainty what really took place but it could be very different deep down than what many might be willing to contemplate. This should not surprise the more skeptical and cynical.
Meanwhile citizen journalism along with some alternative news websites and podcasts have been doing an outstanding job doing ‘real’ investigative journalism and analysis for quite a while; including way before 9/11 (an event actually perpetrated by Israel for the purpose to get the United States to go with war with Israel’s enemies in the Middle East ever since—under the rubric Netanyahu’s War Against Terrorism). See Christopher Bollyn’s website, videos, and three books.
[Note it is arguably ‘radical’ to attack your own claimed partner (Israel attacking the Twin Towers of the U.S.) in a “false flag operation” to end up with America spending billions of dollars, and military equipment, operations and personal for Israel’s benefit. Not to mention how 9/11 was used to create the Department of Homeland Security and Patriot Act to become not so unlike a 21st century Bolshevik Cheka to quash freedoms for Americans. Is the noose tightening? You dam right it is.]
Remember? US ‘plans to attack seven Muslim states’
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/9/22/us-plans-to-attack-seven-muslim-states
“Presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark says the White House devised a five-year plan after the 9/11 strikes to attack seven majority-Muslim countries.”
Some Americans know the darker truths but Israel still exploits and dominates the United States—and if seems fairly clear Israel and U.S. based Mossad wanted Charlie Kirk taken out of the picture because he was changing his tunes and putting question marks in the youth.
In one week, the so-called facts about this assassination have flipped over, and under and around more than a sous chef tossing a stir fry. Nothing adds up. Controversy runs wilder and crazier than a weed patch with skunk droppings.
Regardless, this is a fascinating case for conspiracy theorists!
Yes, many alternative reporters are conspiring. And if you remember the word ‘spiritual’ comes from the Latin word spiritus meaning “to breathe.” To conspire means two or more people breathing together (usually thought so in secret and usually thought to carry out some illegal or disgraceful deed hence the need to huddle together in private).
Why study conspiracy theories? 1) Many are interesting, and 2) many are like a puzzle that challenges you to try to figure things out in news and strange ways—challenging you and your assumptions, it’s like being a detective 3) many very intelligent people study them if for no other reason than because 4) some of them are true and in fact some that seem the least likely to sound true are true, and 5) you are a blockhead of stupidity if you smugly assume this is not how the real world operates—when it is precisely how it often works!
This assassination is not going away off the radar any time soon. Nor will the competing theories. Still alternative media is coming up with some of the best real questions, higher awareness of the real contradictions, richer levels of alternative explanations, and likely are a lot closer to the truth as any dog with a good nose will get.
And yes the red herrings are equally strewn about.
One thing many agree on and that is the main stream narrative is not adding up and is full of all manner of confusion and incompetence (and misleading lies).
More importantly the consequences of the fallout are astronomical in consequence.
Matt Kim on the YouTube.com is one such voice worthy of your attention. Watch:
Who benefits the most from the murder of Charlie Kirk?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH-R7-1iQLw
“The Body Language Guy” is another such investigative, citizen journalist who has come out with ‘many’ important and interesting podcasts on YouTube.com questioning the official narrative of the facts and circumstances of this political circus, and it is important people pay as much attention to some of these alternative sources as they may choose to do for our so-called leaders and the mainstream media.
These ‘text messages’ between Charlie Kirk’s shooter and his boyfriend look FAKE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeGQlc3si1s
Another important alternative investigative newscaster of Kim Iverson usually way ahead of the crowd and with her honed instincts brings us truth many other pundits fail to equal.
Was There a Second Shooter in the Charlie Kirk Attack?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA0XvLvXNd4
and:
Bill Ackman Accused of BLACKMAILING Charlie Kirk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0J7qFWqrbI
But before we get to far into the weeds on assassination conspiracy, which is not the main focus for this article, but rather to point out there are ulterior motives being employed to further the noose of censorship, surveillance and incarceration of Americans and American freedoms.
For example, it is important to continue to witness how human nature is being conspired against—such as in manipulating the term ‘hatred’ as something concrete and intolerable.
Why has the word ‘hate’ becoming so politicized?
Surely people around the country have noticed how much ‘hatred’ is in fact being fomented and seemingly encouraged by both the “radical left” and the “radical right” (but not so much for the mild middle). And frankly the divide and conquer strategy has been effective.
This radicalization of the masses is no accident. And now with a multiplicity of echo chambers and psychology techniques applied to social media different groups can be further compartmentalized more than ever into believing widely different things and theories that take as gospel facts (and as they themselves within their various cult-like camps become intolerant of alternative explanations).
Still, most of us do not like to be thought of as anti-social or exclusive. Consequently the more “politically correct” people want to be perceived as having attitudes and behaviors within the piddling-middling—even if such purported middle-ground compromises and methodologies are routinely ineffective and more or less guaranteed to fail.
Best not to be seen as any kind of threat. Better be safe than sorry.
And now if you seem to act with hostility or harbor antagonist attitudes well this is proof-positive you are a deplorable hater!
Another anathema—heaven forbid you have any depth and complexity which expands beyond tight and narrow judgments.
To hate is another politicized manifestation of being evil—even though the word as noun, verb, adjective, etc., has many denotations, connotations and synonyms.
It is so human, or happily humane, so angelic, and even godlike to ‘love’ others (even if usually for specific and somewhat selfish reasons); whereas, it is considered inhumane and even demonic in character to communicate any kind of attitude of animosity against another or group (especially the protected classes).
It can be argued an ‘attitude’ of animosity toward others for whatever reasons now is prohibited by the politically correct (especially those trying to destroy free speech—the real aim of related holier-than-thou legislation and preaching).
It is more indoctrination. An “attitude of animosity” as hatred is supposedly equivalent to engaging in actual acts of criminality and violence. This is now taken as kosher thinking. All strong reaction save Love the Levant must be squelched and deplored—especially if you have adapted any demeaner of distrust or disrespect toward anything associated with Jews, Israel or Zionists.
None of these people who are now radicalized to create radical legislation, so much so to kill the Bill of Rights really and suddenly give much of a dam if people act out hatred against gentiles like white Europeans. Charlie Kirk was a white gentile but this was about his latest postures relating the Israeli government. This is what we are clearly learning from alternative sleuths on the Internet that they want to close down.
Candace Owens, a close friend of Charlie Kirk knows! And the world needs to pay attention to her voice:
They Are Lying About Charlie Kirk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czVBmqZP6Ss
She has several videos of late. Pay attention.
Meanwhile hate is as real and arguably as human as any human attitude.
Surely many people hate Donald Trump and MAGA.
To deny normal and healthy people hate is naïve.
Or to claim there never is a proper place for such an attitude is equally deceptive and devious.
No celebrating Kirks death is not a sign of normalcy. And yes, people should be concerned. Whereas many on the right equally hate the so-called snowflakes on the left.
Still, it seems in a potentially evil and criminal world some things such as some behaviors should be hated—or at least aggressively and passionately opposed—including with the use of harsh acrimony.
To suggest “attitudes of animosity” automatically leads to violence is a blatant and deceptively lie. It is the kind of argument a devil would make.
What about the many young college students who focused their feelings of animosity toward the Israeli bloodlust killing and slaughter of innocent Palestinians and were told they were acting out inappropriately because they expressed outrage against Israeli violence? Even if you can argue their attitudes and gestures are comprised of hatred can sane and civilized citizens really condemn such public actions?
They were told their protestations were acts of hatred when in fact it is the Israeli society that was, and still is, acting out real “acts of hatred” against those indigenous peoples. The phrase double standard pales in comparison.
Hatred is part of being human, which is not to argue all forms and kinds of what people today label as hatred is equal or acceptable.
Hatred is a human attitude connected to emotions, thoughts, and other attitudes. It can be hostility and defense like a mama bear protecting her cubs.
While Israelis attack numerous countries and peoples in the Middle East its representatives constantly preach to the rest of the world how much hatred infects the souls of all these gentiles. It is beyond hypocrisy. To even listen to the vile lies of Benjamin Netanyahu and his facile face of duplicity is to see how wickedness takes a human form. Shortly after the death of Kirk he appeared on Fox News saying:
“… This is a worldwide problem, the people on the extremes, the radical Islamists and their union with the ultra-progressives, they often speak about human rights, they speak about free speech but they use violence to take down their enemies …”
People have a right and arguably a duty to, first, be who they are, as individualists, and especially to act with hostility toward those who they perceive as a threat to their well-being or the well-being of others (just like the legal right to self-defense).
Why is it claimed Israel’s enemies are terrorists but Israelis are not so referred as such?
If Zionists are indiscriminately killing and starving Palestinians ruthlessly in the Levant and your awareness prompts you to protest vociferously, should the world settle for Zionists and Jews to proclaim you are a radical anti-Semite and need to be dealt with?
These bogus arguments are themselves evil.
Or you are told that most people unjustly hate Jews simply because they are Jews—as if the world should continue to believe Jews are always so innocent. It is bull, baloney bunkum and everyone knows it. Even during the pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe Jews were exploiting peoples financially and exploiting them with their domination of the alcohol markets. But all we here about is the so-called claims about poisoning the wells and drinking children’s blood.
Before Jews mass migrated to the United States in they were expelled from hundreds of communities over many centuries and not just European Christian communities. But is always come back to the idea people have negative attitudes simply because they are Jewish—and not the behavior acted out toward those harboring hostility. Strange.
Who are the people leading the onslaught to destroy the 1ˢᵗ and 2ⁿᵈ Amendments here in the United States?
Guaranteed, these are the real aims of much of this political theater including the aftermath of Kirk’s death.
Questions about morality are turned on their head: it is not Israeli or IDF engaging in criminal acts, such as wanton murder, torture, starvation, or actions of genocide in Gaza and the West Bank, or deliberate extortion of land; but rather the fact you, as witness to these realities, now harbor negative feelings (opprobrium and animosity) toward those freely engaged in actually doing these criminal activities. The game is so devious.
This is why juicy words like hatred or love (as abstract as they both are) and with all their many denotations and connotations, are such wondrous tools of political propaganda.
Look at how much “anti-hatred propaganda” and “anti-gun legislation” has been created over the last few decades to stem criticism.
What is really radical is that people are not allowed to have moral feelings like outrage and anger appropriately suited to the crimes that are being committed.
Apparently then, only people who act always as moderates, with little to no inclinations to engage in any kind of radical expression can be thought tolerable—even in a world of massive corruption and substantial exploitation?
In a real world of Machiavellian politics how viable would a people, society or political entity be if they were incapable or hostility and who failed to manifest vociferous opposition to what is perceived as a threat or enemy (especially when confronted with a sophisticated and cunning opposition)?
The End of this Part: Note this essay is getting too long for one essay. Expect a follow up in the days ahead.
Amen.
P.S. Israel, you are coming down your mountain, you and your Yahweh. Amen.
-###-