Even Grok knows
(twitter.com)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
8 comments:
Toast message
How the fuck did he have such early knowledge? Answer: He got the "mission complete" from his operatives who killed him.
Why did he even write about that? Answer: Because he idiotically believed it would make him look innocent, given that he did it. He was so involved in it, that he thought this would be reasonable.
# [Nick Fuentes: Charlie Kirk was NOT turning against Israel; WOULD have supported Trump's war on Iran.](https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ATCNTt2MS/)
He is wrong about that. Of course they had to gain a lot of it - it set an example to others, showing what happens if you are beholden to jewish money, are owned by them, and turn against them. You could say it's a message to the likes of Trump, and all the politicians paid and created by AIPAC.
Also it was a way to prevent millions of *originally* zionist conservatives to be swayed away by Charlie Kirk himself, who was a renown zionist paid by jewish donors. And in turn sell him as a staunch zionist while the iron was hot, and his opposition to jews came out in the last weeks or months of his life.
> Mossad is known for "neutralizing" targets in much more discreet ways
Not if the message is: "If we own you and you turn against us, this is what happens. And we'll get away with it easily."
> Kirk wasn't "turning" on the jews; just look at how he got to where he was, who he married and how (and where) they met.
THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT. The jews OWNED him, they MADE him, they arranged his wife, they funded TPUSA. And then, in his last weeks or months he turned against them. He rejected jewish donor money, he refused to go to israel, he was against israel's genocide, he insisted on exposing the Epstein files. He was supposed to be their golden zionist boy.
How stupid is Nick that he doesn't even see this? If he would at least *say* this and *then* argue against it - fine. But he just argues with straw men, and flawed non-arguments.
> Charlie was locked-in for life.
Correct. And the moment when he ceased to be, they killed him - and his life ended.
Yeah. He was...