John Galt
@dadiani_george • 5,798 subscribers
Catholic Cultural conservative-London. Britain First 🚫Zionist🚫Globalist🚫NWO🚫WEF 🚫Multiculturalism🚫Immigration RTs don't=Endorsements - Opinions My Own
Videos
I never knew Kobe Bryant - not even his name - until his tragic death, along with his daughter and 7 others, all taken violently and before their time. As a conservative, I knew Charlie Kirk; I followed and admired him; felt his passing profound sadness. I recently watched Vanessa Bryant’s eulogy for Kobe and their daughter, Gigi. It was real emotion, hard to listen to, but at the same time, it was so touching it was heartwarming. It was a message of lasting love, of deep unending loss, and a personal insight into who Kobe, and Gigi, really were. That kind of insight leaves you feeling as though you’d really known someone, even if only for a moment, and feeling the loss in that moment when you realise they’re no longer there for you to admire, appreciate and really get to know. By the time she’d finished, in so many words, she had thanked God for the time they’d had together, revealed heartfelt intimate details about who they really were, and told us that nothing will ever be the same again. That’s the point of a eulogy. It’s to get to know the person we’ve just lost. Not the neighbour, or the shopkeeper up the road, not the basketball player or the Oscar winner nor the political activist, but the actual person. I never knew Kobe, but by the end I felt as if I knew what kind of man he was, and to be honest it put a lump in my throat more than once. It was very powerful. That’s instinctive, by the way - not learned or scripted. I’ve given eulogies for a best friend, my mum, dad and my granddad. It’s instinctive because on some level we all know that the struggle you once overcame together and now laugh about, or the silly voice someone used every morning to wake you up for school, or the fact they never once missed kissing your nan goodnight in fifty years, all tell us far more about a person than any figure ever could. It’s instinctive because as humans it’s a catharsis we all need, to begin healing, honouring and remembering. After Erika’s eulogy for Charlie, I felt nothing but anger. She begins, in so many words, by telling us that Charlie’s death was a gift from God that Charlie himself had asked for; she shares anecdotes of how others comforted her; tells us how grateful Charlie was for her; and even takes a moment to voice resentment towards men in general, lecturing on how to live: “your wife is not your servant.” The cheers from the mourners were as cheers from an evangelical movement. The whole eulogy played out like the kind of sermon you’d expect at a megachurch - complete with calls to action and, of course, for funding. Please listen to it properly. It’s mostly about Erika, about what “Charlie thought of her.” Then it challenges, chastises and lectures. By the time she’s finished, she’s thanked God for the situation she finds herself in, forgiven the man we’re told killed Charlie, and told us how great things will be going forward - now she’s in charge. Erika’s eulogy for Charlie was scripted - clearly not by her - and as a result, it was not heartfelt, and failed to connect, with anyone. Vanessa’s, by contrast, was clearly written - not scripted - by her. They were her words, and she felt and delivered them so powerfully that we all grieved with her - even someone like me who never even knew who he was - and thanked God for him having been the man he was. One eulogy is a celebration of a life, of gratitude at having shared it, a reckoning with the unfairness of it, and a promise to honour him always. The other is a celebration of loss, of her gratitude for having paid the price of “God’s love” with her husband’s life, of moving on, and of what comes next. There’s nothing wrong with looking forward, but that’s not a eulogy. Maybe the kind ChatGPT might write given some prompts, but not the eulogy of someone who instinctively knows that what they’ve lost can never be replaced. It’s true that everyone grieves differently. But it’s also true that some people do not, or cannot, grieve at all.
John Galt77,595 просмотров • 4 дней назад
The Rode Mic Theory: A Timeline Let me lay the incidents out in order, and I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Late March 2025. Charlie Kirk started to go hard against a war with Iran, breaking with the neocon/zionist establishment in Washington. Charlie is thought to have had a significant influence on Trump's restrained posture during Midnight Hammer. Charlie was exerting real influence, and making real enemies. Early April 2025. And the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, places an order with explosives manufacturer Accurate Energetic Systems (AES) for an EXEPTIONALLY SMALL ANTI-PERSONNEL EXPLOSIVE DEVICE. The order - later confirmed by a FOIA response obtained by Baron Coleman detailed the order date, the description, that there was a construction/specification drawing, and a deadline. The order specifies that the device must fit inside another object so precisely that the host can be resealed to look as though it was never touched. ONLY TWO STIPULATIONS ARE FIRM; it must fit inside that second device, and it must be delivered on schedule. The deadline was August 25th, 2025 - just over two weeks before Charlie Kirk is killed. September 10th, 2025. Charlie Kirk is assassinated. Within minutes, the crime scene is contaminated. The missing camera. Terrel Farnsworth is filmed removing the camera and SD card positioned directly behind Charlie - the angle that would have captured everything that happened behind the table where he was sitting and fell to the floor. When asked why, Farnsworth said he took the SD card so Erika Kirk wouldn't see footage of her husband's death despite that footage already circulating worldwide online. The footage he did show to Candace Owens, revealed no visible exit wound in Charlie's back. None of this is disputed. The scene. He's carried to the SUV with his T-shirt bunched and held in place - negligent by any account, with a strange focus on the shirt. Here is where the supposition begins: if the kill device had been built into the Rode mic Charlie was wearing - a mic whose screen and casing use glass and components that shatter into fragments - then bunching the shirt would keep debris from falling at the scene. Photographs of his torso appear to show injuries below the right nipple, and a patch of skin where an adhesive had recently been removed - consistent with something attached and then taken off, perhaps behind the table, in view of the very camera that Farnsworth removed. The journey. The SUV is later found to contain a large quantity of shattered fragments - not broken sunglasses or a shattered phone screen, but unexplained fragments of shattered glass. Multiple people present have since recounted the drive in detail. Not one has ever mentioned these fragments or debris. Everyone who travelled with Charlie removed their clothing at the hospital and went home in scrubs, saying their clothes were bloodied. None of that clothing was taken into evidence - though if the supposition holds, it would have carried explosive residue. The hospital footage. CCTV of Charlie arriving at the hospital was removed by the FBI and has not been produced or entered into evidence. It has no obvious bearing on the case against the accused - except that if Charlie arrived without his shirt. The shirt itself would have carried traces of explosives. None of the clothing removed from Charlie or any of the team was ever recovered by investigators. The vehicle. Within days of the murder, the SUV was cleaned and handed to an auctioneer. Vehicles tied to a murder case are normally impounded until the case has been to court - often for several years. This one was cleaned, stripped, and sold anonymously at auction on 22 November 2025. When it sold, the seats Charlie had been carried on - the ones seen bloodied in other images - had been removed. Removed before sale, and possibly before the auctioneer ever took possession. Four days after the killing - a Sunday. The paver who resurfaced the murder scene later described, on the Shawn Ryan show, being called that Sunday morning with a "paving emergency" - the first such call in twenty years on the job. With his own team off for the weekend, he pulled in family members. He says he was told he'd be helping out Charlie and the authorities, and that when he arrived, ten inches of soil had already been excavated from the area. The scene was then surfaced over. His account has not been challenged by anyone in authority. October 10th, 2025. One month to the day after Charlie Kirk's death, AES - the manufacturer named in that FOIA-confirmed order - is destroyed in a massive explosion, killing 16 people. The official cause is given as an industrial accident, but this timeline notes only the date and lets the reader weigh it. To conclude: A man who tried to stop a war is dead. The evidence was cleaned, paved over, and sold. And only questions remain. Questions that, as of now, no one in authority is willing ask, let alone answer. Coincidence can explain any one of these. But it does cannot explain all of them.
John Galt46,565 просмотров • 5 дней назад
Candace Owens I think this probably goes some way to explaining it.
John Galt284,969 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад
Candace Owens Something doesn’t add up. Michael Savage hits the nail on the head here.
John Galt71,998 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад
Больше нет контента для загрузки