The reason it’s so easy for her to forgive him is because neither nor anyone else actually shot “Charlie”. It was clearly a case of Hollywood magic. Whether or not the patsy is complicit or innocent in the psy-op is anyone’s guess. In the case of JFK, they killed the patsy. In the case of OKC, there’s reason to believe that McVeigh, an undercover agent of the state, played a role similar to Charlie’s and was similarly rewarded with a fake death, new identity, and comfortable retirement. In other case of school shootings the alleged perpetrators conveniently died and it’s likely that many of them were wholly concocted fictional persons. In any case the patsy is expendable and besides the point, which is what nefarious agenda(s) the puppet-masters plan to inflict on we the people in the wake of the fear, confusion, and division.
Yes this occurred to me — that he's not dead, Tyler didn't do it and that EK has no emotional attachment to the CK character and probably not to the actor who played him. I'm not familiar enough with how these operations work to specualte on what his new life or new assignment might be, but it's a big world. Some (not all by any means) in my sphere are specualting that he was killed; I don't think so. From the point of view of his handlers, he did a fantastic job and his gift will keep on giving. Meanwhile, this is all getting exhausting. At this stage there is no escaping the internet and little escaping its mentality.
Eek, a shooting! Let's bring in the death penalty.
The made for tell a vision drama is to establish that we are a Christian country, a lie, there are other religions who all will want representation, so we'll just mix the two with wiggle room to accommodate the Quakers and everyone else on the fringe. That brings us a solution, the one world religion law, Noahide Law. "Off with your head" isn't too far of a stretch. Then a thoughtful and compassionate president, one who protested the death penalty but then will have her hands tied when the laws are passed will be elected, a woman for a change. Enter Erika stage left. The data centers in UT are in position; the lost tribe can come out of hiding and we can openly erect temples in every smart city we build, they have an inverted pentagram star on them, whose watching? Transhumanism will be embraced the famine now brings the prophecy.
Hail Satan! It's all clearly his fault.
By the way, what was Jesus doing in a public park with a naked boy with a bandage wrapped around his hoo-ha at 4 a.m.? Jesus exclaims, I'm not a trafficker-
"lestes" in Ancient Greek is a trafficker. Mark 14 51,52
I think journalism needs to up level on researching these out of the way tidbits but I'm not up for it. Help us, Eric! We've been fooled and controlled, every which way but south. Correction, circumcision is the southern hemisphere of our men, which affects relationships all around, so they've got us. We've been brain-damaged by religion, medical applications and our controllers with the tech. My opinion, thank you.
Ancient Greeks counted on Queen Medea for her medicines, she found how to help women in childbirth, she made mixtures of medicines from her own body which included rituals, some for pain and others for pleasure. Authoritative men were jealous of her, took her knowledge and made religious rites of their own, to control others, then they concocted a book, but it was the Ancient Greek that was vast in the language, the Hebrew is third grade level in comparison... There are accounts of child rape and circumcision that is an active attempt to forever enforce their power over man's psyche and make believers, without conscious awareness that the lies told were to keep joy, mirth and creative autonomy squashed. We were a playful, musical happy people, long ago. What a shame, we let them have our children.
I have a set of questions on this topic. I hope you find them interesting.
In 2018, the Catholic church changed a part its Catechism in relation to this issue. This is in line with a trend in Catholicism to abolish this legal practice world wide.
The argument appears to be that the death penalty is no longer necessary because the State has better ways to repress crime.
My first question, to you, Eric, in particular, and to anyone in this forum is: in your opinion, does the State have any authority to repress any type of crime, real or imaginary?
A follow up question: should the executives of big international corporations who pollute the environment be punished by the state, in any way?
--
A second question is: should organizations other than the state be given the authority to punish criminals using the death penalty? For example, a private court of justice.
More in general, is it possible for people to delegate a legal authority they do not have to an organization? For instance, is it possible for the People of the United States of America to delegate the authority to lie, counterfeit, falsify documents, destroy evidence, or any similar actions, in organizations created by the Federal Government of the United States?
--
A third question: Should political organizations that advocate for forms of punishment that deny the human dignity of a convict become illegal? If so, should the members of those organizations be considered criminals who deserve punishment? A more general question on this: what is the correct way to repress bad ideas that cause brutal actions?
--
A fourth question: what is the right course of action to defend ourselves from the threats of a person who adheres to a religion (like some variants of Judaism) and who advocates, because of her religion, the death penalty as punishment for people who worship idols or practice divination or alchemy or become apostates?
Does a sinner have a right to defend himself when the priests and the teachers and the prophets come down with intention to kill him?
If so, can an association of sinners be allowed to delegate their self-defense rights to a larger structure, such as a State?
A repeated, but reformulated question is: Can a State which monopolizes legal violence in some jurisdiction and territory establish a court of justice and a penal code, such that it authorizes and mandates the Court and the Judges to arrest, indict, convict and punish with the death penalty certain types of crimes and felons, such as: revolutionary communists, roman republic revivalists, professional religious individuals of any religion, eugenicists, progressive monopolists, bankers, members of the military, police officers, journalists, university professors, historians, economists, philosophers, scientists, inventors?
In the enumeration of types of felons in the previous question it is implicit that those people are to be prosecuted for their actions, or their planned actions, not just for their ideas or their words. In principle, only action can be considered as potentially criminal, and only very few and well qualified types of inaction can be considered as crimes.
--
I have a fifth, and final question. Many people argue, that there is a global genocide currently active, that is part of the eugenics ideology and the religion of scientism. One method to slowly kill people is through mRNA injectable products, which probably cause the hyperprogressive disease, also known as turbocancer. On this topic, see the presentation "The New Order of Barbarians" by Lawrence Dunegan
Vast numbers of people have shown repeatedly their support for forceful medical treatments, forceful testing, forceful quarantine and internation in concentration camps and psychiatric hospitals. Many people have been led to suicide, and into exile, and have been informally punished in many ways, for all this.
Am I justified in not taking seriously the people who advocate for any type forceful medical intervention, when they argue against the death penalty?
Why the Barbarians oppose some forms of violence and celebrate other forms of violence?
If some critics of the death penalty actually recommend mRNA vaccination, like the Catholic Church does, as well as the people who see no problem in persecuting people who support the former but oppose the latter, like many American liberals do, does this apparent contradiction undermine their case against the death penalty?
since when is the purpose of the death penalty to repress crime? a look at the homicide rates in capital punishment and prohibitionist states will sort that out.
The Russian-German philosopher Alfred Rosenberg was executed by hanging at 01:59 AM October 16, 1946. After that, other thinkers have not been dissuaded from reformulating some of Rosenberg's arguments. But others have.
I don't know if Alfred Rosenberg committed any crime deserving the death penalty, but, the historical fact, is that the Judges of the trial were convinced. And they were mandated, in some sense, to repress his crimes with the death penalty.
Repression can mean to punish one person, but also, to deter others. Fear is a great technique of persuasion.
The question of capital punishment has two distinct sides that cannot be conflated: punishment and determent.
By doing away with capital punishment, other forms of punishment and determent are needed by the people who want to repress crime. In developing and applying those more modern and supposedly less brutal forms of punishment that honor the life dignity of people, it is possible that the whole world becomes one giant prison, and every human is preemptively punished for any possible action, word, or thought, with small punishments, such as shaming, forced fasting, sterilization, amputation and psychosurgery, forced psychiatric treatment, ostracizing, confinement, brain washing and reprogramming, and life imprisonment, forms of repression that in fact are harmful to human dignity. One wonders if this fate is worse than death.
Why do you think that the opposition to the death penalty cannot be construed as endorsement for global dictatorship?
Executing an intellectual is obviously for intimidation of other intellectuals. Writing is not a capital crime and that's not how the death penalty is used in the US.
In the US, there was the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, and there is a video of his sentencing to 16 consecutive life imprisonment sentences, almost a thousand years of prison, because Wisconsin has no death penalty in its penal code. Dahmer wanted to be executed. There is a story that he had planned to tell the FBI he had committed a crime in Florida to be extradited there and receive a death penalty. He was killed by a prisoner in Wisconsin.
John Wayne Gacy was executed by the State of Illinois in 1994. He probably didn't want the death penalty, but to be free and continue his acts of violence against his fellow human beings.
So, do you think that it would have been more moral, compassionate and just to keep Gacy alive, imprisoned until his natural death? What if in 2021, a 79 year old John Wayne Gacy would have died immediately after being forcibly injetcted with an mRNA shot, even after legal recourse in which the prisoner's lawyer argued that in order to fulfill his life imprisonment sentence the prisoner requested to be exempted from the forced vaccination, because it would jeopardize his health and possibly cause his death?
It can be that many life sentenced criminals in America received the covid shots with the hope to die, only to feel let down by another failed engineering project by the state, when they survived the coerced treatment.
I agree with Sister Helen Prejean, destroys the lives of those who have to carry it out. I feel like the man who killed the innocent woman on train in North Carolina, Iryna, deserves the death penalty. However can't have death penalty for just that one person and not for others so need to make sure that person never is released, possibly kept isolated. The case against Tyler is so flimsy, so full of "evidence" that does not make sense. I wonder if he was a decoy for real killer, like Oswald was for JFK.
Look more closely at that event. Our investigation has that as a false flag. However, with the death penalty we cannot pick and choose. We cannot just say oh that guy should get it and that guy should not. There is a moral breach so profound here that few have the capacity to see it, and most get caught up in their own judgments without any contact with anyone involved, or with the facts. And even if you think that murdering a prisoner is a good idea, nobody wants to talk about the hundreds who were exonerated sitting on Death Row waiting to die for nothing. Imagine yourself there for a second or two. If you can.
Thank you, Eric, I agree with you regarding the barbaric death penalty. We no longer live in Old Testament times...an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Justice must be served, of course, and life imprisonment is not an easy way out but it reflects a more civilized society. I hope by now after the thousands of years of horrific and bloody revenge, we are at least striving to be civilized, compassionate and also just.
Ah, so your argument is, we’ll find some evidence where this man wasn’t the killer? That he wasn’t the shooter that he’s actually innocent. That’s your argument Eric?
There are cases that I absolutely would say capital punishment is not justified. If there is not inscrutable evidence for said murder having said that if you want scriptural evidence, the Bible says that government holds the sword. That is a reference to capital punishment. It is not as some have reinterpreted it, that they are simply lawmakers. It means, if need be government will take the ultimate action against heinous crimes like murder.
I’m curious Eric, are you a believer? This is an answer I would expect from a non-believer. When you divide the OT and the NT, what you’re saying is God in the OT is not the God in the New Testament. There are two different gods in the Bible, is that your argument?
Constatine killed his mother and boiled his wife in hot oil. He interpreted the Bible,i.e. King James, so that he could find forgiveness and salvation, thus the savior.
No, that’s not what it means. Using your logic, the shooter should be released and all is forgiven. Obviously, that would be ridiculous! When most Americans believed in the Bible and its authority, punishment was commensurate to the crime. Now if you want to say that man deserves time to repent before he’s called to pay the price for his heinous act, I agree. To say that he doesn’t deserve the death penalty because you have some misguided interpretation not even Jesus would agree to.
The reason it’s so easy for her to forgive him is because neither nor anyone else actually shot “Charlie”. It was clearly a case of Hollywood magic. Whether or not the patsy is complicit or innocent in the psy-op is anyone’s guess. In the case of JFK, they killed the patsy. In the case of OKC, there’s reason to believe that McVeigh, an undercover agent of the state, played a role similar to Charlie’s and was similarly rewarded with a fake death, new identity, and comfortable retirement. In other case of school shootings the alleged perpetrators conveniently died and it’s likely that many of them were wholly concocted fictional persons. In any case the patsy is expendable and besides the point, which is what nefarious agenda(s) the puppet-masters plan to inflict on we the people in the wake of the fear, confusion, and division.
Yes this occurred to me — that he's not dead, Tyler didn't do it and that EK has no emotional attachment to the CK character and probably not to the actor who played him. I'm not familiar enough with how these operations work to specualte on what his new life or new assignment might be, but it's a big world. Some (not all by any means) in my sphere are specualting that he was killed; I don't think so. From the point of view of his handlers, he did a fantastic job and his gift will keep on giving. Meanwhile, this is all getting exhausting. At this stage there is no escaping the internet and little escaping its mentality.
*neither he nor anyone else
https://open.substack.com/pub/unbekoming/p/when-dna-dissolves-the-unraveling?r=1sx5xi&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Eek, a virus! Let's test.
Eek, a shooting! Let's bring in the death penalty.
The made for tell a vision drama is to establish that we are a Christian country, a lie, there are other religions who all will want representation, so we'll just mix the two with wiggle room to accommodate the Quakers and everyone else on the fringe. That brings us a solution, the one world religion law, Noahide Law. "Off with your head" isn't too far of a stretch. Then a thoughtful and compassionate president, one who protested the death penalty but then will have her hands tied when the laws are passed will be elected, a woman for a change. Enter Erika stage left. The data centers in UT are in position; the lost tribe can come out of hiding and we can openly erect temples in every smart city we build, they have an inverted pentagram star on them, whose watching? Transhumanism will be embraced the famine now brings the prophecy.
Hail Satan! It's all clearly his fault.
By the way, what was Jesus doing in a public park with a naked boy with a bandage wrapped around his hoo-ha at 4 a.m.? Jesus exclaims, I'm not a trafficker-
"lestes" in Ancient Greek is a trafficker. Mark 14 51,52
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQiAf87WYB0
I think journalism needs to up level on researching these out of the way tidbits but I'm not up for it. Help us, Eric! We've been fooled and controlled, every which way but south. Correction, circumcision is the southern hemisphere of our men, which affects relationships all around, so they've got us. We've been brain-damaged by religion, medical applications and our controllers with the tech. My opinion, thank you.
https://www.transfigurism.org/library/primers/4-exponential-change
Erika sure is up and coming isn't she. Venus in Leo in the 10th place. She is central to this whole operation...
Wow! I danced into the transhumanism ad and my mind is blown. Thanks for sharing. So basically it’s a cover for adrenochrome, etc. terrifying.
Ancient Greeks counted on Queen Medea for her medicines, she found how to help women in childbirth, she made mixtures of medicines from her own body which included rituals, some for pain and others for pleasure. Authoritative men were jealous of her, took her knowledge and made religious rites of their own, to control others, then they concocted a book, but it was the Ancient Greek that was vast in the language, the Hebrew is third grade level in comparison... There are accounts of child rape and circumcision that is an active attempt to forever enforce their power over man's psyche and make believers, without conscious awareness that the lies told were to keep joy, mirth and creative autonomy squashed. We were a playful, musical happy people, long ago. What a shame, we let them have our children.
I have a set of questions on this topic. I hope you find them interesting.
In 2018, the Catholic church changed a part its Catechism in relation to this issue. This is in line with a trend in Catholicism to abolish this legal practice world wide.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/39033/vatican-changes-catechism-teaching-on-death-penalty-calls-it-inadmissible
The argument appears to be that the death penalty is no longer necessary because the State has better ways to repress crime.
My first question, to you, Eric, in particular, and to anyone in this forum is: in your opinion, does the State have any authority to repress any type of crime, real or imaginary?
A follow up question: should the executives of big international corporations who pollute the environment be punished by the state, in any way?
--
A second question is: should organizations other than the state be given the authority to punish criminals using the death penalty? For example, a private court of justice.
More in general, is it possible for people to delegate a legal authority they do not have to an organization? For instance, is it possible for the People of the United States of America to delegate the authority to lie, counterfeit, falsify documents, destroy evidence, or any similar actions, in organizations created by the Federal Government of the United States?
--
A third question: Should political organizations that advocate for forms of punishment that deny the human dignity of a convict become illegal? If so, should the members of those organizations be considered criminals who deserve punishment? A more general question on this: what is the correct way to repress bad ideas that cause brutal actions?
--
A fourth question: what is the right course of action to defend ourselves from the threats of a person who adheres to a religion (like some variants of Judaism) and who advocates, because of her religion, the death penalty as punishment for people who worship idols or practice divination or alchemy or become apostates?
Does a sinner have a right to defend himself when the priests and the teachers and the prophets come down with intention to kill him?
If so, can an association of sinners be allowed to delegate their self-defense rights to a larger structure, such as a State?
A repeated, but reformulated question is: Can a State which monopolizes legal violence in some jurisdiction and territory establish a court of justice and a penal code, such that it authorizes and mandates the Court and the Judges to arrest, indict, convict and punish with the death penalty certain types of crimes and felons, such as: revolutionary communists, roman republic revivalists, professional religious individuals of any religion, eugenicists, progressive monopolists, bankers, members of the military, police officers, journalists, university professors, historians, economists, philosophers, scientists, inventors?
In the enumeration of types of felons in the previous question it is implicit that those people are to be prosecuted for their actions, or their planned actions, not just for their ideas or their words. In principle, only action can be considered as potentially criminal, and only very few and well qualified types of inaction can be considered as crimes.
--
I have a fifth, and final question. Many people argue, that there is a global genocide currently active, that is part of the eugenics ideology and the religion of scientism. One method to slowly kill people is through mRNA injectable products, which probably cause the hyperprogressive disease, also known as turbocancer. On this topic, see the presentation "The New Order of Barbarians" by Lawrence Dunegan
https://rumble.com/v6xz3o0-lawrence-dunegan-the-new-order-of-barbarians.-the-new-world-system..html
Transcripts: https://archive.org/details/pdfy-TmWlwCRIyvcIfa5W
Vast numbers of people have shown repeatedly their support for forceful medical treatments, forceful testing, forceful quarantine and internation in concentration camps and psychiatric hospitals. Many people have been led to suicide, and into exile, and have been informally punished in many ways, for all this.
Am I justified in not taking seriously the people who advocate for any type forceful medical intervention, when they argue against the death penalty?
Why the Barbarians oppose some forms of violence and celebrate other forms of violence?
If some critics of the death penalty actually recommend mRNA vaccination, like the Catholic Church does, as well as the people who see no problem in persecuting people who support the former but oppose the latter, like many American liberals do, does this apparent contradiction undermine their case against the death penalty?
since when is the purpose of the death penalty to repress crime? a look at the homicide rates in capital punishment and prohibitionist states will sort that out.
The Russian-German philosopher Alfred Rosenberg was executed by hanging at 01:59 AM October 16, 1946. After that, other thinkers have not been dissuaded from reformulating some of Rosenberg's arguments. But others have.
I don't know if Alfred Rosenberg committed any crime deserving the death penalty, but, the historical fact, is that the Judges of the trial were convinced. And they were mandated, in some sense, to repress his crimes with the death penalty.
Repression can mean to punish one person, but also, to deter others. Fear is a great technique of persuasion.
The question of capital punishment has two distinct sides that cannot be conflated: punishment and determent.
By doing away with capital punishment, other forms of punishment and determent are needed by the people who want to repress crime. In developing and applying those more modern and supposedly less brutal forms of punishment that honor the life dignity of people, it is possible that the whole world becomes one giant prison, and every human is preemptively punished for any possible action, word, or thought, with small punishments, such as shaming, forced fasting, sterilization, amputation and psychosurgery, forced psychiatric treatment, ostracizing, confinement, brain washing and reprogramming, and life imprisonment, forms of repression that in fact are harmful to human dignity. One wonders if this fate is worse than death.
Why do you think that the opposition to the death penalty cannot be construed as endorsement for global dictatorship?
Executing an intellectual is obviously for intimidation of other intellectuals. Writing is not a capital crime and that's not how the death penalty is used in the US.
In the US, there was the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, and there is a video of his sentencing to 16 consecutive life imprisonment sentences, almost a thousand years of prison, because Wisconsin has no death penalty in its penal code. Dahmer wanted to be executed. There is a story that he had planned to tell the FBI he had committed a crime in Florida to be extradited there and receive a death penalty. He was killed by a prisoner in Wisconsin.
John Wayne Gacy was executed by the State of Illinois in 1994. He probably didn't want the death penalty, but to be free and continue his acts of violence against his fellow human beings.
So, do you think that it would have been more moral, compassionate and just to keep Gacy alive, imprisoned until his natural death? What if in 2021, a 79 year old John Wayne Gacy would have died immediately after being forcibly injetcted with an mRNA shot, even after legal recourse in which the prisoner's lawyer argued that in order to fulfill his life imprisonment sentence the prisoner requested to be exempted from the forced vaccination, because it would jeopardize his health and possibly cause his death?
It can be that many life sentenced criminals in America received the covid shots with the hope to die, only to feel let down by another failed engineering project by the state, when they survived the coerced treatment.
https://substack.com/@clayjak/note/c-157669589?r=9qphz&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Where is a point of action on this case?
I agree with Sister Helen Prejean, destroys the lives of those who have to carry it out. I feel like the man who killed the innocent woman on train in North Carolina, Iryna, deserves the death penalty. However can't have death penalty for just that one person and not for others so need to make sure that person never is released, possibly kept isolated. The case against Tyler is so flimsy, so full of "evidence" that does not make sense. I wonder if he was a decoy for real killer, like Oswald was for JFK.
Look more closely at that event. Our investigation has that as a false flag. However, with the death penalty we cannot pick and choose. We cannot just say oh that guy should get it and that guy should not. There is a moral breach so profound here that few have the capacity to see it, and most get caught up in their own judgments without any contact with anyone involved, or with the facts. And even if you think that murdering a prisoner is a good idea, nobody wants to talk about the hundreds who were exonerated sitting on Death Row waiting to die for nothing. Imagine yourself there for a second or two. If you can.
Until we can guarantee that no innocent will be executed under this law, we must abolish it...and this is without considering the morality
Thank you, Eric, I agree with you regarding the barbaric death penalty. We no longer live in Old Testament times...an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Justice must be served, of course, and life imprisonment is not an easy way out but it reflects a more civilized society. I hope by now after the thousands of years of horrific and bloody revenge, we are at least striving to be civilized, compassionate and also just.
Ah, so your argument is, we’ll find some evidence where this man wasn’t the killer? That he wasn’t the shooter that he’s actually innocent. That’s your argument Eric?
There are cases that I absolutely would say capital punishment is not justified. If there is not inscrutable evidence for said murder having said that if you want scriptural evidence, the Bible says that government holds the sword. That is a reference to capital punishment. It is not as some have reinterpreted it, that they are simply lawmakers. It means, if need be government will take the ultimate action against heinous crimes like murder.
You're relying on the Old Testament? Then we should be executing gay people and people who eat shellfish.
I’m curious Eric, are you a believer? This is an answer I would expect from a non-believer. When you divide the OT and the NT, what you’re saying is God in the OT is not the God in the New Testament. There are two different gods in the Bible, is that your argument?
Here is your new testament reference
Romans 13
I am not a believer. I am Quaker and follow the teachings of the Inner Light.
for anyone who wants to read some information from Constantine, God Emperor of Rome —
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&version=NIV
Constatine killed his mother and boiled his wife in hot oil. He interpreted the Bible,i.e. King James, so that he could find forgiveness and salvation, thus the savior.
Priorities, I understand. Have a good day, my friend.
and by the way Robert, I am making five separate arguments. Shall I outline them for you? Wait I have other things to write.
No, that’s not what it means. Using your logic, the shooter should be released and all is forgiven. Obviously, that would be ridiculous! When most Americans believed in the Bible and its authority, punishment was commensurate to the crime. Now if you want to say that man deserves time to repent before he’s called to pay the price for his heinous act, I agree. To say that he doesn’t deserve the death penalty because you have some misguided interpretation not even Jesus would agree to.
Please cite some scriptural or Christian theological authority for claiming Jesus would support killing a convict.
And please -- get me over the hump of those 200 people who were convicted and then found to be innocent.
What about the witches of the inquisition
Yep -- power grab, land grab.