The Insiders Report: 12 Part 1

In this report, The Insiders discuss the murder of Charlie Kirk and its wider implications for us.

Image Creative Commons

IN OTHER NEWS: It has been a week since the murder of American political conservative and free speech advocate Charlie Kirk. Since then, there has been much speculation around who is responsible and the motivations of those involved, including accusations of involvement from Zionist influences. A suspect has now been taken into custody, but there does seem to be evidence that others knew in advance that something significant was planned for the date of 10 September.

What is the role of the accused, Tyler Robinson?

What can you tell us about any wider involvement?

Who are these other parties? And what are the wider social implications of this event?

THE INSIDERS: We can say that the potential for serious and widespread consequences from this action is far from negligible. We are not willing to say that it is likely, but it is most definitely “on the cards” so to speak. Your distance from these events insulates you in a way from the immediacy of the emotions and the social factions that are pitted against one another in the United States.

This social unrest, this conflict between the members of this large and diverse society is almost entirely manufactured. It is a construct and there are indeed elements behind the scenes, not particularly hidden at that, who are active in manipulating and exploiting, enhancing, this conflict for what they see as their own benefit. And they are entirely self-serving in this aspect. They have zero regard, in fact inordinate distain, for the wellbeing and interests of those around them, their fellow citizens. And it is amid this backdrop that the public sacrifice of Charlie Kirk was brought about.

Now there are and there will be, quite legitimately, differing opinions about this mans expressed views. We are certainly not telling anyone whether they should agree or disagree with the views this person expressed on any particular topic. But what is clear, is that he is someone who lived by his principles, whether you share those principles or not. And in this case, they were the ideals of freedom of speech; that the free flow and debating of ideas could and would, if put into practise, lead to if not harmony or consensus, at least a coming together in the areas where there undoubtedly are shared values amongst those who may argue from opposite sides of a political divide.

We would say that although the United States is very large and very diverse; California is very different from New Jersey; Oregon is very different to Florida, but very few would argue that there are no widely shared values across this large and diverse society. And this is far too rarely recognised by those who would indulge in the acrimony, the animosity and the othering that too often occurs across a political divide.

Now as we have said in past communications, these aspects of human behaviours are well known and well understood by those whose shadowy actions, in the background so to speak, shape political and societal discourse, both in the United States but in the wider world as a whole.

It should be recognised that the political and cultural differences across different countries and continents mean that exactly the same plan would not unfold in exactly the same way in all circumstances. So, it is tweaked on a regional level to be most effective within each of these groups, be they national, political, ethnic, cultural, or whatever. All of these elements are exploited by those who seek to manipulate the world in this way.

We have spoken in some depth in the past of those types who in a general sense we refer to here, the same as those groups outlined in the past. As you mentioned in your opening, there has been speculation surrounding the violent death of Charlie Kirk. And the information that we can confirm is this. That the person in custody was little more than the trigger man. That is not to say that he is not responsible for murder, but rather acknowledges that there have been and continue to be wider influences at work. And they are not as they would appear to be on the surface. For example, to lay the blame at the feet of trans-activists for example, would be short sighted. Those trans-activists who may or may not be involved are the play-things of those who are truly responsible for the manufacture of this outcome.

And their purpose is to bring about anything but cohesion amongst the members of this society. It is in fact the dead opposite. They know the potential for disharmony, for conflict, for enmity and for elements of society turning upon themselves and one another that an event such as this can foster and nurture – to use that term in a rather perverse manner.

What is important here, for those of you reading our words, is how you respond in this particular circumstance. Now on the one hand, you might quite legitimately state that these events have no particular direct relevance to your life. That is true, for almost everyone in our wider audience did not know Charlie Kirk personally. But the chances are that you did know of him and have some form of relationship with the identity created for him, within your own perception.

And we would remind you all that regardless of how you view his political opinions, this was firstly a fellow human being. A man, with a wife and young children, and a wider family, with a group of friends who held him in high regard. And with an audience who largely found inspiration within his example. And we would counsel to be careful how you judge someone of whom these things can be said.

Now it is important that you recognise that we are not condoning nor condemning this person’s personal views. We are reminding you that he is you and you are he. And to condemn or condone him is to apply the same to yourself. And when seen in this light you can perhaps understand why we would counsel caution.

Very often, societies require their idealists to highlight or expose some aspect which that society could gain greatly from appreciating. But it is also often in the nature of things that such examples burn brightly for a time. Because they are required to do so in order to gain the attention of the society that they might inspire. These values are seldom from without, but are far more often those which the society in question finds fundamental.

And we would say that that is indeed the case in the example of this person. That is why beyond all else he posed such a great danger to those dark forces. Those forces that would exploit and empower the conflict, the othering and the hatred, within the communities of man.

On a personal level, learn from this. Appreciate and take inspiration from those idealists who seek to bring out the best within their community. And be wary of those who would seek to inflame conflict for conflict’s sake. Those who do not speak from the heart, do not speak from a point of principle, but simply to gain the greatest influence for their own selfish ends.

For those who participate in such behaviour will do so at their own peril. And in a spiritual sense, that peril is far greater than that faced by Charlie Kirk.