To understand how Israel has gained a near-total control over the American ruling class today, we must understand Israel of course, but we must also study the principles by which any ruling class operates. The perfect book for that is The Ruling Class, by Italian political scientist Gaetano Mosca (1858–1941). Mosca begins by establishing the following law (p. 50):
In all societies, from societies that are very meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies, two classes of people appear: a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first…
No matter what their internal divergences are, the ruling class is bonded by a high degree of solidarity: “the minority is organized for the very reason that it is a minority” (p. 54).
It follows that the main object of political science must be the study of various types of ruling classes. Mosca, p. 336: “We must patiently seek out the constant traits that various ruling classes possess and the variable traits with which the remote causes of their integration and dissolution, which contemporaries almost always fail to notice, are bound up.” Historians and journalists remain at the surface of historical events when they ascribe them to the decisions of heads of states, who are only, as a rule, the public faces of a ruling class, and sometimes not the main decision-makers.
A ruling class can be overthrown, either by a foreign conquest, by a coup d’état, by a revolution, or in more subtle ways that are not always immediately perceptible by the ruled. But any change of regime, even if provoked by popular uprising, leads to the formation of a new ruling class.
All this may seem quite obvious, but reading Mosca and pursuing this line of thought has modified my perspective on political regimes, on the illusion of Democracy, and on what Israel is up to.
The explanation below does not seem to account well for lack of burn and tear damage to Kirk’s shirt, but it does talk about his wireless microphone as being a probable weapon to have fired the fatal projectile.
This a not an unreasonable avenue of speculation, especially when we know weapons of this type exist and have been used recently with similar effects.
This is all speculation, but some of the main anomalies of this incident point to something other than the lone rooftop shooter.
A projectile under his shirt or in his microphone clasp or within his earpiece could have been what killed Kirk. And it need not have been fired by an explosive.
We owe it to any murder victim, and especially Kirk, to follow all leads without bias. ABN
The article below is related to the video above. The video above is not part of the article below:
Based solely on my analysis of the two angles of the events on September 10th I have come to the conclusion that this is the object that struck Charlie Kirk in the neck.
The DJI Mic 2 is a wireless microphone with a rectangular magnetic clasp. This device has a 300mAh battery that weighs 8 grams.
On that day Charlie had the microphone mounted with the bulk of the device underneath his shirt. Notice the magnetic clasp on his shirt and the angle that it rest.
This is the battery for the DJI Mic 2 transmitter that was underneath Charlie’s shirt. This is a 8 gram 300mAh battery that’s unique in that it’s very easy to swap. A 2 gram charge of PETN would match the power of a .30-06 and leave 75% of the battery functional. Undetectable.
Andrew Kolvet, a Turning Point USA media handler, released a statement that reads like it was written by a crisis PR firm scrambling to patch up a failing narrative. Let’s break it down, line by line:
1. “I’m usually not interested in delving into online chatter…”
Translation: “I don’t usually respond to conspiracy drivel… but let me make an exception this time.”
This is the classic defensive opener: discredit public speculation while subtly signaling moral authority — as if his involvement should automatically be trusted.
2. “I just spoke with the surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital…”
Problem: Charlie died instantly from a gunshot wound that caused decerebrate posturing, massive arterial bleeding, and catastrophic CNS trauma.
Let’s be clear: he wasn’t “worked on”. He was dead on arrival — if not at the scene, then certainly before any meaningful medical intervention. Unless Kolvet thinks surgeons perform autopsies, this claim is either fabricated or a willful misuse of medical terminology to sell emotional closure.
3. “The bullet should’ve gone through… it would’ve killed a moose… but it didn’t…”
This is the “trust me bro” forensic analysis from someone with no background in terminal ballistics, gunshot trauma, or even basic anatomy. If the bullet lodged beneath the skin, that suggests low velocity, deflection, or inconsistency in caliber used — none of which support the idea of a clean high-powered rifle kill.
Also: where’s the actual ballistics report?
4. “His bones were so strong, like the man of steel.”
Now we’re just fully in the realm of myth-making. Turning a human corpse into Superman doesn’t just defy science — it tells you exactly what this is:
A psychological operation meant to close the book on forensic doubt and redirect the public into emotional worship of the martyr.
5. “Even in death, Charlie managed to save others. Remarkable. Miraculous.”
This is narrative closure layered on top of miracle-language. In legal or psychological terms, this is called “preemptive emotional closure” — used to block further questioning by dressing tragedy in divine finality.
When a known TPUSA employee uses miracle-language, contradictory medical claims, and a triple “trust me” format — all without forensic transparency — it’s not just cringe. It’s coordinated damage control.
The truth doesn’t require miracles. It leaves evidence.
This is very well done; concise, succinct, clear as a bell.
Let’s not jump to conclude that Kolvet is a willing or knowing actor in this. ABN
The surgeon who operated on Charlie Kirk said the bullet that killed him miraculously did not exit his neck, likely saving others from getting hit.
Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet revealed on Saturday night that he had spoken with the surgeon who made the comments directly to him.
In a post on X, Kolvet wrote: ‘I apologize this is somewhat graphic, but in this case, the fact that there wasn’t an exit wound is probably another miracle, and I want people to know.’
The surgeon told Kolvet that the bullet ‘absolutely should have gone through, which is very very normal for a high powered, high velocity round’.
‘I’ve seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two,’ the surgeon told Kolvet.
A .30-06 bolt action rifle, the kind that was discovered hidden in the woods after Kirk was killed, is used to kill deer, elk, moose, bears and other big game animals.
The assumption is that Kirk was hit from the front and the rifle was a .30-06. But the assumed entry wound on Kirk’s left throat does not conform an entry wound; and neither does no exit wound, not with a round that powerful.
Recall the autopsies of JFK, the first of which said, truthfully, the exit wound was the rear of his head; then the second one said that was the entry would of the ‘magic bullet’ fired by the patsy Oswald.
An event of this importance demands a second or third autopsy by unquestionable experts, and it should be recorded. I doubt that will happen. ABN
The screen stills before the shot that hit Kirk do show his earpiece but that same area is more vivid in the stills immediately following the shot.
This looks suggestive to me but not conclusive.
IF an Israeli-style exploding device armed with a self-destructing projectile is what caused Kirk’s death, what we can see in these stills might support that hypothesis.
IF he was shot from a rearward vantage, the movement of his head is well explained as is the exit wound on his neck’s left side (not seen in the above video).
IF he was hit by a bullet, it would have been a small caliber. But where is it?
IF he was hit by a self-destroying mini-missile, the evidence we see fits well.
IF he was killed by an Israeli-style self-destroying projectile device concealed in his earpiece, the video evidence also supports this.
All of this is speculation based on the low level of information available to the public. I dislike the way the FBI appears to be playing games with us through its meagre releases of information.
•After the COVID-19 vaccines hit the market, stories began emerging of unvaccinated individuals becoming ill after being in proximity to recently vaccinated individuals. This confused many, as the mRNA technology in theory should not be able to “shed.”
•After seeing countless patient cases which can only be explained by COVID vaccine shedding, a year ago, I initiated multiple widely seen calls for individuals to share suspected shedding experiences.
•From those 1,500 reports, clear and replicable patterns have emerged which collectively prove “shedding” is a real and predictable phenomenon that can be explained by known mechanisms unique to the mRNA technology.
•Likewise, after being blocked from publication for over a year, recently, a scientific study corroborating the shedding phenomenon was finally published.
•This article will map out everything that is known about shedding (e.g., what are the common symptoms, how does it happen, who does it affect, does it occur through sexual contact, can it cause severe issues like cancer) along with strategies for preventing it.
Not sure if this is where the supposed Robinson shot was fired, but the question is still good. If your investigation is honest release the videos. Instead of fighting to keep the public in the dark, release the evidence and let the public help figure it out. Release the video behind Kirk, release all of it. ABN
My sense is conservatives have always been fundamentally live and let live, you do your thing, I’ll do mine, while liberals tend more to be activists for moral-sounding causes; and once they are activists they will also be ideologues and their whole thing becomes a religion.
This is a fundamental difference that shows very loudly in politics, as the chart above illustrates.
The activist left always wants to get into your head and make you be like them.
Historically and practically much of the fervor of the left comes from Jews who invented and them became fanatical about communism.
Today the same energies have morphed into woke stuff, previously PC stuff, now also Antifa stuff.
The common theme is they want to get into your head and make you be like them (often while robbing you blind).
There are few political happenings today that do not succumb to these energies.
There are also few interpersonal happenings today that do not succumb to these energies.
USA was built on the presumption that it was and would be a nation of White Christians who shared strong moral fiber and wanted to work together to build the nation.
USA today is no longer that and many of its non-Christian, non-Whites hate what they are not, and do activist shit against it relentlessly. ABN
American Buddhist Net 