So conquering most of Europe in a pointless and bloody war was just "what was in the interest of self preservation"? Protecting their nation from a violent communist takeover requires them conquering France and bombing the shit out of England (who had practically already been defeated)?
Politics and activism is one path but you could also consider education or entertainment. The left has a stranglehold on the culture right now because they're the only ones going into those fields. We need more people on the right being teachers, comedians, writers, directors, musicians, actors, and game developers. Otherwise the left will ALWAYS control the narrative.
This was always the plan with mass immigration, cause a large problem and when it finally gets out of hand give yourself more power (which you will never relinquish) in order to fix that problem. Like Palpatine in Star Wars.
More like: 2% of the country will actually refuse it, 10% will protest it loudly yet comply, 20% will champion it as a great idea, and 68% will say "this is annoying, so how do I sign up again?" and then will never say anything about it ever again.
When this comes to America, and it WILL, we'll have slightly better chances but I have no hope that the people will do anything that actually works against this. A few protests that will be ignored, a few noncomplyers who will be dealt with, and a bunch of politicians who will be laughing their asses off at how they've seized power and control.
Congress: best we can do is full requirement of digital ID for literally everything in your life.
Supreme Court: this sounds 100% constitutional because we said so, and once we okay it no one can fight against it anymore.
They already tried with Trump, anyway, and that's about the only one that comes to mind that would have caused a worse stir.
Honestly, I think Kirk is actually a worst pick for them then Trump. Even on the right Trump's own attitude can come off as divisive and boorish, it's one of the things that drive a lot of people to him but it's also one of the things that drives people away, I can't tell you how many people I know personally that say "I like a lot of what Trump's doing but I wish he'd just shut up". Kirk was a genuinely nice guy where the only negative things people can say about him are lies, they can disagree with him, sure (hell, I disagreed with him a lot), but he was patient and respectful even when crowds of people were shouting right at him, he gave an open mic to whoever wanted to say something, he constantly told his own side to be quite and let the other side speak, he never advocated violence or hate, even if you think some of the things he said were wrong you couldn't deny that they came from a place of compassion (for example he didn't oppose trans ideology out of hate for trans people but because he wanted them to live better quality lives and believed that the trans lifestyle was hurting them), he was basically the political version of Mr. Rogers. Also take into account that most Trump supporters are probably Kirk supporters as well but that's not going to be true the other way around.
This is exactly what needs to be said right now. The "radicals" on the right are just sick and tired of the left going completely insane and ruining everything. The radicals on the left just hate everyone who isn't them and want people to suffer.
You want to get rid of the "radicals" on the right? Get rid of the radicals on the left.
It's probably the shooter himself, but that doesn't mean there weren't other (potentially deep state) people involved, far too many things about this are suspicious: like the guys doing hand signals just before the shot was fired, the lack of an ambulance or paramedics at an event this size (which by law there should have been), the fact that neither the police nor security bothered to check the roof tops (you ALWAYS check the roofs, it's literally the first place an assassin is going to go), the two people that got originally arrested but were later cleared (one of whom had a fucking pellet gun on him). My guess is that the actual gunman was unaware that there was greater involvement, he most likely had 1 accomplice (who may even be the one that convinced him to do it) who had the actual deep state connections, and of course the 1 accomplice will never be found or identified.
This is all speculation, mind you. But it makes sense for a deep state assassination to keep the actual shooter as uninvolved as possible with the grander conspiracy so that when's he caught he can appear (and maybe even believe himself) to have done it alone. And it makes sense from a PR perspective, if the shooter gets killed "resisting arrest" or "commits suicide" you'll have an Epstein situation where nobody will believe the official story, if the shooter never gets caught there's panic and anger is allowed to boil over, but if the shooter is caught, tried, and convicted and there is good reason to believe that it IS the real shooter people are more likely to feel as though justice has been done.
I think it, at least partially, has to do with the growing anti-immigration sentiment that is going on in the country. Basically, the dems flooded this country with so many immigrants that now even people who were pro-immigration are getting fed up.
Yeah, it's called "their development team"