IF Israel was behind a death (saying IF, not THAT)

Here are some few questions by which Allie Beth Stuckey finds fault with Candace's theory. And similar. Not saying it is or they are correct, but some of these questions could be answered.

Breaking the Silence on Theories Surrounding Charlie Kirk's Death
Allie Beth Stuckey Clips and 2 other(s) | 7 oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CKzQw-h5tM

Here are my answers:

0:11 Because he wasn't any more? Of Israel, that is.

0:17 Because they feared Charlie might sway Donald against them?

0:24 Would Israel really risk ...?

Given how the American Pro-Israel Right is backing Israel against Candace, they may have been right in their calculation of the risks.

0:40 A way that an internet sleuth can figure out is not a sign of "very stupid" given the internet allows such content providers good content to provide their theories from.

One can very well be deft, and still highly misjudge stakes. Satan (at the beginning and against Christ), Nimrod, Antiochus Epiphanes, and upcoming Antichrist will, all of them, have been very sly, and still have shown extremely bad judgement, been as unforeseeing about their doom as Goliath was about David.

Do you recall a comment in Prince Caspian about some giants being good (refers at least to St. Christopher in real life) but none being very clever? Goliath wasn't very clever. But, some people who are very clever are as unwise as he.

1:17 Most of those who try to influence American media haven't kidnapped Eichmann from a state legally providing him asylum.

Mossad did so from Argentina, and Reader's Digest made an article about it (that's how I know, Reader's Digest being a precursor of the internet in some ways).

1:20 China and Russia probably could not afford to take someone out who was going against them ... when someone goes against Israel, that's a gamechanger.

1:53 Apart from this being a superficial analysis, China and Russia taking US criticism as "business as usual" and Israel not finding it business as usual, also consider occasion.

Israel had people who hadn't gone Charlie's turnaround on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they were even so still close enough to Charlie.

2:12 Are you aware that Bibi Netanyahu could be facing criminal charges the moment he steps back from presidency and so he has an incentive to keep the war going and an incentive to keep the US supporting it?

5:59 Here is a thing that doesn't add up.

The bullet that Charlie allegedly stopped isn't produced.

Chichi Acevedo

@chichiacevedo

The bullet was taken from his body. Which is something that you're supposed to do in a homicide investigation....and will be tested alongside other bullets from the gun. So why would they produce a crucial piece of evidence that is needed for ( oh no common sense here) an active homicide investigation with an active criminal proceeding

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@chichiacevedo If you are right, I heard a false report.

So, the thing is it will be tested. This may be why some thought it hadn't been produced.

Do you have a source?

6:20 Did the coroner find the bullet?

There was anyway news it hadn't been produced.

7:12 Frank Turek knows about me.

He knows I'm trying to make my living as a writer, involving but not limited to Apologetics.

He also knows I stand against his acceptance, if not direct endorsement, of Old Earth Creationism, he also knows I'm Catholic.

He also knows, my blogs are published, they are not private blogs you need an invitation to read.

I know he has not lifted a finger, or not to very recently, to avoid the prolongation of the secrecy, in order to make me reconsider before some offer me a platform on their conditions. I can't say I'm confident in Mr. Turek.

7:18 When Dollfuss died, two categories of Nazis were involved in his killing.

1) Mr. Planeta, I think Otto Planeta. He fired the shot and as it was at close range that's not contestable.
2) Some other Nazis who stopped first assistance from arriving to save Engelbert Dollfuss' life. Two of these were executed with Mr. Planeta.

By the way, Dollfuss had time to forgive his killer or killers.

---

Those Who Doubt That Charlie Kirk Struggled With His Jewish Donors, Don't Know Jewish Donors
Theodore Shoebat | 7 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clG5j67Es5Q

---

Candace Owens Finally Provides Receipts...
Ruslan KD | 7 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_N4KUoyTZI

Did Daniel Mean Jesus Christ or Jetty Carpathia? (a Nicolae Jetty Carpathia Style Antichrist)

Signs of the Coming Antichrist in Israel ‪@eartohear‬
Ruslan KD | 23.VII.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRC6U_rCrXU

6:05 "at that moment(1), there's going to come a man(2)"

OK ... do you have this view from specific verses in the Bible or from Nicolae Jetty Carpathia in a certain franchise by the not so left behind author Tim LaHaye?

Rlambjr21

@Rlambjr21

He is probably referencing the 70th week of the Prophecy of the 70 weeks (Daniel 9). Daniel 9:27 "He will confirm a covenant with many at the beginning of the week then he breaks the covenant in the middle of the week." I think he is interpreting the covenant in Daniel 9:27 as some type of peace treaty in that geographical location. Then you can pair Daniel 9:27 with 1 Thess 5:3 "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." I think he is placing the war in Ezekiel 38 as an event that leads up the the beginning of the 70th week in Daniel 9.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Rlambjr21 What about the interpretation(3) that Jesus confirmed the NEW covenant and took away the OLD, with a time lapse of 3.5 years between Christ's Baptism and His Crucifixion?

The New covenant is available to Gentiles, hence "many" ... the Crucifixion does away with the previous Covenant.

In other words "he" = the Christ, not the leader of a people that shall come.

Then this criterium "for the Antichrist" simply isn't one.

(1) when everyone is tired of war (in the Middle East)
(2) who proposes a peace treaty (in the Middle East)
(3) See Haydock comment:

26 And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: and the people that shall deny him shall not be his. And a people, with their leader, that shall come, shall destroy the city, and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.

Ver. 26. Weeks, or four hundred and thirty-eight years, which elapsed from the twentieth of Artaxerxes to the death of Christ, according to the most exact chronologists. (Calmet) --- Slain. Protestants, "cut off, but not for himself, and the people of the prince that," &c. (Haydock) --- St. Jerome and some manuscripts read, Christus, et non erit ejus. The sense is thus suspended. The Jews lose their prerogative of being God's people. (Calmet) --- Christ will not receive them again. (St. Jerome) -- Greek: "the unction shall be destroyed, and there shall not be judgment in him." The priesthood and royal dignity is taken from the Jews. (Theod.) --- The order of succession among the high priests was quite deranged, while the country was ruled by the Romans, and by Herod, a foreigner. (Calmet) --- Leader. The Romans under Titus. (Challoner; Calmet)

Ver. 27. Many. Christ seems to allude to this passage, Matthew xxvi. 28. He died for all; but several of the Jews particularly, would not receive the proffered grace. (Calmet) --- Of the week, or in the middle of the week, &c. Because Christ preached three years and a half: and then, by his sacrifice upon the cross, abolished all the sacrifices of the law. (Challoner) --- Temple. Hebrew, "the wing," (Calmet) or pinnacle, (Haydock) the highest part of the temple. (Calmet) --- Desolation. Some understand this of the profanation of the temple by the crimes of the Jews, and by the bloody faction of the zealots. Others, of the bringing in thither the ensigns and standard of the pagan Romans. Others, in fine, distinguish three different times of desolation: viz. that under Antiochus; that when the temple was destroyed by the Romans; and the last near the end of the world, under antichrist. To all which, as they suppose, this prophecy may have a relation. (Challoner) --- Protestants, "For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even unto the consummation; and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate." (Haydock) --- The ruin shall be entire. (Calmet)

Ruslan Made Two Videos, I Find Them Good

The ANCIENT S*XUAL Revolution That NOBODY Is Talking About @LiveActionFilms
Bless God Studios (when? 21.V.2024?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I26uEih7HJg

I have exactly one quibble with this video.

Saying "Rome" when you mean "Pagan Rome" ...

Rome didn't end with Constantine, but with World War I. Constantine by the way came close after Rome's ally Armenia in Christianisation (a previous Christian Kingdom, Osrhoene, had been swallowed by Rome in the meantime).

So, Rome didn't cease to be Rome, except it ceased to be superhierarchic in sexual permissivity and all that centralised (but not super centralised) in administration at Christianity. Rome only ceased to be bestial.

The new "Fourth Beast" is not (yet!) a continuation of the Rome that was hedonistic and brutal, it is (probably) Communism, the power that took over Russia when Nicolas, a Roman Emperor, was killed.

CIA Didn’t Find The Spiritual Realm, They Found Something MUCH WORSE
Ruslan KD, "two months ago"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juyFBo_8cos

"according to 4:19 his theory the absolute created our 4:21 world we collectively are the absolute 4:25 therefore we created our world"

Sounds like Margit Sandemo. I think she dabbles in this thing, as she certainly dabbles in a kind of Luciferianism or Satanism.

Now, I can't say, as a person, that she didn't go beyond dabbling (she died in 2018, by the way), but I mean in those famous books, she actually invites readers to dip their toes into the ideas, plus provides soft porn (mostly consensual, and from the female perspective) and a few tidbits about esoterica, like the role of the mandragore or mandrake.

I mean Sagan om Isfolket (Legend of the Ice People).

In 1980, a publisher, "Bladkompaniet", suggested that Margit Sandemo write a series of historical novels. She initially wasn't excited about the idea, and decided to continue writing novel series for magazines, but, in her own words, changed her mind in 1981 when she saw a picture of a medieval church painting in a newspaper. It showed a woman making butter in a butter churn and the Devil behind her, trying to seduce her. Sandemo got the idea for the entire 47 book series The Legend of the Ice People from this picture, although in the beginning she thought that the series would comprise only eight books. The first volume, Spellbound, was published in 1982.

Guess what?

If Sweden has a religion even more common than Atheism, it's this one. Evolution belief is mandatory, but it comes in both flavours. By the way, I could statistically pretend Sweden was Christian, since 60 % identify as such, but most are Swedish Church, and most Swedish Church are pretty syncretistic with either Atheism or this or both. Officially the Swedish Church is Lutheran, but if you look at the Missouri Synod or things, they are not in communion with Swedish Church, they are in communion with a much smaller conservative splitoff, or they may be several, but the one I heard of while a Lutheran was "Fria Synoden" (I wasn't in it, but sympathised).

He missed a thing with Trent Horn

Most Believers Don't Know THIS and it's SHOCKING
Ruslan KD, 1 Feb. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyVtPrmPmpU

3:36 St. John's Gospel was written in around AD 100. Confer the Apocalypse on Patmos, written around AD 90 (or in the year itself) ...

He had basically been told Our Lord wasn't coming back in his immediate listeners' lifetime. So, he wrote the Gospel.

23:08 Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition do not mean every dogma has to be identified as a dogma from Apostolic times, or even mentioned as a doctrine in what's left us from Apostolic times.

Apostolic Succession means, you become bishop by being ordained by bishops whose episcopal office goes back to the Apostles.
Apostolic Tradition means, there are things that the Apostles didn't write down in the Bible, which are nevertheless binding, because they handed them down otherwise. Or, in other words, you don't invent doctrines. The one who makes a "novum" is a heretic.

You have statements close enough to papal infallibility, and directly involving papal supremacy going back very far, like to Clement of Rome for the latter.

23:15 The papacy certainly was a thing prior to 1869 ~ 70 (the video you cite got the year wrong).

24:35 There is more like an idea that Apostolic Succession is absent from all and any Protestant "Church" ...

Some people on both sides are ignorant of Orthodox and Orientals, and assume this means (whether they agree with it or not) that it exists only in the Catholic Church. This is wrong.

Also - a Catholic wouldn't need to be told this - Apostolic Succession and Papacy are two distinct things ... both constitutive of the Church, but not both the same.

24:56 Peter became two things in the weeks from Resurrection to Ascension.

Bishop - like the rest of the twelve.
Pope - unlike the rest. Over the rest.

When St. Peter left Jerusalem, the bishop of Jerusalem who ensued, St. James the Brother of God, was not Pope, since he was not Peter and Peter had not died.
When St. Peter left Antioch, the bishop of Antioch who ensued, St. Evodius, was not Pope, since he was not Peter and Peter had not died.
When St. Rome left Rome ... he didn't leave Rome. He died there, so St. Linus actually was the next Pope.

27:14 While I don't accept the "Second Vatican Council" and do not accept the man convoking it was Pope, the guy you listen to is misrepresenting it.

The "very special circumstances" are mentioned in the Vatican Council (1869-70). The texts of "Vatican II" do not change them.

The intepretations of them change so as to be more restrictive, but this is not due to a text in the "council" but due to a swing in the theological mood, independently of conciliar or pseudo-conciliar texts.

27:42 "that Protestants are still technically Christian"

That is actually close to statements in the "council" - it's not "departed" but "separated brethren" by the way.