Elon Musk Makes the Case that Charlie Kirk was Shot from the rear

Much of what Musk says makes sense, but not the globalism part that the assassination of Kirk is a way of dividing us.  We have been divided for decades by the teaching of critical race theory, aversive racism and by the DEI policy created by Blumrosen in the EEOC in the 1960s, by abortion, by the legalization of sexual perversity, by the feminist attack on men, and so on.  Division has long existed and worsened.  Musk’s “globalism” explanation is an effort to rationalize division that has long existed and grown.  Liberal-left American professors had done a thorough job of creating division.  It is all they are good for.

The globalism theory assumes that the US is the only obstacle to the WEA’s global management of the world.  But of course there is Russia, China, and the rest of the world.  As for division it is the neoconservatives that have the US aligned against Russia, China, Iran, India, and in Israel’s pocket.  Perhaps it is Israel that is attaining world control.

As for forensic evidence, the front neck wound is too small to be an exit wound.  Possibly it could be an exit wound of a small caliber such as .17 or .22.  But it is most certainly not an exit wound of a powerful round.  

Moreover, Kirk’s right hand man says the surgeon said there is no exit wound and that the surgeon found the bullet inside Kirk’s neck.  Musk did not give evidence for the trajectory he asserts of rear entry and front exit.    

Still no one has identified the caliber of the bullet.  It clearly is not a 30-06 as the official narrative asserts.

I find the video of the palm pistol shot more convincing, at least convincing enough to be investigated.  Indeed, all explanations should be investigated.

As we already have multiple explanations of Kirk’s assassination, it reminds me of what James Jesus Angleton once told me.  When the CIA pulls off an event it has a pre-packaged cover story that instantly becomes the explanation, and several more pre-packaged stories in reserve.  If the first narrative wears thin, a couple more narratives are released.  People then argue over which is correct and the focus is shifted off the question why the first narrative was wrong.  

I think all that we really know is that the official narrative is false.  The important question is why is the FBI satisfied with a false narrative?

Elon Musk Makes the Case that Charlie Kirk was Shot from the rear