The Next Big Thing, or, What's The "Focus Grouped" -- Next Big Thing?

When you take a step back from all of the things going on in the world, sometimes it feels like a bad movie.

I say this because there are too many "thought provoking" incidents within such a short period of time.

The probability of these events also underscores these events' likely probability as well as believability.

However, it's been observed that most people in the US are not paying attention -- not on a daily basis -- so chronology often does not consciously influence that which they perceive. Notice I say "perceive" and not watch, see, or witness. One can watch, see, or witness many events, but that doesn't mean that one has expended the time or energy to critically analyze them. As the saying goes, "Perception is reality."

Close scrutiny of "thought provoking" events usually leads to questions -- questions that might lead one to believe that the entire event doesn't follow any rational chronological outcome. If one is trying to spin a narrative, questions are not something you want to deal with. Overlapping logic, or reasoning, can result in people questioning the story that is to be sold.

Focus Groups

Those who run focus groups are all too often charlatans. They're frauds, they ask pointed questions, of their focus groups, and return an answer, and the people who hire them believe that these findings are reasonable (or at least believable to the general population). Of course, this requires those who hire focus groups to be rather far removed from "normal society" -- and they are, we already know this -- that's why they hire focus groups. People who live outside the normal sphere of life, require insight.

Political calculations are often focus grouped. That's why they are so ridiculous. Focus groups are how you end up with the ridiculous "Men for Harris" TV ad. It was so bad that people thought it was parody. They were seriously wondering how anyone paid for it -- and actually believed it would produce a positive outcome. I admit, I thought it was parody when I first saw it, I thought it was from SNL or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk4ueY9wVtA

- Man enough to lift 500[lbs] and braid the shit out of my daughter's hair

- You think I'm not man enough to rebuild a carburetor, I eat carburetors for breakfast

- I ain't afraid of bears, that's what bear hugs are for

- And I'll tell you another thing I'm sure as shit not afraid of... women...

- I'm not afraid of childless cat ladies, have all the cats you want

- Full-throated endorsement

- Man enough to admit I'm lost, even when I refuse to ask for directions

- Man enough to Raw Dog a flight

- Man enough to be emotional in front of my wife and kids

- Cry at movies, Love Actual, Goodwill Hunting, Westside Story...

Look at the comments:

The reasons that this ad is inauthentic are endless, the point is that someone -- someone on the Harris/Walz campaign -- was actually paid to come up with this ad. Never mind that they were likely trying to sink the campaign, those in charge didn't know better. Those in charge of the Harris/Walz campaign actually believed that men (or whatever they consider men) would see this, and feel encouraged to vote for a woman.

Those on the (within government) who attempt to manipulate the public are not very good at it. As a result, they hire firms who have convinced them that they are good at it, with data from focus groups and such, what we see here is the result.

Comically bad attempts at manipulating the public, by people who have never worked a real job, and truly believe that regular people are low IQ fools.

Charlie Kirk Assassination

Upon scrutiny, the narrative pushed by "the officials" as it relates to the assassination of Charlie Kirk is not believable.

It appears that no normal person has leaked video of the event. It was all "leaked" to TMZ and The New York Post. Nobody shared their private video of the event -- so there's no way to verify any of the footage that has been publicly available.

Are we to believe that an otherwise intelligent individual was planning out an assassination, studied the area and found a way to the roof without being seen, while simultaneously creating his own paper trail? Taking ridiculously long periods of time to disassemble and reassemble a gun -- multiple times -- just to leave it in a bush (wrapped in a towel) -- when he supposedly walked there with it in his pants leg? Why not just walk away with the gun in his pants leg? Why wrap it in a towel so that it would be clearly visible?

The supposed back and forth between the shooter and his he/she "girlfriend" sounds like it was written by someone much older. I'm 45, and I don't know anyone within 10-years of my age (older or younger) that uses the term "old man" to describe their dad, or "my love" to describe someone they care about.

None of what has been proposed passes the smell test.

Listen to all of this, you might find it interesting. This lawyer brings up some interesting facts that many people might have forgotten about.

Robinson's new attorney wants time to review the evidence before waiving a potential preliminary hearing.

An attorney for an 22-year-old man charged with killing Charlie Kirk asked a judge Monday [09/29/25] for more time to review the large amount of evidence in the case before deciding if the defense will seek a preliminary hearing.

A preliminary hearing would determine if there is enough evidence against Tyler Robinson to go forward with a trial. Defendants can waive that step, but Robinson's newly appointed attorney Kathryn Nester said her team did not intend to do so.

Utah prosecutors have charged Robinson with aggravated murder and plan to seek the death penalty.

Is it possible that the evidence is not as complete as people have been lead to believe?

The Aftermath

What followed Charlie Kirk's assassination is equally strange.

From many accounts, the crime scene was not very well secured. Some guy was filmed taking down the video camera that was right behind where Charlie Kirk as sitting -- and there has little to no mention of this -- other than Candice Owens claiming to have seen the video.

There's also the trans aspect. Which doesn't really make sense, because Charlie Kirk was not the tip of the spear as it relates to the trans issue. There is no real "tip of the spear" because pretty much everyone that's not indoctrinated -- believes that trans ideology is total nonsense. Kirk spoke on the issue, but was not the only, or the primary, one doing so.

Karlyn Borysenko, makes an interesting point here.

https://open.substack.com/pub/karlyn/p/why-im-extemely-skeptical-about-the?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

The video where Erika Kirk is kissing Charlie's hand.

The following video is just bizarre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTEhnL-fIZE

Why put something like this out there? This was done to invoke a response of some kind (from someone) but what kind of response, and from who, or what group?

Look at the comments on this:

You could look at the comments and say, "That's rude, someone is grieving a loved on here," but then, why is Erika Kirk making it a public issue. Why film it at all?

What's Really Going on Here?

There is massive manipulation in play here. None of this has seemed "real." The whole situation is like reading a litany of bad movie reviews.

However, those on the left that are cheering Charlie Kirk's assassination are indeed doing so. There have been many prominent people on the left who have been overjoyed that someone killed Charlie Kirk. And these people are not shy about it.

To what end does this serve? I don't pretend to know, as this event has been manipulated by both those on the left and the right.

All I know is that something isn't right.

However, even if it doesn’t pass -- why is it being proposed?!

What do you think?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"