Stephanie

Turn to me with frozen lips
Your hands are icy cold
Your eyes burn bright against the frost-bit sky

-Jewel

[shoobs! ⊹ ࣪ ˖ @sunleasheddd]

this the kind of photo padmé amidala would have up on her senate desk proudly so that when she says she has twins she can point to the frame

[Stephanie @frostbitsky]

@RealCandaceO I didn't like that she was filming herself crying over his body in the casket and then posted it to social media. That's not normal behavior. I also didn't like that at AMFEST they recreated the tent scene where Charlie was killed. I have no words to describe that. No words.

[CatholicVote @CatholicVote]

"I am worthy of God’s love, simply because I exist. And if I’m worthy of God’s love, shouldn’t I also be worthy of my own? And the same is true for you."

James Van Der Beek, 1977-2026

Pray for the repose of his soul 🙏

[Stephanie @frostbitsky]

I didn't like that she was filming herself crying over his body in the casket and then posted it to social media. That's not normal behavior. I also didn't like that at AMFEST they recreated the tent scene where Charlie was killed. I have no words to describe that. No words.

[ELIZABETH LANE @imelizabethlane]

I’m going to be blunt. I’ve reached the point where I find Erika Kirk deeply disturbing, not because of rumors or gossip, but because of consistent, observable patterns of behavior. To be clear, everything I say in this post is my opinion, I’m not claiming this is a fact I’m saying this is what I think Erica Kirk is.

I come from the world of acting and modeling. I’ve spent years around social climbers, opportunists, image-curators, and people who treat relationships as ladders, that is why I left that world. Most of these people are shallow and harmless. A few are dangerous. Erika falls into the latter category not because she is just ambitious, but because of how calculated and performative her ambition appears to be. I believe she maybe a psychopath.

What stands out immediately is the reaction she provokes in people, which is very common with psychopaths. Across the board including from people who support her publicly, the private reaction is the same: “I can’t watch her.” Not criticism, just physical discomfort. People turn off interviews because the presentation feels artificial to the point of being unbearable. let me explain:

That kind of response does not happen accidentally, and it does not happen often. Research in psychology shows that humans are highly sensitive to emotional incongruence, mismatches between facial expression, tone, and content. When affect appears simulated rather than genuine, the brain registers it as a threat signal. This activates discomfort and avoidance, even if the person cannot consciously explain why. So many of us felt this way but we could not explain why we could not watch her.

Studies on psychopathy, particularly those building on the work of psychologists like Robert Hare, describe traits such as rehearsed emotional display, and shallow affect. These traits can create what observers experience as an “uncanny” interpersonal dynamic. The discomfort arises and people want to shut it off because most people rarely encounter extreme affective mimicry in everyday life, so the brain struggles to categorize what it is detecting. (Comment below if this is what you felt like when watching her.)

Erica is attractive enough, and she had every tool in her position to sell this organically except for one thing - emotion. The entire story of what happened could have helped her sell this fully, she really would have been the last person on earth to be a suspect, if not for the FBI’s terrible mistakes, TPUSA’s lies, and her very fake performance.

Plenty of attractive, ambitious women move through media spaces without triggering that response, even though we know what they are. This is about something else, an extreme disconnect between presentation she puts out and perceived authenticity.

Erica is not the archetype of a model/actress seeking money and fame and then settling into a quiet life with a wealthy good looking husband. She’s the wolf type. Who wants to be in the place of that husband.She is not born for a supporting role, she’s a decision-maker type. She appears to pursue proximity to power, moving fluidly between television, nonprofits, branding opportunities, and ideological spaces that maximize exposure.

Her previous partners are guys women like her would date, muscular, jacked, good-looking. Even though they are not people with huge potential, they are all somewhat established. They are good stepping stones until the right person shows up. Now, looking at her previous partners, I’d say Charlie probably was not her type visually, but he was exactly what she was looking for in a man - potential to be a great power.

What Erica was looking for is the same thing Hillary Clinton was looking for when she met Bill. She recognized that Bill Clinton was her ticket to power, the power she could control and she was right. She realized she could create a great brand out of him and herself, and they still are a brand. The Clintons. No one in this world can say they love each other. They are a brand that works. This is why she’s sticking around despite Epstein and Lewinsky. Also, if you think Bill is the decision-maker there, you must have never been in close proximity to the Clintons. She moves the game, she is the decision-maker.

Erica saw a brand with Charlie. She also saw that Charlie could one day become President of the United States if he wanted to. Charlie had the ear of the most powerful segment of any society - students! He was going to be a very important player in politics, and she was not missing that ride.

What’s striking is how completely her public identity reshapes itself after that relationship begins. The aesthetic, the tone, the values, the presentation all change. Overnight, the persona shifts into the role that best fits Charlie’s world, devoted Christian, modest, supportive housewife. That kind of rapid adaptation is quite impressive for a usual person but not for a psychopath, they do it all the time.

In my head story goes like this: For a moment, it works. She becomes the wife of a rising political figure with access to donors, institutions, and national platforms. At that point, the ceiling isn’t social media influence, it’s empire-building, foundations, global reach, a legacy brand - Kirks!

It’s obvious that Charlie listens to her, whether it’s about donors or the trajectory of TPUSA. The most influential figure in any mentally healthy man’s life is his wife. She is going to be the biggest influence, and that’s just how it is. That is why you need to pick you partner wisely!

Everything was going well until Charlie makes decisions based on conscience rather than expansion and money. He turns down money. He refuses to play dirty politics. I’m assuming someone like Erica who married into this because she had a vision for this brand would not be very happy that. The life she appears to have signed up for - power couple, expanding influence, historical relevance, was collapsing into something else entirely, domesticity, housewife kids and now Charlie's refusing to accept the money that can make him a global power. A supporting role instead of center stage is not her thing.

Her husband died a few days ago, and she walks onto the stage as if she were born there. It comes naturally to her, she knows it, and she wants it. Just days after her husband’s death, she was already laying out ambitious plans for the company over Zoom. It’s obvious she was always deeply involved in the business and knew exactly where to pick up when her turn came.

What people struggle to watch, what makes the screen unbearable, is not grief. It’s the absence of emotional continuity. Performances can be learned, trust me, as a former actress I can speak to that, but emotion can’t be improvised or mimicked if you’ve never experienced it. That’s why I think we are dealing with a psychopath who has never really experienced these emotions and does not know how to play them. And audiences feel it instantly. It’s fake. Again just my opinion.

This isn’t an accusation of crime, I’m not claiming this is what happened and it's a fact. It’s an analysis I made after watching her long enough. And quite honestly I am sick of this shit.

[ELIZABETH LANE @imelizabethlane]

I’m going to be blunt. I’ve reached the point where I find Erika Kirk deeply disturbing, not because of rumors or gossip, but because of consistent, observable patterns of behavior. To be clear, everything I say in this post is my opinion, I’m not claiming this is a fact I’m saying this is what I think Erica Kirk is.

I come from the world of acting and modeling. I’ve spent years around social climbers, opportunists, image-curators, and people who treat relationships as ladders, that is why I left that world. Most of these people are shallow and harmless. A few are dangerous. Erika falls into the latter category not because she is just ambitious, but because of how calculated and performative her ambition appears to be. I believe she maybe a psychopath.

What stands out immediately is the reaction she provokes in people, which is very common with psychopaths. Across the board including from people who support her publicly, the private reaction is the same: “I can’t watch her.” Not criticism, just physical discomfort. People turn off interviews because the presentation feels artificial to the point of being unbearable. let me explain:

That kind of response does not happen accidentally, and it does not happen often. Research in psychology shows that humans are highly sensitive to emotional incongruence, mismatches between facial expression, tone, and content. When affect appears simulated rather than genuine, the brain registers it as a threat signal. This activates discomfort and avoidance, even if the person cannot consciously explain why. So many of us felt this way but we could not explain why we could not watch her.

Studies on psychopathy, particularly those building on the work of psychologists like Robert Hare, describe traits such as rehearsed emotional display, and shallow affect. These traits can create what observers experience as an “uncanny” interpersonal dynamic. The discomfort arises and people want to shut it off because most people rarely encounter extreme affective mimicry in everyday life, so the brain struggles to categorize what it is detecting. (Comment below if this is what you felt like when watching her.)

Erica is attractive enough, and she had every tool in her position to sell this organically except for one thing - emotion. The entire story of what happened could have helped her sell this fully, she really would have been the last person on earth to be a suspect, if not for the FBI’s terrible mistakes, TPUSA’s lies, and her very fake performance.

Plenty of attractive, ambitious women move through media spaces without triggering that response, even though we know what they are. This is about something else, an extreme disconnect between presentation she puts out and perceived authenticity.

Erica is not the archetype of a model/actress seeking money and fame and then settling into a quiet life with a wealthy good looking husband. She’s the wolf type. Who wants to be in the place of that husband.She is not born for a supporting role, she’s a decision-maker type. She appears to pursue proximity to power, moving fluidly between television, nonprofits, branding opportunities, and ideological spaces that maximize exposure.

Her previous partners are guys women like her would date, muscular, jacked, good-looking. Even though they are not people with huge potential, they are all somewhat established. They are good stepping stones until the right person shows up. Now, looking at her previous partners, I’d say Charlie probably was not her type visually, but he was exactly what she was looking for in a man - potential to be a great power.

What Erica was looking for is the same thing Hillary Clinton was looking for when she met Bill. She recognized that Bill Clinton was her ticket to power, the power she could control and she was right. She realized she could create a great brand out of him and herself, and they still are a brand. The Clintons. No one in this world can say they love each other. They are a brand that works. This is why she’s sticking around despite Epstein and Lewinsky. Also, if you think Bill is the decision-maker there, you must have never been in close proximity to the Clintons. She moves the game, she is the decision-maker.

Erica saw a brand with Charlie. She also saw that Charlie could one day become President of the United States if he wanted to. Charlie had the ear of the most powerful segment of any society - students! He was going to be a very important player in politics, and she was not missing that ride.

What’s striking is how completely her public identity reshapes itself after that relationship begins. The aesthetic, the tone, the values, the presentation all change. Overnight, the persona shifts into the role that best fits Charlie’s world, devoted Christian, modest, supportive housewife. That kind of rapid adaptation is quite impressive for a usual person but not for a psychopath, they do it all the time.

In my head story goes like this: For a moment, it works. She becomes the wife of a rising political figure with access to donors, institutions, and national platforms. At that point, the ceiling isn’t social media influence, it’s empire-building, foundations, global reach, a legacy brand - Kirks!

It’s obvious that Charlie listens to her, whether it’s about donors or the trajectory of TPUSA. The most influential figure in any mentally healthy man’s life is his wife. She is going to be the biggest influence, and that’s just how it is. That is why you need to pick you partner wisely!

Everything was going well until Charlie makes decisions based on conscience rather than expansion and money. He turns down money. He refuses to play dirty politics. I’m assuming someone like Erica who married into this because she had a vision for this brand would not be very happy that. The life she appears to have signed up for - power couple, expanding influence, historical relevance, was collapsing into something else entirely, domesticity, housewife kids and now Charlie's refusing to accept the money that can make him a global power. A supporting role instead of center stage is not her thing.

Her husband died a few days ago, and she walks onto the stage as if she were born there. It comes naturally to her, she knows it, and she wants it. Just days after her husband’s death, she was already laying out ambitious plans for the company over Zoom. It’s obvious she was always deeply involved in the business and knew exactly where to pick up when her turn came.

What people struggle to watch, what makes the screen unbearable, is not grief. It’s the absence of emotional continuity. Performances can be learned, trust me, as a former actress I can speak to that, but emotion can’t be improvised or mimicked if you’ve never experienced it. That’s why I think we are dealing with a psychopath who has never really experienced these emotions and does not know how to play them. And audiences feel it instantly. It’s fake. Again just my opinion.

This isn’t an accusation of crime, I’m not claiming this is what happened and it's a fact. It’s an analysis I made after watching her long enough. And quite honestly I am sick of this shit.

[marcus ✧.* @marcotiics_]

NEW HAYDEN CONTENT EVERYONE WAKE UP!!

[Star Wars Holocron @sw_holocron]

2027 is going to be a huge year for Star Wars

• February 19: newly resorted version of Star Wars in theaters
• April 1-4 - Celebration LA
• May 16 - 25th anniversary of Attack of the Clones
• May 25 - 50th anniversary of Star Wars
• May 28 - Star Wars: Starfighter

[Star Wars @starwars]

celebrate 50 years of a galaxy far, far away when Star Wars: A New Hope returns to theaters February 19, 2027: https://t.co/bV9wA5gKRN

[Stephanie @frostbitsky]

@RealCandaceO dropping truth bombs in these clips.

[Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) @TheMilkBarTV]

Compilation proving why Candace Owens is the greatest investigative reporter of our time - methodical, rigorous, level-headed, driven by facts, and absolutely UNBIASED as she deduces who ACTUALLY killed Charlie Kirk.

Future journalism schools will be teaching entire courses on what Candace is doing here.

[Dissident Media @DissidentMedia]

The FBI agent accidentally asked ChatGPT to write it in the style of young lovers in the 20s instead of young lovers in their 20s.

[Candace Owens @RealCandaceO]

Yes. Yes. And Yes, my friend.
IT IS UNACCEPTABLE.

[Candace Owens @RealCandaceO]

Sorry guys, you murdered my friend. You unlocked the Inigo Montoya in me.

We’re not stopping until we get to the bottom of this thing.

[Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog]

I am leaning very strongly towards the theory that this text exchange was scripted as a way to absolve the boyfriend. It’s almost exactly what Walter White did at the end of Breaking Bad. This feels like a strategy they cooked up from watching too much TV.

[Candace Owens @RealCandaceO]

The sex industry is effectively a global blackmail operation.
If you’re watching porn, hiring escorts, going to strip clubs, etc —just know that someone is learning your perversions and filing them away somewhere in case you ever come into a position of power.

[Candace Owens @RealCandaceO]

For those who haven’t seen the “Becoming Brigitte” series, start here.
It will take just one episode for you to realize the truth.

It truly is a must-watch series.

The Macrons aren’t suing journalists halfway around the world because we lied.

https://t.co/KuN9a4r09a

[Candace Owens @RealCandaceO]

Today on the show:

Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz go at it over Iran.
Sabrina Carpenter carries the hoepocalypse forth with a sexually explicit album cover.

America has become the land of bombs and boobs and frankly, I’m bored.

Join us LIVE:

https://t.co/mKOg0t6YRp

[CatholicVote @CatholicVote]

On Monday, we sent a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook, demanding an apology and the removal of a scene from one of its shows that involves "Eucharistic desecration."

[CatholicVote @CatholicVote]

It’s been 2 days since we called on Apple to remove a blasphemous scene mocking the Eucharist on Apple TV+.

No response. No apology.

Desecrating the Body of Christ is not entertainment.

✝️ Tell Apple: Enough is enough.

👉 https://t.co/NbPorvoDNS

[CatholicVote @CatholicVote]

In an Apple TV+ show, a man & woman break into a Catholic church, open the tabernacle, and snack on the Eucharist—dipping hosts in jam.

This is blasphemy. Mocking the Body of Christ is not entertainment.

✝️ Tell Apple: STOP the sacrilege

https://t.co/NbPorvoDNS

@Apple

[Candace Owens @RealCandaceO]

“Trump is implicated alongside a pedophile, and I knew it but didn’t care because we were friends” is not the flex you think it is.