Charlie Kirk Thread

Some channels in telegram are saying the shot came from the side. Shooting from the roof would be difficult because of the canopy.

Others are saying the neck wound was an exit. Shot had to come beneath his right ear. He fell left which is opposite to official bullet path narrative.

I´m not an expert on this. But found it interesting.

Also some talks about his security team. And the video carrying him to car.

1758148498608.png

I dont understand how can the university cover the grass. Its a crime scene. They didnt had to wait forever. But one week??? If investigators want to go back. The crime scene is gone. Tampering evidence. Who is leading this circus?
 
Last edited:
The crime scene is gone. Tampering evidence. Who is leading this circus?

The secret police, I mean the FBI.

Have you guys not figured out their game with the American People yet after decades of facilitating the coverups of all the school shootings and many other schemes?

What do you think the end game is as they continue their schemes unabated?


1758187000224.png
1758186972854.png
1758189976560.png
1758190007941.png

1758186590765.png
 

Attachments

  • 1758187038256.png
    1758187038256.png
    17.6 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
Bring a RICO against the big money interests.
You want the (((government))) to bring racketeering and corrupt organizations charges against itself? 😂

I think the more impactful societal narrative... is how organized the violent left is and why they MUST be crushed by the government...
The "violent left" is the (((government))).
 
Has this been posted here already? DJT just declared Antifa a terrorist organization.

View attachment 23716


He’s right of course.

One problem that I’m seeing is that Trump / maga supporters will be declared terrorists and rounded up the next time the left takes power. They seemed ready to during Biden’s
State of the union

IMG_6829.jpeg

And yes, most definitely there will be more assassination attempts
 
The secret police, I mean the FBI.

Have you guys not figured out their game with the American People yet after decades of facilitating the coverups of all the school shootings and many other schemes?

What do you think the end game is as they continue their schemes unabated?

I used to think the end game was turning the west into a slave state of Israel.

At this point it is just the overall destruction of the west through different means: subversion through Hollywood, immigration from brown countries, and lowering the birth rate of heritage Americans/europeans


You want the (((government))) to bring racketeering and corrupt organizations charges against itself? 😂


The "violent left" is the (((government))).
[/quote]

I thought the rico case would go against Soros ?

I dunno some of what you say is accurate maybe... I'm just not sold that Israel really needed Charlie dead. I think there's a little bit of 5D Dreidel spinning going on.

I will believe it without hesitation. Charlie was having doubts about committing even more fully to Israel. So Israel kills him to send a message to other influencers to get them to fall in line.



I think the more impactful societal narrative as people turn away from Israel (everyone under 30 is not pro Israeli) is how organized the violent left is and why they MUST be crushed by the government if everyday Americans are going to have any semblance of freedom and decency.

NGOs, with lots of Jewish donors are involved. You can read EMJ's The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit for all the details there...but again a society that is so lost where it tells boys they can be girls and vice versa is destined to be steeped on choas.


I think it’s easy to make the mistake of assuming all if the Israel elites are on the same page. Think how much Marc Cuban and Donald Trump hate each other. It’s possible Israel wasn’t event trying about to dump Bibi Nehanyatu before the October 2023 escalations the way Charlie Kirk tells it
 
Last edited:
I thought the rico case would go against Soros?
Guys like Soros and Ackman are public billionaires who are the front for anonymous trillionaires who are (((The US Government))). There is already a one world government controlled by an elite cabal of trillionaires (most of whom are jews). This is what I mean when I say things like, "It's the jews attacking themselves," and "America, Russia, Israel, and Ukraine are all run by the same (((people)))." Everything to them is theater, they did after all invent Hollywood. They are masters of illusion and deception.

Antifa was able to burn cities because it was the (((government))) allowing itself to do so. They are one entity, and so when DJT says "I'm designating Antifa as a terrorist organization because they killed Charlie Kirk," it is laughable. As we're seeing with Epstein it's all one big money laundering operation. And where does all (((their))) money come from? Taxation of the working class. The "big joke" is that (((they))) get us to fund our own demise! 😂 Isn't it hilarious?

That is why if someone wants to do something without resulting to physical violence someone should organize a mass boycott of federal and state taxation. Just think what changes could be enacted if 100 million Christians simultaneously refused to pay taxes to their jewish overlords?

"No taxation without representation." A Christian population should not allow itself to be taxed by a jew run government that does not represent their interests and needs.
 
Last edited:
Some channels in telegram are saying the shot came from the side. Shooting from the roof would be difficult because of the canopy.

Others are saying the neck wound was an exit. Shot had to come beneath his right ear. He fell left which is opposite to official bullet path narrative.

I´m not an expert on this. But found it interesting.

Also some talks about his security team. And the video carrying him to car.

View attachment 23714

Footage from TPUSA camera would answer all these questions
1758202747799.webp
 
Sure the shot itself isn't difficult, but putting a living, breathing human being in the crosshairs for the first time and pulling the trigger, is.
I still think the tranny diddler was the shooter.


Two things I have a problem with:

-The motivation of the alleged shooter Robinson. He just doesn't fit the profile of a rabid antifa. I doubt he could have been propagandized to the extent that he would be motivated to kill Kirk through normal means. More likely, if he really is the killer, he might have been professionally brainwashed (MK ultra, drugs etc)

-If he really wanted to kill Kirk, he could have easily done so by getting close to him and using a handgun. Kirk is approachable, especially for a clean-cut, honor student from Utah. The scheme of sniping him with a rifle at a public event with thousands of people and a lot of security personnel seems far-fetched, too risky, he could easily get caught and fail, whereas Robinson could easily work himself into a situation where he would be in close proximity with Kirk and shoot him point blank with a gun.

The spectacular method of killing Kirk is similar to the Kennedy assassination, a highly traumatic public event that would be filmed and would have a strong political impact that can be exploited.
 
I'm just not sold that Israel really needed Charlie dead.
Most lines of thinking on this topic assume that only the observed outcome would have satisfied those planning the assassination.

Likely no one needed Kirk dead, but someone at least wanted him and those close to him terrorized. What if everything happened the same way, except that the bullet hit no one? Would this distinct possibility represent a total loss to the planners?
 
Two things I have a problem with:

-The motivation of the alleged shooter Robinson. He just doesn't fit the profile of a rabid antifa. I doubt he could have been propagandized to the extent that he would be motivated to kill Kirk through normal means. More likely, if he really is the killer, he might have been professionally brainwashed (MK ultra, drugs etc)
The recruitment/brainwashing method is IMO secondary - they found a gullible person (terminally online autist with a tranny fetish) and used whatever tools they had at their disposal to turn him.

-If he really wanted to kill Kirk, he could have easily done so by getting close to him and using a handgun. Kirk is approachable, especially for a clean-cut, honor student from Utah. The scheme of sniping him with a rifle at a public event with thousands of people and a lot of security personnel seems far-fetched, too risky, he could easily get caught and fail, whereas Robinson could easily work himself into a situation where he would be in close proximity with Kirk and shoot him point blank with a gun.

The spectacular method of killing Kirk is similar to the Kennedy assassination, a highly traumatic public event that would be filmed and would have a strong political impact that can be exploited.
While I believe he was the shooter, I never said that this operation was his idea. He was just a pawn (one of many) executing a plan written by others.
 
Found this gem in my continued exploration of Charlie's work, may he rest in peace. A welcome contrast to the usual hard-to-control coffee table debates, such a pleasure to see how sharply he performed in a more formal setting.



Again, summarised using https://gist.ly/youtube-summarizer for the folks who can't spare the time to watch the full video.

## Introduction

In a recent address at the Oxford Union, a prominent American commentator delivered a provocative and impassioned defense of former President Donald Trump, while drawing sharp contrasts between the current states of Britain and America. The speech, marked by pointed corrections of perceived misinformation and a critique of both British and American political trajectories, offers a window into the mindset of a segment of the American right. It also serves as a rallying cry for the restoration of Western values, national identity, and a rejection of progressive policies that, in the speaker’s view, threaten the foundations of both nations.

This article unpacks the key themes, arguments, and rhetorical strategies employed in the speech, exploring the broader implications for transatlantic politics, national identity, and the ongoing debates over immigration, free speech, and cultural change.

## Setting the Stage: Correcting the Record

The speaker begins by addressing several points of contention raised in previous discussions, setting a combative tone and establishing credibility. By offering monetary incentives for proof of claims—such as the deportation of a U.S. citizen under Trump—and systematically debunking what he describes as “lies” and “hoaxes,” the speaker positions himself as a truth-teller in a landscape rife with misinformation.

He corrects the record on several issues:

- **Deportation of U.S. Citizens:** The claim that Trump deported U.S. citizens is dismissed as false, with the speaker challenging the audience to provide evidence.
- **Charlottesville and Trump’s Remarks:** The oft-cited “people on both sides” comment is reframed as a reference to the statue debate, not an endorsement of white supremacists.
- **Military Service:** The credentials of Pete Hegseth are defended, emphasizing his decorated military service beyond his role as a television host.
- **January 6th:** The characterization of the Capitol events as an “insurrection” is rejected, with the speaker noting that most attendees were nonviolent and entered the building after being “invited.”
- **Canadian Border and Terrorism:** The speaker highlights the issue of border security, particularly the Canadian border, and the influx of individuals on terrorist watch lists.
- **South Africa:** He criticizes the lack of awareness about political violence and anti-white rhetoric in South Africa, underscoring the importance of global context.

These corrections serve not only to challenge the audience’s assumptions but also to frame the subsequent arguments within a narrative of media distortion and elite misinformation.

## The Decline of Britain: A Cautionary Tale

### Britain’s Glorious Past

The speaker’s admiration for Britain is evident as he recounts its historical achievements: Shakespeare, the steam engine, Adam Smith, the defeat of Napoleon, the abolition of the slave trade, and resistance to Hitler. He credits Britain with laying the foundations for American greatness, suggesting that “Make America Great Again” is, in essence, a call to return to British roots.

### Contemporary Britain: Loss of Values

However, this reverence quickly turns to lamentation. The speaker argues that Britain’s ruling elites are abandoning the very values that made the nation great. He points to several areas of decline:

- **Freedom of Speech:** Citing statistics from the Telegraph, he notes that 30 people a day are arrested for offensive social media posts. Silent prayer near abortion clinics can result in arrest, as in the case of a 74-year-old woman in Scotland.
- **Economic Stagnation:** The average British worker earns less today than in 2008, with incomes outside London lagging behind every U.S. state. High energy prices, attributed to net-zero policies, are blamed for stifling industry.
- **National Identity and Immigration:** The speaker criticizes the Conservative Party for failing to preserve British identity, allowing mass immigration without regard for Western values or skills. He highlights recent moves by Labour to deport criminal immigrants, suggesting that Conservatives neglected this responsibility.

### The Erosion of Christianity

A central concern is the decline of Christianity in Britain, the birthplace of numerous denominations. The speaker warns that practicing Muslims will soon outnumber practicing Christians, framing this as a catastrophic shift. He argues that migration patterns reflect a one-way movement from Muslim-majority countries to Christian-majority ones, never the reverse.

## America at the Crossroads

### The Trump Effect

The speaker contends that Donald Trump has fundamentally altered the trajectory of American—and by extension, Western—politics. Where once it was assumed that America would inevitably follow Britain’s leftward drift, Trump has “destroyed the assumption that the left’s victory was inevitable.”

### Immigration and Border Security

Under President Biden, the speaker claims, over 10 million illegal aliens entered America, facilitated by social media guides and lax enforcement. He describes entire neighborhoods being “turned over to migrants living on the dole,” with America treated as a “pile of wealth for the rest of the planet to plunder.”

Trump’s response, according to the speaker, was decisive: border crossings were cut by 99.9%, exposing previous leaders’ claims of an “unfixable mess” as lies. However, he notes that simply closing the border does not address the millions already present illegally, likening the situation to locking the door after a burglary.

### The Fight Against DEI

The speaker rails against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, which he describes as a form of “tyranny.” He argues that these policies violate the Constitution’s prohibition of racial discrimination, resulting in:

- Denial of jobs and promotions based on race
- Exclusion of students from universities
- Denial of federal contracts to companies based on ownership demographics
- Legal action against companies not meeting diversity quotas

Trump’s efforts to dismantle DEI are praised, but the speaker calls for more aggressive action: immediate withdrawal of federal funding from non-compliant universities and audits of federal contractors to root out DEI practices.

### The Transgender Debate

The speaker addresses the rise of transgender policies in schools and medical institutions, condemning the encouragement of hormone treatments and surgeries for children. He cites cases where parents risk losing custody for objecting to their child’s transition and shares stories of “detransitioners” who regret their experiences.

Trump’s actions to protect women’s sports are highlighted, with the speaker disputing claims that only a few women have been affected by transgender athletes. He asserts that over 890 women have lost awards and championships to “biological men,” framing this as a significant issue.

## The Call for More: Policy Demands

The speaker is unapologetic in his demands for further action:

- **More Deportations:** He calls for increased efforts to remove illegal immigrants.
- **More Peace Deals:** He advocates for diplomatic achievements.
- **Defunding Woke Colleges:** He urges the withdrawal of funding from institutions promoting progressive ideologies.
- **Elimination of DEI:** He wants those enforcing DEI policies to lose their jobs.

He frames these demands as the will of the American people, asserting that democracy should reflect popular desires—even when they conflict with elite preferences.

## Lessons for Britain: A Transatlantic Appeal

### The Mirror Effect

The speaker warns that America’s current struggles mirror Britain’s past and present, urging the British audience to learn from American efforts to resist decline. He suggests that Labour’s recent policy shifts are a direct result of Trump’s influence, implying that strong leadership can force change even among political opponents.

### Restoring National Greatness

The speech concludes with a direct appeal to British pride and patriotism. The speaker urges the audience to reject mediocrity and strive for a “Great Britain” worthy of its history. He provocatively suggests that Britons should “all be wearing MAGA hats and cheering Donald Trump on every step of the way,” framing Trump’s agenda as a blueprint for national renewal.

## The Broader Context: Populism and National Identity

The speech reflects broader trends in Western politics, including the rise of populism, skepticism toward globalization, and the reassertion of national identity. These movements are driven by concerns over economic stagnation, cultural change, and perceived loss of sovereignty.

Trump’s presidency, and the speaker’s defense of it, exemplify the appeal of strong leadership, clear boundaries, and a rejection of progressive orthodoxy. The invocation of British history and values serves to situate these debates within a transatlantic context, suggesting that the fate of America and Britain are intertwined.

## Conclusion

The Oxford Union address offers a vivid snapshot of contemporary conservative thought, blending nostalgia for national greatness with a call to action against perceived threats. By juxtaposing Britain’s past glory with its present challenges, and framing Trump as a bulwark against decline, the speaker seeks to inspire both Americans and Britons to reclaim their heritage.

While the arguments are forceful and the rhetoric stirring, the speech also raises important questions about the nature of democracy, the role of immigration, the meaning of equality, and the future of Western societies. As debates over national identity and cultural change continue to shape politics on both sides of the Atlantic, the themes explored in this address will remain central to the ongoing struggle over the direction of the West.
 
Sorry but that is an easy shot. Anyone whose been deer hunting with their 12 year old can confirm.

Zinn is definately involved in the discourse and state co-op ting and an assistant in the get away


I'm not saying nothing to see here and keep moving. I'm saying more is going to come out and I do believe there is collision with radical NGO and possibly state actors as well.

I'm just saying that I do believe the shooter did it and I do believe he was radicalized.
I agree with you that it's an easy shot, but I've never (maybe you have?) had a human being in my crosshairs. I'm guessing the stress would be substantial compared to a moose or deer. Not to mention the sheer amount of people around. And the fact that you have to make an escape immediately after. I think you mentioned you were a military man, so you might have more experience hunting men, as opposed to me hunting food. 😅
 
You want the (((government))) to bring racketeering and corrupt organizations charges against itself? 😂


The "violent left" is the (((government))).
-If he really wanted to kill Kirk, he could have easily done so by getting close to him and using a handgun. Kirk is approachable, especially for a clean-cut, honor student from Utah. The scheme of sniping him with a rifle at a public event with thousands of people and a lot of security personnel seems far-fetched, too risky, he could easily get caught and fail, whereas Robinson could easily work himself into a situation where he would be in close proximity with Kirk and shoot him point blank with a gun.

The spectacular method of killing Kirk is similar to the Kennedy assassination, a highly traumatic public event that would be filmed and would have a strong political impact that can be exploited.

Now that’s interesting, I guess I was figuring it was because he’d have a much better chance of escaping. (By using a long scoped rifle at 200 yards) He actually did escape and evade law-enforcement and probably would’ve gotten away with it if his father hadn’t turned him in.


The other thing was, he must’ve had help. Someone else came up with this plan either in the FBI, the CIA or the equivalent, and helped walk him through what to do.

My other question is “why Charlie Kirk”? He has got to be the most milque toast out of all of the Talking Heads on the right. If you want to talk about “far right maga” maybe Laura Loomer, Candace Owens, matt Walsh?

Arguably Kirk was more effective at moving the needle and shifting the Overton window, by constantly talking with young people and potentially waking up a sleeping giant in the American people, especially young American people.

I’m still blaming Zionist billionaires, and the state of Israel for masterminding all of this because they should always be guilty until proven innocent
 
Last edited:
I thought guys like Nick Fuentes and Dan Bilzerian would have been more top priority targets for Mossad/Israel/Zionists. I remember when Fuentes was getting massive death threats after he said "your body my choice' and a random Jewish Karen actually showed up at the door of his home which was followed by her getting pepper sprayed. If this person could have gotten this close to Fuentes it should be trivial for higher level agents to do more
 
I thought guys like Nick Fuentes and Dan Bilzerian would have been more top priority targets for Mossad/Israel/Zionists. I remember when Fuentes was getting massive death threats after he said "your body my choice' and a random Jewish Karen actually showed up at the door of his home which was followed by her getting pepper sprayed. If this person could have gotten this close to Fuentes it should be trivial for higher level agents to do more


I don’t think many people know who Nick Fuentes is?

Does your average American know who Nick Fuentes is? I’m not even sure your average right wing Maga knows who he is? And if they do, haven’t, they already dismissed them as being a halfway out of the closet homosexual with next to no audience at this point?

Dan bilzarian yes is also definitely openly anti Israel.

If I am to believe the screenshots over on the left-wing echo chambers, such as blue sky forums, then the next target would be the orange cheetoh or Elon Musk, because that is who the average leftist is fantasizing about killing next, according to the average leftist
 
Back
Top