The fatal shooting of Conservative commentator and MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk has been confirmed.
As this story is still ongoing, the suspect still reportedly at large, there will presumably be new details emerging over the next few hours and days.
So this is a provisional post, based on the currently available reporting at the time of writing.
What is clearly known is that the influential evangelical and Christian Nationalist (and hugely popular figurehead of the ‘MAGA Youth’) was shot during his debate event at the university in Utah – and sadly died shortly later.
Obviously, no one should be being violently assaulted for their social or political views. No one should be shot for staging a debate.
And Charlie Kirk‘s death appears to be another symptom of the toxic, polarised political climate, just like the recent fatal shootings in Minnesota and various other terrible incidents in recent years.
So an occurrence like this is not surprising in this climate of bitter division: especially when it concerns a provocative figure and someone considered an inflammatory speaker.
So, if they simply announce that some angry ‘leftist’ or someone similar shot him and that’s all there is to it, that could be perfectly believable.
But is there anything suspicious about this event so far, as far as has been reported?
Possibly, yes.
To start with, security for the event was virtually non-existent, according to attendees. The shooter was reportedly able to target Kirk from an elevated position in a nearby building.
It’s curious that an alleged suspect was immediately detained, described as an “elderly gentleman”. Some witnesses said this detained man was verbally claiming to be the shooter.
But this person was then released, the real suspect apparently still at large. At time of writing this, a second suspect detained by the FBI has also been released, several hours after the shooting.
Concerning the first person arrested, it’s odd that he would claim to be the shooter if he wasn’t (assuming those accounts were true). Why do that? Was he somehow acting as a distraction tactic to help the real shooter escape? Or was he just mentally unstable?
It is perhaps questionable that there was very limited security for an event that was considered inflammatory and had already provoked significant opposition ahead of time.
Only six police officers for an event that drew three thousand people seems incongruous.
Just as curious, the shooting reportedly occurred precisely when Kirk was being asked a question about transgender shooters (and gun violence in general was being discussed).
Which is a strange coincidence. If the perpetrator turns out to be another trans shooter (like the Minneapolis school shooter a fortnight ago), that’ll be even more suspicious.
But the fact that he was being asked to defend his pro-gun views at the very moment he was shot is obviously very notable.
Also worth noting is that there was only one shot fired. If only one shot was fired and it was a successful kill-shot, it would logically suggest a skilled shooter, even a professional.
Especially from the distance that’s been reported (around 200 meters). In most cases like this, multiple shots have to be fired – if it was an amateur, that is.
If it wasn’t an amateur, then that raises more questions.
It is also notable that the announcement of Kirk’s death came not from the police or authorities, nor from any media outlets, but from Donald Trump‘s personal social media account.
That’s unusual. Not necessarily suspicious, just unusual. But Trump is often unusual, I guess.
The real indicator of whether there’s any other agenda in play here will lie with the reaction of the President and the administration – and whether this is used to further or facilitate a political agenda.
Maybe it’s a sign of these deceitful times, but I did rather quickly wonder if this high profile murder serves as a massive distraction from the ongoing Epstein problem, which re-emerged into the headlines just yesterday, once again implicating Trump, along with Dershowitz, Mandelson and multiple others. This, for example, is from just yesterday.
Having a massive story like this fatal shooting of a famous influencer happen right now would be a very timely way to shift the news agenda again.
Everyone’s talking about this now: and not about what they were talking about yesterday – which was Trump’s ‘birthday message’ to Epstein and also the Epstein/Ghislaine victims/survivors group threatening to publicly reveal everything they know.
Having the victim be a major MAGA influencer also helps to possibly reinforce and re-galvanise the overall movement and narrative – at a time when both the Epstein issue and Israel have been fracturing Trump’s base.
The MAGA movement has been very divided in the last few months. This killing could be a unifying event at precisely the time it’s needed.
Again, a lot depends on what happens in response.
We could note that Charlie Kirk was an evangelical Zionist, Israel ally, and supporter of the manufactured apocalypse scenario in the Holy Land (he was also present for the Jerusalem declaration during the first Trump administration): so martyring him could also help bring some of the disaffected MAGA crowd back to the pro-Israel camp.
His perceived martyrdom could win back some of the MAGA faithful to his own views: for example, that Israel’s actions in Gaza are justified or that Israel has no undue influence over American politicians – both positions that Kirk strongly maintained.
Similarly, his death could also be used to further empower the Trump’s movement’s growing push for Martial Law and military takeover: especially because Kirk was a zealous advocate for Trump’s deployment of the military against American cities.
He has in fact been cheerleading for it, and said very recently, “Once we liberate D.C., you better believe it — Chicago, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Portland, San Francisco. We got a big military. We should be willing to use it… We got to go hard. We gotta go big league. We’re talking National Guard, tanks — every street, you need military.“
So, again, how the administration chooses to use this event will possibly shed light on the nature of the murder itself.
What happens next, how this is responded to, is important to observe. It’ll indicate whether this was simply another act of American political violence or whether it could be something more.
But don’t underestimate the willingness of those in power (whichever side of the ideological divide they might be on) to sacrifice even their own assets in order to facilitate greater agendas.
The fact that Trump has already blamed the ‘radical left‘ is telling. Also in the same speech, when listing other high profile figures who’ve been assassinated, he only named right-wing figures: for example, he didn’t mention the Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman, who was shot dead in her home just months ago.
That’s a deliberate omission.
The fact that he also wants the whole country to lower the flag to half-mast for four days in tribute to Kirk is questionable: on one hand it’s a poignant gesture, but it’s also very odd for a victim who wasn’t either a statesman or in the military.
People get shot or killed all the time in America and this isn’t suggested. It suggests to me that Charlie Kirk’s murder – regardless of who did it or what was really behind it – is already being carefully navigated into psychological-operations territory.
It’s also not impossible that there are parties in America that *want* assassinations and reprisals to be occurring – possibly to manufacture or inflame unrest and provide pretext for further subversion of normal life.
Why, for example, has Trump revoked security details for Kamala Harris and some others? Isn’t that almost inviting further threats to public figures?
Again, we’ll see, I guess.
I disagree with someone like Charlie Kirk on virtually everything. But he was very good at what he did: which was being a professional debater. And by all accounts he was a pleasant human being off-stage.
And free speech should be sacred. Assassinating someone for their political views is unacceptable in any civilised society. And the people who’ve celebrated his death online are just as disgusting as the far-right people who celebrated Jo Cox’s brutal murder in 2016.
But gun related deaths are no new phenomenon in America. And Charlie Kirk himself believed that gun crime victims (including, for example, the school kids murdered in Minneapolis two weeks ago) are necessary sacrifices for a greater good. In his own words: “I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.“
Again, it’s either weird or it’s ironic that he was shot specifically while being asked about gun deaths in America.
I stopped believing in coincidences quite a few decades ago. But what better way to take American minds off Gaza (where hundreds of people are murdered daily) and avoid the distraction of the ghost of Epstein. Not to mention rallying the hard right around a common cause – as indeed you say. To my mind this absolutely stinks of false flag. We know the the most probable suspects and I need not name names. Also how remarkable was the timing of Tommy Robinson’s march on London along with a guest apppearance from Musk, who wasn’t seig heiling for a change. Absolutely horrible but headlining BBC news of course. A rather blatant and evidently coordinated drive to install fascism on both sides of The Pond. All that aside, I’ll certainly be very interested to read your follow up on this story. Horrible, as I say, and let’s face it happening on the eve oif Sept 11th, well just another coincodence obviously.
Not only Eve of 9/11 but the man was 22 and it took 33 hours to find him. Plus Trump TV appearance, like Fauci hidden hand during Covid tv appearance, was making the Masonic M in an unmistakable wrist contortion. It stinks of. Hoax /FF but would CK be part of it? Was he really pulling away from his tribe handlers? FYI. You cannot be a Christian and a Zionist, even tho millions subscribe to it.