So, the Charlie Kirk thing keeps going and going.
I’ve covered it a couple of times already (see here), and some of the aftermath (here, last week). But the reality of the matter still isn’t entirely clear or being agreed upon.
There’s a few more questions too that are now feeling more relevant.
Here’s one: how many shooters or accomplices were in that Utah venue when Charlie Kirk was shot?
The official narrative wants to maintain that it was just one: the 22 year old Tyler Robinson, the sole suspect in custody.
The guy we’re told killed the Conservative commentator with that single perfect kill-shot from some 200 meters away.
Not impossible. Also not hugely believable: for various reasons we discussed in previous posts, not least of which is the absence of a confession from someone who presumably would want the credit and notoriety after turning himself in.
Among the flood of online clips, analyses and speculations that have been flying around for two weeks, two particularly interesting clips from phone footage close to where Kirk was sitting were recently shared on Jimmy Dore’s YouTube channel (full video here).
One shows an odd-looking man in the crowd right in front of Kirk, who appears to make very curious motions right at the moment the bullet apparently hits Kirk in the neck. These movements are theorised – based on close inspection of his odd behaviour – to indicate the use of a ‘palm gun’.
The man’s behaviour, including his distinct lack of reaction to the sight of Kirk bleeding out from the neck, are highly suspicious. And his motions match perfectly, timing-wise, with the shot apparently hitting Kirk, who is just a few feet away.
Am I saying this is definitive? No. Just that it’s curious.
Yahoo! News published a fact check here of this clip to debunk it. But it’s a laughably bad effort, relying on the ‘fact’ that ‘authorities made no statements about a palm gun in the fatal shooting of Kirk‘, and that this claim has to be false because the man in the video is not Tyler Robinson.
And that’s basically it! ‘Fact Check’ complete!
The second clip, filmed from right beside the stage, appears to show someone making very deliberate and unusual jerking motions on what appears to be their phone – right at the moment something seems to hit Kirk’s neck.
This, it is speculated, could’ve been a ‘cellphone gun’ – which is something I never even knew existed until now.
Again, the motions are very curious and unnatural looking – and match the timing of the apparent fatal shot perfectly.
The first clip I find more convincing than the second one: but they’re both highly interesting. The first guy in particular is hugely suspect in both his actions and his reactions. An isolated video loop of the footage can be seen here.
And this, remember, is in addition to the widely shared clips we already discussed in a previous post of what appears to be two of Charlie Kirk’s own security men making strange hand signals and motions right before the shot is fired.
So, was Tyler Robinson merely one of several potential ‘shooters’ on the scene? Or was he not a shooter at all?
If the former, it might imply a Dealey Plaza style scenario, with multiple shooters but one patsy. But in the JFK case, there were multiple shots fired: in this case, there was reportedly only one shot, which makes the presence of multiple shooters seem redundant at first glance.
But it’s possible this Tyler Robinson guy might not even have had a gun at all. That would explain the incongruous FBI story of him allegedly dismantling the weapon, only to apparently reassemble it and leaving it to be found in the woods.
And the probable nonsense of all the bullet casings with political messaging or symbols carved in them – which, as I said previously, seems pointless if there was only one shot needed.
It’s possible the actual shooter was much closer to the stage, as the clips in the Jimmy Dore video imply.
In which case, was Tyler Robinson more like a mentally compromised or coerced individual brought into the scene in the same way RFK’s supposed assassin Sirhan Sirhan was in 1968: purely there to be the official perpetrator while someone else did the actual deed?
Remember also that, as reported immediately, there was a man who was arrested at first, who claimed to be the shooter but was then released? As I immediately suggested on the 10th, that man was clearly creating a distraction for the police, deliberately adding to the confusion and uncertainty.
George Zinn, it turns out, is ‘also being held for the sexual exploitation of a minor‘ and ‘agents found more than 20 images of children “in various stages of undress and sexual posing“…’
Also a quick Google search reveals that although the name ‘Zinn’ is ‘not exclusively Jewish, it is commonly found in both German and Ashkenazic Jewish communities‘. Which may or may not be relevant when speculating on what entities or interest groups could’ve been behind the event.
But in terms of the misdirection tactic, is that not also reminiscent of the infamous Girl in the Polka Dot Dress from the scene of the RFK assassination? A deliberate distraction/misdirection actor placed into the mix to confuse both the police and the eyewitnesses present on the scene?
Also, a second person was reportedly questioned by police after George Zinn as a suspect and then also released. Who was that guy?
The reality is that we’re going to be asking these questions forever and without definitive answers. As with Jeffrey Epstein supposedly killing himself in his cell, there’s going to be an official verdict, regardless of plausibility – and they don’t care if we buy it or not.
The whole way all of this has unfolded since September 10th has been a narrative mess.
Things like false flags or psy-ops often fall apart upon inspection: but usually there’s at least a workable enough narrative that a decent amount of people will trust the official story.
Not this time. No one seems to believe anything: moreover, everyone seems to subscribe to different theories. Which almost makes you wonder if this multiplicity of takes and this ceaseless flood of talking points, contradictions and speculations is in fact part of the psychological manipulation.
It might even be designed to remain like this, with everyone pointing the finger in a different direction.
These modern shooters seem to be specifically designed to be politically ambiguous enough so that the right can blame the left and the left can blame the right: there always seems to be enough contradictory information so that an objective ‘truth’ can’t be agreed on and each side gets to proceed from – and reinforce – their preexisting bias.
It’s as if they’re trolling both sides on purpose: serving to maintain an ongoing state of tension and sectarianism.
The only thing that’s clear is that no one believes the FBI: which has done such a botched job of the aftermath that it seems to indicate they themselves were not in on any of this, but were merely scrambling to do damage control and narrative manipulation after the fact.
One imagines if the FBI was in the loop, they wouldn’t have had to scramble so desperately to fix the narrative – and they wouldn’t have done such a poor job of it.
The spectre of a possible Israeli hit (Mossad/CIA?) remains. A foreign intelligence hit bypassing domestic agencies entirely would help explain the confusion on the domestic front.
We know that that’s how Mossad and co operate: able to act with impunity in foreign countries, leaving domestic authorities to try to clean up the mess and handle the aftermath. We saw that with Charlie Hebdo, for example.
That’s not me saying decisively I think Israelis did it: just that they have form in this department, and they also have motive in this case.
Tyler Robinson, the kid in custody for the shooting, is probably not the shooter. His supposed ‘confession’ on an Internet forum was clearly fake, sounding nothing like a real online dialogue and more like a bad script. The fact the FBI tried to sell this as the primary evidence is actually kind of pathetic.
He still hasn’t officially confessed to the crime, as far as we know – despite the official narrative that he confessed to his father.
As far as reported, he still doesn’t have a lawyer or any kind of representation. Which has a whiff of Lee Harvey Oswald to it.
For that matter, there’s been no word of a funeral for Charlie Kirk: despite that massive, bloated memorial/propaganda event last week. Nor has there been any mention of an autopsy or coroner’s report. All we’ve known of is that footage of Erika Kirk and the body in the casket in that strange video released a few days after the shooting.
Which is odd.
What are they going to do with Robinson? Trump wants the death penalty. It’s just as likely he could be announced to have taken his own life in his cell.
Because the only alternative is that they release him and the FBI has to admit that their whole narrative was false or manufactured. And that’s not going to happen.
A lot of people are now starting to believe there was no assassination: that the entire thing was staged. Some have been trying to persuade me of that. Suggestions of blood-packs and the like have been floated.
I don’t subscribe to that view: at least not without more convincing.
I still think, as I argued here, that it was a form of ritual sacrifice – and yes, that it was therefore ‘staged’ to that extent: but that Charlie Kirk probably was actually killed.
But I could still be convinced otherwise: albeit with the underlying agendas still being the same.
In terms of the overriding agenda, my takes haven’t changed from what I wrote on the day of the shooting. I said then that this was (a) to reunify the fractured MAGA base around the ongoing agendas, (b) to provide a massive distraction from the Epstein problem.
I still think those were the two main objectives. The manufactured ‘Christian Revival’ that’s also been going on actually just plays into the reunifying and strengthening of the MAGA movement: having been losing support and credibility over both Epstein and Israel, turning to Christian Nationalism to bolster the base and reinject momentum makes tactical sense.
I still believe there’s also the additional element of ritual sacrifice and controlled psychological operation, as previously discussed.
But again, these things are made to serve multiple purposes and forward multiple agendas – that’s why they’re so valuable and are considered to be worth the risks involved. These things wouldn’t be done if they didn’t deliver on multiple fronts.
Barring any more especially game-changing information coming to light, I probably won’t cover the Charlie Kirk thing any further.
It’s clearly what those behind it want everyone to be hyper focused on and arguing about – which means we’re probably better off not being hyper focused on it.
If this is where they want our attention, our attention probably shouldn’t stay here.
