PREAMBLE: Ladies and Gentleman, Super is happy for this discussion to continue if we can remain civil and disagree respectfully, updated as necessary. If not, comments will be removed and if necessary the blog closed and any future Kirk-related blogs closed for discussion.
Part 1, by Wiz (more right leaning)
Part 2, by Prof Daz (more left leaning)
SYNOPSIS: Charlie Kirk spoke his final words at 12:23 p.m. on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, in front of around three thousand people. Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old alleged shooter of the 31-year-old Republican, remains under investigation. Utah’s governor suggested he may have been radicalized by the Left, though his MAGA-entrenched family and transgender partner complicate the narrative.
The attack shook the United States, exposing deep ideological fractures. Two days later, President Donald Trump concluded that “the radicals on the left are the problem” rather than the radical right who, he said, merely want to “stop crime,” framing the debate in partisan terms during a live Fox News interview. However, voices such as Jack Posobiec and Steve Bannon, speakers at Kirk’s conventions, had long used hard-line rhetoric, calling the Left “demonic” and urging the building of “an army of the awakened.”
History offers a far broader perspective. Abraham Lincoln, Yitzhak Rabin, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated by right-wing extremists. John F. Kennedy and Archduke Franz Ferdinand, whose death helped ignite World War I, were killed by left-leaning radicals. A two-way street.
Just months earlier, on June 14, Democrats Melissa and Mark Hortman were gunned down in their Brooklyn home by Vance Boelter, a hard-right evangelical, white Christian who disguised himself as a police officer. Married nearly 32 years, the couple left behind two children. The killings, however, received far less attention than Kirk’s death and did not prompt a presidential call to confront the radical right.
“What do they all share in common? Every political assassination is an attack on the collective; on our ability to disagree without destroying,” an academic observer noted. George Bernard Shaw called it the "extreme form of censorship."
Left or Right isn't the problem in my view. The greater danger lies in the radical mind and in how easily society nurtures the “us versus them” divide. As Desmond Tutu warned, “The moment we divide the world into ‘us’ and ‘them,’ we begin to lose our humanity.”
Charlie Kirk (above and below) is survived by his wife and two children.
Married nearly 32 years, Melissa and Mark Hortman as well as Gilbert, their Labrador (below) leave behind two children.
Boelter who assasinated the Hartmans allegedly kept a hit list of 70 targets, including Democratic lawmakers and even some anti-abortion clinics. The same early morning at 2am he invaded the Minnesota home (above) of the Hoffmans and their children who survived the shooting following surgery.
Replies
Thanks, Meelk. You're a balanced poster mate. Kudos.
You're right in principle. It's a subjective projection and expression of their ideology.
I'm just talking about extreme cases (which who knows how extreme it is nowadays). If someone was to say assassinate a political figure and bear the Australian flag as a symbol for their cause or whatever, I would hope we denounce that quickly. That's about the only rare occasion where I might think: waving the flag isn't great. The optics and possibility for misinterpretation are just a minefield. What's your thoughts? Hypothetically, say nothing?
PS: I'm really stoked how were all being civil even in fierce disagreement. If Kirk is watching, hopefully from a good place, he might smile over it. I hope when our VIP guest, Daz, comes in, we'll stay civil. There's time lol.
Yeah it's a good point HOE, I guess circumstances would or should dictate how others, inlcuding us, should respond.
Hoe, I re-read first thread and I was close to a celebrating vibe in it. I did not celebrate, but i went close.I despised him. I did not debase myself by pretending to be upset that he, rather than anyone else, was dead. He was a divisive talking head I am happy with my posts, but I kept it up in a partial effort to bleed some hate off Daz.
The bull wants the Matador but goes for the cape.
I failed, but if the knuckledraggers go low on him again...Gloves Off.
I hope Super leaves it open as much as possible
Meelk, is there in fact a thing as "the flag itself"? It is ultimately a piece of cloth with a design that has some set colour scheme. We bring meaning to that combination of cloth, design and colour. We load the object with symbolic value. BUT "we" is splintered, so different meanings are loaded onto the object. History normalizes some of the meanings, so we take them for granted and do not feel a need to open those particular historical meanings up for further discussion. Every culture has histoy that does that normalization work. But just like "we" is splintered, "history" is interpreted differentrly, because past events and people and practices are loaded with different meanings.
Thus, it is entirely predictable that a stabilized (historically) object like a flag can become the subject of contestation, as different groups contest what the past means, as represented by that object?
PS: I have a tatoo that everyone recongizes as Australian but in my later years I have begun to think of adding to the tatoo, to broaden its symbolism. Maybe it is not just "we" who are splintered, but "I", the subject we call "I", can splinter over time too?!
So HOE, what's your thoughts on the "tolerant " burning the flag in public and the support for them to do so on the likes of the ABC and we'll known left leaning platforms ? Does this not make you start to question the values of those leading the charge ? You see that's the shit pushing people right of centre .
Agreed Fongy. Until the flag adopts pronouns and identifies as indigenous, the extreme lefties will look down on anyone who waves it. For the record, I think we need a new flag but I'll continue to wave the one we have in the short-term.
I agree that it's time for a new flag. Something that just moves us a little away from our colonial past. I also agree that whatever our flag is, I'll always support it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have too much emotion attached to this one. Family phots at events, Anzac Day, ADF, Olympics etc. Please wait till i am past.
I hate flags on shirts and merch.
A good poles are where it's at, but in frontyards it weirds me out
Love me a good flag forest
In many ways I agree Randy. I have absolutely no problem with our current flag, and would support it till the day I die. Conversely, if our great democracy decided it was time for something new, I'd be fine with that too. I'm more about what the flag represents, rather than the arbitrary colours or shapes that it actually is.
I also don't have any issue with people wearing it on their shirts, undies, thongs, whatever. It's not something I do, but I have no issue with it.
Agreed Meelk, the things our Flag represents(democracy, egalitarianism and cold beer) are what have me looking at Trump and the USRight and thinking about the fact that I may have to actively defend those things here.
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
of 7 Next