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
HKF, it is unclear what you mean. Can you clarify?
After CK's murder, the right launched definitively claimed it was "the left" that was culpable. Are you denying this?
Also you say there was a receipt to the effect that "the killer was a right wing nut trying to escalate the dislike of the left". Do you mean false flag? I do not recall anyone making false flag claims but happy to stand corrected if a false flag claim was made.
What i meant was that there would be attempts to claim the killer was in fact right wing not left wing. This is exactly what happened, there were fake documents and doctored photos plastered all over the next, even on this site.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNBaxETyjTC/?igsh=MTk3bHNrdXpoNHJrdA==
Kid Smarter than many here.
I wish i knew
which button to push
So i'd know how to please you
It's sad but true
but i keep lookin'
on down the line
All i see is chaos and pain
Scared and hiding
in the blaze
our fucking lives are not your game
You try to play us just the same
Just wish i knew
which button to push
apologies B,Fanning
I mean no offence to anyone here, purely my own opinion, neither ‘Left' or ‘Right’ aligned, as I personally believe these two spectrums of political & ideological beliefs are purely a mythology, a tool or weapon, for division, for distraction, control.
Great post NOS.
I used to think like this NOS, but it really feels like i need to choose a side in this. So i did. I chose the Broad Church, not the Christofascists(they hate being called that, but the only reason to attack abortion is.). Fuck their Purity tests. I mean, they see Prof Daz as a huge threat and dangerously hateful. I'm not having it. I chose a side
and people are dying, not for their actions, but for their beliefs and words.. his words actively encouraged the actions of others and his beliefs were christofascist.
We are not going to unite around blatant lies and "othering people". Buckle Up
Thanks MeelK and likewise, as HoE said, you're always very balanced.
Randy, I get it, genuinely. You're a highly intelligent person, and your views on many things clearly come from being such a deep thinker, as opposed to being reactionary or emotional.
My post definitely wasn't an attack on you, and I'm not naive enough to think we can all 'hug this out', that's for sure.
Brilliant stuff, NoS. Great to see you back. Your wisdom, creativity & warmth have been missed.
These labels. Left vs Right vs Radicals, Us vs Them. Who’s “we”? Who’s “they”? Feels imaginary, yet real enough to be dangerous.
Dr Jordan Peterson’s research provides some clues. He found The Big Five personality traits such as openness, agreeableness, conscientioussness, along with IQ levels correlate with ideology leanings. Some of it is nature and personality. No wonder mixing Left and Right is often like mixing oil and water. Add some heat, a few spices and sparks, and Waalahh.
Six pages in and this blog is mostly fair remarks. In that spirit, what happens when we unpack the evidence in to-date and ask does ANY of it justify the public call by Republican leaders and influencers for open war on "the left", mass censorship of "the left", and threats of violent "retribution"? The point here should be that if someone IN FACT opposes political violence, they should oppose one act of political violence by the member of ANY group being SUFFICIENT warrant to visit political vengeful violence upon ALL members of that first group? If one denies this claim, and insists Member TR of Group L that commits political violence against Member CK of Group R is sufficient warrant for Group R to kill or censor all of Group L, then one MUST have an argument that all Group L are clones of TR. My suggestion is that all claims to such effect, which we can call a 'homogenization' thesis, are deeply suspect and most likely untrue. If so, that renders the "kill or censor them all" response UNWARRANTED.
One piece of evidence is that Tyler was in a romantic relationship with a trans-person (Lance Twiggs). I am assuming for the sake of argument that this claim is true (some reports insist it was just roomies but most say romantic relationship).
Does Tyler being in a romantic relationship with Lance Twiggs, which necessarily implies Tyler was most likely himself somewhere in the LGBTQ set of intimate choices, either a) definitively identify Tyler as "a leftist", or b) warrant retributional political violence or censorship against either all LGBTQ people or agianst "the left"?
I am very much hoping everybody realizes the answer to both 'A' and 'B' is NO.
With regard to 'A', Tyler is not necessarily a leftist even if having an LGBTQ identity, because everybody knows gay or trans conservatives and everybody knows leftists who are not gay or trans. I know it is unfashionable and I am open to charges of either being uncool (geek) or (worse) elitist (academics are jerks is the modern thing) by speaking precisely, but this is simple logic: if P then Q (a conditional statement) and if not-Q the not-P (contrapositive) are logically equivalent, so if one is true the other is true BUT if one is false so too is the other.
If the logic does not do enough work for you in this case (it should be sufficient), MAGA is full of gay or trans influencers. Being left or right is not determined by being gay or trans.
Milo Yiannopoulos (HERE). Gay, UK far right, now stumps for Trump, including running a PR firm that air brushes the rough edges from Trump's far-right supporters. Actually, ex-gay he says, having found Christianity apparently. Caitlyn Jenner (HERE), former Olympic decathlon gold medallist, and formerly Bruce. From the perspective of an utterly boring straight white rapidly ageing man, Bruce was a serious athlete and a bit of a specimen for the ladies. Caitlyn is now a very prominent MAGA supporter, including telling (failed) presidential VP Tim Walz that she was more masculine than him. Peter Thiel (HERE). He is the billionaire tech-bro (founded PayPal) who introduced JD Vance to Trump and became Trump's Crypto-Czar. Thiel is a self-described conservative-libertarian, and now runs a defence contractor (Palantir) doing lots of work for Trump and is advising Vance what to do to be leader in 2028 (FYI Thiel is on record for despising democracy). Also, openly gay. Buck Angel (HERE). A transexual man who shifted from liberal to conservative. Angel is a Trump voter who talks extensively (HERE) about talking across divides of politics and identity, and indeed claims no one label describes him. But he strongly supports Trump - he is the GOP version of ‘but I have a trans-friend' - and argues that the left deserved to get Trump (for the excesses of the left in his opinion).
There is already a forthcoming book on the issue of LGBTQ people who are MAGA. See Erlick Garland, Belonging through Exclusion: Understanding the Transgender Far Right (forthcoming 2026). Garland discusses why a minority of LGBTQ gravitate toward MAGA, usually around themes of reconciling family upbringing and/or very explicit political strategy to work from within; see HERE)
Conclusion: what role Tyler's s*xual orientation had in his radicalization is yet to be known, but because the homnogenization thesis fails so spectacularly if you even think about it for more than a few minutes, there is simply no call to infer from Tyler's (very likely, at this stage of evidence) sexual orientation to EITHER a definitive call on his political identity OR that there exist grounds to target all LGBTQ or all 'the left'. NONE. If we do not condone political violence, then should we not all be agreeing that we should resist the narrative that says "oh you're LGBTQ" or "oh you're a leftie" and infers directly to "kill them all"?
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
of 8 Next