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
Newsflash , religious guy says stuff you could perceive as sexist and homophobic , so on that , we can assume you dislike every single practising Muslim in the country ? Or is it just white religious men you dislike ?
He says stats prove women were happier when they didn't work , whoooooah ! What a bastard,
Homophobic, yeah I'll give you that , the bibles homophobic. Religious people follow their stupid books, what's tour thoughts on the 1 million practising Muslims in Australia ?
I'm not even going to look, but I'll bet you 48 hours of silence you can't find a single video of Kirk being racist .
Hannah Arendt. Origins of Totalitarianism.
All should read and tremble
Randy, Where some of this is heading embodies Arendt's lessons of history seen in 20th Century far-left and far-right.
Take a Bob Smithian Type Solution. Step one, Civil War. Revolution. Radicalism. Step two. "Cart off All Lefties to work camps". Totalitarianism. Left or Right is not the point. Also, whatever good intentions there are is neither here nor there.
Trump needs to be careful when he says it's only Left Radicals that are the problem, and Right Radicals are just decent well-intentioned folks. That's heading down an extremist path of Victim-Blame-Game justifying actions on intentions. It's totalitarianism 101: The strongman emerging out of chaos to forcibly shape the world in their image.
As Nos implied both extremes are dangerous. And that's where this deep divide threatens to go. Hopefully it won't be the blind leading the blind down a hellish road of good intentions.
Kirk openly said he has no problem with people being gay as it is no different to the sins he and everyone makes and believes everyone should do what they like as that's what's great about living in a free society and it's no one's business what they do in their own house.
He also states he doesn't see race but this whole dei garbage definitely does make you lose confidence in who gets appointed why wouldn't it when it's not merit based and hiring people who have to be a certain race or sexuality in life or death situation is crazy.
If you watch he's videos not a small left snippet you will realise he definitely is nothing the left say he is , and the smear campaign comes from not being successful at all when debating him . Just like quoting one paster and not the many others who dispute the racist claims is also very convenient
How many times can you guys "unpack" the same baggage?
Surely there is case for a "full on" baggage strike.....fcuking lefties again?
Poppa, the case for a baggage strike is a) don't click on the thread, or b) see 'A'. It does not really matter why someone advocates not clicking on the thread, becausae not clicking on the thread is the solution to baggage unpacking problems and freely available to all. Meanwhile, others are free to click on the thread. We have freedom of association in democracy, where at least one sense is if you are interested you are interested and if not you are not.
An example is I typically read your post-game reflections. Whether I agreed with your take or not is fair grounds for comment but "oh Poppa stop unpacking things because I am incapable of not clicking on the thread" is a pretty pointless objection, just don't click on the thread.
I think every off-season this topic comes up, of whether non-footy discussion is permitted or whether anyone should bother and so on. Isn't the constantly-available solution to come back to 1EE the following March if you hate non-footy-talk? Or to start a footy-blog interesting enough to get traction in the off-season. Both of which everyone is (to paraphrase Shakespeare) free to click or not to click, that is the question?
Daz , For once we've found some middle ground , I agree that the " uuuuurgh im going to take the time to post that this topic doesn't interest me " is dumb , can both go a step further and agree that Ploppas post game wrap ups are nauseating ?
What Ploppa may not realise is these off season blogs pay the bills. Ploppa find me another rugby league privately run platform that generates as many hits during their teams offseason as this one . Are you that much of a moth you can't stop yourself flying into the light to click the link?
Ploppa wasn't here during the real bleak Parra supporter years when the offseason blogs probably kept the fucking doors open. When he's paying $5 a month to use the place he'll be crying in his Uncle Toby's oats asking how the place can attract more revenue to cover the costs.
How about you SIFT Strategy first: Stop and reflect, Investigate, Find better sources, Trace to source wherever possible. If you’re right, great, you have avoided misinformation; if you’re wrong, maybe listen.
You haven't listened once or ever conceeded a point in all your ramblings. You may think you investigate but you simply blindly follow the online algorithms to find justification and confirmation bias for your ideas.
If you investigated you would find the full quotes and contexts and follow up of many things you accuse Kirk of. Although a small number may back up your claim many would oppose your views. You read opinion pieces as fact. On the black pilot's Kirk said
“If I see a black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.”
In your ramblings you say. It was race, concluded Kirk; none deserved their role. No he actually said it makes him think if they earned their job or were awarded it through DEI.
I used your advice of SIFT onthe black pilot's quote and found more info.
The essence of that clip that was missed by almost everybody — Jordan Peterson, to his credit, really picked up on it — which was I was trying to be, you know, very vulnerable with the audience is that DEI invites unwholesome thinking. … I was saying in the clip, "That's not who I am, that's not what I believe." But what it does is it makes us worse versions of ourselves, Megyn. That's the whole point of what I was saying is that I now look at everything through a hyper-racialized diversity-quota lens because of their massive insistence to try to hit these ridiculous racial hiring quotas. Of course I believe anybody of any skin color can become a qualified pilot.
When it comes to pilots or surgeons, if I see somebody who is Black, as I said on the show, I'm going to hope that that person is qualified. That's what I said, which of course is legitimate because they're begging the question, we're not hiring based on merit anymore. We're hiring based on race.
Using your SIFT strategy how can you argue that his thoughts about hiring those not as qualified as others is racist. Once you investigate the number of affirmative action university placements and jobs awarded in critical industries I think it is a valid talking point.
I actually turned down a well paying role I was offered as they wanted disability representation, however after reviewing it knew I was not suited and couldn't do the job. They went with someone who I can confidently say is very incompetent and when speaking to others who should have been in the running can see the massive shortfall that the affirmative action hire had. Maybe if people aren't qualified you can use them in focus groups or slowly prepare them for the role over years but awarding roles beyond entry level roles to fill quotas is ridiculous.
Have you seen the video of the female SWAT team in competition who couldn't complete the zip line challenge. I know it is American but if you were hostage would you want a team with women, gay, racial representation, or do you want the biggest baddest muthaf#ckers who can rip shit up.
Fake Midget, you used the SIFT strategy and so I extend my respect to you. We can have a conversation because you did just what I said many do NOT do, which is actually provide the context and discuss it. Our conversation becomes, well, a conversation at that point.
We can immediately see that our dispute turns crucially on how we intrerpret 'DEI'. Kirk frames DEI as "ridiculous racial hiring quotas", which makes sense from Kirk's perspectrive IF we join that to other remarks where Kirk denied "systemic racism". Thus Kirk says he thinks that "Of course I believe anybody of any skin color can become a qualified pilot". That quip also denies systemic racism. So Kirk's view is consistent so long as we place his remarks in the context of a denial of systemic racism.
OK, so now we see that because you used the SIFT strategy, our conversation has been moved along in a productive way. We can now ask a very specific question which gets to the heart of the critics' dispute with Kirk. Kirk denies systemic racism and his critics believe systemic racism exists.
Why does THAT matter? Because does it not suggest to us that framing DEI as contra merit is a sideshow? Isn't the debate really about the role of systemic racism?
So, Fake Midget, although you say that an opinion I ventured was "rambling", despite the fact which I wrote in modest language and did my best to provide links to evidence, when you simply actually prvoded context the conversation moves along in a productive way. We still may not agree but we have seen we can get much clearer about where the crux of the dispute may reside?
What is systematic racism. The term is thrown around a lot, but a black man rose to the very top office of president why didn't the system stop him.
Many blacks and other minorities have attained high level of achievement and jobs, but as Kirk and many people argue the majority come from the much hated nuclear family of mum dad and couple kids.
Maybe it isn't racism holding people back but economic opportunities and cultural differences they grow up in.
Asians are over represented when it comes to academic outcomes and economic as they obtain better jobs. Yet many go to the same schools as white and blacks so they had the same opportunity to learn and develop their academic outcomes which lead to better jobs and economic outcomes.
In the black communityi read those who attend church are more likely to have good school attendance or work when adults. Not sure where I read it, and I am not religious but there is something to be said about having faith and values that encourage a good life.
Good academic outcomes are followed by employment opportunities. With work ethic better job offers or further study is then available. How is the system racist when everyone is given the same opportunities at the start which access to education.
Except now there clearly are not the same opportunities once it comes to higher education. The scholarships for higher learning for minorities far out way those opportunities for others such as white kids.
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
of 12 Next