Have you been Kirked?
Tue 5:35 am +00:00, 16 Sep 2025 5Kirk murder: Once a narrative is launched…
(This is Part-4; for Part-3, go here.)
It keeps rolling. The wheels turn.
People make the wheels turn.
Who cares about evidence? Read my prior piece about evidence here.
If a high-profile figure were killed and a right-wing suspect were taken into custody, big conservative news outlets would be all over the evidence—looking for holes, claiming fraud.
But in this case, it’s a done deal. No need to dig beneath the surface. Tyler Robinson was on the roof, he fired the fatal bullet, he confessed to his father, he was living with a tranny, it’s Trantifa, he belongs to a murderous cult, cops found the rifle, he’s in jail under Special Watch in case he tries to kill himself…
On it rolls.
Robinson hasn’t confessed, he isn’t cooperating with the cops or the FBI, which just proves he’s stubborn and has no regrets about what he did, it has nothing to do with possible innocence. Of course not.
He couldn’t possibly be innocent, because he’s guilty.
He hated Charlie Kirk, so he killed him. He couldn’t hate Kirk and not kill him.
To consider the possibility that Robinson is innocent is to defile the memory of Charlie Kirk. Uh-huh.
How could someone oppose transgenderism and NOT call Robinson guilty? Blah-blah.
Could Tyler Robinson be a Lee Oswald? Don’t be ridiculous. In the JFK case, we know the rifle was a pathetic excuse for a murder weapon. Here, in Utah, the rifle was…
Yes? The rifle was what?
Forget about the rifle. Robinson is guilty.
Like Osama bin Laden was guilty of masterminding September 11th?
The problem is the believers want this to become religion. They ask you for a reaction. When you say the event was fake, they can’t swallow the words. They saw all the fake blood pourring out of the side of his neck (apparently). You need a special effects expert to explain how they do those kind of stunts. You even show them the slomo video of how they make blood splatter in movies, and in the split second before the bang, his shirt lifted up to his neck and some device was visible, and then explain it’s just the same thing but it’s put out asking you believe it’s real. And people do. It’s like the pandemic. It makes rifts within families as the believers can’t take it that you don’t, and they feel offended.
Hi Tap, I get what you’re saying, it’s however impossible to prove 100% that it was fake. I know that many are convinced, but unless Charlie had stood up laughing and pulled the fake blood machine from under his shirt. it’s unprovable, to, I would think likely the majority. Much was made re the difficulty of the shot, but given todays rifles, scopes and bipods, most rifle shooters could have shot him. You aim, push the laser rangefinder button, and provided that the ballistics of the ammo was entered, the scope electronics repositions the crosshairs to that range.
All I’m saying is that regardless of what we believe and believe we can prove, it’s a done deal like all the other events we know about.
I suppose I’m commenting and only reiterating what you say, but I find these things difficult to deal with socially, and even though I have an answer when accused of being a conspiracy theorist ie I say that everyone is a conspiracy theorist, ie you come home early and find your partner in bed with someone. They claim that they’re only testing out the new fabric conditioner on the sheets to see how it feels. If you don’t believe them you’re a conspiracy theorist.
At this, they’re annoyed and stomp off, believing that you’re an asshole conspiracy theorist. It’s uncomfortable for both parties.
This event has all the usual hallmarks. Starting with the intense week long media coverage here in UK. For someone most folk never heard of before. And everything else about this story too, more holes than a colander
As for the reactions of normies then, no point in losing any sleep over them and their disbelief. Or about offending them, offence has been weaponised hasn’t it. Offence is never given, it’s always TAKEN. It’s a personal choice and anyone who takes offence so readily has surely been brainwashed by media. Why get offended about some yank who you never heard of 2 weeks ago? Makes no sense
So if you are worried about giving offence then my advice would be, don’t. You live and learn by folks reactions. If somebody takes offence then keep sctum next time, no point in wasting your energy on a closed mind
I still can’t get my head round this event. I had never heard of Kirk and so it seems neither had many other people.
Things that happen in the US are always cause for wailing and gnashing of teeth round the world (while genuine massacres and genocides that happen elsewhere go unreported) and we’re all asked to join in.
Yes Belyi. it makes no sense, other than as a massive distraction for more malign events elsewhere. Plenty of those too that the bosses would rather that we don’t think about
But it does make sense for the Tap to examine this so closely as it has done. It’s a major psyop for Western consumers and is laughable in truth. So it needed exposing and it has been too, pretty thoroughly on the face of it
I’d imagine that the global majority couldn’t give a damn about the “character” death of a US alternative media blabbermouth. It’s not as if there was a real death involved and it doesn’t effect them in any way. In fact it doesn’t really effect anyone in any way, other than in their mind