The Events Surrounding the Charlie Kirk Assassination Do Not Seem to Add Up

The Charlie Kirk assassination on September 10, 2025 has been the largest story in the country for the last roughly two weeks, and even after such time, we are still not much more informed than we were then. The official narrative goes something like: a seventy-one-year-old man was arrested after admitting to the murder, but he was really just trying to distract police away from the real killer. Days later, a twenty-two-year-old man named Tyler Robinson, who had come from a conservative background but that had converted to leftism and started dating his transgender roommate, engraved anti-fascist and pro-trans-rights markings on a bullet and planned the murder a week in advance. The shooter scouted out the area around Utah Valley University, where Kirk was about to do an event, and he returned later with a rifle and wearing a maroon-colored shirt, light-colored shorts, and a baseball cap. He then changed into dark clothing, got on top of the roof of a nearby building, made the 200-yard shot, climbed down from the building with the rifle not really visible in the cameras view, changed his clothes back to the maroon attire from before, and hid the towel-wrapped rifle in nearby bushes. He later texted his partner confessing to the murder, and his parents recognized him from the video footage, contacted him and tried to get him to return home, and cooperated with law enforcement to bring him into custody.

This official story may work for some, but there are still many gaps and questions to be answered. For starters, as commentators have pointed out online, in order to pull this off, the shooter would have disassembled his Mauser Model 98 rifle and fit it into the backpack to climb the roof. However, he then would have had to change his clothes, reassemble the weapon with the supposed screwdriver found on the roof, shoot Kirk, disassemble the weapon, pack the rifle into the backpack, jump off the roof, and run away without notice. Many astute observers have noticed that the video footage that has been released does not seem to indicate that the shooter would have been able to fit a rifle into the bag or had it stuffed into his pants while moving around so quickly, and the fact that nobody seems concerned or panicked after hearing gunshot fire, makes the story seem all the more strange (not to mention that for such a large event, there were no stragglers getting there late and walking in the frames of the video footage as the shooter was escaping).

Plus, the corporate media is running with the narrative that a 0.30-06-caliber round, which when fired from this type of rifle can pierce through bison, moose, and elk, somehow entered Kirk’s body and remained there because he had strong bones. Yeah, that does not seem plausible, but hey, we will believe whatever they say, right? Could it be that a gunshot fire occurred in the background, and an agent on the ground slit Kirk’s neck instead, leaving only what we saw as the entry wound, or perhaps another type of gun was utilized by another assailant, or maybe Kirk was shot at from a different angle than what we are being told?

Furthermore, Robinson’s grandmother claimed that the assailant had no knowledge of or interest in guns and would have been unable to shoot a rifle properly (though a trained gunman may be able to make a 200-yard shot easily, an inexperienced person probably would not). Though he allegedly acquired the weapon from his grandfather, why would you hide something with your fingerprints on it in bushes that you know law enforcement (or someone) would eventually find, and why would you text someone to tell him or her that you just murdered a famous person? The shooter was either not thinking clearly (at all), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is lying or withholding certain information to present holes in the story for some agenda, or Robinson was set up as the scapegoat for a murder that he did not actually commit (perhaps the whole thing was staged and Kirk is still alive, or the powers that be had the commentator killed and masked the real murderer).

To recap, Robinson certainly appears to have motive for murdering the conservative debater who the Left painted as a disgusting Nazi, racist, and anti-trans figure, but if the opportunity appears suspect and there was not the capability to commit the act, it raises questions. So, if the suspect in custody did not murder Charlie Kirk, who had motive, opportunity, and capability to commit a terrorist act?

The possible answer may surprise you, and immediately after the incident, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in between supposed tears for the loss of a friend to the Jewish people, released an English video speaking about how “disgusting” and “false” “rumors” were spreading online about the Israeli government having been responsible for the assassination. Why would the leader of a foreign nation feel the need to come right out and say this if there is absolutely no merit to any of the conspiracy theories? This makes it feel like propaganda meant to persuade the American people to look the other way for a crime that may have been committed. If the claims are baseless, ignore them and let them fade away into oblivion. Let the conspiracy theories just be supermarket tabloids that the average person does not take seriously, but instead, Netanyahu blew it up into a bigger story that people may now start to wonder about.

There are three possibilities for this: Netanyahu is paranoid about what Americans think about Israel because he believes that he is losing his influence over the United States and eventually its politicians, he did not murder Kirk but wants some Americans to think that he did so that the federal government will expose and crack down on “anti-Semitic” conspiracy theorists as enemies of the state, or his government was actually responsible for the murder. The first scenario would, of course, be the best one being that it means that the American people have the real chance to break out of the conditioning and the spell that the Israeli government has on the country. The second option means that this foreign government will lobby American politicians to censor speech and arrest those who do not have a favorable view toward the secular state of Israel (do you want a foreign government pressuring our politicians to potentially violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments?).

The last option would be the worst in that it would mean that no American is protected against the vile acts of the Israeli equivalent of the Central Intelligence Agency (the same CIA that assassinates foreign leaders overseas and overthrows unfriendly governments). Yes, the Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations (Mossad) may be operating within the United States murdering or manipulating us, and American politicians sit around and pretend that nothing is happening. Currently, there is no known connection between Robinson and Mossad, but even if none ever surfaces, remember that the assailant could have been a paid actor meant to take the fall for the real culprit, or maybe Robinson was persuaded through some MKUltra-type of mind control by either Mossad or the CIA to think that he was murdering someone when he was not.

Even if this sounds like a stretch, do not forget that Mossad may have had the capability and opportunity to commit an assassination, as the intelligence agency is one of the most sophisticated of its sort in the world (assassinating someone would be simple for any CIA or Mossad agent to pull off, and there have been reports that Israeli agents have planted listening devices on American politicians to spy on them). But, what about intent?

Well, investigative journalist (often called a spreader of “misinformation” for telling the inconvenient truth about government) Max Blumenthal has uncovered a story in The Grayzone that may shed some light on any motive. Apparently, Netanyahu attempted to make a deal with Kirk in early 2025 to pump money into Turning Point USA (TPUSA), and upon refusal, Kirk became fearful for his life and believed that Netanyahu was bullying him into accepting it. Kirk then allegedly began to question the influence that the Israeli government had on the Donald Trump administration (and the wider United States government), and after he got scolded by the president for questioning the bombing of Iran, Kirk went on a quest to question the Israeli government’s hold on the United States, including the idea that Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli operative who blackmailed American politicians.

Furthermore, Kirk appeared on Megyn Kelly’s show complaining that Zionist donors were threatening him for not blindly complying with the pro-Israeli narrative (receiving a bombardment of texts and calls from angry allies of Netanyahu). According to commentator Harrison Smith, a close friend of Kirk told him that Israel will “kill him if he turns against Israel.” Since Kirk has the ability to reach young people and persuade them that pumping massive amounts of money to prop up the genocidal Israeli government is no longer an “America-first” policy, there is plenty of motive for why the Netanyahu regime would want Kirk eliminated. If you do not play ball with the Israeli government, you get censored, arrested, or killed, and our supposed representatives are too busy kissing Netanyahu’s boots to care (interestingly, 250 state representatives from all fifty states took a trip to Israel to declare, “50 states One Israel,” not “fifty states, one United States”).

Now, could the Israeli culpability be a distraction and ultimately a psychological operation (psyop) created by the federal government in order to expose those who are opposed to Israel, and thus, enemies of the state? Will the government utilize this opportunity to label truth seekers as anti-Semites or domestic terrorists? It is possible that this is all a set up and the Mossad did not commit the murder, but it seems highly unlikely given the evidence.

The possibility of a psyops sort of expands into the next point, which is that many people on the right side of the political aisle in the United States have been deeply saddened by Kirk’s death. Some say that they cannot explain it, but they just feel a depressed cloud or something hanging over them or the country as a result of it. Some have become so enraged that they want to take up arms and wage war against liberals and progressives, and they believe that the time for decency is over.

I cannot help but think that the government has somehow manipulated conservatives, and even some independents, to become militant in their approach to this incident, and as such, some may be prone to radicalization and violence. Rallying the Right around the common cause of seeking revenge for the murder by leftists may cause additional lone wolf terrorist attacks, or worse, it may cause civil unrest. And yet, what we really need is everyone to stay calm and not let vengeful hearts take over. The Left will reveal what it truly is, and let those who embrace hatred of Kirk show their callous behavior. Do not let yourself be manipulated into violence and revenge. Although a full-scale civil war seems unlikely as a result of this assassination, the government may utilize vulnerable people to commit atrocities that can then be exploited for the agenda of centralization of power and the usurpation of individual liberties.

This brings us to the next aspect of this, which is Jimmy Kimmel (I know, who cares about Jimmy Kimmel, right?). The decision by Nexstar Media, which owns may television stations throughout the country, and American Broadcasting Company (ABC) and its affiliate, Sinclair, to cancel the comedian’s show, which may have been suffering from low ratings and lack of public viewership, may not seem like an important thing. However, when you have Brendan Carr, who is the President Trump-nominated chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), threatening ABC to take down Jimmy Kimmel Live! because of the host’s blatant lies about the assassination of Kirk (Kimmel said that Robinson was a conservative and Make America Great Again Republican), it becomes a First Amendment issue. Carr’s comments suggested that “We [the government] can do this the easy way or the hard way,” indicating that the FCC was considering taking punitive actions against ABC if it did not take down Kimmel. Additionally, Nexstar needs the FCC to approve its $6.2 billion merger with Tegna, so by showing good faith, it will get the deal pushed through more easily in this non-free market arrangement (crony capitalism); and this sort of bolsters the idea that the FCC was censoring speech and that the cancellation had nothing to do with low ratings or simply a private company firing an employee (of course, ABC is owned by Disney, which is in turn controlled by BlackRock and Vanguard, which are intertwined into the government-corporate partnership structure of economics that dominates the United States).

As implied earlier, liberals and progressives have made disgusting comments about Kirk, and some have celebrated his death because of their utter disregard for human life and their ultra-hatred of conservatives, but to censor speech is something on a whole other level. During the COVID-19 pandemic, conservatives were complaining that the Joe Biden administration was targeting commentators and telling social media companies to eliminate online posts that went against the narrative, and of course, ABC unjustly fired (probably at the direction of President Barack Obama) Roseanne Barr when she made mean comments about a White House adviser.

Though, to use this as an opportunity to seek revenge is not going to make the situation better, but the bigger issue is censorship in general. Both Republicans and Democrats are willing to limit free speech if it benefits their agendas, and conservatives are now cheering on Kimmel’s cancellation (his show was later reinstated after public outcry) and celebrating the FCC’s regulations. Wait a minute, I thought that small government people thought of the FCC as a problem and an overreach of government power, but because it is aiming at liberals, now they like the agency and the targeting of hate speech. Aside from the hypocrisy and engaging in cancel culture (which conservatives were opposed to previously but have rebranded as “accountability culture”), we either have free speech in this country, or we do not. You cannot advocate for the First Amendment if you want to see punitive measures taken for speech that you deem as offensive, hateful, or false. Instead of censoring comments, engage them with different viewpoints and win on the battlefield of ideas. Would Charlie Kirk, who was an intellectual, have wanted the FCC to shut down a rival because of something that was said, or would he have wanted conservatives to flood the marketplace of ideas with the counter narrative?

Everything seemed to indicate that Kirk was an outstanding person who was interested in hearing what those who disagreed with him had to say, from college students to liberal commentators to politicians on the opposite side of the aisle (recall that he recently sat down with California Governor Gavin Newsome and had a civil discussion). In fact, just days before his death, Kirk had been debating liberal powerhouse and former President Obama special advisor Anthony Kapel “Van” Jones online, and he messaged Van Jones and asked him to be a guest on his show to discuss the ideas in which they disagreed. This is a testament to the culture that Kirk was attempting to create in political discourse, and that movement was taken away in tragedy. It is unlikely that anyone will be able to fill Kirk’s shoes, but the precedents that he set should be emulated by everyone.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.