Who killed Charlie 1/6: Why is Charlie dead and Ben alive?

0:00 Outline
0:10 Who shot Charlie Kirk?
11:27 Conclusion

Charlie Kirk was fatally shot two days after disagreeing with the two ‘Big Bens’—namely, Ben Shapiro and Benjamin Netanyahu—that support of Israel is necessary to MAGA. He also expressed views that America’s wars in the Middle East, which were propelled by lies, like the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and nuclear bombs in Iran, are “one of the greatest catastrophes in American foreign policy, ever”. Kirk also expressed his view that the October 7 attack was an inside job and called for the release of the Epstein files.

However, Netanyahu told FOX News and tweeted on September 10—the day after Kirk’s assassination—that he spoke to Kirk—whom he eulogized as a “friend of Israel”—two weeks prior to his assassination, which was first reported by the Jerusalem Post. Netanyahu also blamed the assassination on Islamo-leftists before any evidence had been published. Kirk’s devotion to the pro-Israel cause might not have been his legacy if he survived.

Kirk’s assassination took place on the day before 9/11: a “Turning Point” in the history of America. After calling American Jews to arms on the pretext that anti-white hatred bleeds into Jew hatred, Kirk turned 180 degrees to claim that Jews (whom he called “white people”) control the media and promote anti-white hatred.

After a false arrest and $100,000 bounty, anything is possible. The arrested party, it bears noting, was conservative Zionist Ashkenazi agent provocateur George Zinn, of all people, who, like Tyler later on, turned himself in and "confessed"; see, e.g., P Harkins, “George Zinn: What we know” (11 Sep 2025) The Salt Lake Tribune.

The window for science in cases like this is very narrow, while that for arguments and speculation, on which the American legal and political systems are based, is indefinite. 33 hours is more than enough time to destroy or fabricate evidence and escape.

While the shooter’s position and firearm can be determined with ballistics, the false arrest suggests that police didn’t initially have CCTV footage, DNA or digital imprints, as they later claimed. They also (later) claimed to have found the murder weapon (a 1906 Mauser rifle) in a bush after retrieving text messages by the suspect, Tyler Robinson, indicating its location.

As of September 12, the state claims the shooter is Tyler Robinson: a 22-year-old unaffiliated voter from a Christian pro-gun and -Trump family. Tyler, the state claims, confessed to his father, a pastor and former Sheriff’s deputy, who turned him in for a hefty reward to his friends at the Sheriff’s Office to be executed under Utah law. Tyler is thus wont to change stories to save his life. Conversely, if he isn’t executed, then conspiracy theories will reasonably abound.

An ordinary citizen—especially a 22-year-old college student—has everything to lose and nothing to gain from the assassination. Those who stand to benefit are close to Kirk with stakes in his policies, as well as deep pockets and leverage; see, e.g., M Blumenthal & A Parampil, “Charlie Kirk refused Netanyahu funding offer” (12 Sep 2025) The Grayzone.

Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, is the mouthpiece for right-wing white evangelical Christian billionaires who seek to break and break into the liberal academy. For more details, see OpenjusticeDotNet “The MAGA blue pill” (2 Sep 2025) <https://rumble.com/v6yevbk-the-maga-blue-pill-are-conservatives-everything-that-liberals-are-just-wors.html>. The foreseeable effect, and hence the ostensible purpose, of the political assassination was to create a chilling effect on political discourse. What kind of political discourse evokes fear (i.e., ‘whom you cannot criticize’) as a consequence points to the most plausible motive, which in turn points to the most plausible suspect.

For instance, did the assassination create fear of criticizing trans people? A further (and corresponding) indication is which political faction benefits from the political assassination. On the face of it, the assassination may seem to be motivated by leftist politics: the subject of Kirk’s last dialog and etchings on the shooter’s shell cases according to the state. However, the very possibility that Kirk was assassinated by a leftist, whether it is true or not, does the greatest damage to the leftist cause, especially at the heels of the Robin Westman ‘trans shooting’ and the fatal stabbing of Iryna Zarutska, which eliminates it as a rational motive and makes it a more plausible subterfuge.

Certainly, no one is more afraid to criticize trans people as a result of Kirk’s assassination. Rather, trans people—who are a minority—are terrified by the potential repercussions. That leaves the political right to consider.

With Kirk out, the rival faction that benefits is Shapiro’s, which, having lost the left to its Zionist cause, seeks to silence or cow right-wing white and Christian nationalists who, like Michael Scheuer and Julian Assange, increasingly regard Israel as America’s foremost enemy. That is, 76% of Charlie’s base according to Blumenthal, supra.

Israel can’t afford to lose the American right, as Netanyahu can’t prosecute the Palestinian genocide and his “seven-front war” (his ‘Battle of Gog and Magog’) or sustain reprisals without American financial and military support. This incident also reflects deep divisions in American society and its internal erosion, which it foreseeably cut deeper, potentially leading to more violence and dissidence.

In sum, if it was a coordinated leftist attack, then there is no reason why Kirk should die while Shapiro lives. Also, if it wasn’t staged, then Tyler will (really) die for his confession in the final act. Until that happens, he holds the state hostage by his confession and its declaration: “We got him!”

Alternatively, the world’s greatest superpower and intel seem to be mortally challenged by exceptionally daft isolated youth with mental health issues who live with their parents, text their friends where they hid their gun next to the crime scene, write their motives on bullets, and act on their own initiative—more than enemies who regularly (and successfully) conduct these kinds of assassinations at the highest levels and the state apparatus whose vital function is to mop it up.

"The death of human empathy is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism."—Hannah Arendt