Who killed Charlie 2/6: Scar or hyenas?

0:00 Outline
0:09 Why
2:01 How
7:42 Conclusion

Since Charlie was fatally shot the day before 9/11, his legacy has been the subject of great conjecture and disputation. Ben Shapiro, for example, said Kirk’s legacy is the Bible; see The Charlie Kirk Show, “Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh” (16 Sep 2025) Rumble. Netanyahu, on the other hand, said it is his love for and defense of Israel; see Fox News, “Netanyahu PRAISES Charlie Kirk” (13 Sep 2025) YouTube. Both ‘predicted’ the shooter would be an ultra-leftist; see Fox News (13 Sep 2025) supra & Sky News Australia, “Ben Shapiro clashes with Bill Maher” (15 Sep 2025) YouTube.

The day before Kirk’s assassination, Shapiro and Mark Levin complained that conservatives “sound a lot like the Marxist Islamists” (an oxymoron) and that Republicans who aren’t pro-Israel are “fake MAGA” who “stab the president in the back” and shouldn’t “be leading the movement if they are [. . .] criticizing the POTUS as covering up a Mossad rape ring”, like Charlie, who demanded disclosure of the Epstein files; see Charlie Kirk “HUGE Epstein BOMBSHELL!” (3 Sep 2025) YouTube & Secular Talk, “Ben Shapiro & Mark Levin” (9 Sep 2025) YouTube.

The day after Kirk’s assassination, Netanyahu appeared on Fox News, promoting Kirk’s legacy as a staunch supporter of Israel, which Kirk’s close friend Tucker Carlson called “ghoulish” and a “lie”; see Tucker Carlson Network, “America After Charlie Kirk” (17 Sep 2025) Rumble.

Tucker emphasizes that Charlie was a Christian. But what kind of Christian was he? Charlie’s forthcoming book, Why Honoring the Sabbath Will Transform Your Life, answers this question. More than a Sabbath goy, he was a goy who kept the Sabbath, which is a capital offense in Jewish law (Sanhedrin 58b:25). He was also critical of October 7 on the PBD podcast, suspecting it was enabled by a stand-down order (Ep. 314 at 28:40). He also criticized Zionist ownership and control of the media; see The Charlie Kirk Show, “Ben Shapiro Replies” (9 Sep 2025) Rumble. This caused him to lose a lot of money from Jewish donors, including $2M a few days before he was assassinated, according to Carlson; see “America After Charlie” (16 Sep 2025) Rumble.

Charlie was told not to platform critics of Israel, in particular Tucker Carlson, which he refused to do, deliberately platforming him instead. He also declined Netanyahu’s invitation to a junket in Israel and a $150M donation to promote a war against Iran; see Owen Shroyer Live, “Security Cameras, Timestamps” (18 Sep 2025) Rumble. Thus, the Benjamins, as we’ll see, also lead to the Benjamins.

Charlie’s friends Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Megyn Kelly said they were threatened by Zionists and called Americans to fight back; see Tucker Carlson Network, “Charlie and I were threatened” (17 Sep 2025) YouTube. Charlie, in short, was created by Jewish donors, grew beyond them and began to question them, leaving them no options but to get rid of him, like Frankenstein’s monster. While he may not have turned against them, he was more of a liability to them than an asset and they couldn’t afford to take any risks after losing popular support.

However, influencers like PBD, who balk at the idea of investigating the Benjamins, whom they hosted, ask how he—or they—could have done it; see Valuetainment, “Blaming Nick Fuentes?” (15 Sep 2025) YouTube. The problem is not coming up with one answer, but the sheer number of ways he could have done it. With political assassinations, the key question is not how but why, since assassins usually operate in the shadows, behind a veil of illusions. If the beneficiary is correctly identified, then all proverbial roads or “how”s will lead to Rome—or, in this case, Israel.

While the state theory of a suicidal transphilic shooter raises all kinds of questions, it gives the public the comforting illusion that the state, which intervenes after-the-fact, is all-knowing, unlike the 3,000 witnesses, including security, who couldn’t figure it out before literal and epistemic nightfall. However, pretending to know how it all happened from a position of intrinsic blindness only really multiplies the certainty of artifacts and chances of error.

In the OJ Simpson case, for example, the prosecution specifically postulated that a 14” stiletto knife was used to commit the murder, which turned out to be inconsistent with the stab wounds. While this level of detail gives the illusion to the public that the state is all-knowing and that the guilt of the accused murderer is dead certain, so as to warrant their execution, such a high level of detail also makes the whole story easy to pop with one prick, even if they ‘got the right guy’.

Credibility also plays a crucial role. Det. Mark Fuhrman, for example, who found (what he alleged to be) Simpson’s bloody glove, was impeached as an averred racist, thus poisoning the well. In Casey Anthony’s case, a “baseless defense” was sufficient to acquit her. In short, if a specific “how” is proposed and another plausible explanation exists, then the case goes out the window—Bibi and bathwater. So, instead of explaining how exactly Bibi did it, we will show how easy it is—especially for the state—to come up with explanations, even assuming the state’s to be true.

The name of George Zinn has already surfaced. A thorough and impartial investigation is therefore certain to yield more names, as the accused ‘radicals’ are sure to point fingers in all directions—Israel’s being the most plausible—unless the data, including names, is ignored, manipulated or suppressed; see Newsmax, “Don’t harbor terrorists” (11 Sep 2025) YouTube. The state, it bears emphasizing, has the power and resources to accuse anyone of anything for any reason. Laws don’t stop powers from doing whatever they want; they justify them.

Whatever the case may be, the state chose to prosecute Tyler, not Netanyahu. Its only disadvantage is that it is married to its story, which depends on its credibility. FBI director Kash (aka “Cash”) Patel said his administration will be “transparent” to the public. Yet, he refused to release the Epstein files on the pretext there is no evidence that he trafficked underage women to anyone but himself; see D Gooding & G Whisnant, “Patel Says No ‘Credible’ Info” (16 Sep 2025) Newsweek. Only the state has access to (non-fungible) evidence, which no one besides it can check or falsify.

Tyler’s is just the profile that Kirk’s avengers are seeking; not the most probable suspect a priori. The Benjamins, by contrast, are easily the most prominent suspects, with direct connections to Kirk, lots of money and blood at stake and a history of perpetrating similar assassinations. Yet, they are not being investigated or even considered as suspects and are friends of the investigating authorities.

Even so, a number of things are certain. First is that Zionists, especially the Benjamins, benefit the most from Kirk’s assassination, which has all the hallmarks of an Israeli hit, complete with an ultra-leftist transphile scapegoat to shoot and be shot, despite the astronomically low probability of such a hit, as Kozak (a math student) observed based on an “ungodly amount” of data from the Gun Violence Archive.

Second, irrespective of the truth of the matter, the Trump regime wants to develop a(nother) trans shooter story to serve its political agenda.

Third, the criminal behind this case clearly wants to divide America, knowing that a house divided cannot stand (Mark 3:25). This divisive factor will continue to fracture America unless it ‘pulls the plug’ on it. Pulling the plug on liberals, who mostly support individual freedom and condemn violence, would further divide America. Conversely, pulling the plug on Zionists would end America’s anti-constitutional “entanglement” in their foreign and domestic ‘culture wars’ of Jewish supremacy. This would in turn help the economy to recover and prevent them from causing and benefiting from harm to Americans and others.

Indeed, the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination corroborates the hypothesis that Israel—which uses violence to curtail nonviolent speech, especially denouncing its violence—seeks, by means of the ADL, to reinterpret s. 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996) to make webhosts liable for third party speech on the internet. It also seeks to police speech on the internet with AI, using pre-cop systems like Gideon. This is the most totalitarian measure, since controlling speech is more than controlling bodies or property.

In defense of Israel, Netanyahu said it offers America cellphone technology (like Pegasus spyware) as well as cherry tomatoes he doesn’t like (that don’t need to be imported) and weapons and intel, like its refusal to share information about its nuclear program since JFK was assassinated after inquiring about it; see AIJAC, “If we didn’t act, we’d die” (15 Sep 2025) YouTube & OpenjusticeDotNet, “Was the assassination of JFK a gentile conspiracy?” (24 Jun 2025) Rumble.