Merged Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University event. / Charlie Kirk Shot And Killed

dann said:
Why on earth would Lennon (John, I assume) say anything like that?
The saying is much older, falsely attributed to Churchill, and goes like this:
"If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain."
The originator must have been somebody who had neither heart nor brain. I know nothing else about whoever it may have been.
Click to expand...

I think the originator was the Cowardly Lion.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Yes, you would stoop to any tactic to deny reich on reich violence.
Click to expand...
No doubt, but so far the Kirk killer doesn't seem to have been inspired by the Groypers.
However, I can recommend the first half hour or so of this video - in spite of the title, which appears to have got it wrong - but not the part about Nick Fuentes panicking:
The Right Killed Charlie Kirk/MAGA Embraces Cancel Culture/Elon Stokes Violence/Nick Fuentes Panics (The Dusty Show on YouTube, Sep 16, 2025 - 2:05:45)

What I like about Dusty Smith's videos is that he trawls through the internet for interesting stuff, so I don't have to. In this case, he has an interesting compilation of Nick Fuentes takes on Charlie Kirk before and after Kirk's death. What a u-turn! That Fuentes panics is obvious, but it still doesn't make Fuentes or his Groypers responsible for Kirk's death.
 
Last edited:
DOJ Quietly Deletes Study on Politics of Domestic Terrorists (NewRepublic, Sep 16, 2025)
The Justice Department has taken down a study that proves Republicans’ entire narrative wrong about left-wing violence.
404 Media has reported that in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder, Trump’s Justice Department deleted a study from its website stating that right-wing violence “continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism” in the United States. This comes as the Trump administration and Republicans generally blame political violence solely on the left.
The study was available online at least until Friday, according to 404 Media, but can now only be found via a Wayback Machine link.
Click to expand...
it was bound to happen, wasn't it?! Not in line with the narrative ...
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
In 1985 the Democratic party was quite different from what it is now.

Neither of those sentences is particularly useful, nor is either of them a justification for the current level of invective and hate-mongering going on in the US, fueled and made worse by foreigners fanning the flames.
Click to expand...
I think it was Newt who decided to make politics a zero sum game where mutual benefit ceased to exist.
 
Andy_Ross said:
That's according to her
Click to expand...
I see no reason to doubt what she has said about her own case. I have zero doubt that she was given terrible advice.

It would be trivially easy to disprove it if it were lies. I know that she is considering suing her lawyer for giving her bad legal advice. I hope she does, so that we will all be able to see just how bad that advice was.

In the meantime, Kier Starmer's role in this ought to be questioned very closely.

In 2013, when Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), he made a notable statement about free speech in the context of social media prosecutions. He warned that too many prosecutions for online posts could have a “chilling effect” on free expression, emphasizing the need for balance and proportionality.​
He said:​
Click to expand...
“The CPS is bound by the Human Rights Act 1998, which enshrines Article 10 [the right to free expression], so as long as Article 10 gets it right, there’s an inbuilt safeguard.”​
Starmer introduced revised guidelines that urged prosecutors to consider whether a case truly warranted legal action. He suggested that some offensive posts might be better handled with a swift apology and removal, rather than dragging someone through the courts.​
This stance was seen as pragmatic and protective of free speech at the time.​
​
Click to expand...
Interestingly, it’s now being contrasted with his current position as Prime Minister, where critics argue he’s supported harsher crackdowns on online speech—even in cases where individuals deleted posts and expressed remorse.​
Click to expand...

You don't truly have free speech in the UK any more. What you have is speech that is only free so long as the government doesn't object. If they do object, you might find you get a mob-handed visit from your local police. You may not be arrested or charged, but that's not always the intention. The process IS the punishment - the mere fact that police are sent to question you about what you have said is intended as a deterrent, to make you and others think carefully before expressing your opinion. It is clearly intended to have a chilling effect on your free speech.

If you live in the UK, and you don't believe this, then I suggest you haven't been paying much attention to what has been happening in your own country. This is especially the case with regard to these insidious "Non-crime hate incidents" (NCHI), an aspect of life in the UK that is very much reminiscent of "Red Scare" McCarthyism of 1940s and 1950s America.
 
dann said:
newrepublic.com

DOJ Quietly Deletes Study on Politics of Domestic Terrorists

The Justice Department has taken down a study that proves Republicans’ entire narrative wrong about left-wing violence.
newrepublic.com newrepublic.com
it was bound to happen, wasn't it?! Not in line with the narrative ...
Click to expand...
This is very disturbing.... the removal of evidence that goes against the chosen narrative. Yet another hallmark of a totalitarian government.

Thank goodness for the Wayback Machine

https://web.archive.org/web/20250911165140if_/https://www.ojp.gov/pdf…

archived 16 Sep 2025 18:27:06 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I see no reason to doubt what she has said about her own case. I have zero doubt that she was given terrible advice.

It would be trivially easy to disprove it if it were lies. I know that she is considering suing her lawyer for giving her bad legal advice. I hope she does, so that we will all be able to see just how bad that advice was.

In the meantime, Kier Starmer's role in this ought to be questioned very closely.





You don't truly have free speech in the UK any more. What you have is speech that is only free so long as the government doesn't object. If they do object, you might find you get a mob-handed visit from your local police. You may not be arrested or charged, but that's not always the intention. The process IS the punishment - the mere fact that police are sent to question you about what you have said is intended as a deterrent, to make you and others think carefully before expressing your opinion. It is clearly intended to have a chilling effect on your free speech.

If you live in the UK, and you don't believe this, then I suggest you haven't been paying much attention to what has been happening in your own country. This is especially the case with regard to these insidious "Non-crime hate incidents" (NCHI), an aspect of life in the UK that is very much reminiscent of "Red Scare" McCarthyism of 1940s and 1950s America.
Click to expand...
you are funny.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Sen. Katie Britt: "If you are out there and you are celebrating the political assassination of a man who was exercising his free speech ... you should be held accountable. You should be fired. And that is the beginning and the end of it. Full stop."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967235026816254055
Click to expand...
So every single republican senator, congressperson and state representative should be fired forthwith? They all celebrate pretty hard a few months ago when one of their own murdered two Democratic party state representatives.
 
Kirk evidence contrasts with White House claims over 'radical left' groups and the CDC's big week: Morning Rundown (NBC News, Sep 17, 2025)
The Trump administration's suggestion that a secret network of violent left-wing extremists was behind the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk stood in contrast to the evidence presented by law enforcement. Text messages from the suspect, Tyler Robinson, to his roommate revealed a confession and an explanation, officials said, but made no link to any groups.
In the string of text exchanges, Robinson wrote that he "had enough of [Kirk's] hatred," and that "Some hate can’t be negotiated."
Click to expand...
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Would be nice to have some Labour government that is not run by a defacto Tory.
Click to expand...

It seems it's only when Labour present themselves as de facto Tories that they can get elected. We had a change of government last year. If we had another change of government right now there's only one alternative which could get elected and I really don't believe they would solve the country's problems.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It is very revealing that you assume that you have to be a Leftist to be anti -Fascist.
Everyone but a Fascist should be anti -Fascist
Click to expand...
Hell, even some fanatical fascists turned anti-fascist in the end (but only after even they could see they couldn't win. Schenk von Stauffenburg being a prime example.)
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The UK problem seems to be one that could be solved by a change of government.
Click to expand...
The legislation was created and passed by the UK party of the right i.e. the Conservatives.

ETA: The UK government does not direct the police to pursue cases or people.
 
Last edited:
dann said:
I still don't see anything to explain why Robinson decided that shooting Kirk was better than e.g. criticizing or even debating him. The evidence so far and comments from his friends don't seem to give us any real insight into this.
Click to expand...

He was raised in a culture that fetishizes guns, and by extension, violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom