In the wake of Kirk’s assassination, a few more trolls have come to assert the killer was MAGA
One example, which is now in the trash:
Is your name Neo as in Neo Nazi.
I wouldn’t be shocked anymore.Anyhow, Tyler was a far right maga.
I await the next Nuremberg Trials. Trump and His admin will judged.
The word “be” is left out in that last line, but I think it’s just from haste rather than any unfamiliarity with the English language.
This message is very typical of trolls. First, the quick insult to me. Then, the simple statement of a popular leftist falsehood, with no need for supporting data. Next, the threat of a reckoning when the left gets into power.
This comment was actually rather mild, as trolls go. And as is also typical, it’s from someone who seems not to have been here before.
There’s a common perception that trolls are paid. I have little doubt that may be true for many. But I think at least as many just do it for the love of trolling.
The idea that Tyler Robinson was MAGA is a piece of leftist propaganda that could be characterized as a classic Big Lie – that is, there’s not a single shred of evidence for it. It’s preposterous, knowing what we know. Why is this the left’s approach? Let me count the ways:
(1) If it’s done in order to troll someone on the right – as with the above comment – it rubs salt into the wound of Kirk’s assassination and isn’t meant to convince. When the audience is the left, however, it is meant to convince, and that is its aim for the most part.
(2) It relies on the cognitive dissonance of many people on the left on learning that Robinson was the epitome of someone who’s been radicalized by the left. On the one hand, the person on the left hearing the news might be happily applauding Kirk’s murder. On the other hand, the fact that the murderer was a leftist goes against the leftist listener’s notion that it is the right that is violent, the right that uses hunting rifles to blow people away. So the perfect solution is to applaud Kirk’s murder while simultaneously believing it was done by a MAGA supporter – which is preposterous and also false, but it resolves the cognitive dissonance. People often eagerly embrace ideas that resolve the unpleasant emotions roused by cognitive dissonance, no matter how wrong or how preposterous those ideas are.
(3) It relies on some people not following the facts at all closely, and plenty of people don’t. Slogans and lies flourish with ignorance.
(4) It relies on some people’s distrust of authorities such as the FBI and local police, and plenty of people feel that way.
I’ve said the idea that Tyler Robinson was MAGA is preposterous. We have way too much evidence to the contrary: the writing on the bullets, the reports of friends and family, the text messages to the roommate/lover, and of course the victim himself – who was a person on the right. But in the absence of the first three of those things it wouldn’t be so utterly preposterous to believe the assassination might be a right-on-right crime. Stranger things have happened – although they happen more often on the left with left-on-left crimes, with the victims seen as insufficiently extremist and/or as rivals for leftist power. As one example, there is the murder of Trotsky on Stalin’s orders. To take another, there’s Malcolm X (whose murder at the hands of the Nation of Islam has – of course – spawned a number of alternate conspiracy theories).
So in general the left doesn’t find it all that odd to think that the murder of Kirk represented a power struggle on the right – at least, they could entertain that notion for a short while. But after the first day, it would be impossible to support the idea unless one was either woefully ignorant of the facts that had emerged or willfully lying (perhaps including lying to oneself), or both.
I haven’t seen any of the left minions pushing the idea that he was MAGA, but certainly a large percentage of them think he deserved to die. Violence against anyone on the right runs deep in these, on the surface, decent people.
A very shallow surface
I’ve seen some x posts that analyze the various videos to try to prove that someone else shot Kirk.
So, they may be trolls or just conspiracy theory guys trying to discredit the FBI.
physicsguy, my daughter is attending an academic conference today. She was dreading dinner last night. Academics are overwhelmingly leftist, and they talk loudly about how awful Trump and the right are. They just assume that all educated people agree with them. This is similar to AOC’s statement on the House floor that Kirk was “uneducated.” AOC has degrees, but very little knowledge. Kirk lacked degrees but was self-educated far above her level.
I haven’t seen any of the left minions pushing the idea that he was MAGA,
==
I have. That’s one dodge. The other is that he’s a hateful, details not stated. I have yet to see a leftist in fora I frequent simply offer a note of regret without trashing the man.
Shame this one is in the trash. I would have loved to flog it to pieces.
It’s that lie that goes around the world so many times it becomes impossible to get those who bought it to change their minds.
As others have surely noted, the same people telling you that Robinson is MAGA are the same people trying to tell you that a biological male is a woman.
We are in a civil war and one side is shooting – the other side is talking, so far.
This, is when we juxtapose:
1) This the Shooting Side
“Planning War Against Fascists” – Socialist Rifle Association Boasts 10,000 Members”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/planning-war-against-fascists-socialist-rifle-association-boasts-10000-members
2) This is the shooting side’s political party that has no issues with it whatsoever
“Majority Of Democrats Refuse To Support Resolution Rejecting Political Violence”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/majority-democrats-refuse-support-resolution-rejecting-political-violence
I get pushback on other websites that say this civil war talk is nonsense and my perception is wrong, so a I say:
“Why don’t you ask Charlie Kirk’s family about their “perception.”
I am not talking about 1861 to 1865, rather I’m talking dirty wars – The British can see this coming and so should we:
https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/the-british-road-to-dirty-war/
The Left has no problem getting rid us one way or the other. Listen to them and observe what they do. It is just getting started.
Neo as in Neo Nazi?
so, this “person” is playing stupid word games.
Okay, here is a word game: how about this “person” sounds positively Neo as in Neolithic – what a caveman!
Sorry Neo, at least my joke was funny my head.
I was perusing LinkedIn and came across a post from a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. She shared a page from Cynthia Miller-Idriss, Hate in the Homeland, in which the author discussed the divide between Nick Fuente and Charlie Kirk (because Kirk was viewed as too moderate – which is interesting). She said it helped establish “context” for what happened last week.
I was baffled and wondered “what context???” What did Fuente and the far right have to do with the murder of Kirk? I’m not dunking on this scholar, perhaps I misunderstand the point she was making, but we are seeing some seriously weird reactions.
Rick67, apparently leftists are trying to claim that some “far right” Fuente-like person killed Kirk because he wasn’t far enough to the right. There’s no evidence whatever for this.
some hack named heather richardson, (I think we’ve referred to her in the past)
revisionist lefty academic on substack, seems to be where kimmel’s chimps seems to have handed him his talking points,
i think i’m being too charitable, of course the fact that the shooter was a transgender affiliated furry seems to be something beyond parody, but thats’ where we are,
greg kelley on newsmax helped decode this bizarre subculture,
*sigh*
As soon as I heard about the murder, I rather thought the perp would turn out to be Trantifa, as the last couple of grisly murders on campus were perpetuated by trans shooters. Antifa itself has been eager to go out in defending trannys as well as demonstrating positive eagerness to go out all violent … especially in venues where no one will be violent in response to provocation.
And yes – there are some trolls whom I am certain are in it for the sick freaks it gives them.
This comment isn’t about trolls, but have you seen or heard about the arrest today at Charlie Kirk’s memorial.
BREAKING: Joshua Runkles was identified and arrested inside Charlie Kirk’s memorial at State Farm Stadium after being found with a knife and a firearm.
@GeneralMCNews
“Antifa itself has been eager to go out in defending trannys as well as demonstrating positive eagerness to go out all violent … especially in venues where no one will be violent in response to provocation.” Sgt. Mom
‘Attacking’ your enemy… where they’re not… is highly revealing. Cowards only attack when and where it’s safe to do so. Since its not safe for Antifa to attack where the right is the majority, they stand revealed for what they really are… in a real fight… they’ll run.
@neo: The idea that Tyler Robinson was MAGA is a piece of leftist propaganda that could be characterized as a classic Big Lie…
Let’s not forget that Jimmy Kimmel played his part as a troll with a huge megaphone propagating this Big Lie.
Word is he was given the chance to apologize the next night, but refused. He planned on attacking MAGA some more.
Victor Davis Hanson offers a conspiratorial timeline — not all that hard to believe in the Age of the Journolist — in which there was a day-by-day coordinated effort by the legacy media to try different propaganda lines to blunt the disaster of Charlie Kirk’s assassination for the Left.
__________________________________
Did you ever wonder just how the Left and the media – but I repeat myself – always seem to be speaking from the same script? We all know they collude on their daily messaging and that none of it is organic. Rush Limbaugh was one of the first to bust up the Left’s astroturfing when he played the “gravitas” montage on his show.
–“Victor Davis Hanson Blows Up the Left’s Daily Talking Points”
https://pjmedia.com/tim-o-brien/2025/09/19/victor-davis-hanson-blows-up-the-lefts-propaganda-machine-n4943915
@ John Galt > “I am not talking about 1861 to 1865, rather I’m talking dirty wars – The British can see this coming and so should we:”
That article (written in 2019 about the British political establishment’s obstruction to and eventual derailment of the democratically chosen Brexit) was very interesting, but it is now 6 years on and the people have not yet risen in revolt.
Nothing substantial happened after the Rotherham revelations, either.
However, the globalist-socialist-aristocrats of the Left may not be able to keeping piling straws on the camel’s back.
Often the last one is something totally unforeseen, so perhaps Kirk’s assassination, even though he was an American, might be the final straw.
The list of Left on Left crimes and you leave off JFK? 😉
Any way you watch stuff like this…
https://youtu.be/PqANK9pdlE4?si=jA1oXVqtjqvEYFXu
And it’s hard not to get nervous that people are going to whip themselves into a frenzy to kill you. Like…. at some point you would almost hope they might pause and ask “should I double check the target before I go through with it?” But that seems to get in the way of their self righteousness.
I’ve a question. Why is Erika Kirk termed “Ms. Kirk” rather than “Mrs. Kirk” in the NYTimes interview? I don’t get it.
if ones is not filled with the Truth, with the Word, you will follow anything,
the Times tries to diminish any adversary in many ways, they are often petty so is the Bezos Post, see the latest ‘advice’ from Michelle Borstin, from different historians to Erica Kirk
sdferr, I don’t read the NY Times, but perhaps their style book abjures “Mrs.” because they think it’s sexist to define women according to marital status, or something like that.
sdferr, presumably because “Mrs.” is too antiquated, too male-supremacist, too redolent of dead-white-people type of culture to fit into their style manual.
I only think — while I know nothing of a style book or waffling reductions — that if Erika Kirk wishes to be called by the word “Ms.” and calls herself this way it would be appropriate to do so, and contrarywise if she prefers to be called and calls herself by “Mrs.” then doing otherwise is wholly inappropriate. Seeing the NYTimes usage I still wonder: what the ever mother-loving fuck.