Does one have to be a paid iSteve subscriber to comment? Perhaps it varies by post.
Would you care to elaborate on why you're contributing to this thread? Bearding the lion in his den? Changing hearts and minds, one at a time? Trolling?
On the first point, I’d add, “especially if he was wearing any kind of ear protection, as someone with his background familiarity with firearms ought to have done.”
It was a large crowd and audio where everyone could hear. Not implausable. Possibly knew the person who asked the question and this was prearranged. Odd coincidence when he could have shot earlier. So Mick, why did the shooter wait. There's every reason for doing it as soon as he could. Yes?
He almost certainly didn’t know the person who asked the question — that person was interviewed in the NYT. If the Times identified him, surely investigators did too, and if there was a connection we would know.
It was not a difficult shot for someone with some training. My NC buddy told me he can put three rounds into a 2 inch circle using the same scoped rifle at 300 yards.
The assassin reportedly was bragging to friends about what a great long distance shooter he was, but he forgot about, you know, gravity dragging the bullet down and his shot aimed at CK's head hit him in the neck instead.
How about a trial next week resulting in a death penalty conviction and sentence is carried out by a firing squad on live TV next month.
Try to keep up will you? The shooter hit Charlie center-of-mass (chest area) and the bullet was deflected up by his bulletproof (no better than IIIA rated probably. Not rated for 30-06)
He’s not killed someone before, my guess is it took him 20 minutes to build up the courage to do what he’d planned to do. The trans question is probably what did it for him.
See also Matt Walsh, warning that transvestites are killers, here: https://youtu.be/xSRfnpEl17w - he was prescient.
“In Matt Walsh’s podcast episode, he condemns transgender ideology as a dangerous, delusional construct fueling a purported epidemic of violence, exemplified by a recent shooting at a Catholic school where a trans-identifying individual killed two children and injured others. He argues that media outlets systematically conceal the transgender connection in such crimes, citing cases like Jared Ravizza’s stabbings, where reports omit the perpetrator’s transgender identity despite evident social media evidence. Walsh lists numerous violent incidents involving trans-identifying people, including mass shootings in Maryland, Colorado, Colorado Springs, Philadelphia, Nashville, and a parental murder, asserting that per capita data shows this demographic as the most prone to deadly mass shootings, far exceeding others. He attributes this to the ideology’s promotion of unnatural hormone treatments and affirmation of fantasies, which empower psychopaths rather than treating underlying mental illness, as evidenced by the lack of suicide reduction per ACLU admissions. Walsh criticizes leftist affirmation policies, such as family and political support for the recent shooter, for exacerbating delusions and inciting anti-Christian hatred, seen in the perpetrator’s mockery of God and targeting of a church. He accuses Democrats, including Minnesota’s lieutenant governor with her knife-emblazoned “Protect trans kids” shirt, of issuing veiled threats and encouraging terrorism, while media like CNN omits transgender details to obscure motives. Politicians and commentators, he claims, exploit tragedies to mock Christian prayer as ineffective, implying the ideology’s anti-Christian core, with figures like Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey, Jen Psaki, and Michael Steele deriding faith amid child deaths. Walsh calls for banning affirmation for all ages, classifying transgenderism as a severe mental disorder, prohibiting firearm sales to such individuals, and eradicating the “demonic” agenda to protect society, warning of escalating desperation as it loses cultural ground.”
Right, and they also drone on and on about violence towards trannies, which is odd, because, so far, I haven't seen any.
I say so far, because that may change.
There is also no discussion of the possible side effects of the drugs trannies must continue to take. Transitioning has been sold as a one time event and then you're fine. It's not.
As Steve has pointed out, a lot of the violence against transgenders is: black guy guy has sex with what he thinks is a woman, find out it's a guy, freaks out and kills him. Not what the media wants to talk about.
It's even more simple: "transwomen" (aka men) are heavily overrepresented in the sex worker cohort. Sex work is incredibly dangerous for anyone who does it & this is doubly or triply true if you are shall we say, engaging in false advertisement?
This makes up the VAST majority of these cases.
The thing is: a lot of these neo-troons are not the trannies most people think of when they think of "transexuals."
This new breed are largely Autogynephiles aka HETEROSEXUAL MEN- who get off on the idea of being a woman.
It's a fetish they are foisting onto the rest of us, & they actually expect us to accept them in women's bathrooms, changing rooms & private (for a reason) spaces, let alone competing against biological women in their sports?
It's all complete rubbish & it also the STUPIDEST argument ever made - it's embarrassing the Western world has entertained this nonsense for a minute.
My take on the transfem prostitutes - they have the sex drive of men - stronger and more indiscriminate than that of women. What they desire is straight men or men who don't identify as gay but do want ladyboys. And the way they get their partners is through paid sex. It is not primarily economic or for survival as it is for female prostitutes. The sex is what's primary.
They claim they can't find jobs because of their female presentation. So, present male to work, go home and be however you wish.
If I had a choice between prostitution or presenting male at work, stick-on Mario moustache it is.
Andy Ngo is way, way out ahead on this story, though he cautions that whether the trans person was Robinson's lover or merely his roommate is not yet clear.
Spencer Cox is very liberal for a Republican governor; I was surprised he "put it all out there" on the Sunday talk shows today.
That said, we have had their lifestyle crammed down our throats for years. My sons were required to specify their pronouns on their college applications. Workers get called into HR if they misgender a co-worker. Now we're being told to NOT call attention to them? No.
Charlie Kirk referred to the Floyd and Ferguson effects and Sailer-endorsed racial crime differentials in the Oxford University debate that had the incoming Union president cheering his murder (“LET’S GO”):
I interpreted the Union prez's tweet as mocking the people calling for prayers when he was still believed to be alive. Still obnoxious and totally graceless for someone who knew him.
The latest wave of trans don’t even want to present as the opposing gender. They actually just want ti be trans and ti belong to the trans community. They would rather you knew they were trans than honestly mistake them for a woman. Lesson in there.
I have no idea whether "trans shooters" are becoming thing. But the inability of most of the MSM to "process" this story has been pretty conspicuous. The alt right X accounts ended up being more right than wrong here (somewhat to my amazement tbh).
From my vantage point we've gone from "shooter was conservative and killed one of his own", to "okay, so he had a trans roommate, yes blame the trans people lol!", to "the inscriptions on the casing tell us very little in the way of motive", to now "sure, the inscriptions point to being sympathetic to trans and anti fascist causes, and maybe he had a trans lover, but I don't see what this has to do with anything."
One can imagine an alternate universe where Kyle kulinski (side note: there really isn't a left wing version of Charlie, is there? Mark Halperin said this and now I believe it) is shot and they find alt right 4chan-esque inscriptions on casings and photos of the shooter with neo-nazi tats, and most of the media goes with "let's be cautious about what the motivations are."
Personally I think it’s probably a superficial reason, but at the bottom of it all is probably a misfit who found a sense of identity and self worth by adopting leftist politics and decided to do something heroic (in his mind). Obviously trans is the primary vector for this as well as his feelings about his alleged partner, and there is no question the most militant trans adherents *do* allege the right has an eliminationist attitude towards them that warrants a violent response - the loon that is the LtG of Minnesota has been smiling wearing a “Protect Trans Kids” t-shirt complete with a knife.
So yes, I do think the entire trans movement relies on emotionally unbalanced and easily manipulated people, but leftist rhetoric in general for years now has equated speech they don’t like with violence that has resulted in stuff like the Dallas cops murdered by a pro BLM black guy.
I don’t think it’s any stretch at all to say the activist left is shot through with people who have massive issues with emotional regulation, and such people cannot simply be treated as fellow citizens with a different political perspective. Politics is just an outlet for mentally unwell people to indulge their worst impulses.
Seeing the shooter as a "leftist" is reductive and ultimately, wrong.
This is horseshoe theory in action but I have made many longish posts abt the reality of this shooter and this killing like 5 times already.
Suffice to say someone who "admired Nick Fuentes" & identified with Groyper meme culture ≠ leftist in any iteration of the term, even the troon obsessed one
The shooter referred to Kirk as a Fascist on the murder weapon and Gov Cox said he and investigators believe he had a leftwing motive. Gryopers don't call their enemies Fascist. What source do you have to say he "admired Nick Fuentes"?
For a detailed analysis of transgenderism, and a call for the prosecution of those responsible for propagating it, please see: https://paste.rs/dr2jJ.md
ABSTRACT:
This article examines transgender ideology as a biologically unfounded construct that challenges the immutability of sex, defined as binary and determined by chromosomal and reproductive biology. It argues that medical interventions, such as hormone treatments and surgeries, provide only cosmetic alterations, incapable of changing fundamental sex characteristics. Drawing on historical figures like Dr Georges Burou and detransitioner accounts, such as Alan Finch's description of surgery as "genital mutilation," the piece contends that such procedures stem from delusions or paraphilias, notably autogynephilia—a sexual fetish involving arousal from imagining oneself as female.
The analysis rejects the distinction between sex and gender, viewing the latter as an incoherent sociopolitical invention critiqued in works by Helen Joyce, Abigail Shrier, and Kathleen Stock. It identifies drivers of the ideology, including adult male fetishes (e.g., autogynephilia in figures like Andrea Chu), online grooming leading to rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents, profit-driven medical industries, male athletes exploiting women's sports, sex offenders accessing female spaces, and political opportunism by Democrats and Labour supporters seeking moral validation.
Societal harms are emphasised, encompassing the grooming, chemical sterilisation, and surgical mutilation of children, with reference to the Cass Review's findings on weak evidence for benefits and reports of 5,700 minors operated on in the U.S. between 2019 and 2023. Additional impacts include the erosion of women's sports through over 578 male victories, and safety risks in single-sex facilities, exemplified by assaults by individuals like Karen White and Darren Merager. Critiques of "gender-affirming care" incorporate analyses of U.S. v. Skrmetti Supreme Court arguments, debunking claims of reversibility and mental health benefits, and Corinna Cohn's Substack essay exposing false moderation in advocacy.
Counterarguments dismissing concerns as hatred or peripheral are refuted, prioritising evidence-based policy over personal apathy. Analogies, such as pretending to be a walrus or trans-zebra, illustrate the absurdity of affirming delusions, echoed in Matt Walsh's works. Recommendations urge engagement with critical authors and sites like Reduxx and Transgender Trend.
The article culminates in a call for accountability, advocating prosecutions and executions of doctors, politicians, and enablers under precedents like the Nuremberg Trials (Nuremberg Charter, Article 6(c)), Geneva Conventions, and ICC Rome Statute (Article 7), likening actions to historical atrocities for deterrence. It proposes tribunals and future reconciliation commissions to rectify harms, urging a return to biological reality.
Many thanks for your reply. Respectfully, I disagree, as I go on to explain below.
Prosecution in this context does not amount to religious persecution. Rather, your assertion misrepresents the underlying causes of action (the basis for prosecution, in layman’s terms). You are conflating ideological disagreement with accountability for harmful conduct. I am not advocating prosecuting individuals merely for "propagating" or proselytising an ideology, as one might in a religious context. Instead, I propose targeting specific actions: namely, the administration of, or the encouraging or enabling of the administration of, chemical sterilisation (puberty blockers), and surgical mutilation of children. These were undertaken by doctors, politicians, journalists, and teachers.
They are ideologically motivated harms for political and financial gain, distinct from mere expression of beliefs. The analogy to religious persecution is inapt, as transgender ideology is not as a faith-based doctrine warranting protected proselytisation, and thus safeguards for religious manifestation. Your assertions fundamentally mischaracterize the issue, and ignore the core focus on actionable harms under U.S. law. This is not about punishing mere proselytizing or ideological expression, which would indeed implicate First Amendment protections under cases like West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943) (holding that compelling conformity to ideology violates free speech). Instead, prosecutions would target concrete conduct: doctors administering puberty blockers causing chemical sterilization, and performing surgical mutilations on minors: acts driven by ideology for profit or politics, akin to historical medical abuses but prosecutable domestically as federal or state crimes.
Under U.S. federal law, such non-therapeutic interventions on children arguably constitute child abuse or endangerment, potentially violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (sexual exploitation of children) if involving genital alterations without medical necessity, or 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (murder or manslaughter) in extreme cases of resulting harm. More directly, they may breach civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for state actors depriving minors of bodily integrity, as in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 849 (1992) (recognizing liberty interests in personal autonomy, but allowing restrictions to protect vulnerables). State laws amplify this: for instance, Tennessee's SB 1 (2023) bans gender-affirming care for minors, enabling criminal penalties up to Class C felonies (Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103), upheld in United States v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477 (U.S. argued Dec. 4, 2024; pending as of Sept. 14, 2025), where the Sixth Circuit affirmed such bans as rational child protections (L.W. v. Skrmetti, 83 F.4th 460, 492 (6th Cir. 2024)).
Enabling politicians, journalists, or teachers could face conspiracy charges under 18 U.S.C. § 371 if facilitating these acts, or RICO violations (18 U.S.C. § 1962) if part of a profit-driven enterprise mutilating kids for billions in medical revenue. This is deterrence through law enforcement, not persecution: much like prosecuting eugenics-era forced sterilizations post-Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (later discredited, leading to compensatory statutes like Virginia's 2001 law).
As I touch upon in the main text, under well-established international humanitarian law, such acts are likened to historical atrocities, providing a basis for prosecution not rooted in persecution but in criminal liability. The Nuremberg Charter (1945), Article 6(c), defines crimes against humanity as including "other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population" (see https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/nuremberg-tribunal-charter-1945/article-6b. This informed post-WWII trials, such as the Doctors' Trial (United States v. Karl Brandt et al., 1946-1947), where Nazi physicians were convicted for non-consensual sterilisation experiments (Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, Vol. II, pp. 181-300, available via Library of Congress archives). Similarly, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), Article 7(1)(g), explicitly lists "enforced sterilization" as a crime against humanity when part of a widespread or systematic attack on civilians (https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf, at p. 5). The Geneva Conventions (1949), Common Article 3, prohibit "violence to life and person, in particular... mutilation" in non-international conflicts, with Additional Protocol II (1977), Article 4(2)(e), barring "outrages upon personal dignity" (https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/geneva-conventions-and-their-commentaries); these draw from Nuremberg precedents to condemn forced medical procedures.
Ultimately, however, international precedents like Nuremberg are persuasive but unnecessary; U.S. sovereignty demands that Washington handle this internally to safeguard children from ideological experiments. If "propagation" includes enabling harm, it's criminal, not protected speech.
Actions should have consequences.
___
Also see the following article: https://www.modadgeopolitics.com/p/after-kirks-murder - as the section excerpted below indicates, these people must be firmly stopped, and punished, because they have wrought havoc on the West.
""The left’s predicament
The left is a victim of its own success. They have won every cultural and legal battle since the Second World War. These include cradle to grave welfare, mass immigration, multiculturalism, homosexual marriage, abortion (with the recent reversal of Roe v Wade being a rare exception that only moved the issue to the states), transgenderism, DEI, lax law enforcement, equalities legislation, and even the policing of speech. In all these issues, the left has been able to get the state to side with it in almost every major country in the EU and the Anglosphere.
However, the results of these victories have been catastrophic: collapsing birth rates, lawlessness, crime-infested cities, segregated communities, sectarianism, and racial conflict. Thus, the left finds itself unable to make any further gains, but, due to the ideology of intersectionality and allyship, it is unable to make any concessions either. Rather, it views conceding on one point as conceding on all. And since it is materialistic, it has no moral restraints, but rather views those who disagree with it as inferior and evil - Nazis, homophobes, white supremacists, etc… This clearly leaves no room for dialogue or compassion - as evidenced by the objections to a moment of silence and prayer for Kirk. The left hope to completely shut out the right from debate, to avoid admitting their errors.
The next logical conclusion from some of the left’s perspective is to engage in violence to hold on to its gains, as it knows full well that once delusional ideas like transgenderism unravel, other ideas, like same-sex marriage, ‘hugs not bullets’ for criminals, or welfare for the able bodied and for foreigners, may follow suit."
"Encouragement" is speech. You are advocating persecution of speech. If you target journalists, yes you are carrying out religious persecution. And yes transgender ideology is quite faith based, because " gender identity" is a metaphysical concept. Fuck off with your witch hunting legislation.
Christianity is more delusional than modern transgenderism. Catholics pretend to eat their god savior every week. If you want to see why there are so many trans people who have so much irrational bigotry toward "the right", look at yourself.
Trans surgeries for children have nothing to do with same sex marriage. Go crawl back into your 1950s hole.
Dear Jeffrey, thank you for your latest impassioned reply. I looked at your Substack, which seems genuinely fascinating. With respect, however, while you may be a religious expert, you are not a lawyer.
I am not criticizing you for that! However, respectfully, you are mistaking targeting speech or persecuting beliefs, with punishing people's wrongful. actions. Prosecuting transgender ideology would be the latter. Doctors performing irreversible surgeries on kids, for profit, does not excuse child harm. Prosecute and convict both the doctors and the ideologues who enabled them, under conspiracy doctrines. And, as I articulate above, I believe that capital punishment would be appropriate.
Conservative values prioritize protecting the vulnerable, not indulging delusions. Comparing this to Catholic practices is a distraction: our mutial focus ought to be on stopping mutilation, and punishing those responsible for it.
To conclude, I agree that speech alone is not punishable. Thank you again for your contribution.
Dear anonymous person incognito, thank you for your relatively civil reply. I looked at your substack and there is no evidence that you are a lawyer either, but maybe you do know how to use chatgpt? Nor does it even matter if you are a lawyer, because lawyers can be wrong about the law, and lawyers often lose cases. Even Supreme Court judges can be wrong and overruled. If you are a lawyer and you scored well on the lsats you should have known better than to make such a logical fallacy about my argument.
My academic degree is actually in philosophy and I work professionally as a software engineer. So I have quite a lot of experience with logic, and the law is heavily framed by logic.
You mention "encouragement" by politicians and journalists. What would you be prosecuting precisely when it comes to journalists other than speech? From what I'm aware, journalists are not involved in performing surgery. Trying to prosecute journalists for "conspiracy" related to their "encouragement" or philosophical support of the surgeries, particularly capital punishment, sounds absolutely bonkers and a violation of the first amendment of the constitution. You are welcome to take that to a court someday, but I don't think that will fly. Regardless, your proposal sounds what i would call un-American in its opposition to the *spirit* of the first amendment. There is nothing more "conservative" than the spirit of the first amendment. I agree with you that there should be laws restricting gender transition medical procedures for minors. But i strongly disagree with trying to circumvent the first amendment to punish "ideologues". Debate them, don't prosecute them. Charlie Kirk would concur. If you want to debate with me, don't use legal precedents, as this issue is deeper than law, it is ethics. When you get the Supreme Court, you are welcome cite legal precedents. But if I were on the Supreme Court, I'd throw your case out. It's an abomination.
Your questions have already been answered in detail. Nothing more irritating than someone who does not do a modicum of reflection or research before repeating themselves.
Conspiracy theories that require co-conspirators to stand close to the target of gunfire (e.g., the popular theory that Sirhan Sirhan missed RFK Jr. with all 9 shots but RFK was then shot by second hired gunman standing directly behind RFK) strike me as hard to organize: You want me to stand where?
Thansgenderism is an evil anti-humanist movement driven by autogynephilic men who wank in front of mirrors wearing women's clothing. They push this ideology on confused teens in an attempt to normalize their perversion. Transgenderism is genocide of gay teens. Is it any surprise that so many transgenders are filled with rage against society, against children and the church when they realise the awful truth that they are the agents of their own genocide?
OK, they mention this is furries, but I think it's referring to noticing genital bulges in someone passing as female (thus male)--that would be anti-trans.
OwO are flirting 'big eyes' but usually mocking.
'Hey, fascist! Catch ↑ → ↓↓↓'
This one seems antifascist--the arrows are likely a videogame code (Helldivers) to summon a big bomb.
'Oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao ciao ciao'
That one's probably antifascist--it's an Italian partisan song from WW2.
'If you read this, you are gay lmao'
Classic antigay stuff among young men. lmao=laughing my ass off
So two sound left, two sound right, probably two are ironic, I'm not sure which. I can't see a leftist making fun of someone for being gay, but then 'bella ciao' is kind of obscure for a righty mocking a lefty. That this particular combo is chosen to confound people on the Internet trying to figure it out is quite possible.
Supposedly he has a trans lover, which I've heard is bizarrely enough not unheard of among groypers--sometimes those are the only women interested in these guys...
A fully capital OWO, unlike a lowercase owo or mixture of the two (OwO) is an English word that is an initialism of "Oral Without". In prostitution, this signifies performing oral sex on a man without using a condom.
This isn't the reason the weebs and the furries started using it, but it sure is a strange coincidence that the most popular use of it is the "OwO what's dis?" meme, depicting a furry finding a bulge in someone's pants.
My guess is that this line 'If you read this, you are gay lmao' is directed at the stereotypically prejudiced, straight cops who would presumably find the shell casing.
Thinking that this is as simple as "left vs right" is a serious mistake. Robinson said he "admired Nick Fuentes" according to authorities - and that Kirk "wasn't conservative enough."
People assume wrongly that the trans gender nonsense is beholden to lefty politics. His roommate, partner whatever he/they/she is or was, was a libertarian & very, VERY active member of the "r/4tran" sub which is a play on "4chan." Not exactly a bastion of left wing political thought.
Let us not forget that he admires the same Nick Fuentes who said "hanging out with...kr even having sex with your girlfriend is really the gayest thing you can do, if you think about it."
Governor Cox was right abt one thing: this kid was totally mired in 7 layers of irony, Gen Z "Internet meme culture" which intersects with the neo-trans movement was has essentially been "memefied" into existence. These guys start watching this sissy porn crap, which ....let's just say its STRANGE. I've researched this a ton as I see the troon movement as a new, degenerate "men's rights" movement in many ways - & yes, I know a ton of young women are buying into this now, too.
I'm specifically referencing the wave of ostensibly straight and/or "questioning" young men who are being hijacked by Internet culture+ porn & video game addiction.
Go ahead & watch Fuentes on Rumble on any weekday - and monitor the live chat.
You'll see EXACTLY what I am referring to.
We all need to get out of our left/right thinking - so much of what is out there, right under our noses but obscure enough that most older people just don't get it & wouldn't know it IF they saw it - defies our traditional political structures.
According to Utah officials + police interviews with his family, Tyler Robinson hated Charlie Kirk because Kirk wasn't conservative enough. (Robinson reportedly admired Nick Fuentes). GOPer's now scrubbing X posts about dems faster than DOJ erases Trump name in Epstein files.
No Utah official, police statement, or FBI report so far has said that Tyler Robinson hated Charlie Kirk because he wasn't conservative enough or that he admired Nick Fuentes.
No link/quotes/source on this viral tweet. As of now no public confirmation the shooter was for fact a Groyper/Fuentes guy & none of the disinfo reporters I trust are pushing it. Lots of smoke! Could be the case! But maybe learn your own lesson and wait. Let us not become etc etc
> People assume wrongly that the trans gender nonsense is beholden to lefty politics. <
Whatever the politics of the shooter and his roomate/boyfriend, the trans gender nonsense obviously is beholden to "lefty politics"--"lefty" here meaning not "power to the workers", but "we are oppressed!" minoritarianism.
Yes for the tranny itself there's an "i'm so darn special mere biology doesn't apply to me" vibe, that could be kind of libertarian autistic.
But the tranny shit would have gotten absolutely nowhere without piggybacking on the whole minoritarian ideology that normies must grab their ankles where minorities are concerned and if they fail to do so they are "racist" "sexist" "anti-Semitic", "Islamophobic", "xenophobic" "homophobic" .... "transphobic" ... i.e. very, very bad, evil.
This is all very obvious from the speed at which this nonsense, ramped up to be establishment orthodoxy (pick your pronouns) and how precisely tranny politics lines up--i.e. precisely with BLM, "structural racism", gay marriage, LBGQWERTY++ and immigration lunacy.
Normally you're more acute with phrasing, but this "he was killed by the transgender movement" is a pretty facile conclusion to reach if you're not going to apply it to all terrorists and their various pet causes.
On the trans assassination link, any trend feels very preliminary. I wouldn't be surprised if a group already connected with various mental illness, and with reason to be on guard from constant ego injury and identity based derealization, would not also be much more likely to lash out in violence than the rest of us. But the data set is small and we don't even have a good grasp on the current population size we are dealing with and their different sub-types.
🚨 Accused Charlie Kirk Assassin Appears to Have Been in Steam Group Called ‘Read This If Your Gay,’ Echoing Message on Bullet Casing, Members Urged Encrypted Cover-Up of Chats RIGHT AFTER Shooting
A violent transgender cult, known as the "Zizians" or "Ziz Cult," has been linked to multiple murders across states, including the fatal shooting of Border Patrol Agent David Maland in early 2025.
The cult, described as a "trans vegan terror cult," is accused of orchestrating violent acts against law enforcement and perceived enemies, with members tied to killings in Vermont, North Carolina, and beyond.
The group's leader, Jack LaSota, was arrested in Maryland, and appeared to have made preparations for widespread violence.
Robinson's own connections, living with his transitioning boyfriend and embedded in online communities rife with anti-fascist rhetoric, mirror the Zizians' profile.
The linked Gateway Pundit article includes some new evidence suggesting that Kirk's murderer may been supported by others in the 'transgender community.' It mentions the Zizians, but doesn't identify any connection between Robinson and them.
Meanwhile, this morning, credulous viewers of 'NBC Today' learned that killing is bad, that Kirk was controversial, that Utah's governor is taking a stand against violence, and that motives, if any, remain mysterious.
The NYT's credulous readers might have checked "What We Know About the Fatal Shooting of Charlie Kirk" for overnight updates on the case. "Authorities are still working to identify the suspect’s motives." While engraved cartridges are mentioned, delicate Victorian sensibilities are shielded from "Notices bulges OwO what’s this?" This paragraph is the only text that will prepare subscribers for what lies ahead:
"Mr. Cox said on Sunday that Mr. Robinson had been in a romantic relationship with a partner who was in the process of transitioning from male to female. The governor said the partner, who lived with Mr. Robinson, was 'shocked' by what had happened and was cooperating fully with the investigation."
Does one have to be a paid iSteve subscriber to comment? Perhaps it varies by post.
Would you care to elaborate on why you're contributing to this thread? Bearding the lion in his den? Changing hearts and minds, one at a time? Trolling?
> It’s always weird to be accused of being a troll
It's weird for someone who chooses a scatological handle to take offense when somebody pays attention. Or maybe it isn't.
If you want to make the case that childhood transitioning, coercing others into preferred pronoun use, and so forth are decent things -- please do so.
Thanks for your informative reply
Highly doubtful the shooter could’ve heard Charlie from 200 yards away, or that he timed the shot to a
particular comment.
On the first point, I’d add, “especially if he was wearing any kind of ear protection, as someone with his background familiarity with firearms ought to have done.”
Or you slip one ear protector off your ear until year hear a transgender question, then put it back in place and go to work?
My hearing protection has a switch. It uses a microphone to pump in outside sound until you flick the switch then it's down 30db
Fancy!
If it wasn’t officially live-streamed then anyone in the audience could have been streaming it. The shooter did have a phone on him.
There was someone near Kirk who made what looked to be hand signals shortly before he was shot.
It was a large crowd and audio where everyone could hear. Not implausable. Possibly knew the person who asked the question and this was prearranged. Odd coincidence when he could have shot earlier. So Mick, why did the shooter wait. There's every reason for doing it as soon as he could. Yes?
He almost certainly didn’t know the person who asked the question — that person was interviewed in the NYT. If the Times identified him, surely investigators did too, and if there was a connection we would know.
Funny you don't see how this makes it stink even worse.
Btw where'd the gun come from? That's a much more important question.
This seems premeditated.
He might have known his opinion from an earlier time.
It was a big event. Did they not have PAs?
It was not a difficult shot for someone with some training. My NC buddy told me he can put three rounds into a 2 inch circle using the same scoped rifle at 300 yards.
The assassin reportedly was bragging to friends about what a great long distance shooter he was, but he forgot about, you know, gravity dragging the bullet down and his shot aimed at CK's head hit him in the neck instead.
How about a trial next week resulting in a death penalty conviction and sentence is carried out by a firing squad on live TV next month.
firing squad is too good. E-chair?
Try to keep up will you? The shooter hit Charlie center-of-mass (chest area) and the bullet was deflected up by his bulletproof (no better than IIIA rated probably. Not rated for 30-06)
He’s not killed someone before, my guess is it took him 20 minutes to build up the courage to do what he’d planned to do. The trans question is probably what did it for him.
Arguing it down to manslaughter?
I sincerely doubt that was a coincidence
See also Matt Walsh, warning that transvestites are killers, here: https://youtu.be/xSRfnpEl17w - he was prescient.
“In Matt Walsh’s podcast episode, he condemns transgender ideology as a dangerous, delusional construct fueling a purported epidemic of violence, exemplified by a recent shooting at a Catholic school where a trans-identifying individual killed two children and injured others. He argues that media outlets systematically conceal the transgender connection in such crimes, citing cases like Jared Ravizza’s stabbings, where reports omit the perpetrator’s transgender identity despite evident social media evidence. Walsh lists numerous violent incidents involving trans-identifying people, including mass shootings in Maryland, Colorado, Colorado Springs, Philadelphia, Nashville, and a parental murder, asserting that per capita data shows this demographic as the most prone to deadly mass shootings, far exceeding others. He attributes this to the ideology’s promotion of unnatural hormone treatments and affirmation of fantasies, which empower psychopaths rather than treating underlying mental illness, as evidenced by the lack of suicide reduction per ACLU admissions. Walsh criticizes leftist affirmation policies, such as family and political support for the recent shooter, for exacerbating delusions and inciting anti-Christian hatred, seen in the perpetrator’s mockery of God and targeting of a church. He accuses Democrats, including Minnesota’s lieutenant governor with her knife-emblazoned “Protect trans kids” shirt, of issuing veiled threats and encouraging terrorism, while media like CNN omits transgender details to obscure motives. Politicians and commentators, he claims, exploit tragedies to mock Christian prayer as ineffective, implying the ideology’s anti-Christian core, with figures like Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey, Jen Psaki, and Michael Steele deriding faith amid child deaths. Walsh calls for banning affirmation for all ages, classifying transgenderism as a severe mental disorder, prohibiting firearm sales to such individuals, and eradicating the “demonic” agenda to protect society, warning of escalating desperation as it loses cultural ground.”
Right, and they also drone on and on about violence towards trannies, which is odd, because, so far, I haven't seen any.
I say so far, because that may change.
There is also no discussion of the possible side effects of the drugs trannies must continue to take. Transitioning has been sold as a one time event and then you're fine. It's not.
Indeed. Please see here for a more detailed analysis: https://paste.rs/dr2jJ.md
As Steve has pointed out, a lot of the violence against transgenders is: black guy guy has sex with what he thinks is a woman, find out it's a guy, freaks out and kills him. Not what the media wants to talk about.
Hugh Grant to the white courtesy phone, please. Hugh Grant.
Eddy Murphy to the white courtesy phone, please. Eddy Murphy.
It's even more simple: "transwomen" (aka men) are heavily overrepresented in the sex worker cohort. Sex work is incredibly dangerous for anyone who does it & this is doubly or triply true if you are shall we say, engaging in false advertisement?
This makes up the VAST majority of these cases.
The thing is: a lot of these neo-troons are not the trannies most people think of when they think of "transexuals."
This new breed are largely Autogynephiles aka HETEROSEXUAL MEN- who get off on the idea of being a woman.
It's a fetish they are foisting onto the rest of us, & they actually expect us to accept them in women's bathrooms, changing rooms & private (for a reason) spaces, let alone competing against biological women in their sports?
It's all complete rubbish & it also the STUPIDEST argument ever made - it's embarrassing the Western world has entertained this nonsense for a minute.
My take on the transfem prostitutes - they have the sex drive of men - stronger and more indiscriminate than that of women. What they desire is straight men or men who don't identify as gay but do want ladyboys. And the way they get their partners is through paid sex. It is not primarily economic or for survival as it is for female prostitutes. The sex is what's primary.
They claim they can't find jobs because of their female presentation. So, present male to work, go home and be however you wish.
If I had a choice between prostitution or presenting male at work, stick-on Mario moustache it is.
Midnight Cowboy.
Looking for Mr. Goodbar.
Reminds me of the Tone Loc song.....
"So I took her to my crib
And everything went well as planned
But when she got undressed, it was a big old mess
Sheena was a man
So I threw him out, I don't fool around
With no Oscar Mayer wiener
You must be sure that your girl is pure
For the Funky Cold Medina
You know what I'm saying?
Ain't no plans with a man...."
Andy Ngo is way, way out ahead on this story, though he cautions that whether the trans person was Robinson's lover or merely his roommate is not yet clear.
Tons of credibility. Great book he wrote on the nuts.
Yes and no.
He has a serious bias and that is evidenced by what he wrote (and what he conveniently left out) in his post today.
Spencer Cox is very liberal for a Republican governor; I was surprised he "put it all out there" on the Sunday talk shows today.
That said, we have had their lifestyle crammed down our throats for years. My sons were required to specify their pronouns on their college applications. Workers get called into HR if they misgender a co-worker. Now we're being told to NOT call attention to them? No.
Midnight cowboy here ㅅ.
Charlie Kirk referred to the Floyd and Ferguson effects and Sailer-endorsed racial crime differentials in the Oxford University debate that had the incoming Union president cheering his murder (“LET’S GO”):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mlh_GfHmwts&pp=ygUTY2hhcmxpZSBraXJrIG94Zm9yZA%3D%3D
I interpreted the Union prez's tweet as mocking the people calling for prayers when he was still believed to be alive. Still obnoxious and totally graceless for someone who knew him.
The latest wave of trans don’t even want to present as the opposing gender. They actually just want ti be trans and ti belong to the trans community. They would rather you knew they were trans than honestly mistake them for a woman. Lesson in there.
I have no idea whether "trans shooters" are becoming thing. But the inability of most of the MSM to "process" this story has been pretty conspicuous. The alt right X accounts ended up being more right than wrong here (somewhat to my amazement tbh).
From my vantage point we've gone from "shooter was conservative and killed one of his own", to "okay, so he had a trans roommate, yes blame the trans people lol!", to "the inscriptions on the casing tell us very little in the way of motive", to now "sure, the inscriptions point to being sympathetic to trans and anti fascist causes, and maybe he had a trans lover, but I don't see what this has to do with anything."
One can imagine an alternate universe where Kyle kulinski (side note: there really isn't a left wing version of Charlie, is there? Mark Halperin said this and now I believe it) is shot and they find alt right 4chan-esque inscriptions on casings and photos of the shooter with neo-nazi tats, and most of the media goes with "let's be cautious about what the motivations are."
Seems borderline unfathomable to me.
Personally I think it’s probably a superficial reason, but at the bottom of it all is probably a misfit who found a sense of identity and self worth by adopting leftist politics and decided to do something heroic (in his mind). Obviously trans is the primary vector for this as well as his feelings about his alleged partner, and there is no question the most militant trans adherents *do* allege the right has an eliminationist attitude towards them that warrants a violent response - the loon that is the LtG of Minnesota has been smiling wearing a “Protect Trans Kids” t-shirt complete with a knife.
So yes, I do think the entire trans movement relies on emotionally unbalanced and easily manipulated people, but leftist rhetoric in general for years now has equated speech they don’t like with violence that has resulted in stuff like the Dallas cops murdered by a pro BLM black guy.
I don’t think it’s any stretch at all to say the activist left is shot through with people who have massive issues with emotional regulation, and such people cannot simply be treated as fellow citizens with a different political perspective. Politics is just an outlet for mentally unwell people to indulge their worst impulses.
Seeing the shooter as a "leftist" is reductive and ultimately, wrong.
This is horseshoe theory in action but I have made many longish posts abt the reality of this shooter and this killing like 5 times already.
Suffice to say someone who "admired Nick Fuentes" & identified with Groyper meme culture ≠ leftist in any iteration of the term, even the troon obsessed one
The shooter referred to Kirk as a Fascist on the murder weapon and Gov Cox said he and investigators believe he had a leftwing motive. Gryopers don't call their enemies Fascist. What source do you have to say he "admired Nick Fuentes"?
The source was a viral tweet by "reporter" David Shuster that had no basis in fact.
For a detailed analysis of transgenderism, and a call for the prosecution of those responsible for propagating it, please see: https://paste.rs/dr2jJ.md
ABSTRACT:
This article examines transgender ideology as a biologically unfounded construct that challenges the immutability of sex, defined as binary and determined by chromosomal and reproductive biology. It argues that medical interventions, such as hormone treatments and surgeries, provide only cosmetic alterations, incapable of changing fundamental sex characteristics. Drawing on historical figures like Dr Georges Burou and detransitioner accounts, such as Alan Finch's description of surgery as "genital mutilation," the piece contends that such procedures stem from delusions or paraphilias, notably autogynephilia—a sexual fetish involving arousal from imagining oneself as female.
The analysis rejects the distinction between sex and gender, viewing the latter as an incoherent sociopolitical invention critiqued in works by Helen Joyce, Abigail Shrier, and Kathleen Stock. It identifies drivers of the ideology, including adult male fetishes (e.g., autogynephilia in figures like Andrea Chu), online grooming leading to rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents, profit-driven medical industries, male athletes exploiting women's sports, sex offenders accessing female spaces, and political opportunism by Democrats and Labour supporters seeking moral validation.
Societal harms are emphasised, encompassing the grooming, chemical sterilisation, and surgical mutilation of children, with reference to the Cass Review's findings on weak evidence for benefits and reports of 5,700 minors operated on in the U.S. between 2019 and 2023. Additional impacts include the erosion of women's sports through over 578 male victories, and safety risks in single-sex facilities, exemplified by assaults by individuals like Karen White and Darren Merager. Critiques of "gender-affirming care" incorporate analyses of U.S. v. Skrmetti Supreme Court arguments, debunking claims of reversibility and mental health benefits, and Corinna Cohn's Substack essay exposing false moderation in advocacy.
Counterarguments dismissing concerns as hatred or peripheral are refuted, prioritising evidence-based policy over personal apathy. Analogies, such as pretending to be a walrus or trans-zebra, illustrate the absurdity of affirming delusions, echoed in Matt Walsh's works. Recommendations urge engagement with critical authors and sites like Reduxx and Transgender Trend.
The article culminates in a call for accountability, advocating prosecutions and executions of doctors, politicians, and enablers under precedents like the Nuremberg Trials (Nuremberg Charter, Article 6(c)), Geneva Conventions, and ICC Rome Statute (Article 7), likening actions to historical atrocities for deterrence. It proposes tribunals and future reconciliation commissions to rectify harms, urging a return to biological reality.
Calling for the "prosecution" of people for "propagating", aka proselytizing, their ideology is calling for violent religious persecution.
Many thanks for your reply. Respectfully, I disagree, as I go on to explain below.
Prosecution in this context does not amount to religious persecution. Rather, your assertion misrepresents the underlying causes of action (the basis for prosecution, in layman’s terms). You are conflating ideological disagreement with accountability for harmful conduct. I am not advocating prosecuting individuals merely for "propagating" or proselytising an ideology, as one might in a religious context. Instead, I propose targeting specific actions: namely, the administration of, or the encouraging or enabling of the administration of, chemical sterilisation (puberty blockers), and surgical mutilation of children. These were undertaken by doctors, politicians, journalists, and teachers.
They are ideologically motivated harms for political and financial gain, distinct from mere expression of beliefs. The analogy to religious persecution is inapt, as transgender ideology is not as a faith-based doctrine warranting protected proselytisation, and thus safeguards for religious manifestation. Your assertions fundamentally mischaracterize the issue, and ignore the core focus on actionable harms under U.S. law. This is not about punishing mere proselytizing or ideological expression, which would indeed implicate First Amendment protections under cases like West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943) (holding that compelling conformity to ideology violates free speech). Instead, prosecutions would target concrete conduct: doctors administering puberty blockers causing chemical sterilization, and performing surgical mutilations on minors: acts driven by ideology for profit or politics, akin to historical medical abuses but prosecutable domestically as federal or state crimes.
Under U.S. federal law, such non-therapeutic interventions on children arguably constitute child abuse or endangerment, potentially violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (sexual exploitation of children) if involving genital alterations without medical necessity, or 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (murder or manslaughter) in extreme cases of resulting harm. More directly, they may breach civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for state actors depriving minors of bodily integrity, as in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 849 (1992) (recognizing liberty interests in personal autonomy, but allowing restrictions to protect vulnerables). State laws amplify this: for instance, Tennessee's SB 1 (2023) bans gender-affirming care for minors, enabling criminal penalties up to Class C felonies (Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103), upheld in United States v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477 (U.S. argued Dec. 4, 2024; pending as of Sept. 14, 2025), where the Sixth Circuit affirmed such bans as rational child protections (L.W. v. Skrmetti, 83 F.4th 460, 492 (6th Cir. 2024)).
Enabling politicians, journalists, or teachers could face conspiracy charges under 18 U.S.C. § 371 if facilitating these acts, or RICO violations (18 U.S.C. § 1962) if part of a profit-driven enterprise mutilating kids for billions in medical revenue. This is deterrence through law enforcement, not persecution: much like prosecuting eugenics-era forced sterilizations post-Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (later discredited, leading to compensatory statutes like Virginia's 2001 law).
As I touch upon in the main text, under well-established international humanitarian law, such acts are likened to historical atrocities, providing a basis for prosecution not rooted in persecution but in criminal liability. The Nuremberg Charter (1945), Article 6(c), defines crimes against humanity as including "other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population" (see https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/nuremberg-tribunal-charter-1945/article-6b. This informed post-WWII trials, such as the Doctors' Trial (United States v. Karl Brandt et al., 1946-1947), where Nazi physicians were convicted for non-consensual sterilisation experiments (Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, Vol. II, pp. 181-300, available via Library of Congress archives). Similarly, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), Article 7(1)(g), explicitly lists "enforced sterilization" as a crime against humanity when part of a widespread or systematic attack on civilians (https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf, at p. 5). The Geneva Conventions (1949), Common Article 3, prohibit "violence to life and person, in particular... mutilation" in non-international conflicts, with Additional Protocol II (1977), Article 4(2)(e), barring "outrages upon personal dignity" (https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/geneva-conventions-and-their-commentaries); these draw from Nuremberg precedents to condemn forced medical procedures.
Ultimately, however, international precedents like Nuremberg are persuasive but unnecessary; U.S. sovereignty demands that Washington handle this internally to safeguard children from ideological experiments. If "propagation" includes enabling harm, it's criminal, not protected speech.
Actions should have consequences.
___
Also see the following article: https://www.modadgeopolitics.com/p/after-kirks-murder - as the section excerpted below indicates, these people must be firmly stopped, and punished, because they have wrought havoc on the West.
""The left’s predicament
The left is a victim of its own success. They have won every cultural and legal battle since the Second World War. These include cradle to grave welfare, mass immigration, multiculturalism, homosexual marriage, abortion (with the recent reversal of Roe v Wade being a rare exception that only moved the issue to the states), transgenderism, DEI, lax law enforcement, equalities legislation, and even the policing of speech. In all these issues, the left has been able to get the state to side with it in almost every major country in the EU and the Anglosphere.
However, the results of these victories have been catastrophic: collapsing birth rates, lawlessness, crime-infested cities, segregated communities, sectarianism, and racial conflict. Thus, the left finds itself unable to make any further gains, but, due to the ideology of intersectionality and allyship, it is unable to make any concessions either. Rather, it views conceding on one point as conceding on all. And since it is materialistic, it has no moral restraints, but rather views those who disagree with it as inferior and evil - Nazis, homophobes, white supremacists, etc… This clearly leaves no room for dialogue or compassion - as evidenced by the objections to a moment of silence and prayer for Kirk. The left hope to completely shut out the right from debate, to avoid admitting their errors.
The next logical conclusion from some of the left’s perspective is to engage in violence to hold on to its gains, as it knows full well that once delusional ideas like transgenderism unravel, other ideas, like same-sex marriage, ‘hugs not bullets’ for criminals, or welfare for the able bodied and for foreigners, may follow suit."
"Encouragement" is speech. You are advocating persecution of speech. If you target journalists, yes you are carrying out religious persecution. And yes transgender ideology is quite faith based, because " gender identity" is a metaphysical concept. Fuck off with your witch hunting legislation.
Christianity is more delusional than modern transgenderism. Catholics pretend to eat their god savior every week. If you want to see why there are so many trans people who have so much irrational bigotry toward "the right", look at yourself.
Trans surgeries for children have nothing to do with same sex marriage. Go crawl back into your 1950s hole.
Dear Jeffrey, thank you for your latest impassioned reply. I looked at your Substack, which seems genuinely fascinating. With respect, however, while you may be a religious expert, you are not a lawyer.
I am not criticizing you for that! However, respectfully, you are mistaking targeting speech or persecuting beliefs, with punishing people's wrongful. actions. Prosecuting transgender ideology would be the latter. Doctors performing irreversible surgeries on kids, for profit, does not excuse child harm. Prosecute and convict both the doctors and the ideologues who enabled them, under conspiracy doctrines. And, as I articulate above, I believe that capital punishment would be appropriate.
Conservative values prioritize protecting the vulnerable, not indulging delusions. Comparing this to Catholic practices is a distraction: our mutial focus ought to be on stopping mutilation, and punishing those responsible for it.
To conclude, I agree that speech alone is not punishable. Thank you again for your contribution.
Dear anonymous person incognito, thank you for your relatively civil reply. I looked at your substack and there is no evidence that you are a lawyer either, but maybe you do know how to use chatgpt? Nor does it even matter if you are a lawyer, because lawyers can be wrong about the law, and lawyers often lose cases. Even Supreme Court judges can be wrong and overruled. If you are a lawyer and you scored well on the lsats you should have known better than to make such a logical fallacy about my argument.
My academic degree is actually in philosophy and I work professionally as a software engineer. So I have quite a lot of experience with logic, and the law is heavily framed by logic.
You mention "encouragement" by politicians and journalists. What would you be prosecuting precisely when it comes to journalists other than speech? From what I'm aware, journalists are not involved in performing surgery. Trying to prosecute journalists for "conspiracy" related to their "encouragement" or philosophical support of the surgeries, particularly capital punishment, sounds absolutely bonkers and a violation of the first amendment of the constitution. You are welcome to take that to a court someday, but I don't think that will fly. Regardless, your proposal sounds what i would call un-American in its opposition to the *spirit* of the first amendment. There is nothing more "conservative" than the spirit of the first amendment. I agree with you that there should be laws restricting gender transition medical procedures for minors. But i strongly disagree with trying to circumvent the first amendment to punish "ideologues". Debate them, don't prosecute them. Charlie Kirk would concur. If you want to debate with me, don't use legal precedents, as this issue is deeper than law, it is ethics. When you get the Supreme Court, you are welcome cite legal precedents. But if I were on the Supreme Court, I'd throw your case out. It's an abomination.
Your questions have already been answered in detail. Nothing more irritating than someone who does not do a modicum of reflection or research before repeating themselves.
The left is a victim of its own success - I haven’t seen it put like that before but it’s absolutely correct. Great comment.
X users with conspiratorial tendencies have identified at least two individuals standing near Mr Kirk as "second shooters".
Conspiracy theories that require co-conspirators to stand close to the target of gunfire (e.g., the popular theory that Sirhan Sirhan missed RFK Jr. with all 9 shots but RFK was then shot by second hired gunman standing directly behind RFK) strike me as hard to organize: You want me to stand where?
RFK Jr is obviously in the news as a quotable member of the cabinet, but it was his father who was the victim of Sirhan
Thansgenderism is an evil anti-humanist movement driven by autogynephilic men who wank in front of mirrors wearing women's clothing. They push this ideology on confused teens in an attempt to normalize their perversion. Transgenderism is genocide of gay teens. Is it any surprise that so many transgenders are filled with rage against society, against children and the church when they realise the awful truth that they are the agents of their own genocide?
He doesn't have a manifesto, but he does have bullet casings:
https://news.sky.com/story/bella-ciao-to-owo-what-do-the-engravings-on-the-bullets-in-the-charlie-kirk-shooting-mean-13430554
“Notices bulges OwO what’s this?”
OK, they mention this is furries, but I think it's referring to noticing genital bulges in someone passing as female (thus male)--that would be anti-trans.
OwO are flirting 'big eyes' but usually mocking.
'Hey, fascist! Catch ↑ → ↓↓↓'
This one seems antifascist--the arrows are likely a videogame code (Helldivers) to summon a big bomb.
'Oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao ciao ciao'
That one's probably antifascist--it's an Italian partisan song from WW2.
'If you read this, you are gay lmao'
Classic antigay stuff among young men. lmao=laughing my ass off
So two sound left, two sound right, probably two are ironic, I'm not sure which. I can't see a leftist making fun of someone for being gay, but then 'bella ciao' is kind of obscure for a righty mocking a lefty. That this particular combo is chosen to confound people on the Internet trying to figure it out is quite possible.
Supposedly he has a trans lover, which I've heard is bizarrely enough not unheard of among groypers--sometimes those are the only women interested in these guys...
See my comment.
Top definition of "OWO" at UrbanDictionary:
«««
OWO
A fully capital OWO, unlike a lowercase owo or mixture of the two (OwO) is an English word that is an initialism of "Oral Without". In prostitution, this signifies performing oral sex on a man without using a condom.
This isn't the reason the weebs and the furries started using it, but it sure is a strange coincidence that the most popular use of it is the "OwO what's dis?" meme, depicting a furry finding a bulge in someone's pants.
OWO or OW?
by lithikitty November 23, 2018
»»»
http://owo.urbanup.com/13386703
See also: https://x.com/DineshDSouza/status/1966937493061988679
«««
Pericles
@PerryALPHA
Replying to @PopBase
"notices bulge OWO" means that Tyler Robinson is a chaser (also known as GAMP).
He is a man who is sexually attracted to transgenders
10:48 AM • 12 sep 25
»»»
So no, it's not anti-trans. It's pro-trans-furry-weeb, which coincidentally seems to be a concise description of his boyfriend:
https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1966958727338029487
According to Andy Ngo, “bella ciao” is a popular slogan among antifa.
https://bylinetimes.com/2025/09/13/deadly-memes-tyler-robinsons-far-right-groyper-ties/
My guess is that this line 'If you read this, you are gay lmao' is directed at the stereotypically prejudiced, straight cops who would presumably find the shell casing.
Police are not stereotypically prejudiced. Stop mistaking keyboards for mirrors?
Thinking that this is as simple as "left vs right" is a serious mistake. Robinson said he "admired Nick Fuentes" according to authorities - and that Kirk "wasn't conservative enough."
People assume wrongly that the trans gender nonsense is beholden to lefty politics. His roommate, partner whatever he/they/she is or was, was a libertarian & very, VERY active member of the "r/4tran" sub which is a play on "4chan." Not exactly a bastion of left wing political thought.
Let us not forget that he admires the same Nick Fuentes who said "hanging out with...kr even having sex with your girlfriend is really the gayest thing you can do, if you think about it."
Governor Cox was right abt one thing: this kid was totally mired in 7 layers of irony, Gen Z "Internet meme culture" which intersects with the neo-trans movement was has essentially been "memefied" into existence. These guys start watching this sissy porn crap, which ....let's just say its STRANGE. I've researched this a ton as I see the troon movement as a new, degenerate "men's rights" movement in many ways - & yes, I know a ton of young women are buying into this now, too.
I'm specifically referencing the wave of ostensibly straight and/or "questioning" young men who are being hijacked by Internet culture+ porn & video game addiction.
Go ahead & watch Fuentes on Rumble on any weekday - and monitor the live chat.
You'll see EXACTLY what I am referring to.
We all need to get out of our left/right thinking - so much of what is out there, right under our noses but obscure enough that most older people just don't get it & wouldn't know it IF they saw it - defies our traditional political structures.
Well, thank you for explaining this.
I was vaguely aware of the transgender alt-right and transgender femboys, but didn't think it was more than a fringe.
How is this a 'men's rights' movement?
https://x.com/DavidShuster/status/1966576856515203480
David Shuster
According to Utah officials + police interviews with his family, Tyler Robinson hated Charlie Kirk because Kirk wasn't conservative enough. (Robinson reportedly admired Nick Fuentes). GOPer's now scrubbing X posts about dems faster than DOJ erases Trump name in Epstein files.
https://x.com/Shayan86/status/1966695835585986965
Shayan Sardarizadeh
No Utah official, police statement, or FBI report so far has said that Tyler Robinson hated Charlie Kirk because he wasn't conservative enough or that he admired Nick Fuentes.
https://x.com/SollenbergerRC/status/1966624232458031346
Roger Sollenberger
@SollenbergerRC
No link/quotes/source on this viral tweet. As of now no public confirmation the shooter was for fact a Groyper/Fuentes guy & none of the disinfo reporters I trust are pushing it. Lots of smoke! Could be the case! But maybe learn your own lesson and wait. Let us not become etc etc
6:05 PM · Sep 12, 2025
> People assume wrongly that the trans gender nonsense is beholden to lefty politics. <
Whatever the politics of the shooter and his roomate/boyfriend, the trans gender nonsense obviously is beholden to "lefty politics"--"lefty" here meaning not "power to the workers", but "we are oppressed!" minoritarianism.
Yes for the tranny itself there's an "i'm so darn special mere biology doesn't apply to me" vibe, that could be kind of libertarian autistic.
But the tranny shit would have gotten absolutely nowhere without piggybacking on the whole minoritarian ideology that normies must grab their ankles where minorities are concerned and if they fail to do so they are "racist" "sexist" "anti-Semitic", "Islamophobic", "xenophobic" "homophobic" .... "transphobic" ... i.e. very, very bad, evil.
This is all very obvious from the speed at which this nonsense, ramped up to be establishment orthodoxy (pick your pronouns) and how precisely tranny politics lines up--i.e. precisely with BLM, "structural racism", gay marriage, LBGQWERTY++ and immigration lunacy.
Politics is a circle, not a line. At the top cusp is where leftitarianism flourishes. But please off citations for your claims.
Normally you're more acute with phrasing, but this "he was killed by the transgender movement" is a pretty facile conclusion to reach if you're not going to apply it to all terrorists and their various pet causes.
On the trans assassination link, any trend feels very preliminary. I wouldn't be surprised if a group already connected with various mental illness, and with reason to be on guard from constant ego injury and identity based derealization, would not also be much more likely to lash out in violence than the rest of us. But the data set is small and we don't even have a good grasp on the current population size we are dealing with and their different sub-types.
Nah, trannies are nuts. We don't need a study. Everyone knows it.
Steve, a slender but distinct Zizian connection is emerging:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/bombshell-charlie-kirk-assassin-was-steam-group-read/
https://x.com/TonySeruga/status/1967304773717398011
«««
Tony Seruga
@TonySeruga
🚨 Accused Charlie Kirk Assassin Appears to Have Been in Steam Group Called ‘Read This If Your Gay,’ Echoing Message on Bullet Casing, Members Urged Encrypted Cover-Up of Chats RIGHT AFTER Shooting
A violent transgender cult, known as the "Zizians" or "Ziz Cult," has been linked to multiple murders across states, including the fatal shooting of Border Patrol Agent David Maland in early 2025.
The cult, described as a "trans vegan terror cult," is accused of orchestrating violent acts against law enforcement and perceived enemies, with members tied to killings in Vermont, North Carolina, and beyond.
The group's leader, Jack LaSota, was arrested in Maryland, and appeared to have made preparations for widespread violence.
Robinson's own connections, living with his transitioning boyfriend and embedded in online communities rife with anti-fascist rhetoric, mirror the Zizians' profile.
»»»
The linked Gateway Pundit article includes some new evidence suggesting that Kirk's murderer may been supported by others in the 'transgender community.' It mentions the Zizians, but doesn't identify any connection between Robinson and them.
Meanwhile, this morning, credulous viewers of 'NBC Today' learned that killing is bad, that Kirk was controversial, that Utah's governor is taking a stand against violence, and that motives, if any, remain mysterious.
The NYT's credulous readers might have checked "What We Know About the Fatal Shooting of Charlie Kirk" for overnight updates on the case. "Authorities are still working to identify the suspect’s motives." While engraved cartridges are mentioned, delicate Victorian sensibilities are shielded from "Notices bulges OwO what’s this?" This paragraph is the only text that will prepare subscribers for what lies ahead:
"Mr. Cox said on Sunday that Mr. Robinson had been in a romantic relationship with a partner who was in the process of transitioning from male to female. The governor said the partner, who lived with Mr. Robinson, was 'shocked' by what had happened and was cooperating fully with the investigation."