"Prove me wrong.."
Thoughts and observations on the murder of Charlie Kirk
The murderer of right-wing conservative US “influencer” Charlie Kirk is said to have been caught. Many comments on the murder victim are spreading hatred, slander, and distorted quotes. As a result, a ZDF correspondent may have to fear for his US visa.
I actually wanted to report on another stage of my trip to Canada this Sunday, but I'm thwarting my own plans because of the murder of Charlie Kirk in the US.
Shortly before the fatal bullet strikes, someone in the audience asks Charlie Kirk if he knows how many mass shootings there have been in the United States in 2025. In the US, “mass shootings” are defined as any shooting incident in which at least four people are killed. Instead of giving a specific number, Kirk simply replies: “Too many.”
I would be lying if I claimed to have been a follower of Charlie Kirk on social media or YouTube. I was not and am not an ardent fan or passionate hater of the 31-year-old, who was shot dead last Wednesday, September 10, during an open-air debate at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, and whose memorial service was held today, Sunday, in Glendale, Arizona. On university campuses in particular, he challenged his mostly young interlocutors with the phrase “Prove me wrong.” On his YouTube channel, where he regularly posted excerpts from these debates, he was followed by millions of users. He reached millions more with his daily podcast, the Charlie Kirk Show, produced by the evangelical Salem Media Group. As CEO of Turning Point USA, a non-profit youth organization for political activism that he co-founded when he was 18, Charles James “Charlie” Kirk ran a multimillion-dollar company. He supported Donald Trump in both presidential campaigns. Some commentators already saw him as the vice president under the next US president, J.D. Vance.
Like many others, I followed the pros and cons debate on X and watched YouTube videos of Kirk's appearances and discussions in the wake of his murder. Critics complain that his public discussions were not “fair” but rather a propaganda strategy, as the debaters were selected in advance. Kirk's debates were merely about publicly humiliating his ideological opponents and presenting his own message as superior and true. Perhaps. Were the debaters possibly “cast”? Or is it really possible that someone would face Kirk in a discussion in front of thousands of viewers only to admit that they did not know Ilhan Omar and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez – two of the most prominent left-wing Democrats in the US and the object of hatred for many conservatives? That really happened. Satirists would probably remark that, as we all know, anything is possible in the “land of unlimited opportunities.” In any case, Kirk also debated with political and television figures who were well-informed and eloquent enough, such as left-wing talk show host Bill Maher. There is no doubt that Kirk was quick-witted, had a good memory, and possessed the analytical skills and eloquence to formulate his thoughts precisely. While most of his campus debaters argued emotionally, he remained outwardly cool, polite and logical in his reasoning.
Kirk was a devout Christian and opponent of abortion, and we would definitely have disagreed on many issues. But no matter how great the differences may be, none of them justify killing another person simply because of their worldview. The alleged perpetrator, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, is said to have done just that—according to reports, in his own words, because Kirk, in his opinion, “spread too much hate.” How much hate must have built up inside Tyler himself to commit murder? And who instilled this hatred in him? Does he himself recognize the contradiction: killing another person out of hatred because they allegedly spread so much hatred? Many posts and comments on Kirk's murder are also dripping with hatred and lack any sympathy for the murder victim or his widow and two children, both on social media and in the mainstream media as well as in politics.
On the other hand, Democrats such as Barack Obama and California Governor Gavin Newsom had the decency and humanity to express their dismay at the murder. Socialist former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was the most explicit: he categorically condemned all political violence on X and in a special video message.
I can understand to some extent why tempers flare in the US, even if I don't approve of it. But in Germany, too, unsubstantiated claims and even slander about Kirk have been spread in politics and the media, including public broadcasting. The UK Telegraph finds, “Germany’s reaction to Charlie Kirk’s killing was beyond disturbing". Did my journalist colleagues not do their research? They wouldn't have had to spend much time on it, as I can confirm from my own research. Did they act with intent or negligence, thereby violating journalistic standards? US correspondent for public German television channel ZDF, Elmar Theveßen, has currently become the infamous poster boy for this accusation.
On September 12, 2025, @ZentraleV calls on X for Theveßen's dismissal because he claimed that Kirk had called for the stoning of homosexuals. He posts a video showing Charlie Kirk in discussion with a self-proclaimed Trump supporter. Kirk himself posted the video on November 22, 2019, and wrote:
The claim that Kirk advocates the stoning of homosexuals has been repeatedly used as an argument against him and widely disseminated. Elmar Theveßen, ZDF correspondent in Washington since March 2019, has repeated it several times, including on Markus Lanz's TV talk show. The alleged quote comes from a discussion Kirk had with a children's book author. During the discussion, she referred to the Bible to justify Pride Month celebrations and tolerance towards the LGBTQ community with the biblical commandment of charity. Kirk responded by saying that homosexuals would then also have to be stoned to death, as this is stated in the previous chapter of the Old Testament. Theveßen's employer, ZDF, has since admitted: “This connection should have been made clearer. Elmar Theveßen regrets not having been more detailed at that point.” Richard Grenell, US ambassador to Germany during Donald Trump's first term, meanwhile called in a tweet for Theveßen's residence permit, i.e., his US visa, to be revoked and for him to be expelled from the country.
Elmar Theveßen could easily have discovered a video on X in which a young gay conservative discusses with Charlie Kirk. Kirk says that although he does not agree with the gay lifestyle, he and the young man probably share many similar political views. That is what matters. That is why he welcomes him into the conservative circle. On September 11, 2025, @cwchris writes: “This clip changed my mind and made me realize that all leftists were wrong about Charlie Kirk. May he rest in peace.”
Is Tyler Robinson, who has been presented as the alleged perpetrator, really the killer? It would be a miracle if there were no speculation about Charlie Kirk's murder. Using video analysis, some want to prove that, contrary to the official statements, the fatal bullet did not strike from the left, but from the right. That is why Kirk's body fell to the left after the shot, and the hole in his neck, from which a fountain of blood spurted, is the exit wound, not the entry wound. Is the Israeli secret service Mossad behind the assassination? That is another theory. Kirk, initially a staunch supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu, had made some bold statements after October 7. In an interview with PBD Podcast on October 12, 2023, he raised the question How was it possible that, after Hamas attacked the Supernova music festival, the terrorists were able to rage for hours at one of the most heavily guarded borders in the world without the Israeli military intervening. “Did someone in the government issue a stand-down order?” This is a legitimate question that has nothing to do with conspiracy theory, he said. On the Megyn Kelly Show on August 6, 2025, he rejects accusations that he is a “traitor.” He emphatically reiterates his support for Israel, while also expressing his conviction that it is possible to be critical of Israel and still support “MAGA.”
One thing is certain: following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the political camps in the US are more divided than ever. Warnings of a possible civil war are once again being voiced. This is referred to by @aya_velasquez on September 12, 2025, in her response to a post by “Raven Samuelson” on the left-wing platform BlueSky and to a post by Elon Musk on X. She makes it clear who she believes are the arsonists. And who she sees as the potential beneficiaries if a fire (civil war) were to break out.
Elon Musk calls for “fighting back,” or ‘they’ – presumably referring to radicalized leftists – “will kill us,” which can be understood as a call to violence, especially in this already emotionally charged situation in the US. After all, if someone wants to kill you, “self-defense” is legitimate.
The admittedly abhorrent comment on Bsky to which Musk refers – calling for Kirk's wife to be killed as well – comes from an obvious fake account with just 102 followers: https://bsky.app/profile/ravensamuelson.bsky.social
Absolutely NO ONE would have seen or paid attention to this post, but Musk is now pushing it through his million-strong platform to further inflame the already tense emotions in the US and incite people against each other.
Either Musk doesn't understand the absolute basics of the internet, namely how to recognize obvious fake accounts (unlikely), or he deliberately wants to provoke social unrest and civil war-like conditions in the US.
His friends Thiel and Vance are already standing by with the Palantir government to restore order.
Hegelian dialectic.
The best thing that could happen to the establishment right now would be civil war-like conditions in the US. Then they could close the deal with e-ID, facial recognition in public spaces, and emergency laws.
Since September 10, Imyself have been particularly interested in the answer to the question of how the alleged assassin was able to shoot so accurately. According to investigators, Charlie Kirk was fatally shot in the neck with a single shot from a distance of around 180 meters. The suspect, Tyler Robinson, grew up in Utah in the southwestern United States, where he is said to have learned how to use a hunting rifle. Is that enough to enable someone to shoot with such precision?
This text was first published on my German website and translated by me.
180 yards with a good rest is not hard to hit deer etc. at whatever spot you aim at with just average training.