Postmodernism and the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk

All available evidence points to the conclusion that homosexual furry Tyler Robinson murdered Kirk with premeditation.

There is no such this as "your truth" and "my truth." There is the truth, and there are verifiable facts. If there are verifiable facts, I do not want you to come to your own conclusion about something. I want you to recognize the facts. Your beliefs and your conclusions do not matter. As Ben Shapiro often says, facts do not care about your feelings.

Someone brutally murdered Charlie Kirk. The identity of the murderer is a verifiable fact. There is only one theory about what happened on September 10, 2025 that is valid, and that is the one that lines up with the facts. Some people have told us we should come to our own conclusions about what happened. This viewpoint embraces postmodernism, a philosophical movement that rejects certainty and objective truth. But there are things that are objectively true. One of those is the assassination of a conservative pundit last September.

All available evidence points to the conclusion that homosexual furry Tyler Robinson murdered Kirk with premeditation. In order to believe that someone other than Robinson murdered Kirk, you have to believe that Robinson's parents (who convinced him to turn himself in) are actively trying to murder their own innocent son for a crime he did not commit. However strained the relationship might have been, I find it hard to believe that his parents would allow their own son to be executed for someone else's crime without trying to stop that execution. Robinson, of course, confessed to the crime, and his DNA was found on the murder weapon.

Does this mean we should always unequivocally trust the government's narrative? Absolutely not. There have been cases where prosecutors have outright tried to frame innocent people, such as the case of the Duke University lacrosse team in 2006. Disgraced, disbarred ex-prosecutor Mike Nifong knew these men had not assaulted convicted murderer Crystal Gail Mangum, yet he abused his power to perpetuate a hoax and illegally hid exculpatory evidence. Nifong should have been sent to prison for the rest of his life, and it is a tragedy and an injustice that he is allowed to roam free.

But our justifiable skepticism of government and the Deep State should not cause us to become wackos. Remember that everyone is corrupted by sin, and that conspiracy theorist you follow online is just as prone to lying, or making serious errors, or engaging in outright kookery as anyone else. You are ultimately placing your trust in someone, so the question is not whether you trust, but who you trust. Often, conspiracy theories require more leaps of faith and logic than simply accepting the facts you are presented from mainstream sources.

I am not a postmodernist, so I do not want you to come to your own conclusion about the murder of Charlie Kirk. I want you to follow the verified facts, and come to the conclusion that aligns with those facts. If you postulate a theory that is factually false, then your opinion is not valid, no matter how sincerely you may hold that opinion. In a case like this, truth is the only thing that matters - and it must be the truth, not "your truth."

---