TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Charlie Kirk was just shot and has now passed away while he was debating at the Utah Valley College. This happened during a live stream; the speaker was editing a video and about to upload it, and is stunned. The speaker questions, "For speaking the truth?" and asks, "Are you fucking kidding me right now?" The channel is described as not political, focused on positivity, makeup, sarcasm, jokes, trolling, clapping back, being fun. The speaker says Charlie Kirk was a grown man who fought for the truth, who went all around our country debating people, debating people of all walks of life, walks of religion, walks of duality. "He debated everybody." The speaker admonishes viewers who say it wasn't the truth, calling them delusional, and notes, "Why did I respect him? Because he knows reality."

Speaker 0 recalls watching Charlie Kirk’s memorial in Malaysia and an “extremely coordinated onslaught” by high-level actors who claimed the passage was “not just offensive, but was one of the worst blood libels ever uttered in a public setting since World War two” and that it “intended to imply that Israel was behind the killing of Charlie Kirk.” Speaker 1 frames the passage as the Christian gospel: “Ultimately, he was a Christian evangelist” who “tells the truth about the people in power” and that “they hate it and they become obsessed with making him stop”—“they end up torturing him to death to kill him, and then... it becomes the world's biggest religion.” He says he did not intend to attack Jews, criticizes antisemitism and Zionism for seeing everything as about Jews, calling that attitude “sick” and “bad for this country,” and urges treating Israel as a country with overlapping interests. He cites ADL pressure and stresses repentance in the Christian message.

The transcript centers on a critical clash over Candace Owens, TP USA, and allegations surrounding Charlie Kirk’s murder investigation, focusing on Fort Huachuca, alleged alibis, and competing narratives presented by Candace Owens and her critics. - The speaker positions himself as having known and supported Candace Owens for ten years, but challenges her latest claims, calling them “ridiculous gaslighting” and “nonsense,” and promises to lay out the facts and where they land. - The ongoing dispute involves “Egyptian planes,” a “latest so-called witness and whistleblower,” Mitch Snow, and a broader question about possible foreign or domestic involvement in Charlie Kirk’s murder, which is tied to a Fort Huachuca narrative. - Mitch Snow is alleged to have claimed that he saw Brian Harpole leaving a meeting at Fort Huachuca on September 9, and also claimed that Erica Kirk was at Fort Huachuca the night before, at Candlewood Inn and Suites. Owens had hosted Snow’s claims as part of her investigation, and the speaker had previously advised Candace to check alibis. - Candace Owens’ supporters and surrogates allegedly attacked the speaker after he questioned the alibis; he persisted in investigating, noting that the Fort Huachuca storyline had “completely blown up” with those alibis. - The narrative shifts to Erica Kirk, with Owens stating she had claimed she did not say the military was involved and did not implicate TP USA, despite compilations of past statements suggesting otherwise. The speaker contends Owens moved the goalposts multiple times and used the Fort Huachuca angle as a distraction from a prior Egyptian plane storyline. - The speaker asserts exclusive access to HD screenshots from Andrew Colvin, the TP USA spokesperson, which purportedly show that Owens’ depiction of Andrew Colvin’s involvement in “secret damage control” is a fraud. He claims to reveal that Colvin was coordinating with Paramount Tactical, not Owens directly, and that Colvin reached out to Owens’ team with alibi requests regarding Erica Kirk. - A key incident involves a screenshot and a time-stamped image Erica Kirk allegedly sent to Colvin showing her with her kids at 08:33, purportedly from Phoenix, which Owens used as part of her alibi apparatus. The speaker presents this as evidence that Colvin’s communications were not a cover-up but a regular PR exercise, and that Owens used the image to claim a broader conspiracy. - The speaker narrates a back-and-forth where Colvin allegedly provided an alibi for Erica Kirk; he shows that Kirk sent photos from a park and home, and Colvin responded three hours later, asking not to display the photo publicly but to acknowledge the proof. Owens denies the alibi and reframes it as desperate behavior by TP USA. - The discussion expands to broader personnel and planes-related details: an undersecretary of the army allegedly went to Fort Huachuca on the eighth; a defense department border inspection visit is cited as context for why Fort Huachuca is significant. The speaker emphasizes that the focus should be on the ninth and the alleged base alibis, not the eighth. - The speaker accuses Owens of simulating a “gaslighting operation” and notes that she has discredited alibis by shifting attention to new claims; he maintains that the “ninth” is the core question, not the earlier Fort Huachuca references. - The narrative includes a conflict with commentators such as Alex Jones, Charlie Kirk, and The Daily Wire, and alleges that Owens’ circle has manipulated public perception to undermine TP USA and Charlie Kirk. - The speaker concludes with a denunciation of Owens’ tactics, insisting that the public should focus on the Charlie Kirk murder case and its true facts, while alleging Owens uses a pattern of deception, moving from one narrative to another to distract from the nine’s alleged details. He calls for prayer for Candace Owens and urges supporters to consider the broader battle against perceived globalist manipulation; he also frames this as a spiritual or existential conflict in which truth is being contested. Note: Promotional or advertising content included toward the end of the original transcript has been omitted.

'This guy is an extreme get my face.' 'You're acting deranged.' 'This kid's actually super fucking dangerous.' 'He is a very dangerous kid, it makes me very sad that he is in this community, that he is a part of this beautiful school.' 'Do you think that Charlie Kirk should have been killed?' 'I don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk, and I don't give a fuck about you, dawg.' 'Do you think he should have been killed?' 'I don't give a fuck about you, and I don't give a fuck about Charlie.' 'Fuck you.' 'Do you think it was justified? I think you should fuck off. I think you should go back to New York or go back to LA.' 'Make sure you at me at squid tips at YouTube.' 'Don't be a fucking pussy this time, dog. Fucking post it loser.'

The speaker urges Americans to pay attention and take notes, insisting that “every single person” pushing that “the left assassinated Charlie Kirk” is suspicious and that “something's not right here.” They claim it is “weird” that “alleged closet homosexuals are now putting their wives in their photo to try to, you know, make you not think otherwise,” and state “it's just my opinion” about Charlie Kirk being gay, adding “there's something weird about this dude” and “Mossad vibes all over it,” again noting it as their opinion and not a stated fact. They reference a claim from “Jack Wozobic says, new. Breaking. Breaking. New footage released of the Charlie Kirk aftermath murder,” dismissing it with “Come on, bro. Get out of here.” They vow to “never forget what the left did that day” and assert they “we won't,” while claiming the speaker’s own side is “not gonna forget what you've done every day since,” and that the situation “sure as hell ain't helping your boy, Charlie Kirk.” The speaker calls this moment “pivotal in American history” and expresses daily prayer that “Candace Owens comes with the receipts and the heat to just blow this investigation wide the hell open.” They urge that after the investigation, “project Mockingbird, Mockingbird Media,” and “every one of these scumbags should be investigated,” demanding scrutiny of “every penny, every dollar, where the money came from, where the funding's going, how they got it, who organized it, who helped fundraise for it, who campaigned for it.” They insist “every one of these shows should be mocked,” and claim they should have “no career in media,” be “humiliated,” and that these figures should become “the new Don Lemons when this is all over.” The speaker warns that if there is a cover-up or if “Israel was involved” and “these scumbags over here have been propagating this gosh damn lie,” then these media figures have been “dividing us, divide and conquer,” arguing that this rhetoric escalates rather than deescalates, and that such divisions expose that “they don't work on behalf of America, allegedly,” but “on behalf of a foreign gosh damn intelligence agency,” asserting they “should be treated like the traitors that they are.” They conclude with a sensational line: “Forty days later, there's people running away after Charlie Kirk was shot” and label “slop media, slop ink, con ink” as “gay.”

"I don't know who did this. And I sure hope that it was not from the left that would be better." "But it doesn't matter because the first Trump assassination also was not from the left." "It was just a guy who was going to also had Biden on his target list." "And it's been made in the ideology of this far right that you're seeing online." "It's part of a line, Brett Kavanaugh, Trump assassination, how Charlie Kirk," "It doesn't matter that it wasn't from the left because that part has been erased in the common litany of grievances." "Absolutely." "I mean, it's just it's just about the, momentum of violence. Right?" "If one side keeps punching, that's bad, that's really bad." "But it's much worse when one side punches, the other punches back." "That causes an escalation."

The video frames itself as a tool to combat lies about Charlie Kirk, recounting how Kirk “knew the young gay black Amir in 2018” and urged him to seek the truth; “Truth matters. Context matters.” The creator asks viewers to listen to understand rather than respond, noting many groups mourn Kirk. It discusses gun rights—“There’s a strong difference between advocating for gun rights because you can protect yourself, your personal safety, and also from a tyrannical government versus the right for mentally ill people to commit political assassinations.” It cites Kirk’s view on empathy: “The new communication strategy... to say you’re actually not in pain” and “I actually want to see you be comfortable in how you were born.” It covers abortion, CRT, affirmative action, immigration, and LGBTQ issues, including “GLAAD stressed the extent to which Kirk and Turning Point USA promoted anti LGBTQ plus narratives.”

At Utah Valley University, students gathered to pay tribute to Charlie Kirk, assassinated on campus nine days earlier, ahead of his funeral with tens of thousands expected, including president Trump. The vigil follows Kirk’s death and an outreach he made the day before to CNN’s Van Jones. The dispute began after a Ukrainian woman was fatally stabbed in North Carolina; Kirk claimed the murder happened because she was white, while Van Jones denounced that as completely unfounded. Kirk then sent out what Van calls a "fire hose of tweets" challenging his argument, which Van says sparked death threats against him. In a direct message on x dated September 9, Kirk wrote: "Hey, Van. I mean it. I'd love to have you on my show to have a respectful conversation about crime and race. I would be a gentleman as I know you would be as well. We can disagree about the issues agreeably." Jones says he did not see it until the day after Kirk was murdered. "Let's disagree agreeably." He adds he would have tried to get him on the show and that "We were words not weapons." He ends with a call to civil discourse: "Civil discourse, civil dialogue, debate, let's disagree agreeably."

The speaker asserts that “the left wakes up tomorrow and realizes that somebody that agrees with them assassinated the equivalent of Martin Luther King junior” and that “they are celebrating right now.” He credits “Charlie Kirk started a movement, and he led that movement. And that movement changed the election. Without Charlie Kirk, president Trump does not win in 2024.” “The people whose minds he changed... they know it. And you just woke them up.” He calls it “the equivalent of assassinating Martin Luther King, and you'll never be able to live this down.” He warns of “the ones that are celebrating, the ones that are cheering, the ones that are excited and happy.” He asks, “who you are as a person that can allow you to watch somebody get assassinated... knowing his wife and his children were standing there watching, and you're cheering it.” “Because of words that he spoke, ideas that he had, which, by the way, are pretty standard ideas for all of millennia,” and that “you killed him.” “You just created a Martin Luther King, and you created 10,000,000 new Charlie Kirks at the same time.”

The speaker recounts a recent real-life confrontation with Erica Kirk at church following Charlie’s death, describing her behavior as performative both in person and on TV. They assert that Kirk’s appearance in the front row with her entourage, arriving late and dabbing her eyes when she returns from communion, is not for security reasons and that the church layout would actually allow only about 5% of the congregation to see her from a closer exit, making the front-row spectacle unnecessary and theatrical. They question whose idea it was to pursue a media tour, suggesting that the ongoing coverage has done nothing but confirm to those who doubted Kirk that she was not genuine. The speaker claims that conservative leaders who defend Kirk have leveraged Charlie’s death, turning his public death—described as a spectacle seen by thousands—into their own opportunity to promote their brands, podcasts, and social media. They also criticize those who are not famous but defend Erica, referencing a recent appearance on a show where she labeled the situation a “sickness of the mind.” The speaker condemns what they label as gaslighting tactics used by control-based groups, cults, and fundamentalist religions, arguing that such groups undermine questioning of authority and the prevailing narrative. According to the speaker, these tactics aim to undermine the audience’s sanity, minds, and their relationships with Jesus. They insist that some individuals recognize these dynamics and describe them as tactics of manipulation, calling them disgusting. The overall plea is for truth and a reaffirmation of faith, asserting a need for God in order to discern and uphold the truth in the face of perceived manipulation.

Speaker 0 contrasts what is happening with a reference to Looney Tunes and uses that imagery to support a point about antisemitism accusations. They claim that some people who are accused of antisemitism are indeed antisemitic, describing them as “smart people asking questions like me,” while others who have been kicked out of Daily Wire are “just crazy.” They invoke Ben Shapiro to support their view, saying the situation proves he was right about these dynamics. They label a certain person as a “faux sophisticate,” agreeing that this label nails the situation. The speaker emphasizes that the idea of someone being an “antisemite” can be connected to what they view as a pattern or pattern-matching of behavior, and they repeat the phrase “A faux sophisticate” to underscore this point. Speaker 1 expands the discussion to the far right and Charlie Kirk, noting that there were plenty of people on the far right who disliked Charlie. They mention Gruyper groups (referred to as Gruyper’s) and state that they literally declared a “Gruyper war on Charlie Kirk,” arguing that he wasn’t radical enough for them and that this intolerance reflected a demand for more extreme rhetoric. The speaker reiterates a point they had previously made to Bill Maher, describing how the identification of Charlie Kirk as hateful fits into a broader framework. They pose a question about whether the Gripers could be the source of any negative assessment, suggesting that the opposite claim—that the Gripers were responsible—could theoretically be possible, though they consider it unlikely. The speaker then explains the evidence they cited: contemporaneous conversations the shooter had with family in which they called Kirk hateful. They argue that this shows that Kirk being labeled “hateful” is part of a left-wing matrix of thinking, and they articulate the idea of a “griper matrix” that asserts that Charlie Kirk should have been more hateful toward Jews to be acceptable to them. The central thrust is that the Gripers’ expectations for greater hatefulness toward Jews would align with their approval, implying that if Kirk had exhibited more virulence toward Jews, he would have been more favored by that faction. Overall, the dialogue weaves together critiques of alleged antisemitism accusations, the behavior and labeling of Charlie Kirk by far-right groups, and the contention that certain factions on both sides frame acceptability in terms of extremity toward Jewish targets, using the shooter’s reported conversations as a focal point for claims about how Kirk is perceived.

Speaker 0 says they found a video of Charlie Kirk spewing hate, and he was being racist towards a black woman, so they gotta share it. Speaker 1 says, "What a beautiful kid that is," and "That is a gift from the lord, everybody." Speaker 0 adds, "That was the person y'all said that was racist and hated black people." They argue you "can't turn hate on or off," and "a racist person would never call you and your family beautiful." They note the clash between full-context ideals and clips: "Don't go off clips," yet they "went off of a clip of him showing love to a black woman." They conclude, "If you hate a group, you're stand 10 toes on that," and assert "that man showed with his little 10 toes on something" yet, "in this situation, he sees this this beautiful family of this mom and kid, he's gonna call them beautiful and a gift from God."

After Charlie Kirk was shot in Utah, a proxy war over his memory emerged. Many claimed he died for various causes, but none capture him. 'Charlie's life was defined by his Christian faith, not his spirituality, but his belief in Jesus, his life as a Christian.' Carlson argues Christianity teaches you 'are not God' and that 'all people are God's chosen, every single one.' He adds that free speech is rooted in that faith: 'there is free speech and then there's hate speech'; 'If they can tell you what to say, they're telling you what to think, there is nothing they can't do to you because they don't consider you human.' He notes attacks: the AJC called him 'an anti Semite' and 'dangerous.' Kirk opposed endless wars, critiqued wealth concentration, and, inspired by faith, was 'a check on power' and a champion of free speech.

I attended a TPUSA faith event expecting politics to be shaped by biblical principles, but the experience did not meet that expectation. The event opened with a speaker who immediately criticized Candace Owens, calling her evil and antisemitic, and stating that what she’s doing is evil. I wanted to leave, but security was intense—armed men were stationed all around the venue, and there was even an armed man on stage with a hand on his gun. The security presence made me uncomfortable. Inside, the speaker talked extensively about Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, portraying them as evil and antisemitic. He argued that Christians should support Israel because Jesus was a Jew and Judaism underpins Christianity, while claiming that what Israel is doing is evil and corrupt. He suggested that refusing to support Israel would be anti-Semitic. I disagree with this framing, and it struck me as not aligning with what I expect from biblical politics. I also noted that the speaker referenced Charlie Kirk (though I recall it as Charlie Cook) and suggested that Kirk would not endorse the positions being discussed, referencing Kirk’s and Owens’ friendship and his past critiques of Israel. Throughout, the speaker’s preaching style resembled name-calling rather than traditional preaching. He labeled the political left as “idiots,” “freaks,” and “losers,” and spent much of the time denigrating liberals rather than offering constructive biblical guidance. This approach felt discordant with Christian teachings I associate with Jesus, who, as the speaker himself stated he loves, “ate with sinners,” including prostitutes. I felt the message was spreading hate rather than embodying the inclusive example I expect from Christian doctrine. A major concern was the impact on young attendees. Teenagers and young Christians appeared to be absorbing the message, treating this figure as a leader and a future guide for their faith, which raised alarms about further division within the Christian community. In summary, the event did not teach the biblical political perspectives I anticipated. The emphasis was on discrediting the left and on framing Israel in terms of Jewish loyalty, rather than engaging with broader Christian concerns. The speaker’s approach—name-calling of political opponents, calls for aggressive stances, and a heavy focus on left-wing critique—left me feeling that the session did not align with constructive faith-based political discussion. The speaker also touched on issues like men in women’s sports, but stated this was not the most important topic for Christians to discuss amid broader national concerns.

I demand their firing. I demand their immediate firing because your lack of action, when this has been brought to your attention, that some would wish the death upon others. And you're okay with this. Dude, that's what this says to people. This LGBTQAI plus nonsense and people wishing death on us, the Christians. And you're pumping that shit into kids' heads. Your teachers are pumping that shit into kids' heads. I demand counseling for the kids that were hurt by Charlie Kirk's death that he dissed. This is he can't can have free speech. He just can't have a job on taxpayer money. Mhmm. He needs to accept himself and correct himself and get rid of him. It is the will of the people, and we are done with you with your rules. You're a foul and evil woman. You're a coward. Why don't you look at me? When did you know? Friday. We're taking it. We're doing the best we can. We're too slow. The world is moving on way too fast for you, old man. I'm serious. Are in recess. Can I have three or four more public comments slots? All of those in favor of adjournment, please.

Charlie Kirk is not a martyr for Christ, despite the claims on social media this week from the right. Kirk preached hatred and division as a white Christian nationalist, which contradicts Jesus' teachings. He preached anti Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, misogyny and homophobia. Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love. Kirk preached that empathy was weakness, and that gun deaths are the cost of freedom. His death is tragic. But the media should stop betraying him as a man of peace just following Jesus when he was anything but. White Christian nationalism is a false gospel rooted in white supremacy. This week's violence was horrific and has been rightfully condemned. But that violence should not be used today to normalize, even celebrate the hatred that white Christian nationalism embodies. All of us need to commit ourselves to non violence. Anything else is incompatible with democracy.

Speaker 0: The speech opens with a critique of denouncing and a reference to the red guard/ c ultural revolution, questioning why nobody denounces others the way that era was denounced. The speaker recalls that the entire point of Charlie Kirk’s public life was to have actual debate, and asserts that Charlie “died for it.” The last several months of Charlie’s life were devoted, in part, to arguing about this event and this speech, which he asked the speaker to deliver earlier this year, this summer. The speaker notes that Charlie faced immense pressure from people who fund Turning Point who wanted him to remove the speaker from the roster. This has all become public, and the speaker describes the situation as sad, stating that Charlie stood firm in his often stated and deeply held belief that people should be able to debate. The speaker emphasizes that if someone has something valid to say and is telling the truth, they ought to be able to explain it calmly and in detail to people who don’t agree with them, and that they shouldn’t immediately resort to “shut up racist.” The speaker adds that “shut up racist” is the number one reason they voted for Donald Trump. They declare that if they were a racist or a bigot, they would simply say so, noting that it’s America and one is allowed to be whatever kind of person they want. They insist they are not a racist and have always opposed-bigoted views, but criticize the style of debate that prevents the other side from talking or being heard by immediately going to motive, asking why the question is asked, and stating they detect “a certain evil in your soul” in the question. They say that listening to such a question implicates the listeners too, and that someday they may be asked to denounce that person; they assert that friendship is not a reason to defend someone and that love is no defense. The speaker reflects that they thought that phase had ended and that they are not going to engage in those rules. They affirm that if someone doesn’t like what they think, that’s fine as long as they get to express it. That remains their view.

We had our disagreements. Where we did agree is that he would go to these college campuses and proclaim the name of Jesus Christ. And ultimately, that is why he was killed. The gunmen that killed him, they hated him because of his defense of Christian morality. Charlie Kirk cannot call himself a Christian anymore. Sorry, you forfeited that. I do not wanna hear and you cannot allow Charlie Kirk to go to one more public event, one more question and answer, one more ask me anything without being protested, without being shouted down, without being interrogated about this. This guy goes around from campus to campus in the most artificial and phony and fake way talking about, oh, God, God made me very blessed that I control $500,000,000. And then you go around from campus to campus making excuses for a famine?

I attended a TPUSA faith event expecting to learn about politics from a biblical perspective, but the experience did not meet those expectations. The speaker began by calling out Candace Owens as evil and antisemitic, stating that “what she's doing is evil,” which made me want to leave immediately. I stayed only because, upon entering, security checked me five times and armed men were stationed in front of me, with one armed man on stage. Inside the church, the speaker spoke repeatedly about Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, framing them as evil and antisemitic. He indirectly urged support for Israel by saying “Jesus was a Jew” and that “we wouldn’t have Christianity without Judaism,” among other claims. I disagree with the framing that Christians should support “this evil doing because these people are Jewish,” which I found to be wrong. The speaker also seemed to echo comments about Camille Owens and Charlie Cook, noting that Cook had started to question Israel in the weeks before his passing, and that Camille Owens was his best friend. The preaching itself did not feel like preaching; it was characterized by name-calling and a focus on the left, with terms like “left idiots” and “freaks.” I questioned whether this approach aligned with biblical teaching, recalling that Jesus “ate with sinners” and “prostitutes,” and worried that spreading hate through the stage and by the audience—especially teenagers—was shaping a future generation of Christians toward division. The event left me uneasy about the message being delivered, as it centered on denigrating those with political disagreements rather than focusing on shared faith. The speaker labeled the left as inferior and spent the majority of the time criticizing liberals, rather than addressing important Christian issues. By the end, I felt I hadn’t learned anything substantive. The discussion emphasized partisan conflict and broad generalizations about the left, rather than focusing on constructive biblical or political principles. In addition to the ideological focus, I noted the security environment with armed guards and an armed figure on stage, which contributed to an overall sense of unease. The speaker’s emphasis on opposing the left and on contentious topics like men in women’s sports and bathrooms framed as political talking points, rather than pressing concerns central to Christian discourse.

"Charlie Kirk should not have been assassinated." "That's what I said that caused tens of thousands of Democrats to come into my comments and mentions literally hurling homophobic slurs at me." "The ultimate irony is that that's the reason why you justify the assassination of Charlie Kirk was because he was such a bigot and he said all these horrible things, which aren't even real quotes, by the way." "You hate him for things he never even said." "Meanwhile, you guys are actively saying things that are infinitely worse than anything that Charlie Kirk said." "And you guys don't see it." "You don't have that ability to self reflect." "You have no ability to self reflect." "You guys you guys can literally sit there being the nastiest, meanest, most cruel hearted people ever and genuinely believe that you're the good guy because you're doing it to bad people." "Oh, yeah. What is wrong with you?"