Matt Walsh Exposes LGBT Extremist Violence Behind Charlie Kirk Assassination and Leftist Celebration

Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.

Up Next

Dave Rubin and Russell Brand Process the Shooting of Charlie Kirk in Raw Real-Time Conversation

Dave Rubin and Russell Brand Process the Shooting of Charlie Kirk in Raw Real-Time Conversation

24:53

Dr. Phil Breaks Early News of Charlie Kirk's Shooting and Praises His Debate Style

Dr. Phil Breaks Early News of Charlie Kirk's Shooting and Praises His Debate Style

6:47

Piers Morgan Uncensored Panel Debates Political Violence After Charlie Kirk Assassination and America's Dangerous Turning Point

Piers Morgan Uncensored Panel Debates Political Violence After Charlie Kirk Assassination and America's Dangerous Turning Point

1:30:11

Matt Walsh Exposes LGBT Extremist Violence Behind Charlie Kirk Assassination and Leftist Celebration

Matt Walsh examines the assassination of Charlie Kirk at a college debate in Utah, presenting evidence that points to LGBT extremist violence rather than right-wing motivations. Walsh analyzes the widespread celebration of Kirk's death across leftist platforms, the coordinated disinformation campaign claiming the shooter was a right-winger, and Erika Kirk's powerful speech delivered just days after her husband's murder. Walsh argues that political violence in America is nearly exclusively a left-wing phenomenon and calls for the dismantling of what he describes as domestic terror networks while defending consequences for those celebrating the assassination.

Categories: Analysis
September 15, 2025

The Evidence of Left-Wing Extremism

Several days after Charlie Kirk was assassinated while debating college students in Utah, the facts point overwhelmingly to an act of LGBT terrorism. The shooter, Tyler Robinson, was in a relationship with a man who identifies as transgender. Robinson engraved his ammunition with messages commonly used by left-wing Antifa groups, calling Kirk a fascist, as well as references to a fetish subculture.

Days before the murder, several trans-identifying individuals and people in their social groups posted messages on social media indicating awareness that the assassination would take place. One message read: "Charlie Kirk is coming to my college tomorrow. I really hope someone evaporates him literally. Let's just say something big will happen tomorrow." Another post from five days before stated: "It'd be funny if someone like Charlie Kirk got shot on September 10th." The username of this post's author referenced a Tally Hall album, and Robinson had a publicly visible playlist of Tally Hall songs on Spotify. His trans-identifying boyfriend was active on the Tally Hall subreddit.

Shortly after the assassination, someone in the same friend network as the shooter's trans boyfriend wrote: "We effing did it." A pro-trans organization in Utah called Armed Queers SLC took down its Instagram page entirely. The group's logo featured two high-powered rifle rounds similar to the one that struck Kirk. Armed Queers SLC had hosted a lecture on queer resistance at the University of Utah in September 2023, around 45 miles from Utah Valley University where Kirk lost his life.

Members of the shooter's Discord channel joked with him about the possibility that he was the shooter based on photographs released by the FBI, yet none turned him in. Officials, including the governor of Utah, confirmed Robinson was heavily indoctrinated into left-wing extremism. The evidence is overwhelming and points in only one direction.

The Left's Disinformation Campaign

Despite the clear evidence, hundreds of thousands of leftists have attempted to claim the shooter was actually a right-wing extremist who thought Kirk wasn't conservative enough. They've pushed the false narrative that Robinson was a follower of Nick Fuentes, a "groper" who attacked Kirk from the far right. This disinformation campaign has spread across Reddit, Blue Sky, Facebook, and mainstream media outlets.

Harvard professor Lawrence Tribe stated: "Kirk's apparent assassin seems to have been ultra MAGA, exploding the GOP MAGA attempt to pin the blame for this tragedy on liberals." The chair of Minnesota's DFL claimed: "The shooter didn't think Kirk was right-wing enough." Jackie Stores, the DA in Portland, Maine, wrote: "There are now increasing questions about the actual shooter's possible affinity with the extreme far right."

Posts with tens of millions of views and hundreds of thousands of likes spread claims that the shooter was a right-wing Republican from a wealthy family. Randy Weingarten, president of the largest teachers union in the country, reposted content claiming: "The leftist students in Utah who didn't want Charlie Kirk to speak did what leftists do. They signed petitions, staged a protest, and lined up to challenge him. The right-winger who didn't want Charlie Kirk to speak did what right-wingers do and shot him."

The claim that Kirk was killed by the right is a blatant lie with no supporting evidence. Antifa terrorists have been citing the Bellaciao song for years, including in 2019 when an Antifa shooter cited the song in a manifesto before attacking an ICE facility. One of the ringleaders of Antifa in Los Angeles owns a company called Bellaciao Cinema. This is an old World War II song repurposed by Antifa. Everyone who investigates knows this, but left-wing outlets pretend otherwise.

Mass Celebration of Kirk's Murder

Even as leftists claim the shooter was right-wing, hundreds of thousands of them openly gloat over Kirk's murder. This includes neurologists, school teachers, military service members, entertainers, the chief of police of Durham, and the entire populations of Reddit and Blue Sky. They're pushing a fantasy while simultaneously celebrating the assassination, revealing their consciousness of guilt.

Ilhan Omar reposted a video declaring Kirk was "a reprehensible human being, a stochastic terrorist. With his last dying words, he was spewing racist dog whistles. Charlie Kirk was Dr. Frankenstein, and his monster shot him through the neck." She gave an interview suggesting Kirk had it coming because he wasn't a fan of Juneteenth and didn't believe George Floyd was murdered.

Kirk's public debates have been recorded for many years, proving the exact opposite of these claims. Hundreds of thousands of students, including Democrats, showed up to his events knowing they wouldn't get shouted down or violently attacked unless it was by one of their own. They could engage with a leading conservative voice at length in a respectful forum. No one on the left ever does this. No one on the left goes into a crowd of conservatives offering to debate anyone live on camera. Only conservatives do this, and Kirk was the best at it.

The Pattern of Left-Wing Political Violence

Political violence is almost exclusively committed by the left. This is not a both-sides issue. The left is responsible for:

  • Torching federal courthouses, churches, and small businesses
  • BLM riots and Antifa violence
  • Massacres of Christian children in schools and churches
  • Multiple attempts on the president's life
  • Violent attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers
  • Vandalizing Teslas and torching Tesla storefronts
  • Attacking ICE agents and police officers

It was a Tim Walz appointee suffering from schizophrenia who murdered a lawmaker in Minnesota. Trump supporters and Trump supporters alone died on January 6th, which is the one example leftists can give of right-wing political violence. That example has been greatly exaggerated for five years, and the only people who died were Trump supporters.

Political violence has been going in only one direction for a very long time, and that is by design. The left's domestic terror operation is well established. Billionaires like George Soros fund various NGOs, political candidates, and media personalities who declare that conservatives are Nazis and fascists who demonize oppressed people. When you call people Nazis, that is a direct call for violence. At minimum, it's a justification beforehand for violence.

They tell highly disturbed individuals, particularly people who identify as trans, that they're being genocided by these fascists. They open prisons and allow the most deranged members of society to continue tormenting normal people. Politicians and billionaires sit back and watch as their deranged foot soldiers carry out acts of domestic terrorism. After these attacks, the politicians gloat and blame the other side, showing clear consciousness of guilt.

Erika Kirk's Powerful Response

Charlie's wife, Erika, delivered remarks on Friday night that constituted one of the best speeches ever given. Considering her husband was killed only two days earlier, her performance was even more impressive. Even judged on its own merits in a vacuum, this was a truly great speech—moving, beautiful, and inspiring.

Erika stated: "Evildoers responsible for my husband's assassination have no idea what they have done. They killed Charlie because he preached a message of patriotism, faith, and of God's merciful love. But they should all know this: If you thought that my husband's mission was powerful before, you have no idea. You have no idea what you just have unleashed across this entire country in this world. You have no idea the fire that you have ignited within this wife. The cries of this widow will echo around the world like a battle cry."

She continued: "To everyone listening tonight across America, the movement my husband built will not die. It won't. I refuse to let that happen. It will not die. All of us will refuse to let that happen. No one will ever forget my husband's name. And I will make sure of it. It will become stronger, bolder, louder, and greater than ever. My husband's mission will not end, not even for a moment."

The speech displayed resolve, courage, determination, and importantly, righteous anger. It has become customary for family members after atrocities to go in front of cameras and pretend they aren't angry, to skip right to forgiveness. Erika gave a glimpse into the righteous anger she must feel, and that courage deserves appreciation. The anger is honest. Of course she's angry. She should be angry. That anger comes from her love for her husband and her children who lost their father. It is an anger overflowing with love, a loving anger rooted in love.

Many Christians in this country have been spiritually neutered by attending milquetoast liberal churches for decades where they never talk about righteous anger or make it sound like you should never be angry ever. The idea that there could be a loving anger, that you could be filled with rage rooted in love, is shocking to many Christians these days. This kind of response from a grieving loved one is very rare in our society, at least publicly. It shouldn't be, because it's good, honest, and what this country needs.

The Problem with Calls for Unity

Many Republicans are calling for unity and coming together. But unity requires uniting around something. Just telling a group of people to unite without context accomplishes nothing. Their first question would be: unite to do what? Unity isn't objectively always good no matter what. People can be united while jumping off a cliff. There was unity among people drinking the Kool-Aid in Jonestown. That's not good unity because the question with unity is always for what and around what.

We can't unite with people who reject truth itself, who hate civilization, who hate the family, who hate children, who hate life, who want to kill us. Unity must come around something and through something and for something. Unity has a focal point and a purpose. We can unite in truth, in justice, in righteousness, in Christ. But that requires the evildoers to drop their swords and repent.

When you're in darkness and some people are in the light, we can't have unity if it requires people in the light to move into the dark or meet in the middle where it's hazier. There could be unity, but you need to come out of the darkness and into the light. We cannot unite in darkness. Right now, many people on the left are living in total spiritual darkness. There cannot be any unity in that.

Senator James Lankford on CNN exemplified the worst kind of response, claiming it's a both-sides problem: "Whether it is talking about white nationalists preparing to attack or somebody like Timothy McVeigh that hated the government intensely or whether it is a leftist group interested in attacking a pro-life center... We should have equal application of the law."

But it isn't both sides. Political violence is a left-wing problem. Violence is a left-wing tool nearly exclusively. After Kirk was killed, there have been vigils and memorials. None have turned violent. Not a single one. If there was any violence, it was from left-wing protesters who showed up. These are the kinds of people who protest candlelight vigils. Kirk was assassinated in front of our eyes, many saw this man bleed to death, yet no one boarded up a single window. Does anyone believe it would be the same going the other way?

If someone on the left of Kirk's influence and status were killed, there would be mass rioting in almost every major city in America. Every business owner would immediately start boarding up windows. We all know it. The list includes BLM, Antifa, church shootings, Tesla attacks, pro-life centers on fire, political assassinations, and on and on. It's not both sides.

The Need for Conservative Unity

There should be unity on the right among conservatives. We need to put petty squabbles and infighting to the side. We can get back to that later, but for now, there's no time for it. We're dealing with a real existential threat, enemies of civilization. We have to put all that aside.

If any conservative were to die, not a single person on the right who has been critical of them would celebrate. They would mourn the loss sincerely. Yet on the left, it would be unanimous cause for celebration. They would spit on graves and laugh at grieving widows and orphans. They would feel no sadness at all. The friend-enemy distinction is clear.

An olive branch extends to anyone on the right who has had disagreements. Not saying it's permanent—down the line might come a time to get back to some arguments—but for now, there's no interest in it. Politicians can still be criticized as needed on a case-by-case basis. But generally speaking, conservatives need unity.

Some have already turned down this invitation. When the message went out days ago, some said no thanks, that they don't want to stop attacking people on the right. Even after Kirk was assassinated, they're still going after the right, not saying anything about the people who would celebrate their own deaths. If even now, in the face of all this, after one of our most important leaders has been shot and killed on stage by a deranged LGBT militant, if you still have an appetite to spend time punching right, then there's nothing else to say. You are worse than irrelevant.

The lines are being drawn. There's no time for people who have made a brand among conservatives for only ever criticizing conservatives, constantly nitpicking. This is a spiritual war, good versus evil. These people want you dead. Cut it out and get serious, or be left in the dust. The fight will go on without you while you watch from the sidelines. The time for choosing is right now for everybody.

Consequences for Celebrating Murder

Leftists across the country have been celebrating the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk. This isn't just happening in YouTube comments or left-wing digital fever swamps like Reddit and Blue Sky. This is happening everywhere on the internet and in the real world. They're showing up to Kirk's vigils to mock him and trample on his memorials. They're celebrating in the street. Young and old, men and women, leftists of all professions and persuasions. It's happening everywhere. It's not fringe, not rare, not an aberration or exception to the rule. It is the rule.

On social media, the people saying terrible things exist in reality. There are plenty of bots, but also millions of actual humans. When you go to the gas station or grocery store, everyone may be polite, but all the evidence tells us that even the polite leftists in the produce aisle would be happy if you were killed right in front of them. The majority of the left agrees with the protester at a Kirk vigil over the weekend who sang: "I want you to die. We're not going to give you a second chance even when you beg for it. On your knees, begging and pleading."

For the first time ever, they may actually pay a price for it. As leftists have gloated and cheered Kirk's murder, many are losing their jobs. MSNBC's Matthew Dowd was fired after arguing during live coverage that Kirk had encouraged the politically motivated violence that claimed his life. An Office Depot employee was terminated for refusing to print a poster of Kirk for a prayer vigil, calling it political propaganda. A Secret Service agent who said Kirk deserved to be killed was placed on leave and expected to be fired.

An advisory board member at the Cincinnati Bengals star Joe Burrow's charitable foundation was terminated for posts celebrating Kirk's murder, as was a communications specialist with the Carolina Panthers. A nurse at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta posted: "F his kids, f his ancestors, especially the two who birthed him." She now joins the long list of fired individuals. They come from all walks of life: nurses, airline pilots, corporate executives, government workers, teachers. A public school teacher in Canada reportedly showed a video of the assassination to her students and said Kirk deserved to die. She's now been suspended.

Cancel Culture vs. Consequences for Evil

The firings have given rise to accusations from the left and even some on the right that conservatives are now practicing the very cancel culture they once decried. We've supposedly exposed ourselves as hypocrites, no different than those we condemn. We're now the proponents of cancel culture. "What happened to free speech?" they demand.

There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the consequences the right supports in the wake of Kirk's assassination. The left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, and normal things. To the extent that the right cancels anyone, it's for saying objectively abhorrent, perverse, and sick things. This distinction matters.

The problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech. They want you fired for saying, for example, that men can't have babies and women don't have penises. The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something—it's trying to get you fired for saying the most basic and true things possible. The left's war on speech is not just a war on speech. It's a war on truth. They want to punish truth, and that will always be significantly worse.

There is a difference in kind between the statement "men aren't women" and the statement "Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist Nazi racist bigot." The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can say. The second statement is a demented, deranged, perverse, sick, evil, wicked, horrendous, outrageous lie that not only smears the good name of an innocent man but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences against the latter statement without also accepting such consequences for the former statement is asinine. The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same, as if it's impossible to distinguish between banal everyday truth and the deranged hallucinatory rantings of bloodthirsty sociopathic hobgoblins, is totally ludicrous.

These rantings should not be made illegal. People celebrating Kirk's death shouldn't be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that these people lose their jobs. It's good that they are shamed and humiliated and must live with the repercussions for the rest of their lives. It's good if they wake up every day until they die wishing they had not said what they said. They should wake up every single day and the first thing they think is: "My God, I wish I hadn't said that. It took my entire life off the rails. Everything has changed for the worse because I had to go and say the most vile, disgusting thing that anyone could ever say."

We cannot have a civilized and decent society unless there are severe social consequences for people who express publicly these kinds of sentiments. These people are barbarians, savages, and should be treated as such. Free speech does not mean we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust toward people who say revolting and disgusting things and reveal themselves to be revolting and disgusting human beings.

Consider the nurse mentioned earlier. Upon seeing that a man with a wife and two young children had been shot in the throat on stage, her first reaction was to curse out his kids and mother and gloat about the murder. That kind of statement is not just an expression of an opinion. It's a revelation of character—the character of someone who is barely human at this point, barely has a soul. It's the character of someone unfit to live among civilized people, someone who should be shunned and shamed and alienated by society. Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection. Because people who curse out the children of murdered men deserve to be socially rejected. Monsters should be treated like monsters, and she is a monster.

The left may now say that even if it doesn't infringe on free speech rights to fire someone for saying something abhorrent, we should have more grace and forgiveness. But they should have thought of that before spending the last 20 years trying to destroy our lives for saying anything they even vaguely disagree with. They should have thought of that before dancing on our friend's grave and laughing at his grieving widow.

What they want is for us to grant them radical tolerance and acceptance while they continue to give us no such thing in return. But that deal doesn't work anymore. The deal is over. It's off. We never should have gone along with it to begin with. They will be held to their own standard. They will have their own rules enforced against them. They will be given their own medicine whether they like it or not, and they will not like it. But here we are. They brought it on themselves.

Video Transcript

Link copied to clipboard!