The Dirty Tricks Behind the Charlie Kirk Assassination Conspiracies

How the usual suspects have turned tragedy into clout, clicks, and cash.

Anyone who follows politics knew this was going to happen.

About five seconds after the news broke about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the usual suspects salivated at the thought of exploiting his demise to push their favorite conspiracy theories and make a few bucks.

And it didn’t take too long for them to jump on the opportunity.

Podcasters Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, along with several others, used Kirk’s shooting to attack Israel, their favorite target.

Others, like podcaster Nick Fuentes, claimed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered Kirk $150 million to continue backing Israel.

Other conspiracy theories about Kirk involve a supposed conversion to Catholicism and the notion that he was actually shot from behind and not the front.

None of these people has provided a shred of evidence proving their claims.

Yet, people are buying it anyway.

The conspiracy theories related to Kirk’s death are a masterclass in how grifter types get your coveted clicks by pushing falsehoods. The good thing is that their tactics aren’t hard to spot.

When Statements Become Questions, You’re Being Bamboozled

If you spend any amount of time watching politics online, you have definitely seen this tactic. It’s a simple rhetorical device that involves disguising statements as questions so that the purveyor does not have to own what they are actually trying to communicate.

Podcaster Sam Parker wrote a post on X in which he asked, “Did israel orchestrate the viral explosion of the Iryna Zarutska story to set up the assassination of Charlie Kirk?”

When you hear this, you’re supposed to think “Well gee golly, I never thought about that! I wonder what that could mean?”

Of course, Parker is saying Israel was behind the assassination. But he lacks the testicular fortitude to just assert it outright. By framing his statement as a question, he has plausible deniability. If someone calls him on it, he will just say something like, “I wasn’t claiming Israel killed Kirk. I was just asking questions!”

Owens also employed this technique on her podcast. “It’s crazy how I never once said that Israel murdered Charlie Kirk but the Zionists are all repeating that without a shred of evidence. Remember, if they aren’t lying, they aren’t breathing,” she said.

It’s the oldest trick in the book, yet people still fall for it.

Prove It Didn’t Happen!

The thing about conspiracy theorists is that they rarely provide evidence to support their claims. This is because they typically don’t have any evidence. The reason they don’t have evidence is that they are lying.

This is why they will usually demand that critics prove their arguments false instead of showing why people should believe them in the first place. Podcaster Tom Renz wrote a post on X, which read, “No exit wound for Charlie Kirk? I’m sorry but with that gun it isn’t a miracle, it’s evidence this whole thing is a conspiracy,” he wrote. “This is a cover up… how else would you explain it?”

Note that Renz did not explain why it is absolutely impossible for there to have been no exit wound. He did not consult any experts, nor did he even try reaching out to the medical examiner’s office to indicate there was no exit wound.

That would be too much work and would likely disprove his theory. Instead, he asks us to explain how it could have happened, using the “Just Asking Questions” tactic.

Notice a Pattern?

Conspiracy peddlers understand that the human mind craves patterns — especially in situations where nothing seems to make sense, like the assassination of a prominent influencer. By stitching together unrelated elements into some master conspiracy, they can concoct connections where none truly exist.

In a podcast episode, Owens explained that when she “started asking very sensible questions about Israel,” (Just Asking Questions) she “was met with the very same pressure, just like Charlie.”

Owens, Carlson, and others have pointed to a meeting held by billionaire Bill Ackman, an Israel supporter, in which they held an intervention to convince Kirk to continue supporting Israel. However, several other influencers who were at the meeting say this never happened.

Yet, this has not swayed the conspiracy peddlers, who insist that Ackman and other pro-Israeli folks tried to blackmail, coerce, and cajole Kirk into not criticizing the Israeli judgment.

Remember, there was no indication that he was turning against the Jewish state. Yet, this fabricated intervention has been woven together to form the theory that Israel orchestrated his murder.

Let’s Get Tribal

Conspiracy grifters will often appeal to their tribe to keep people from questioning them. It goes something like this: “If you don’t believe what I’m saying, then you’re not one of us.”

In a post on X, Owens wrote, “Be very wary and suspicious of the people who are already telling us to stop asking questions about the Charlie Kirk assassination. (Emphasis mine)”

See? If you ask questions of those who are “Just Asking Questions,” you are to be viewed with suspicion. Skeptics are the shady ones, not the people sneakily pushing unsubstantiated narratives.

Anchors Away!

Anchoring is another tricky tactic these people use. It goes like this: Begin with a verified fact, then stretch it far enough to fit into your theory. The actual fact is the anchor to which these people hitch their false narratives.

The conspiracy bros have brought up Kirk’s interview with podcaster Dave Smith, an outspoken critic of the Israeli government. Kirk engaged in a friendly conversation with Smith about Israel and the war in Gaza, even though they disagreed on the matter.

This interview happened in July, about two months before Kirk’s assassination. Sounds pretty suspicious, right? Isn’t it interesting that Kirk was killed two months after interviewing one of the leading anti-Israel voices in the online space? What about the meeting with Ackman, which took place in August, just over a month before the shooting?

Isn’t this worth looking at? Don’t get mad at me, I’m just asking questions.

What Are You Talking About?

Conspiracy grifters and lawmakers have something in common: They thrive on vague language. The grifter class often speaks in vagaries to make it harder to nail down what they are trying to say.

Here’s an example: “Charlie Kirk was fighting with some very powerful billionaires that he took money from over things he was discussing. The pressure on him was immense.”

At face value, it might make sense. This is politics, right?

But perhaps we should ask some questions of our own. Which billionaires are we talking about here? We already know about Ackman, but which others? Can we verify if these payments happened? Also, how does this prove that Israel was behind Kirk’s assassination?

Carlson also said some pro-Israel donors “tormented Charlie Kirk until the day he died.”

Okay. Who are these donors? What did they do to “torment” him?

One of the best ways to counter the “Just Asking Questions” types is to ask some questions of your own. Don’t let them control the conversation. Force them to play defense.

Don’t Let Them Trick You

These are not the only tactics conspiracy grifters use to suck people in — but they are the most common, from what I’ve seen. Despite the flimsy narratives these people put forth, they still manage to amass massive followings, with many believing their every word.

I’m not saying that all conspiracy theories are fake. There are some I’m open to. But when it comes to social media, we must be careful about accepting what influencers are saying. These people thrive on the clout, clicks, and cash that come from concocting these theories.

But there is good news.

Debunking these lies is not difficult. As someone who debunks nonsense on a daily basis, I can tell you it’s much easier when those peddling said nonsense can’t stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny.

When confronted with something that might be a baseless conspiracy theory, all you have to do is ask questions and demand evidence. It’s really that simple. If what they are saying is true, then they should be able to back up their assertions.

Usually, they can’t, which is why they use the manipulative tactics I just discussed. If their narratives were based on facts, they would use them.