Filmmaker Stanley Kubrick's Daughter Vivian Attacks Erika Kirk, Demands Trump 'Kill' Turning Point USA
Vivian Kubrick, the daughter of filmmaker Stanley Kubrick, attacked Erika Kirk -- the widow of slain conservative icon Charlie Kirk -- on Thursday, before calling on President Donald Trump to "kill" Turning Point USA.
Ehhh, I'm not really gonna trust the word of a scientologist..
It does seem to come down to a 'trust me bro' sort of argument, doesn't it?
I agree with her
Yeah Erica gives me the creeps
Erika took over after Charlie's assassination and gave the guy in charge of his security at the event a raise.
She not only didn't fire him. She gave him a raise.
She invited in people who Charlie was enemies with as soon as Charlie was gone.
There is a whole lot more, but I don't have time right now to list it.
I'm Not buying any of this crap...Candace and Tucker have gone full retard....IMO
I get your point; Candace and Tucker along with Alex Jones are all behaving like activated sleepers, and they probably are. However, Erika Kirk has also behaved suspiciously. Both possibilities can be true: Both Candace and Erika are not who they seem.
🤔🤷🏻♂️
Hmmm.... Are there alternative plausible explanations for Erika's 'suspicious' behavior?
One difference, Kim Clement prophesied that a woman shall have strong faith, beautiful eyes "eyes shall be round and big. I have crowned her, says the Lord. As I crowned Esther". IMHO, God is using Laura Loomer, His "Saul" exposing Candace's lies against Erika.
Kim Clement threw a lot of predictions at the wall to see what would stick. He also said that Obama would bring victory in the Middle East and heal the racial division in America.
Here's what he said in Pennsylvania in 2008:
http://www.apostasywatch.com/kim-clements-prophecy-concerning-obama/
Here's a good 4-video series exposing him as a false prophet (while the maker of the videos believes that Q is a government psyop, that's not relevant to the subject at hand; just focus on what he shows about Kim Clement, which he backs up with evidence):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4QfK_XsV8U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSlS7xUpEE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DACJmgaqr2k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VnaVr96kDk
I agree purkiss. And the attacks on Erika Kirk are awful. My opinion is that Charlie might have had some inside stuff on Israel and so they offed him. And judging Erika because she does not present herself in some way or another is no reason to judge her.
👌👍🙏🏻
I agree, Candace and Tucker appear to have gone off the deep end. Yet there does appear to be something off with Erika (loved Charlie by the way so trying to remain skeptical as she was his wife) having watched all the content on Erika and TP.
Remain open to pretty much anything at this point but in same camp as Mr Winston that at the very least Candace and Erika both are not what they seem.
I remember the meeting they had after Candace starting covering her concerns about Erika; I wonder if that could have been to game plan about the future with some sort of smoke and mirrors tactics attempting to convince us they are at odds, when maybe they are on the same team. Fog of war is real that's for sure.
Something smells rotten with TP. Time will tell
Agreed. I believe Charlie Kirk was about to expose Erika and the inner workings of TPUSA when he was murdered.
What makes you think that?
Just a hunch. Also, Erika Kirk seems to be somewhat power mad. Who benefits from Charlie's death?
Kek. Hunches are important, but what about evidence?
But OK. I can accept your hunch.
I think the list of who doesn't benefit from Charlie's death would be a lot shorter than the list of who does. Because so many sectors and players benefit, not only from his death, but from the trauma the incident elicited.
Thanks for the reply!
If one is greedy for power and wealth, there are many easier ways to accomplish that than KILLING YOYR OWN HUSBAND to take control of a conservative advocacy group that is going to be fending off attacks from the IRS the next time a Democrat takes the presidency. C'mon man!
Yeah, I mean, wow.
The whole premise requires Erika to have Killary-levels of psychopathy on steroids.
Everyone who has benefitted after his death. Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, the entire alt-reich, City of London and so on.
Bingo!!!!
Who else? The Democrat/Republican Deep State & Intel, the puppet masters who want to create civil war in America, Mossad agents in the US, inflooencers, SPLC (kek, yep) etc.
The concept that Erika somehow 'benefits' from Charlie's death presupposes that she is 100% fake and only married Charlie as part of some elaborate psyop and operation to accomplish....... what? Power?
If that's the case, Killary should be taking lessons from Erika.
But its true. Sounds outrageous but its real.
It's not that is sounds outrageous. It's that there are other very plausible reasons (as far as I can see) to explain things about Erika, and the idea that she not only doesn't benefit, but suffers and loses a lot, make more sense.
Of course, Candy's intense attacks are a very good negative marker. (I.e. the fact that Owens is pushing the narrative is a good marker indicating how fake the narrative is.)
What is real? And, how do you know? Or do you simply believe or suspect, and equate that with actual knowledge and fact?
Candace certainly has benefited as she focused on Charlie Kirk's death during her podcasts.
There was a youtuber who breaks down channels, who estimated that she has made 59 million since CK's assassination.
Surprised, I am not.
More like he was a rogue entity who was starting to get too much influence and saying the wrong things. Eliminating him and installing Erika in his place allowed the entire TPUSA organization to be hijacked
Hijacked to what purpose?
What is the current impact of TPUSA in America, on MAGA, on the support base for Trump, on the support base opposing Trump, etc?
How has the impact (effect) of TPUSA changed since Charlie's death, on the opposing sectors in this current info war?
TP has done and is still doing far more for MAGA than any who pretend to "expose it".
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2026/05/01/filmmaker-stanley-kubricks-daughter-vivian-attacks-erika-kirk-demands-trump-kill-turning-point-usa/
Filmmaker Stanley Kubrick’s Daughter Vivian Attacks Erika Kirk, Demands Trump ‘Kill’ Turning Point USA
Vivian Kubrick, the daughter of filmmaker Stanley Kubrick, attacked Erika Kirk — the widow of slain conservative icon Charlie Kirk — on Thursday, before calling on President Donald Trump to “kill” Turning Point USA.
“I HAVE NEVER WITNESSED SUCH A GHASTLY INAUTHENTIC PHONY PERFORMANCE IN MY LIFE AS THIS SPEECH BY ERIKA,” Kubrick exclaimed in an all-caps statement on X.
The 65-year-old went on to suggest that she knows how to “phonies” because she grew up in the entertainment industry, before calling Erika Kirk “a threat to my country.”
“She feels absolutely like a military or intelligence operative, and definitely some kind of sociopath,” Kubrick added of Charlie Kirk’s widow. “There’s something seriously wrong with this woman – every cell in my body shudders listening to her voice and watching her face.”
“No one has made my skin crawl like Erika,” Kubrick continued in her unhinged tirade, citing Erika Kirk forgiving her husband’s assassin suspect, “and then the video of her laying across Charlie’s dead body.”
The film composer then described the widow’s video showing herself in mourning as “horribly sinister.”
“MR. PRESIDENT – If we’re to win the midterms, you need to ‘kill’ @TPUSA and let some honest to God, authentic, super smart young patriots rally the American youth to fight for AMERICA FIRST,” Kubrick demanded.
MORE: https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2026/05/01/filmmaker-stanley-kubricks-daughter-vivian-attacks-erika-kirk-demands-trump-kill-turning-point-usa/
Ok. Let me see. This is what is supposed to convince me.
Her 'performance' was ghastly, inauthentic and phoney....
I know how "to phonies" because I grew up in the entertainment industry.
"She feels like.... and definitely ....."
"There is something seriously wrong... every cell in my body shudders... "
"No one has made my skin crawl like Erika...."
Well, I mean, if that is not 100% conclusive evidence right there, I don't know what is.
/s
In short: My opinion, my feels, my reaction and response.... = what? exactly?
Is there ANY deluded leftist, for example, who could not say the exact same thing about Trump, and believe fully in their own view, because of 'my opinion, my feels, my reactions'?
Me, I prefer not to give much time over to these sorts of sensationalist LOOK HERE!!!! narratives when they emerge. (By 'these sorts', I mean the whole "Erica Kirk is evil/fake/an operative/intel asset" narrative.) Instead, I simply take note, store up this and that occasional data point as they emerge, and add them to my mental storage bank on the topic, like an invisible mental docket or dossier.
But so far, for me, there are a few things that I find persuasive. One, that Kirk is being attacked by certain quarters, like <ahem> Candy Girl, over and over. Two, that all sorts of narratives emerge in the wake of significant events (which kirk's assassination was, imo), like piranhas swarming on a goat that happened to step into the river. Three, that the predominant arguments appear to be 'my feeling, my sense of, my reaction to' etc, coupled with innuendo and accusation.
For me, these are salient points. Because I'm a skeptic at heart. Q totally raised me to be like that, I'll say. (Or rather, any natural tendency towards that was developed and augmented by the Q operation, for sure.)
One of the greatest simplest psyops being "Look here! (and not there!)
Just saying. Until I find or come across evidence that meets a certain threshold, I tend to be skeptical on the more sensational of narratives, knowing how prevalent they are employed to manipulate. I'm also inclined to at first think, OK, are there any other plausible explanations for what I am seeing here, aside from the sensationalist one?
I really don't have much opinion on E Kirk herself, and am inclined to think this is really not important even if there is something to the bruhaha, but it is the reaction and waves that the narrative(s) create in the wider 'truth' community that really interest me, and of those things, I'm more inclined to take note than the original sensational narrative itself.
It would appear that Erika is being pushed as a potential running mate in 2028, and THAT is why so many of us are skeptical of her. She has lied about her education, for sure (claimed a double-major and honors, neither is true). There is a discrepancy in her birthday stemming from legal docs (Nov. 22 or Nov. 20). And her mother, Lori(n) Franztve, has ties to the NSA and bother government entities through her defense tech companies. Erika herself has altered stories to fit the narrative ("raised by a single mom" but documents, old interviews, and book acknowledgements don't support that).
Too much, too fast, and on the heels of the assassination of her husband, who was working to sever many of the ties she is strengthening now in his absence.
https://vancekirk2028.com/
And in case that doesn't work...
https://rubiokirk2028.com/
AI Generated website for a f***ing presidential campaign. Yeesh. Good points you brought up too BTW.
Thanks, Q&Way
The skeptic in my wants to check through these things, (partly because I'm not overwhelmed by the levels of research that some folks - not saying you - put into such points before actually attaching or accepting, partly because, as I wrote above, I'll er on the side of skeptic with regards to sensational narratives and claims first) but, as I also wrote above, I tend to think that such issues as perhaps skirmishes in the info/psywar, and I prefer to attach to the 40kft view when possible. That's usually possible because other anons and frogs bring straight forward claims/data out, like you have here.
There is evidence that the person who killed Charlie was (at least) working for Erika Kirk. The medical response was primitive at best for Charlie because they didn't have an ambulance to deliver him to the hospital and for him to get treatment while en-route. This is for a bullet that hit Charlie in the back of the neck.
Finally Erika herself gave a speech expressing her grief just days after the death, yet the video is a masterclass in bad acting. If you saw the video, you would realize that Erika was wiping her eyes in order to prove she is crying. It was fake and almost always in one eye. If she truly loved Charlie, Erika would have been a blubbering idiot and would not be able to even read her statement.
A lot of subjective assumptions there about personalities. For example, do you have any direct experience with what traumatic shock does to people?
Traumatic shock can affect people in lots of different ways. It creates a root-level fracturing of the psyche, which can (usually) leads people to react and behave in ways that they most certainly would not. To me, the argument that "If she truly loved Charlie, Erika would have been a blubbering idiot" is simply imaginative projection or supposition, and I think that clinically, its not really evidence.
The problem here is that in psyops, narrative control and narrative spin rely on all sorts of subjective responses (how you or I respond emotionally, mentally and subjectively) to perceived data points, and the only real defense against being manipulated is a combination of concrete, hard data facts (empirically grounded) + aggressively critical thinking and self-reflection.
The whole nature of psychological warfare is manipulation of the vulnerabilities that the target presents, vulnerabilities which are grounded in the internal processes of thought, emotion and volition. Without a very objective self-reviewing of these aspects, psyops tend to simply achieve success.
So, the question is, is it possible that certain actors have an invested interest in psyopping the non-Mainstream community into attacking or doubting or undermining TPUSA (and Erika)?
If its possible that Erika is performing, is un-genuine in her motives, purpose, etc, then the above possibility (the opposite alternative) ALSO has to be considered and weighed against that, too.
Otherwise, you simply end up making purely subjective assessments and investing them with a certainty of belief.
For whatever it is worth, (not much) , I do not find Erika Kirk believable/trustworthy either, but certainly not enough to attack her so harshly and personally. Why Vivian would be so nasty toward her is out of line, in my opinion.
Erika seems to be, to me, just a typical type of female opportunist, wanting to be a "somebody", but may not have the background/education to achieve independently on her own. Hitching herself to Charlie Kirk's success seems a viable strategy - (women have been doing this for centuries). She appears (to me) now as trying to take advantage of the worst possible hand fate sent her way by the assignation of Charlie.
Perhaps she might be forgiven for doing her best in face of such a sudden loss, considering her grief may be clouding her judgement and choices under such pressures?
I would respect Erika more if she chose to focus instead on her young children, who now need more direct parental involvement and attention than the best nanny available. These little ones need the best and I hope Erika will move out of the spotlight and avoid trying to replace Charlie's political power, for her children's sake.
I do think Vivian has "jumped the shark" in reaching such heights of vitriolic emotional charged rhetorical accusations... she is embarrassing herself, and should stick to overwrought exaggeration. She has accomplished nothing in attacking Erika, and should refrain from piling on.
Interesting.
I'm inclined to think, without any real close knowledge, I admit, that if Erika is genuine, then she might reasonably feel that Charlie's life purpose and vision is what's really, really important, and so want to strive towards that, too. I mean, I think that's plausible.
TPUSA is scaring the crap out of the democrats. They are losing more and more of the youth vote. And TPUSA has expanded greatly. There are a lot of Charlie’s videos for new groups to use.
The democrats are also losing more and more of the black vote, the Hispanic vote and the union vote. Their base is crumbling.
Casting shade on a personality is too subjective to rely on. But it is pretty clear that, by attacking Erika, TPUSA gets damaged indirectly. I have never seen anything wrong with TPUSA's message. So, throw up a lot of dust at Charlie's successor in order to hinder the social impact of TPUSA?
Much of TPUSA's most recent growth has been in response to Charlie Kirk's death. According to the article, Erika is proving to be unpopular as she had to cancel the in-person appearance and speak via satellite while attendance to any TPUSA event is falling.
Erika is playing her part,,,,not sure the end goal but she’s playing the part of an insane but very well…. So is Candace tho lol
I wouldn't be surprised if Vivian Kubrick is an Anon. When she was young, she spent time with her father on film sets. It is widely rumored that one of the actors (I believe Ryan O'Neal from Barry Lyndon) did what Hollywood actors do and took advantage of her at a young age. Stanley Kubrick had to bite his tongue and play ball, but I'm certain his anger over that was a partial motivator for exposing the elites in Eyes Wide Shut and his other films.
Edit: This isn't the first time Vivian Kubrik has lashed out against a public figure for profiting from misery. She publicly flamed Dr Phil for showcasing Shelley Duvall in a physically deteriorated state of health before her passing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8MTOjoJySg&t=11s
MORE BS from the left.
Very disappointing the number of comments on here against Erika Kirk based on vibes. As far as I can tell, the social media case against Erika is this: She smiled at the wrong time. She cried at the wrong time. She went to the wrong event. She didn't go to the right event. There were fireworks on stage. Not one is based on any kind of real evidence.
But vibes are irrefutable evidence, aren't they? /s
There are other points that raise doubts in people's minds, it seems, factual history, for example, BUT, ultimately, its the vibes factor that says to me in every way, 'psyop'. People seem to be overwhelmingly motivated by subjective feels rather than objective evidence based analysis (and not accounting for contradicting arguments or factors, either).
This is the nature of the psywar - manipulation of people's emotional, mental and volitional state. And, the physiological war humanity is experiencing has never been more intense than it is in May 2026.
And Ian Carol and Barron Coleman and the millions of their followers online...
Almost as if they're on to something and choosing to ignore it is the same willful ignorance that enabled covid
As WE build up Prayer Garden Foundation and seek to take back territory state by state, I think a lot about turning point and all the good they have done but also where I think they went wrong.
it was all about Charlie kirk and now they are in chaos at times because different people are seeking to take over
it seems they created a top down approach where a small group has all the say
This caused me to think about the founders and what they talked about all those years ago. I believe there is tremendous wisdom in what they created and it has more value in building things separate of United States..
Let me see, what do I think? (no one asks) I think something's off (with the whole assassination) and all that followed. There I said it. Thoughts becoming words. Speaking about what I know very little about, yet, how is it I ask? Candace Owens, and Tucker Carlson, (both) (not exactly stupid people) both seemingly (God fearing) or at the very least (acknowledging God) (but now) (suddenly) they are bat ( ) crazy? I'm not buying that story either. There's more going on then meets the eye, like there was in days of old when the clouds were, filled with angels and chariots of fire, UNSEEN yet there nevertheless. So for those of you who have this gut feeling, somethings a foul with this whole Charlie Kirk assassination (but you can't put your finger on it) like me. Keep the popcorn coming and let's watch this movie to the end (where) we will find out who's playing what part, who was a white hat,and who wasn't.
Fool me once I’m not going to get fooled again
seems more like they don't like any completion to influence children at school. One of the best verses in the Bible is when Jesus says Let the Children come to Him... there is more but essentially the easiest way to see modern evil is just by how people treat the children. I believe it has always been this easy, but people want to define things and complicate them so much...
basically if you abort children you are against Jesus and this woman is wanting to prevent children and does not want competition to influence.
this is why I will and never voted Democratic Party my whole. The very foundational principle of how important Children are and if you say they are not important and abortion is good.. well that is the only sign one should really need. We have very little Wisdom in the USA still and LOTS of very educated people. Those are very different things. haha
NOIZ