It’s been several days now since the killing of Charlie Kirk in Utah.
After my initial post here on Thursday morning, I decided to step back, watch and take notes for a few days as the aftermath unfolded. To get a better sense of things.
If anything, the reality of it is even less clear now than it was on Thursday. But a lot has happened.
I’m going to make the case here for Charlie Kirk’s murder being a ritual sacrifice and blood ritual: and for a prefabricated psychological operation and mass manipulation to follow.
It’s become more obvious that this wasn’t a random act of ideological violence.
We’ll start with some of the psychological operation and staged theater first: and then address the ritual sacrifice element.
We’ll also discuss the shooter: but really I think the shooter is the least interesting part of this, as there’s always going to be some alleged shooter put forward who may or may not be the real guy.
What’s more interesting is the scripted theater playing out.
Let’s start with this.
Have you seen Erika Kirk’s public statement on her husband’s murder? This was really the final item that confirmed for me that this whole thing has been planned and managed.
Seriously, watch her video. It’s one of the worst acting performances you’ll ever see. Complete with crocodile tears, exaggerated gestures and a script that often feels like it’s from a bad movie, it’s really hard to believe you’re watching a genuinely grieving widow.
To be clear: I’m not saying her husband wasn’t killed. He definitely was. What I’m saying is that her performance is really odd: and plays less like a tribute to her husband and more like a scripted act of political theater.
Her threats to the enemy (whoever they decide the enemy is) are the most movie-like part – these are lines from a bad film. Delivered by the kind of bad actress you’d expect to appear in such a film.
Honestly, Amber Heard could’ve done a better job than this. Rather than poignant, this whole thing comes across as creepy and sociopathic. And insincere.
You can watch the entire video here.
The point is that it’s starting to look like everyone around Charlie Kirk might’ve been in on it – or at least has behaved suspiciously enough to warrant questions.
Charlie Kirk himself might’ve been the only person who didn’t know what was going on.
Have you seen the footage of two of Kirk’s own private security men appearing to signal the shooter right before the shot is fired?
You can’t pretend those movements aren’t conspicuous – and this was literally right before the single shot was fired.
We noted in the initial post that the shot was fired at precisely the moment Kirk was answering a question about gun violence and right after commenting about trans shooters specifically.
The reason for that conspicuous timing might be because Kirk’s own security signalled the shooter at that precise moment.
I mentioned in the initial post that it was strange that the initial confirmation of Kirk’s death came not from the authorities, the police or the media – but from Donald Trump‘s personal social media.
Others have pointed out that Benjamin Netanyahu‘s social media tribute to Kirk was suspiciously quick too: within seconds of Trump announcing his death.
Reaction to Kirk’s murder from various high-profile Israeli figures was very fast.
Trump’s White House address that night (which I shared in the Wednesday post) had the same performative quality as Erika Kirk’s later video: it played like scripted theater.
It might be weirder than that. Because it has been suggested that that speech from the President might’ve been AI.
They point to the President’s little finger disappearing and reappearing on the video. They also point to Trump’s uncharacteristic lack of movement or hand gestures.
I’m not totally sure about the AI thing. The anomaly of the disappearing finger could maybe be due to a glitch in the transmission or the video rendering? I don’t know.
A friend of this site also pointed out that Trump ‘was making the Masonic M in an unmistakable wrist contortion‘. Trump often can be seen making conspicuous hand signals though: so it’s hard to tell when it is or isn’t especially purposeful.
At any rate, Trump’s performative outrage over Charlie Kirk’s murder had already collapsed within just a couple of days: when asked by a reporter about the tragedy, he basically shrugged it off and said ‘hey, look at this ballroom we’re building in the White House…’
This is possibly because Trump is a bad actor: and also tends to reveal himself too easily.
Yet the carefully managed theater continues. The funeral is going to be a public event attended by thousands. Aside from Trump’s questionable calls for flags to be lowered all across the country, Republican Senator Nancy Mace has extraordinarily suggested that Charlie Kirk’s body should lie in state at the Capitol rotunda.
That is a highly unusual honour to be afforded to someone who was essentially a podcaster and online influencer.
To put it into some context, Robert F. Kennedy wasn’t even given that honour after his assassination in 1968.
Clearly, they really want to create the maximum impact and sense of shared collective ‘turning point’ with this aftermath of Kirk’s shooting. It has to be milked for everything it can offer.
Alright, so let’s talk about the shooter a little bit: who we’ve learned is twenty-two year old Tyler Robinson.
They’ve said he was turned in by his own father after confessing to him. But we’re also being told he is ‘not cooperating’ with the police.
He specifically hasn’t admitted to the crime. So did he confess to his father, but then refuse to confess to the authorities?
It turns out he wasn’t quite the rabid ‘leftist’ the right-wingers wanted him to be: he’s from a Republican MAGA family. At the same time, he might just be leftist enough for the game to be maintained: he apparently was in a relationship with a trans person.
Well, again, that’s convenient, narrative wise.
At this point, this Tyler Robinson person could be anything to anyone – thus allowing the rabid denizens of social media to continue to run wild with theories.
Some have made the point that he might’ve been a follower of far-right personality Nick Fuentes. In which case this is right-on-right crime.
But whether he’s a leftist or right-wing really doesn’t matter anyway: not if he was a patsy in a broader plot.
They said he disassembled his weapon after the shooting, jumped down from the roof and fled. But the authorities claim that when they found his weapon in the woods it was still assembled.
So did he disassemble the weapon and then reassemble it before dumping it? Why?
They also said they found bullet casings with various symbols and messages carved into them. But he only fired one shot – and apparently only needed that one shot. So why did he have all this additional ammunition conveniently marked with messaging? Was it just for the sake of it being found and discussed?
I mean, maybe. These shooters by definition are mentally ill people, so their actions don’t have to make sense. And some of these elements could just be the desire for notoriety.
But if the desire is for notoriety, why has he not confessed to the shooting yet?
They’re now saying he ‘confessed’ on Discord. I mean, okay, I suppose that’s a kind of confession? Will that hold up legally?
More importantly, if Charlie Kirk’s own security men were in fact signalling the shooter, then what the fuck was actually going on?
Who were Kirk’s security people collaborating with – and was Tyler Robinson working for the same people?
But let’s come to the heart of it: why do I say Charlie Kirk was a ritual sacrifice?
Firstly, I suggest he was a chosen sacrifice to facilitate the various programming agendas that have already been obvious.
The ritual aspect of it was in the very public nature of the killing: which seemed designed to create maximum horror, trauma and emotion. Aside from the few thousand people who were eyewitnesses, countless people online watched the most graphic video of Kirk’s death, where you see the blood gushing out of his neck.
I saw that too, though not by choice. Some idiot included it in a YouTube video without providing any warning. So, yes, I saw it – and yes, it kind of traumatized me a little.
The point is that this was a deeply upsetting visual that was all around the world within minutes. It’s effect, other than to traumatise, is also to inflame and radicalise. To create anger, hatred and sow discord.
The ritual part of it? Well, if it’s true that his own security was in on it (and again, that video footage is hard to dispute), then he was essentially led out to his public execution by his own people.
And it basically happened on 9/11. Remember what 9/11 used to be called, by the way? The “turning point” for America?
Well, now here they are at a new ‘turning point’. And Kirk’s organisation is Turning Point USA.
This had the look and aura of a blood ritual: a blood sacrifice. Carried out in full public view for maximum collective trauma effect and high ritual power.
It happened during the ‘Blood Moon‘ too, by the way.
The ritual element of these types of events, including even the hoaxes (like Trump’s fake July 13th event), shouldn’t be overlooked. The staged assassination attempt on Trump was itself a religious ritual involving blood (see here).
The difference with Charlie Kirk is that he was a real sacrifice and was brutally murdered.
Five days after the event, this is where my mind is now. Charlie Kirk was sacrificed – and at least some of the people around him were in on it.
The rest of it is all the logical stuff.
My initial observations from Thursday morning are still valid. I said at the time that it was a professional hit; that the murder would serve to unify the right and the MAGA movement at a time when it had become fractured over both Israel and Epstein; that it would be used to further the White House’s pre-existing authoritarian agenda; and that it was a distraction from the Epstein problem.
On the Epstein point, has any media been talking about the Epstein birthday book or the Epstein survivors’ threats to go public since the Charlie Kirk shooting?
The answer is no. And bear in mind that the very day the Charlie Kirk shooting happened was also the day that Republican Members of Congress voted to block release of the Epstein files.
I still can’t imagine that’s coincidental. The distraction value was enormous.
But these nexus events serve multiple purposes: that’s why they’re effective.
I said last week that the shooting was custom-made to be a unifying event for the MAGA movement and the far right at precisely the time when the movement had become fractured over Israel and over Epstein.
It’s also an opportunity to crack down hard on their perceived opposition on the left: which is what Trump’s initial speech, Erika Kirk’s video, and countless right-wing commentators have been geared towards in the aftermath.
Which, in turn, is simply a vehicle for the already expanding authoritarian apparatus.
I won’t even bother implicating Israel: half the Internet has already done that.
Charlie Kirk’s martyrdom is a vehicle for manufactured discord and the clichéd Civil War programming. Everyone from Elon Musk and Andrew Tate to Steve Bannon have called for civil war in response: with all the right-wing agitators and grifters down the ranks calling for revenge.
This was aided significantly by the various leftists on TikTok or X/Twitter posting psychotic celebration videos after Kirk’s murder. Some of those videos were so psychotic that I initially wondered if a lot of them were staged simply to serve as rage-bait for the other side.
But actually I think it’s just proof that lots of people on the left are as sick and lacking in human empathy these days as people on the far right have traditionally been. Both sides are increasingly as bad as each other.
That’s what the social media disease has done to everyone: turned them into bloodthirsty little demon folk with no real decency.
Meanwhile, even the ‘Tommy Robinson’ event in London was strangely clothed in religious elements and fake Christian Nationalism – which has never featured in these Tommy Robinson propaganda events before.
Two days after the blood-ritual murder of a famous Christian Nationalist in Utah, Israel’s favourite ‘British Patriot’ just happens to suddenly incorporate Jesus and all the religious rituals and symbolism into his event for the first time?
Coincidence? Of course not. And trust me, ‘Tommy Robinson’ doesn’t care about Christianity any more than Donald Trump does.
There are no positives here, by the way: there’s no silver lining or ray of sunshine to look for. No note of optimism for me to finish on. This is all sick, twisted, evil theater and psychological manipulation on an epic scale. And it is effective.
My best counsel would be for normal people to avoid getting sucked into it. But it’s probably too late to be saying that.
Did you hear about this btw?
This is the central event in the Brian De Palma film ‘Snake Eyes’ (1998) with Nicolas Cage. The summary is directly from ChatGPT:
During the boxing match, Secretary of Defense Charles Kirkland sits at ringside with Kevin Dunne while Rick Santoro roams the crowd. As the fight unfolds, boxer Lincoln Tyler suddenly takes a dive, and in the same moment a shot rings out from the stands. The bullet strikes Kirkland in the neck, killing him instantly and sending the arena into chaos. Suspicion falls on Tyler, who seems tied to the fix, but Santoro gradually uncovers that Tyler’s dive was only a distraction. The assassination was part of a conspiracy, with Kevin Dunne revealed as the true mastermind behind the killing.
Then we have the real life event:
Charlie Kirk (as opposed to Charles Kirkland) also shot in the neck and the accused is Tyler Robinson.
Is this really all just a coincidence?
That’s amazing. I’ve never heard of that film. But that’s pretty nuts. Thanks for sharing that here.
That’s a great piece. I totally agree on all parts including your frank and distressing conclusion. Social media is toxic as hell and it is destroying any lasting social cohesion. One question: what do you make of Max Blumenthal’s part in this story? I find it curious that he has possibly helped to nurture the seeds of CK’s martyrdom. Perhaps I asked this in my last comment, but do you think he’s being played by these unnamed sources he never ordinarily mentions, or is he just another shill? I’m open to believe anything these days if there’s substantiating evidence. Another thing that crossed my mind as I read down and then came to that photo from the Yaxley-Lennon protest (a horror show of far night nationalism featuring all the usual suspects). “We are all Charlie” That struck an odd bell I wasn’t expecting. Say it again but now in French…
oh shit! ‘Je Suis Charlie’? That would never have occurred to me. Very well spotted, James.
I remember the meme.
What did you make of the London event in general? I think ‘Tommy’ is being groomed for politics.
The Max Blumenthal angle, I don’t know. I’ve seen it suggested that his ‘source’ is Candace Owens, but I don’t know. His recent style has been a little off, hasn’t it?
Thanks for reading and commenting, James.
I don’t know about ‘Tommy’ – once again, the symbolism carried by that name: fighting for king and country (and Israel a bit!) I think you might have mentioned it, but there’s clearly an attempt to generate a kind of Christian nationalism inside the UK. Not sure it’ll work actually because I don’t think this country is fertile ground.
Again, not sure ‘Tommy’ is cut out for real politics. He’s basically a rabble-rouser. He’s got his diehard supporters – white supremacist racists and fascists largely – but there’s unlikely to be wider appeal in my view. Farage is clearly where the real power lies and curiously he has publicly divorced himself from Mr Yaxley-Lennon. Is that simply political expedience or does Farage find him obnoxious too – I’ll leave that one hanging.
I like Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate even more so. I’ve always had more issues with Max though. He was overly radical about covid (in my opinion – as many were) making claims that don’t hold up. He also used to heap praise on Elon Musk. Again, a lot of people you wouldn’t expect to have jumped aboard his phoney “free speech” bandwagon. I think the sources might actually be close friends of Charlie Kirk and so perhaps Candace Owens is one of them. This is not my speciality as you can imagine.
Thanks for the reply. Always a pleasure to engage with you whether just reading the articles or commenting below. As the old BT ad used to put it: it’s good to talk.
I’ve never seen what your thoughts are on Farage. But thanks for contributing here. ‘Tommy’ might not be cut out for politics, but he’s a major political force and influence these days. He seems to have power.
IMHO, Farage is basically the UK equivalent to Trump in almost all respects. Like Trump with his American base, he uniquely pushes the buttons of the British lower class. With Trump, he’s all about being a self-made man, straight-talking, deal-making and Americans just love all this. Farage is a sort of likeable toff who you could “have a pint with” – reminiscent of BoJo in many ways but also, as Charlie Brooker once noted, a bit of a Mr Toad of Toad Hall. In Britain we can’t get past class unfortunately.