Charlie Kirk PsyOp
For my readers, I will assume that no one is falling for the mainstream narrative of the one-shot shooter with the transgender partner. So I’ll jump right into the leading competing conspiracy theories:
Bibi killed Kirk because he was going off-script.
No one killed Kirk because it was all staged.
I’ll be looking at what really happened and what the agenda is. And I’ll conclude—spoiler alert—that both are true ;-)
israel did it
Propaganda & Co, always worth watching, has the best summary of the evidence presented with video clips and graphics.
The presenter cites Max Blumenthal and Anya Parampil’s article with the Greyzone that Charlie Kirk refused Netanyahu funding offer, was ‘frightened’ by pro-Israel forces before death. Max and Anya state:
Charlie Kirk rejected an offer earlier this year from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to arrange a massive new infusion of Zionist money into his Turning Point USA (TPUSA) organization, America’s largest conservative youth association, according to a longtime friend of the slain commentator speaking on the condition of anonymity. The source told The Grayzone that the late pro-Trump influencer believed Netanyahu was trying to cow him into silence as he began to publicly question Israel’s overwhelming influence in Washington and demanded more space to criticize it.
In the weeks leading up to his September 10 assassination, Kirk had come to loathe the Israeli leader, regarding him as a “bully,” the source said. Kirk was disgusted by what he witnessed inside the Trump administration, where Netanyahu sought to personally dictate the president’s personnel decisions, and weaponized Israeli assets like billionaire donor Miriam Adelson to keep the White House firmly under its thumb.
According to Kirk’s friend, who also enjoyed access to President Donald Trump and his inner circle, Kirk strongly warned Trump last June against bombing Iran on Israel’s behalf. “Charlie was the only person who did that,” they said, recalling how Trump “barked at him” in response and angrily shut down the conversation. The source believes the incident confirmed in Kirk’s mind that the president of the United States had fallen under the control of a malign foreign power, and was leading his own country into a series of disastrous conflicts.
By the following month, Kirk had become the target of a sustained private campaign of intimidation and free-floating fury by wealthy and powerful allies of Netanyahu – figures he described in an interview as Jewish “leaders” and “stakeholders.”
This has been a major shift from parroting Israeli propaganda about Hamas beheading babies. But from recent polls, only 24% of young Republicans sympathize with Israel, as opposed to 52% of Republicans over 35. If Charlie continued to speak for Israel, the other 76% may defect to another party or start their own. Was it a change of heart or strategic?
the case against israel
The most comprehensive evidence pointing to Netanyahu has been compiled by Laurent Guyenot:
Laurent observes the shift while considering that Charlie was walking a fine line:
I believe that Kirk was turning, but I wouldn’t be able to say to what extent his turning was motivated by his love for truth and morality, or by his concern for keeping the trust of his base of followers, and saving his political future. I suppose he was feeling opposite pressures from two sides: from his pro-Israel backers on the top, demanding that he keeps his unconditional support of Israel, and from his grass-root followers on the bottom, who find Israel’s actions and Israel’s influence on U.S. policies more and more unbearable (Kirk’s followers also listen to Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens or Nick Fuentes).
Whatever his motivations were, and no matter how far he was planning to go in his critiques of Israel, the fact is that he had gone quite far already. Candace Owens, who holds him in great esteem as a friend, said he was going through a “spiritual transformation”, and believed he would have ultimately changed his mind entirely on Israel. That’s a reasonable possibility. Tucker Carlson, also his friend, encouraged him in this way, and there are unmistakable signs that Kirk was listening to him and moving in the same direction. Would Kirk have gone all the way? No one can say, but there is a major difference between Owens and Carlson on the one hand, and Kirk on the other: Owens and Carlson both left comfortable situations to build their own platforms, whereas Kirk is not his own man: some influential people have invested a lot in him and will not let their investment go to waste. If for some reason they thought Kirk would be more useful dead than alive, then dead he would be.
In any case, Charlie Kirk was slowing turning, and he had been turning faster in the last few months. He had been the most pro-Israel MAGA influencer, together with Ben Shapiro, drawing millions of young people behind him. But his followers and others had been noticing that he was starting to ask embarrassing questions for Israel, about October 7th, about the “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza (he used the term, and “not lightly”), about the Epstein files, and about Israeli censorship in the media.
And he could see that his public applauded him for it. In July, he invited Tucker Carlson as a guest speaker to his Turning Point USA (TPUSA) event; Carlson spoke about Epstein as a Mossad agent, and encouraged the public (as he had Kirk privately, without doubt) to ask questions without fear of being called antisemites: “you’re allowed to do that, because you’re not a slave.” The clip went viral. Kirk actually heeded his advice and voiced the same questions himself on stage. Other guests like Megyn Kelly or comedian Dave Smith spoke very harshly of Israel under his watch. Obviously, Trump’s decision to close and dismiss the Epstein affair created strong resentment among the MAGA youth, and Kirk could not ignore it.
Weeks later, August 13, Kirk was reported by Harrison Smith of InfoWars to have said to a friend that “Israel will kill him if he turns against them” (watch Smith’s second follow up on his tweet). You don’t say such a thing unless you have received some warning or implicit threat. Then Kirk received a phone call from Netanyahu (confirmed by Netanyahu) inviting him to Israel, and Kirk is believed to have declined. Worse, he continued to raise questions. In his last interview aired the day before his death, as if heeding Carlson’s encouragement, he challenged Ben Shapiro, the arch-Zionist Jewish editor of the Daily Wire, telling him “You Jews own the media, Ben,” insisting that we have a right to question the mainstream narrative on Israel, and stating that he doesn’t like Bibi Netanyahu’s statement: “You can’t be MAGA if you’re anti-Israel”.
co-opting the opposition
Are any of the ‘opposition’ Big Names sincere or is this all worldwide wrestling kayfabe? In another article that I’ll link at the end, I looked at Nick Fuentes’ analysis of Tucker Carlson in which he also does a critique of Candace Owens. From that article:
Who is really Deep State? Nick points out that Tucker’s father is CIA, which Tucker has said he didn’t know until after his dad died. However, Nick cites Tucker talking about his dad being CIA a year before his death, and how he grew up down the street from the officer in charge of taking out Mosaddegh.
His dad was in charge of the Voice of America propaganda and instrumental to the Iran-Contra scheme. Tucker joined the Contras when he was young, posing with Contra soldiers. He also posed with elected candidates who had been gotten into office through Color Revolutions. He applied to the CIA but was turned down. His dad responded, “Go into journalism, young man,” so he did. There’s no way in the world he didn’t know his dad was CIA.
Once you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that someone has lied about one thing, you can never again say, ‘They wouldn’t do that.’ You can only look at the evidence they’re lying now or if this time they’re telling the truth to co-opt the opposition.
In Doc Malik’s recent interview of Shannon Joy, she says that Tucker may tell the truth about 99 things but he’ll omit what needs to be said on the 100th. I wonder if Shannon has now realized that about Robert Malone. In a section of Malone & the Cull-de-Sac, that I called Joy & the Art of Manipulation, I critique her interview of him called Malone Speaks Out about Deep State Accusations & Sets the Record Straight.
In the same article, I talk about the circles of psyops:
By the time that Robert Malone spoke out, the world was on its first booster shot. The damage from the CovidCon, lockdowns, economic freeze, psychological pressure, and mandates was done. Everyone who could be coerced was already injected. Kennedy had been warning against vaccines for decades but Malone told the people listening what they already knew. He became an authority spokesperson by preaching to the choir.
The second circle of PsyOps controls the opposition so a movement doesn’t emerge from the credibility of having been right. Those who saw through the Last Big Thing are most likely to see through the Next Big Thing. If that can be harnessed as a reaction, they can be used to bring about the Next Big Thing, rather than harbingers against it.
And there’s certainly a Third Circle of PsyOps to redirect those challenging the Second Circle into fruitless endeavors. That’s why the question, “What difference does it make?” should always be asked. To know someone is lying, not just mistaken or misled, is a gift. It allows you to deduce the agenda from someone who’s in on it.
Like the CovidCon, opposition to Israel has multiple circles of psyops so that someone seeing through one will be captured by the next. Tucker and Candace may be in the second circle and Nick Fuentes may be in the third.
When Shannon Joy confirms what we already know about Israel but says there’s big money funding Palestinian marches, which circle is she in? My intro to my last video talks about accidentally joining a Palestinian march on my way to get a chocolate martini. It was a ragtag collection of 20 who had been reading the names since dawn of the 18,000 children killed in Gaza. From the interpretive dance to the homemade banners, there was definitely no money behind them.
x-ray goggles
I was about to leave it there, and do a video called Bibi Kills Kirk, when Tonika posted to our Apocaloptimist Club of women stackers, “What do y’all think about the CK assassination?” She pointed me to Celia Farber’s article:
There were the “Israel did it-ers,” and their coded reaction counterparts, outraged, and hysterical. There were the anti-Zionist, formerly Kirk hating alt.right types, punching down on the “no proof” Israel did it-ers, which gave them a sudden… upgraded sheen.
There was the entire world, including, apparently Sir Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, and (according to AI) Barbara Streisand and other music icons, wanting to donate to Kirk’s kids, become their Godparents, and other forms of competitive worship, as thousands around the world, even Korea, held vigils, and all became “Charlie.”
Celia shows that Harrison Smith of InfoWars, the one who’d revealed a month ago that Charlie had told ‘a friend’ he was afraid of Israel, was now reposting Coldplay’s Chris Martin telling Wembley, “It’s not about left vs. right. It’s about insanity vs. humanity.” Alex Jones is reporting that the shooter had a transgender partner and “one of the last things that Charlie Kirk said was that there were too many trans shooters.” Alex is now carrying a line of ‘Holy War’ apparel.
But in the madness, Celia can’t take off her goggles from Ole:
Last night a friend and I listened together to Dammegård’s Trump assassination interview (one of them) with Sam Tripoli. Tripoli mentioned audio clips, rounds of gunshots…Dammegård interjected: “Who gave you the audio?”
Right.
Who gave you, American citizen, the Zapruder film? Who told you he was a 33rd degree Mason? Who told you there was a cut in the film? How do we get to the '“reality” that exists prior to the introduction of such audio-visual time-line starters as the Zapruder film? Who was he? Why was his film the only footage that day? Why none of the TV networks present? (All three were present.)
velvet paw detective
I had been prepped for questioning the event itself because intrepid detective kitten seeking answers had been slipping into my garden and leaving gifts of dead mice, representing elements of the narrative:
In the last, kitten links Gemma O’Doherty who brings the receipts:
Gemma’s stack includes the Mr. E analysis of the video footage. It shows the tee-shirt with a life of its own, the disappearing F on FREEDOM, the moving ring, the signaling, Charlie’s disappearing mouth, and the gunshot wound that doesn’t move with the body. But couldn’t this footage be fake, to cover up the assassination by Israel?
the script
Was the assassination real and the footage faked? On the same day as the announced death, the prescient Miri AF wrote:
Miri notes that it’s not just Charlie’s death that’s unbelievable but the trajectory of his life, which she parallels to the Michael J. Fox character in Family Ties. Charlie is a conservative protege who appears on Fox Business at 17, then launches the most successful campus organization of Young Republicans, 3500 chapters, while he himself drops out of college.
Miri predicted an event like this back in July:
To have the desired effect, the assassination has to be of someone with at least a modicum of celebrity - someone who's seen as important; someone who people feel they know.
Imagine what would happen, then, if a beloved right-wing celebrity, someone who was well known for voicing immigration concerns, was killed by an immigrant.
Her same-day article anticipates both sides of the conspiracy:
Is it a real assassination?
I find this highly unlikely, for the same reasons I have outlined many times regarding various other high-profile "shootings" and "terror attacks", i.e., real events by their very nature are outside of the control of the ruling classes. They cannot wield complete control over a narrative they are not scripting, including and especially how the bereaved loved ones of the victims will react.
They need the loved ones to not only agree to speak to the media (many genuine victims of bereavement would refuse), but to do so in "the right way" and say all "the right things" to order that the desired agendas of the assassination are properly promoted (in this instance, one key agenda item could well be increased support for the death penalty - not just in the USA, but here too).
The ruling classes can't count on this with real assassinations, so it's far more likely that they stage them, including and especially when the assassination is of someone who quite clearly appears to be an intelligence asset, given his wildly improbable rise to significance and infamy from such a young age... and the fact that he appears to be a carbon copy of the beloved TV character, seared into the American public consciousness - and introduced to a new generation recently by Netflix - Alex P. Keaton.
We will doubtless see a spate of evidence over the next few weeks regarding all the anomalies and holes in the Charlie Kirk official story - such as this video showing the "shooting" could well have been fabricated - as this always happens with the staged-looking events (as per the supposed "assassination attempts" on Trump, which Trump has tellingly compared the Kirk "assassination" to).
It's also highly likely the event will officially be blamed on a totally improbable patsy - some "lone wolf" nutter, possibly an immigrant, possibly a transgender, with a chip on their shoulder about Kirk's politics - whilst a competing "official conspiracy theory" narrative will simultaneously develop, blaming the event on (it would seem) Israel. Hey, come on, it was on the eve of September 11th and everything, nudge nudge wink wink, and you know what those crazy conspiracists say about the true perpetrators of 9/11...
This will give Trump the perfect opportunity to clamp down on the "virulent antisemitism" he says infests US campuses, by affecting outrage that these pro-Palestinian influencers are pushing such a vile conspiracy theory about Charlie Kirk's death, when Israel are such good friends of Kirk's and had only recently invited him for a visit! That the rabid left were so quick to blame Israel for this brutal slaying shows how far out of hand antisemitism has become, and that we need even more draconian laws to crack down on it, he will likely say.
Whenever we have a psyop shooting, we always have "the official story" and "the official conspiracy theory", with neither of these narratives representing the actual truth. People who instinctively question the mainstream narrative are funnelled into the "official conspiracy theory", the two camps argue furiously with each other, and the real truth remains obscured, far outside of the Overton window, its proponents dismissed as vile ghouls and crazies.
crisis bad actors
How did the bereaved loved one react? See for yourself:
Dabbing at non-existent tears, Erika rallies support for Turning Point because that’s what Charlie, who she addresses as ‘Baby’, would want. At some point she talks about their three-yr-old (who is not baby) ‘running into our arms’ which she swiftly corrects to ‘my arms’ and asking ‘Where’s Daddy?’ Oh ‘he’s on assignment with God so he can afford your blueberry budget.’
There’s no shock, no sense of unreality, none of the stages of grief real victims of sudden violence go through. Just like the ‘parents of victims’ at Mystic River, she’s already moved on. Erika’s affect, or lack thereof, and beauty pageant background reek of mind-control Monarch, perhaps assigned to CK as his minder.
Whether the assassination was real and Erika’s role as loving wife was fake, or both Charlie and Erika played roles in a fake assassination, the real Charlie was killed and replaced by an acting role as a teenager. He’s been a lifetime actor on the political stage, and the casting director—in DC or Hollywood—has always been Israel.
fissure issues
In the Apocaloptimist chat, Margaret Anna Alice wrote, “This has already become the next fissuring event for the awake community (add to the virus debate, Ukraine, Israel, Gazan genocide, etc.)” I loved that phrase and picture a fissure issue as fracturing the ground under people on the same side, so that they’re yelling across to one another.
However I would distinguish between issues that unite people who think they’re on different sides—or show those ‘on your side’ are really not—and ones that get us fighting over issues that don’t matter or are even destructive to ‘our side.’
There are only two sides: sovereignty and empire. Palestine is the litmus test of being on the side of sovereignty, rather than ‘charitable’ from a position of superiority. The Left/ Right Divide is a fissure that means nothing. Palestine means stepping over that fissure to find those who are really on your side, the only side there is—all people having power over themselves, starting with the most dispossessed people on earth
With the help of PsyOps Detective Petra Livornia and kitten seeking answers, I expose the screaming clues that Mystic was a fake event, analyzing some hokey performances by crisis actors and stories full of holes. With the benefit of hindsight, I look at comparisons to the decade-old school shooting that tugged at our heartstrings and stretched our credibility. And two conspiracy opportunists who seem to show up everywhere.
I respond to two videos: Exposing Tucker Carlson by Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson's interview of economist Richard Werner, author of Princes of the Yen. Nick makes a bulletproof case of JD Vance and Tucker being agents of exactly what they claim to be against. Werner is an outspoken critic of bank credit creation, providing details no one else talks about. Is this enough to override his WEF status as a Global Leader for Tomorrow?
The Project Veritas 'gotcha' combined scientific nonsense with journalistic playacting and anti-woke dog whistles, while casting Robert Malone as the spokesperson for the dissent. While Zelensky foments anti-Russia fervor, is Malone out to turn us anti-China, as Matt Ehret claims? Or to promote biological weapons of defense, as Gigaohm Biologic states? Or to ridicule the woke, in which he's joined by Tucker Carlson, Bret Weinstein and Steve Kirsch? Or to deflect any criticism of they-who-must-not-be-mentioned as a slippery slope into Nazi Germany?
Whose treat was Trump? I look at what Trump voters want him to deliver, from $100M for J6ers to ending the Fed. Then I look at what his donors expect: unwavering support for Israel. Republican voters are the anti-war party, which should cause Democrats to question their priorities. If the Trump dream team is another bait-and-switch, I see disillusionment as a good thing and hope we can join in finding out what we want, not who.
Alison McDowell's Camelot Corner analyzes Charles Eisenstein's talk at Bretton Woods and his deep connections in cryptocurrencies. She looks at RFK's talk at a Bitcoin conference and the false story of how the two met. I give my own experiences and observations that led me to conclude both are complicit in what they say that they're against.
I don't know what to think about this. I've seen arguments for the various theories you mentioned, and "it was all faked" is a tough one to swallow, but I'm not dismissing it entirely, either. Same thing with the Scamdemic: no virus vs gain of function vs rebranded flu, etc. etc. Maybe the only thing we can say for sure is that there's some kind of psyop going on that's trying to divide, confuse, and distract us.
Another staged shooting hoax to entertain the stupid sheep. Bernays would be proud.