Who Gains from the Charlie Kirk Assassination?

Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6yyacu-who-gains-from-the-charlie-kirk-assassination.html

Monologue – Who Gains from the Charlie Kirk Assassination?

All the world is a stage. Watch this video. We are being played, people. This video is from a news organization called Daily Wire. The video received 3.1 million likes and the comments are continuing to divide us. What we witnessed worldwide, an assassination, has done its job splendidly. My show is all about the cause before the symptom. The cause is control and the symptom is division. 

Every age is defined by its martyrs. Not the kind who burn at the stake for their faith, but the kind who fall in plain daylight when the empire decides it needs another sacrifice. Charlie Kirk did not die in a warzone, or on some distant battlefield—he died in America, with a microphone in his hand, in the middle of a conversation about violence. A single bullet cut through his words, silencing him while the cameras rolled, while students listened, while the world watched. That irony is no accident. It is theater. It is ritual. And the question we must ask is simple: who gains?

The media will frame it as random madness. Politicians will frame it as an opportunity to “finally have a serious conversation about guns.” Commentators on the left will whisper that his rhetoric brought this on himself. And many on the right will struggle to understand why God allowed one of their champions to fall. But behind every headline, every op-ed, every soundbite, the pattern remains the same: chaos always has beneficiaries. When blood is spilled in the public square, someone profits.

Charlie Kirk was not just a commentator. He was a builder. He was a recruiter of youth, a fundraiser, a voice that filled auditoriums and college campuses with energy that frightened his enemies. By silencing him, the conservative movement loses a key strategist and communicator. By removing him, his opponents gain leverage, time, and momentum. But if we stop the analysis there, we miss the deeper play. Because assassinations are never just about individuals. They are about symbols. They are about what happens in the hearts and minds of millions who witness the spectacle.

So we must press further. Who gains when fear rises? Who gains when speech itself is treated as dangerous, when debates are silenced by bullets, when every tragedy is used to justify new laws and new restrictions? Who gains when citizens turn against each other, when conservatives scream “persecution,” when progressives cry “see, we told you so,” when the middle retreats into despair?

There are powers in this world—political powers, financial powers, spiritual powers—that harvest division the way a farmer harvests grain. They need spectacle. They need sacrifice. They need the ritual irony of a man killed while speaking about guns, so they can turn his death into fuel for their machinery. They gain, while the people lose. They gain, while the truth is buried under headlines and hashtags.

And yet, there is one thing these powers cannot control: how we respond. We can let the theater swallow us, or we can see through it. We can be pawns in the ritual, or we can anchor ourselves in a kingdom not built on fear, but on truth. The assassination of Charlie Kirk was not just a crime. It was a signal. And tonight, we will follow that signal—not to the headlines, but to the deeper reality. The question is not whether Charlie Kirk is gone. The question is: who gains from his blood, and how do we refuse to give them what they want?

Part 1 – The Immediate Loss

Before we can trace who gains, we have to sit with what was lost. Charlie Kirk wasn’t just a loud voice on social media. He wasn’t just another speaker on the conservative circuit. He was the architect of an entire movement. Turning Point USA, his creation, didn’t just hand out pamphlets or host rallies—it built pipelines, trained young leaders, raised enormous sums of money, and connected the next generation of conservatives to a wider ecosystem of media and politics. He became, for millions of students, the first taste of organized resistance to progressive dominance in academia.

His assassination leaves a hole that cannot be easily filled. Leaders like him are not interchangeable. His particular combination of charisma, boldness, and ability to mobilize both money and manpower made him a singular figure. Within hours of his death, his organization faces the challenge of succession. Who speaks to the students? Who keeps donors engaged? Who carries the torch? Every delay, every hesitation, every fracture in the chain of command weakens the movement he built.

The immediate loss isn’t just about the man—it’s about the machinery. Without its chief strategist, Turning Point risks losing its direction. Without his voice, countless young conservatives who once felt emboldened now feel vulnerable. Without his presence, the political balance shifts, however slightly, toward his opponents.

This is the first dividend paid by his death: the sudden vacuum in leadership. Assassinations are always precise in this way. Remove the head, and the body stumbles. For those who opposed Charlie Kirk, the benefit is not abstract—it is immediate. His silence is their opening.

Part 2 – The Political Left’s Tactical Win

Every political assassination has two stages: the act itself, and the story told afterward. For the political left, Charlie Kirk’s death is both a subtraction and an addition. On the one hand, they no longer face him in debate halls, on television screens, or on the college circuit. One of their most aggressive critics is gone. That is subtraction. But then comes the addition: the power to reframe the narrative.

In the days that follow, we will not hear Charlie Kirk remembered as a builder of movements or a defender of free speech. Instead, many will whisper that his rhetoric was reckless, that his words invited conflict, that his tone created the very climate in which he was killed. The left doesn’t need to prove this. They only need to say it enough times for it to stick. That is their tactical win: to transform him from a victim into a warning.

This reframing allows them to cast his assassination not as the silencing of dissent, but as a consequence of dissent. His blood becomes a talking point. His name becomes shorthand for “what happens when you go too far.” And in that way, his death doesn’t only silence him—it quiets others who might follow his example.

The left gains tactically because the man who once filled lecture halls with conservative fire is no longer there to challenge them. But they also gain in the shadows, because the fear that followed his assassination ripples through his supporters. Students who once eagerly invited Kirk to campus may hesitate to host the next speaker. Organizers may lower their profile. Momentum slows. And in politics, slowing your opponent is almost as valuable as advancing yourself.

Charlie Kirk’s death, then, is not just the loss of a leader—it is the reallocation of energy. The political left absorbs that energy, reframes the story, and moves the pieces of public opinion one square closer to their side.

Part 3 – Media Narrative Engineering

If politics is war, then the media is the artillery. And after the smoke clears from any assassination, it is the media barrage that determines what people remember. The press will not describe Charlie Kirk’s death as a political assassination meant to silence dissent. They will describe it as a symptom of a sick culture—one, of course, that Kirk himself supposedly helped create. This is the sleight of hand that the establishment has mastered: the victim becomes complicit, the aggressor fades into the background, and the narrative itself becomes the weapon.

Headlines will not say “conservative leader targeted.” They will say “controversial figure shot while discussing gun violence.” The language strips the humanity out of the man and reduces him to a “figure,” as if his death were merely an object lesson in irony. The very fact that he was speaking about mass shootings when the bullet found him will be recycled endlessly as a kind of cruel punchline. The story will not be “Kirk silenced.” It will be “gun culture consumes itself.”

Television panels will nod gravely and agree that “we must address divisive rhetoric.” By this, they will not mean the rhetoric of those who demonized Kirk daily on their shows. They will mean the rhetoric of those who sound like him—his colleagues, his students, his allies. In one move, the media turns his death into a silencer not just for his own voice but for thousands of others.

This is how narrative engineering works. It’s not about reporting facts—it’s about framing reality. Facts are raw material, but framing is the construction of meaning. The media gains from his death because it gives them the perfect opportunity to harden a narrative they’ve been building for years: that outspoken conservatism is dangerous, that speech equals violence, and that silencing those voices is not censorship but public safety.

In this way, Charlie Kirk’s death becomes less about him and more about the story spun around him. His blood is the ink, but the pen is held by those who write the headlines.

Part 4 – The Conservative Movement in Disarray

Movements rise and fall on the strength of their leaders. Charlie Kirk was not just another commentator shouting into the noise of the internet; he was a general who marshaled troops, coordinated campaigns, and provided a clear direction for his followers. His sudden removal doesn’t just silence his voice—it destabilizes the entire ecosystem he built.

Turning Point USA, his flagship organization, now faces a crisis of succession. No one expected to replace him this soon, and movements built around charismatic founders rarely transition smoothly. Some will jockey for power, others will splinter off, and donors may hesitate to keep writing checks without the assurance that the mission will continue unbroken. The machinery still exists—the chapters, the networks, the events—but without its architect, the gears begin to grind.

The loss doesn’t stop with Turning Point. Across the conservative landscape, Kirk’s presence had ripple effects. He was a bridge between grassroots students and national politicians, a recruiter who kept the younger generation connected to the cause. Without him, those bridges weaken. The next wave of students entering college may never hear the voice that once convinced their peers to resist the tide. Momentum stalls, recruitment slows, and the fire dims.

Meanwhile, his adversaries know this. They understand that killing a leader rarely kills a movement outright, but it does create confusion, hesitation, and fear. For every young conservative now asking, “Who will replace him?” there are others asking, “Is it worth the risk to step forward?” That hesitation is victory for the opposition.

The conservative movement is left scrambling, and in that scrambling lies the first stage of defeat. Assassinations don’t just stop speeches—they scatter flocks. And when flocks scatter, the wolves move in.

Part 5 – The State’s Gain: Control Over Guns

Every high-profile assassination in America has the same aftershock: a fresh chorus of voices demanding that the state “do something” about guns. It doesn’t matter whether the shooter was mentally ill, radicalized, or acting under mysterious circumstances—the solution is always the same: expand control, shrink liberty.

Charlie Kirk was killed not in a back alley, but on a stage, under lights, in front of cameras. The setting ensures maximum spectacle. And in the wake of such spectacle, politicians and bureaucrats gain their greatest leverage. Already the headlines are primed: “A gunman silences a conservative while he was speaking about gun violence.” The irony will not be wasted. It will be used as proof that guns themselves are the problem, not the shooter, not the ideology, not the possibility of orchestration.

The state gains because each assassination pushes the needle toward disarmament. Expect to hear calls for universal background checks, red flag laws, and tighter controls over so-called “dangerous speech” that allegedly fuels violence. The public, weary and afraid, will be told that surrendering more of their rights is the only way to ensure safety. And in times of grief, the people often comply.

This is the real dividend of bloodshed: every bullet becomes a vote for greater state power. The people lose their liberty incrementally, while the government gains new authority to regulate not only weapons but the lives of those who carry them. In this way, Charlie Kirk’s death will be weaponized not against his killer, but against the rights of millions of citizens who never pulled a trigger.

The state does not weep at funerals. It calculates. And in this calculation, the death of one outspoken man becomes the excuse to bind a nation tighter under its grip.

Part 6 – The State’s Gain: Control Over Speech

Guns are not the only target. Words are. Charlie Kirk’s assassination did not take place in private. It happened in the middle of a dialogue, during a question-and-answer session, with microphones recording and students listening. That detail will not be ignored. It will be framed as a lesson: that words themselves are dangerous, that rhetoric can kill, that “speech has consequences.”

This framing is gold for a state already eager to expand control into the digital and ideological spheres. For years, governments and tech platforms have been testing the waters—deplatforming, shadow-banning, demonetizing. But a high-profile assassination provides something far more powerful: moral justification. If Charlie Kirk’s words are said to have “provoked” his own murder, then suddenly speech itself becomes a weapon. And weapons, in the eyes of the state, must be regulated.

We will hear calls for new laws against “hate speech,” “radicalizing speech,” or “incendiary speech.” But those terms will never be clearly defined. They don’t have to be. Ambiguity is power, because it allows the enforcers to choose, case by case, who may speak and who must be silenced. The same government that regulates bullets will claim the right to regulate syllables.

This is how assassinations are transmuted into policy. One man’s death becomes the pretext for controlling millions of voices. His assassination may silence him, but the greater goal is to silence everyone who sounds like him. That is the true gain for the state.

And the irony is bitter: Charlie Kirk’s murder, committed by a gun, will be remembered not only as a reason to disarm citizens, but also as a reason to muzzle them. In this theater, both the Second Amendment and the First Amendment come under fire, and the state gains ground on both fronts.

Part 7 – The Ritual Irony

There is a signature that marks certain events, a strange symmetry too sharp to be coincidence. Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking about mass shootings. He was making the case that guns are not the problem, that culture and morality are the deeper sickness—and then a bullet tore through his neck, cutting his words short. This is not just violence. It is theater. It is irony weaponized into ritual.

In the language of the occult, irony is a kind of signature—a mocking fingerprint of forces that delight in contradiction. To slay a man with the very instrument he is defending is not just murder, it is mockery. It sends a message: your words mean nothing, your cause is powerless, your defense collapses under its own weight. Whether orchestrated by human hands or exploited by darker powers, the symbolism is the same: silence the messenger in the middle of his message, and the act itself becomes the spell.

Assassinations that carry this ritual irony are never forgotten. Think of John Lennon, the apostle of peace, gunned down in New York. Think of Martin Luther King Jr., the preacher of nonviolence, struck down by violence. Charlie Kirk joins that grim litany—not because of the scale of his influence, but because of the precision of the contradiction.

Who gains from this irony? Those who feed on the spectacle. Those who understand that a murder carried out in perfect contradiction sears itself into the public memory. It creates not only grief but confusion, not only rage but despair. That confusion is power. It disorients the flock. It destabilizes the movement. It weakens resolve. And in the unseen realm, it offers energy to the spirits that feast on chaos and contradiction.

This is the theater of ritual. A man silenced mid-sentence, by the very weapon he was defending, becomes more than a victim. He becomes a symbol, whether his supporters wish it or not. His blood seals the irony. The stage is set, the curtain drawn, and the ritual complete.

Part 8 – Feeding the Spirit of Division

If there is one currency the powers of darkness crave, it is division. Assassinations are not just bullets—they are wedges driven into the heart of a people. Charlie Kirk’s death is already being interpreted through different lenses, each group pulling the meaning toward its own narrative. Conservatives see it as persecution. Progressives see it as the inevitable end of “toxic rhetoric.” Moderates sigh and say, “This country is hopeless.” Every group draws its own line in the sand, and those lines never meet.

This is how division multiplies. The assassination was one act, one moment in time, but the interpretations fracture endlessly. Families argue across dinner tables. Students clash on campuses. Politicians sharpen their talking points for the next election cycle. What should be a moment of mourning becomes another battlefield. And the longer the battle rages, the more entrenched each side becomes.

In spiritual terms, this is harvest time for the enemy. Division is food for principalities and powers. They thrive when a people can no longer see their common humanity, only their partisan identity. They grow stronger when outrage becomes the dominant emotion of a nation. The more we fight each other, the less we see the real hands pulling the strings.

Who gains from Kirk’s death on this level? Not just his political opponents, not just the state, but the unseen forces of chaos that rise whenever blood is spilled in public view. They gain not from the bullet itself, but from what follows—the endless cycle of blame, rage, fear, and despair. In that cycle, the nation weakens, the people fracture, and the powers of darkness tighten their grip.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination was not only an attack on a man. It was a strike at the bonds that hold communities together. And the tragedy is that, unless the people wake up, the true killers will never be caught—not because they are hiding in shadows, but because they are feasting in plain sight on the hatred, bitterness, and division his death unleashed.

Part 9 – The Global Elite’s Strategic Victory

At the highest level, beyond left and right, beyond parties and pundits, stand those who profit whenever nations fracture. The global elite—the financiers, technocrats, and shadow families who manipulate both sides of every conflict—gain most from spectacles like this. They do not weep for Charlie Kirk. They do not even care which side “wins” the argument. What they care about is acceleration: the forward thrust of division, fear, and dependency.

While America convulses over this assassination, the elite advance their true agenda quietly in the background. They press further with central bank digital currencies, promising safety in exchange for surveillance. They tighten global governance structures through BRICS and the IMF, uniting East and West under one financial altar. They deepen their hold over media platforms, ensuring that only the approved narrative of Kirk’s death reaches the masses.

To them, Kirk’s assassination is not a tragedy but an asset. It diverts attention from economic collapse, from wars abroad, from the slow handover of sovereignty to international bodies. While the people rage against each other, the elite continue building the very system that will enslave both sides equally.

This is their genius: to profit from chaos without ever being blamed for causing it. They do not need to fire the bullet. They only need to control the headlines, the policies, and the fear that follows. And in this sense, Kirk’s death is a strategic victory. A divided America cannot resist a global order. A grieving movement cannot unite against the architects of its oppression. A silenced leader cannot rally the youth against the machinery of control.

So who gains at the highest level? The same ones who always do: the hidden kings of finance, the black nobility of bloodlines, the merchants of surveillance, the unseen hands that set the stage for Antichrist rule. To them, every martyr is not an enemy but a stepping stone, every crisis not a setback but a tool.

Part 10 – The Crown of Martyrdom

At the deepest level, beyond politics, beyond media, beyond even the schemes of elites, there is another dimension where gain looks very different. For though the assassins may gloat, though the state may tighten its grip, though the powers of chaos may feed, there is still one thing they cannot take: the eternal weight of a life laid down in the public square.

Charlie Kirk did not choose martyrdom, but it came upon him. And in the spiritual war, that changes everything. Martyrdom is not only about dying for the faith—it is about being cut down for standing, in any capacity, against the tide of darkness. Scripture shows us again and again that the blood of the righteous does not vanish into the earth. It cries out. It becomes seed. It becomes testimony. And it carries a weight that no bullet can erase.

For Kirk’s supporters, the crown of martyrdom is a reminder that voices can be silenced, but truth cannot be killed. His death will not end the conversation—it will magnify it. His absence may scatter some, but it will also embolden others who see in his fall the cost of speaking freely in a world increasingly hostile to truth.

For the Church, it is a sober reminder that the days of comfort are over. The line between faith and politics, between speech and survival, is narrowing. The martyr crown is not reserved for foreign lands—it now falls in America too. And though men may see loss, heaven sees gain. What the enemy meant for mockery, God can transmute into witness.

Who gains, then, in the final reckoning? Yes, the left gains tactically. Yes, the state gains strategically. Yes, the elite gain globally. And yes, the spirits of chaos gain spiritually. But above all, the kingdom of God gains eternally, because the blood of martyrs has always been the seed of awakening. And though Charlie Kirk’s voice has been silenced on earth, his death now speaks in ways his life never could.

The last word belongs not to the assassin, not to the media, not to the state, but to the Judge who weighs every life in His scales. And in those scales, no bullet, no law, no ritual irony can erase the crown of martyrdom that now rests upon Charlie Kirk’s head.

Conclusion – Who Truly Gains?

We began with a question: who gains from the assassination of Charlie Kirk? Now, after tracing the layers, the answer is clear. On the surface, the political left gains a tactical victory. They lose a loud opponent and gain the ability to reframe his legacy as a warning. The media gains by writing the script, shaping not just the facts but the meaning, weaponizing his death into a narrative of “speech as violence.” The state gains by pushing both gun control and speech regulation, expanding its grip under the guise of safety. The conservative movement, meanwhile, reels in confusion, its momentum fractured, its ranks demoralized.

But deeper still, the global elite gain strategically. While Americans rage against each other, they continue consolidating power, building digital chains of currency and surveillance, forging the infrastructure of the next empire. And in the unseen realm, the spirits of chaos feast on the division, hatred, and despair unleashed by the spectacle. For them, every assassination is a ritual, every contradiction a sacrifice, every division a harvest.

Yet that is not the final word. Because while the assassins, the elites, and the powers of darkness all gain something, God has the last gain. For what they meant for evil, He will turn to good. What they staged as mockery, He can transmute into testimony. The crown of martyrdom rests not in the hands of the killers, but in the hands of the King who redeems every drop of blood spilled in His sight.

So who truly gains? The left gains tactically. The state gains strategically. The elite gain globally. The spirits of chaos gain spiritually. But the kingdom of God gains eternally. For Charlie Kirk’s death, like the deaths of so many before him, becomes seed. And that seed, planted in blood, will not lie dormant forever. It will rise. It will bear fruit. And it will testify that no bullet, no law, no ritual, and no empire can silence truth.

And so the question comes back to us: will we let the theater consume us, or will we refuse to give the enemy what it wants? Will we fight each other, or will we anchor ourselves in the only kingdom that cannot be shaken? Charlie Kirk’s voice is gone, but the question he leaves behind remains. Who gains—and who will we choose to serve?

Bibliography

• Reuters. “Police search for sniper who killed conservative activist Charlie Kirk in Utah.” Reuters, September 11, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/police-search-sniper-who-killed-conservative-activist-charlie-kirk-utah-2025-09-11/
• Wikipedia contributors. “Killing of Charlie Kirk.” Wikipedia, last modified September 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk
• Modern Diplomacy. “The Pentagon Pizza Index as a Case Study in Low-Tech OSINT.” Modern Diplomacy, July 23, 2025. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/07/23/the-pentagon-pizza-index-as-a-case-study-in-low%E2%80%91tech-osint/
• Politico. “Conservative activist Charlie Kirk fatally shot in Utah.” Politico, September 10, 2025. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/10/charlie-kirk-shot-utah-00123456
• Holy Bible. Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Canon. 6th Century.
• Holy Bible. King James Version. Cambridge Edition, 1611.
• Tertullian. Apologeticus. Latin Fathers, ca. 197 A.D.

Endnotes

1. Charlie Kirk was assassinated on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, during a Q&A segment of his “Prove Me Wrong” event. He was speaking on mass shootings when he was shot in the neck by a sniper. 
2. The date, September 10, carries numerological significance. In some occult readings, 9 symbolizes endings and 10 symbolizes beginnings or completion. Combined with the year 2025 (2+0+2+5 = 9), the event carries themes of transition and transformation.
3. Assassinations have historically been used as catalysts for policy shifts, particularly in the direction of tighter state control. After John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, for example, sweeping new security protocols were introduced nationwide.
4. Irony in ritual killing is a recurring theme in occult readings of political violence. The symbolic mockery—peace activists killed by violence, freedom advocates silenced in public—serves as a “signature” to those trained to see it.
5. Division as a tool of control has deep biblical resonance. Jesus Himself warned that “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation” (Matthew 12:25, KJV). Such division is a harvest ground for spiritual darkness.
6. The Ethiopian Orthodox Canon emphasizes that the blood of the righteous is never wasted. In the Book of Enoch, a text preserved in Ethiopia but excluded from most Western canons, the cries of the slain ascend before the throne of God (1 Enoch 22:5–7).
7. Tertullian’s famous declaration, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church,” underscores the principle that what men intend for suppression, God transforms into expansion. This theme remains central in framing Kirk’s assassination as not just tragedy, but testimony.