Charlie Kirk: Turning Grief into Propaganda

Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the founder of the Solari Report, shared her thoughts on the tragic event during an episode broadcast by Children’s Health Defence TV. She characterises the “silencing” of the late TPSUA leader as a psychological operation (PSYOP), indicating that the world is witnessing a coordinated attempt to undermine free speech and the US Constitution. Fitts draws a comparison between the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the Reichstag fire—an arson attack on the German parliament building in Berlin on February 27, 1933, which Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party swiftly exploited to strengthen their grip on power.

VIDEO: Extract from an episode from the Children’s Health Defence TV – I think it’s a Psyop (Source: Children’s Health Defence TV  | @SenseReceptor X account)

.
Historical records strongly suggest that the attack on the German parliament building in Berlin was manipulated by the Nazis, who quickly attributed the fire to a supposed communist uprising. They used this incident to convince President Paul von Hindenburg to sign an emergency decree that suspended civil liberties, resulting in the mass arrest of political adversaries. This manoeuvre enabled Hitler to effectively dismantle democracy in Germany and establish a totalitarian regime.

Additionally, Catherine Austin Fitts highlights the necessity for the American public to continue advocating for the release of the Epstein files, as there are ongoing attempts to prevent their disclosure. She indicates that the elite wealthy class is systematically undermining the essential legal principles, which she describes as the bedrock of the United States of America.

Following the shooting of Kirk at Utah Valley University, various right-wing groups have called for the censorship of critical online commentary about the assassination. President Trump quickly blamed the attack on the ‘radical left’ and vowed to hold those responsible accountable, slamming the door on any potential constructive debate. Doxing campaigns against individuals who contextualised Kirk’s views or supported his killing have led to a witch-hunt in universities, targeting teachers and school staff, and resulting in job losses nationwide.

Amid the politicised and often inaccurate media coverage of the regrettable tragedy,  a murky FBI narrative of Kirk’s assassin and the agency’s unconvincing description of the events that led to the arrest of the alleged assassin, is now fueling confusion and anger across the political spectrum—a situation that could easily escalate should the public feels betrayed or political factions continue to be pinned against each other.  While everyone can appreciate the professional nature of this hit, the FBI is strangely expediting this investigation at lightning speed, disregarding ( at least publicly) unexplored avenues and intriguing footage, leaving the public in uncertainty with basic questions about the crime scene, forensic evidence, and potential alternate motives.

It is not hard to see how the Trump administration and some of its supporters are using the public assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk as a tool to suppress dissent. Yet, history reminds us that the attack on civil liberties, institutions, universities, and the media began long before Charlie’s murder—but regrettably, the situation at hand, which requires everyone’s attention, is escalating, creating uncertainty about the lengths to which those in authority will go to suppress not only their opponent but constitutional rights.

How can silencing be viewed as a legitimate solution when Charlie himself doubted the effectiveness of such a practice? Why would anyone wish to silence those who are keen to access the “Epstein Files,” or those who openly question Israel’s pervasive influence in American politics? What sort of free world cannot embrace the millions who oppose Charlie’s views on Israel (and other contentious matters), and those who express their dissent against Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza….

Peggy Jones reports for MEDIUM…

From the Reichstag to Charlie Kirk

History shows how leaders twist bloodshed into excuses for repression.

The killing of Charlie Kirk shocked the country. (…). Before investigators could present the facts, members of Congress and far-right pundits began blaming Democrats. US Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida) even shouted that Democrats “caused” the killing and should “fucking own” it.

That kind of rhetoric is more than indecent. It follows a dangerous script that authoritarian regimes have used throughout history. When violence strikes, leaders can either call for unity or weaponise the moment against their opponents. Again and again, authoritarians have chosen the latter.

The Reichstag Fire, 1933

On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament building, went up in flames. Police arrested a young Dutch Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe. Predictably, the Nazis claimed the fire was a Communist plot.

That night, Chancellor Adolf Hitler persuaded President Paul von Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Fire Decree. The decree suspended civil liberties, silenced the press, and allowed indefinite detention.

Police arrested thousands of Communists, socialists, and union organisers. The fire itself did not destroy German democracy. Nazi exploitation of it did.

Stalin and the Kirov Assassination, 1934

In December 1934, a gunman assassinated Sergei Kirov, a popular Communist Party leader in Leningrad. Dictator Joseph Stalin insisted the murder revealed a conspiracy against him and the Soviet state.

Stalin used the assassination as an excuse to launch the Great Purge, returning Communist terror to the levels under Soviet founder V.I. Lenin. Security forces executed or imprisoned tens of thousands of party members, officers, and ordinary citizens.

Most had no connection to Kirov’s death. Stalin turned one killing into a license to eliminate rivals and silence dissent.

Marcos and Martial Law in the Philippines, 1972

In September 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos announced martial law. He pointed to bombings and an alleged assassination attempt on his defense minister.

Marcos claimed martial law would protect the Philippines from communist subversion. In practice, it silenced dissent. Security forces shut down independent newspapers, arrested opposition leaders, and enforced his rule with military power. Martial law kept him in power for more than a decade.

Turkey’s Failed Coup, 2016

In July 2016, factions of the Turkish military attempted a coup against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The attempt collapsed within hours. Erdoğan declared a state of emergency and launched mass purges.

Authorities arrested or fired more than 100,000 people, including teachers, judges, journalists, and opposition politicians. Many had no link to the coup. Erdoğan used the failed coup as a blank check to consolidate power.

Tiananmen Square, 1989

In China, the massacre at Tiananmen Square represented Communist state violence rather than an outside attack. After soldiers crushed the student protests, Beijing labeled the demonstrations a “counter-revolutionary riot.”

That label allowed the government to jail activists, silence intellectuals, and tighten control across society. Even today, the regime uses that framing to justify censorship and repression.

The Common Playbook

These examples share a familiar pattern:

1. A violent act occurs, real or manufactured.

2. Leaders frame it as proof of a conspiracy by their opponents.

3. Authorities declare emergency powers.

4. Repression expands far beyond the perpetrators.

Why It Matters Now

The danger in America is not only the act of violence against Charlie Kirk. The danger lies in how officials respond to it. By blaming Democrats before police have even identified a suspect, politicians like Luna risk turning grief into propaganda.

Violence shakes a society. Authoritarianism takes root when leaders turn that shock into an excuse for power.

History makes one lesson clear: democracies can survive violent acts. They do not survive leaders who exploit those acts to crush their rivals.

See more news from MEDIUM

READ MORE CHARLIE KIRK NEWS AT: 21st CENTURY WIRE CHARLIE KIRK FILES

SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV

VISIT OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL

21st Century Wire is an alternative news agency designed to enlighten, inform and educate readers about world events which are not always covered in the mainstream media.

Source: https://21stcenturywire.com/2025/09/19/charlie-kirk-turning-grief-into-propaganda/