Charlie Kirk: Turning Point or TV Plot?

When I studied in the States for a year, I'm slightly ashamed to admit that one of the highlights was having access to American Netflix, and the primary reason for this was that I discovered the '80s American sitcom, Family Ties, to which I rapidly became highly addicted.

The "big show that everyone was watching" of that decade - the 'Friends' of its time - Family Ties centred around the Keaton family, and their comedic political juxtapositions. The parents, Steven and Elyse, were 1960s hippy-coded liberals, whilst the kids, Alex and Mallory, were materialistic 1980s conservatives, especially "political protégé", Alex.

Depicted as a "young fogey", aged just 17, Alex - by far the most popular character in the show, launching actor Michael J. Fox to superstardom - involved himself deeply in conservative politics, and would scold the adults around him for their liberal, permissive ways, whilst praising the work of his heroes, Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman.

Alex's mother worked as an architect.

You can imagine, then, that something felt a bit... familiar when I read the following about the allegedly assassinated young conservative activist, Charlie Kirk, who has reportedly died from a gunshot wound whilst giving a speech on a university campus.

Describing Kirk's background and teenage years, the Guardian reports:

"Kirk was raised in a politically moderate household... in high school he emerged as a vocal conservative... [he] clashed with teachers he accused of “neo-Marxist” bias, drawing on influences that included Ronald Reagan’s economics and Milton Friedman’s free-market ideas... He made his first media appearance on the Fox Business channel at the age of 17... His father was an architect."

Hm. A crazy conspiracy theorist, of the type who believes we live in an actor-based simulacrum, and that the world stage of politics is just an offshoot of Hollywood (hence all the relentless crossover between the theatrical and political arts), might suggest that 'Charlie Kirk' is simply a fictional scripted creation based on the hugely successful and enduring 'Alex P. Keaton' archetype - even down to the signature nudge-wink of the scriptwriters giving the respective parents of the two young activists the same career.

A crazy conspiracy theorist might also suggest there is simply no way that ordinary 17-year-olds somehow get themselves onto the Fox Business channel, as Kirk did, and then just a year later, with no meaningful qualifications or experience at all, manage to found one of the most visible, wealthy, and successful conservative advocacy organisations in the country.

Turning Point USA, described as "an American non-profit organisation that advocates for conservative politics on high school, college, and university campuses", was reportedly founded by the then 18-year-old college dropout, Charlie Kirk, and successful businessman, Bill Montgomery, 53 years Kirk's senior.

Montgomery, who had a military background, allegedly "died from Covid complications" in July 2020.

Based on this information, Charlie Kirk's rise to huge influence and fame, sounds just about as plausible as Sebastian Shemirani's, the "ordinary young man" who appeared on the BBC in his early twenties to denounce his mother's crazy conspiracism, and then shot to further international fame just a couple of years later when he accused said mother of "killing his sister". Sebastian - and brother, Gabriel - are now very famous as activists for the Online Safety Bill seeking to crush the "harms" they allege are done by "conspiracy theories".

This kind of stellar rise to cultural significance and visibility, despite their complete lack of any professional experience qualifying them for such positions, is not a trajectory any normal young person follows, regardless of whether they are on the left or right of the political spectrum. On the contrary: sudden rises to political significance and media infamy of this type have intelligence service signatures stamped all over them. In short, Sebastian, Gabriel, and Charlie all look like spooks - who proliferate throughout the media.

Note that UK mass media vehicles have been described by veteran newspaper editor, Roy Greenslade, as "playthings of MI5", whilst the CIA infiltration of the American media is well-known.

We must always be very clear that the mainstream media does not exist to report "the news" (thousands of newsworthy things happen every day that are never reported), but rather, to reflect and promote the interests of the regime, which it does through elevating to prominence its assets, and then using them to push and sculpt various agendas.

Charlie Kirk, like Sebastian and Gabriel Shemirani, appears to have been groomed from his young teenage years, and backed by serious establishment money, to fulfil an important world stage role.

Using his youth and charisma, Kirk has captured the imagination of the young political right, and become an iconic figure for people of all ages. So of course, his apparent assassination is going to have profound and far-reaching effects.

It was rather obvious an "assassination" of a beloved right-wing figure was on the cards in order to further inflame the cultural wars, and bring about the civil war the social engineers are so desperate for, to the extent that in July of this year, I wrote:

"Assassinations - whether real or faked - are well-known triggers for wider scale political conflict (see World War I), but these can't just be assassinations of random people, not even random children.

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.

That would be it: that would be enough to fully ignite people's indignation and fury, taking it offline and onto the streets, where of course there would be plenty of agent provocateurs and state assets like Yaxley-Lennon ("Tommeh") to whip up and weaponise the situation as much as possible."

By extraordinary coincidence, the aforementioned Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson) is staging an enormous demonstration on September 13th - just three days after the world is left reeling from Charlie Kirk's savage exit from the political stage.

It has been widely predicted some sort of 'event' may occur at this demo, but whether it does or does not, it's clear we are gearing up for a huge political conflict and some sort of subsequent "revolution" that will result in the right-wing strengthening their power in the USA and UK particularly (although this will only be temporary).

The political right-wing was already incensed over the apparent murder of Ukrainian model, Iryna Zarutska (which, as Miles Mathis describes, appears quite obviously fabricated) - with the word 'radicalised' being repeatedly deployed in relation to this incident - and the Charlie Kirk slaying would rather appear to be designed to push people completely over the edge.

It is, in short, epically politically convenient to the extent I was able to predict such an event would occur, and, as usual, not because I possess any crystal ball, but simply because a cursory glance at world history shows social architects often stage "celebrity assassinations" to shape the public and political mood as they desire.

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.

Yet it's obvious that for a real truth-seeker, the first question should not be, "who did this?", but "did this really happen?", something we should immediately ask about all high-profile media narratives. If it did, that will become readily apparent through honest investigation, and it's not offensive to conduct such investigations (the truth does not fear such things, after all). Given we know how ruthlessly and systemically the mainstream media lies, I would rather say such investigations are essential.

If, however, the event didn't really happen, that will become rather quickly apparent, too.

For those many individuals who seem to find it "too crazy" or "too extreme" to imagine the media and government would collude in staging such events, please remember that the USA has passed a law making it thoroughly legal to use the media to report staged events as real for propaganda purposes.

Obviously they did not pass this law if they did not intend to use it.

I suspect, in fact, they have made rather liberal use of it.

This is simply because scripted, staged events work so much better to propagandise people than reality does. This is why famous actors earn so much money. This is why the actors in 'Friends' - the big show that succeeded 'Family Ties' - earned $1 million each per episode.

I mean, the ruling classes could have found innumerable real house-shares of twenty-somethings with crappy jobs and unstable love lives and asked to film them, yet they didn't do that. Instead, they constructed an entirely fictitious version of this scenario, because only then would they wield complete power over the character development and narrative arc.

The propagandising of the public is too important to leave to organic chance and messy reality, which is why the ruling classes don't do that. Just as they use beloved sitcom characters, rather than real people, to powerfully influence and propagandise us via TV shows (whenever they want to normalise or encourage a new social trend, they just introduce it through one of the beloved big shows), they do the same on the world stage.

Iconic characters are carefully constructed and cultivated from a young age, to perform for and propagandise the public, just as the ruling classes desire, and then sometimes, these beloved characters are killed off, in order to more powerfully punctuate a particular storyline or political point.

Charlie Kirk is now a political martyr, and that gives his name and brand enormous power. The ruling classes would not bestow this phenomenal political influence, even in death, on "just anybody". Rather, Kirk has been skilfully scripted as a legend and an archetype, first seeded into the consciousness over 40 years ago through the creation of Alex P. Keaton in Family Ties.

As writer Paul McDonald noted in the Daily Economy in 2023, lamenting the devolving political landscape and the ways in which it has shifted since the days of Family Ties:

"The climate of American higher education has changed... and not in good ways. Respect for individual freedom, in particular the freedom of thought, is much lower than at any time in my life. It is easy to imagine a latter-day Alex showing up at [a university] only to be cancelled and chased from campus by an angry mob."

Such a scenario was, evidently, very easy for social scriptwriters to imagine, too.

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.