By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s death, former President Donald Trump declared the far-right media personality a “martyr” and blamed the political left for his killing. Trump’s rhetoric, delivered without confirmation of the shooter’s motive, served as a launchpad for attacking those who oppose his agenda. Prominent MAGA figures joined in, accusing the left of responsibility and calling for retaliation. The article warns that this response echoes historical patterns where right-wing governments have used incidents of political violence to justify repression, suppress dissent, and undermine constitutional rights, escalating the danger to democracy.
Read the original article here
Trump uses Kirk’s killing to declare war on the left and democracy. The immediate and forceful reaction, even before the identity of the shooter was known, is a clear indication of intent. The rapid-fire accusations against the Democratic party, framing them as domestic terrorists, is a well-worn tactic. This rush to judgment is a familiar pattern, mirroring previous instances where violence was quickly politicized to serve a specific agenda.
The timing is also crucial. The alleged assassination occurred not long after Charlie Kirk called for the release of the Epstein files. Considering that, who benefits the most from his death? The Epstein connection, coupled with the constant accusations of pedophilia and sexual trafficking, is a major threat to Trump.
This isn’t the first time Trump has used rhetoric to divide the nation. The constant barrage of attacks, labeling the left as the enemy, dehumanizing them, and stoking fear, creates an environment ripe for conflict. While condemning the left is the immediate response, condemning the “radical left” dehumanizes Democrats. This strategy serves to solidify the base and demonize opponents, using a tragedy to further political goals.
The immediate accusations and the framing of the left as the enemy, are a well-worn tactic. This rush to judgment is a familiar pattern, mirroring previous instances where violence was quickly politicized to serve a specific agenda. As we’ve seen repeatedly, Trump is eager to exploit tragedies to his advantage, regardless of the circumstances.
The suggestion that the shooting was orchestrated to ignite conflict and garner political gain should not be easily dismissed. This narrative isn’t about mourning or seeking justice; it’s about power. It’s about seizing the opportunity to tighten the grip on the base and justify whatever actions are deemed necessary in the name of a perceived threat. If Trump himself was the shooter, he would still blame the radical left and send the national guard to invade a city he doesn’t like.
It appears to be part of a larger, more calculated plan to dismantle democracy. General Milley’s reference to the Reichstag fire, used by the Nazis to consolidate power, offers a chilling parallel. This mirrors the 1933 Reichstag fire, the arson attack on the German parliament building that the Nazi party used as a pretext to suspend civil liberties and establish a one-party dictatorship.
The relentless focus on the political narrative, the disregard for facts, and the eagerness to exploit a tragedy all point towards a deliberate strategy. This isn’t about justice; it’s about power and control. The true motive remains unclear. The response, however, is crystal clear: the declaration of war, the framing of the enemy, and the march towards authoritarianism. The same people that have praised the likes of Alex Jones are now trying to claim violence only coming from the left.