This post interprets the recent assassination not primarily as a political turning point but as a symbolic act. Rather than rushing into reactive action or hysteria, it argues that the deeper struggle lies in how symbols are manipulated by elites and metabolized by the collective psyche: in this case, with the intention of funneling public anger to attack the “left” and usher in a Palantir security state, amplified by bots and influencers.

Sigh, I was hoping my recent post on the potential likely motivations behind the Charlie Kirk assassination would calm me down and allow me to move on. As Emil Cioran stated, writing for him was a form of exorcism; by getting it out on the page it allowed him to live life normally, and if he didn’t get it out then life felt oppressive, suffocating. I operate in a very similar manner, yet my feeling didn’t go away after my last post, it remained and haunted me – which means there is more to say on it.

First, a note on how symbols1 become pregnant or charged through blood sacrifice. What I mean by this is a dynamic where an otherwise abstract or “flat” signifier is suddenly infused with weight, destiny, and dread because a life has been publicly poured into it. Blooding is the traditional term of this, but I prefer bloodening.2 Let’s walk through this:

• Blood as ontological adhesive. In archaic societies, ritual sacrifice bound the community to the god or to the mythic order. This is because blood consecrates – it makes an image or totem a living node of power.
• From sign to mandate. Before the Kirk shooting, “grassroots right-populism” was a posture, an aesthetic – boisterous but still porous and diffuse. With his death, it transforms and now bears the aura of martyrdom. Martyrdom transforms political discourse into cult terrain: one cannot speak neutrally because the blood has drawn a circle around the symbol. One becomes either for or against it.
• The state and counter-state both know this. Modern operations (false flag, psyop, or spontaneous) still obey this ancient logic: if you want to lock a current of energy in place, you must spill blood on it. The dead body anchors meaning in a way tweets or speeches cannot.
• Pregnancy of the symbol. After blood is spilled, the symbol is no longer empty. It “gestates”, becoming a vessel for narratives, projections, polarizations. That’s why Kirk’s death cannot remain an isolated incident; it will be re-told as parable, as omen, as mandate.
• Quasi-right-wing populism in particular. This zone is especially prone to sacralization-through-death because it is precarious, diffuse, mocked by elites, not institutionalized. The martyrdom gives it the gravitas it lacked.

So: what we’re watching isn’t just “a tragedy” or “a conspiracy,” but the charging of a symbolic form. Kirk’s blood consecrates a figure of the “everyman-right,” one that will now have to be reckoned with in mythic time, not just electoral time.

Here’s a compact list of charged symbols through blood sacrifice, each case where an event sacralized a symbol and made it difficult to ignore:

• JFK (1963). New Camelot, lost innocence of America. His death turned liberal optimism into tragic myth, even though it was a joint Mossad/CIA operation per and his successor, LBJ, was their puppet. The media is trying to turn Kirk into a JFK-esque figure currently for similar purposes, and his wife is grossly playing into it by crying in front of cameras beside his coffin.
• Archduke Franz Ferdinand (1914). Old world monarchic order collapsing. His assassination consecrated WWI as the “war to end wars.”
• Martin Luther King Jr. (1968). Civil Rights as moral destiny. His death transformed the cause into sacred mandate.
• George Floyd (2020). BLM as global faith. His death turned into ritual image of oppression, mobilizing planetary protest.
• Heather Heyer, Charlottesville (2017). Antifascism consecrated by blood. Her death sealed the “Unite the Right” rally as archetype of evil, although she was obese and probably died of a heart attack. James Fields was panicked and trying to escape from a braying antifa mob which was attacking his car and chasing him.
• Socrates (399 BC). Philosophy as martyrdom to truth. His execution consecrated philosophy as higher than life.
• Jesus (c. 33 AD). Ultimate archetype. The crucifixion as cosmic blood sacrifice charging the symbol of the cross.

All of these took something that could have been politics, debate, or movement and made it myth, ritual, and fate.

Let’s apply this framework to the Kirk case. In my prior post I stated there were four main possibilities I saw regarding the assassin’s motivation: (1) it was a far-leftist culture warrior lone wolf attack, (2) it was a Democrat “deep state” attack to cripple Republican organization abilities, as Kirk was the best in class, (3) it was a preemptive Israeli/Mossad attack because Kirk was slowly turning against his handlers/owners, or (4) it was designed to remove a centrist figure and radicalize liberals vs. conservatives even further.

These possibilities haven’t really been resolved with the arrest of Tyler Robinson. While on the surface it appears he was a far-leftist culture warrior lone wolf attack (#1), there are lots of takes that either he didn’t do it and he’s a patsy ( ’s take, in more depth here), or he was MKUltra’d into doing it, or even that Kirk isn’t even dead (’s take). I am open to the possibilities, but I do not assume that in a population of three hundred and fifty million people there doesn’t exist those who would take an action to put their names in the history books with violence if given the opportunity – people have agency and choice and not everything was planned by our elites (Trump’s 2016 win was unplanned by them, for example, and Luigi Mangione’s actions were real). Robinson’s physiognomy points to instability and aggression, and the latest report is that he was living with his transgender partner (although these reports should generally be discounted as propaganda; a recent report calling him “leftist” was quasi-retracted after the interview subject changed his statement). It is harder to exist in a zone requiring discernment depending on individual circumstances than to have blanket black-and-white rules, and if one does adopt those black-and-white rules, one should consciously discern what developments would have to occur to invalidate one’s thesis.

Regardless, the right wing influencers are leaning very heavily into the culture war stuff, amplified tremendously by bots and algorithms, calling for mass cancellations of liberals, calling for civil war, race war, etc – very similar to the energy after the (alleged) first Trump assassination attempt, where guys like here and here and here (sorry to pick on you, gentlemen) breathlessly debated whether it was proper to mass cancel the left like the left liked to do to the right, and then basically nothing happened and everyone moved on. There’s a lot of pent up anger and frustration not just due to Kirk or the Ukrainian woman killed, but for tens of millions of illegals being brought into the country (requiring a huge infrastructure and organization), the continuous loss of jobs and quality of life, etc, of which the Trump administration talks a big game about fixing but does very little. As the communist playbook states, the idea is to get the masses so desperate for a savior that they will accept whoever it is when it arrives, in whatever form it takes (brought by the instigators that caused the situation in the first place). The situation isn’t at that level yet – people still have food, clothing, shelter, porn, Netflix, iPhones, electricity, heating, gas, cars, computers – but if they lose all those things, like Iraq after Bush’s criminal invasion on behalf of Israel (where bombing infrastructure led to a million deaths), then maybe they’ll get desperate enough for something.

Nothing good would come of any right-wing civil unrest, either. This is because the right is short sighted, entirely reactionary, is nihilistic and rigid regardless of whether it comes from the secular or religious angle – it has no vision as the Kynosargas post I always link to argues, other than a country without foreigners. A vision would be proactive, on the level of metaphysics, self-generating and propelling, etc. Furthermore, the situation is so controlled (the upper elites control every lever of power including and especially that of Trump) that larger actions today aren’t allowed to manifest in this prison colony controlled society unless the upper elites want it – and they would only want it if civil unrest would be used as a scapegoat for a planned crash of the economy (after the upper elite’s theft of tens of trillions of dollars as a mafia bust-out operation), or as an excuse to implement the digital panopticon. “You see, goys, we need massive ICE expansion and raids and arrests and cancellations and a vastly increased Palantir security state for your own safety…”. Anglin, for all his faults, sees this part clearly and correctly – the dialectical us-versus-them tribal energy is so easy to tap into to funnel toward alternate goals. It’s the same playbook they ran on 9/11 – false-flag an attack, institute a much bigger security state. No significant real world action will happen unless it is on their timetable, at their direction, where any and all outcomes have been pregamed and to their benefit (such as how World War 1 and World War 2 were set up ahead of time for Germany’s failure). When the public is manipulated into a false choice or an action, it is always heads they win, tails you lose.

So here, regardless of whoever was behind the Kirk assassination and for what reason, don’t let yourself or your emotions or energy be manipulated dialectically based on a charged symbol to support escalation – those pushing for it (including Yarvin, Musk, Stephen Miller and other major mouthpieces in the Trump administration) are not your friend. Yes, it sucks that Kirk was assassinated, I hope the assassin gets the death penalty if he was behind it, and it’s frustrating that violence always seems to go in one direction; but sorry, the right is in no position currently to push for true, beneficial change – you’ll either lose outright or end up with a “right wing” Zionist Palantir dictator who will throw you in prison. See how easy the Zionist administration used the symbolism of pushing “cracking down on the woke/transgenders” in universities to purge anti-Zionism free speech instead, for example. And it does suck, too, because they have flooded the country with tens of millions of illegals and printed and stolen tens of trillions of dollars which only continues to accelerate, so passivity does feel like a bad option, too – our elites really like to create funneled situation where they win regardless of the outcome.

The work required now is the hard stuff – the work of individuation, of looking at one’s own ugly unconscious and coming to terms with it, to understand the deeper dialectical strategies our elites employ, how symbols are manipulated and for what purpose, and thinking about ways in which one may reinchant via metaphysicical change the secular, atheistic, materialist Hellscape we now inhabit. Action is easy, which one may very well come to regret – thinking and understanding the deeper layers, not falling for traps, changing ourselves to a different register is the hard part, because it requires sitting with uncertainty and pain for an indefinite period – maybe forever – and most people would do anything they could to get out of that pain, even if it means jumping into action antithetical to their longterm interests. By changing ourselves we in turn have an effect on those around us, which may over time, bottom up and organically, have an impact on the world we live in. I don’t mean to write this glibly – “just work on yourself, bro!” – but our upper elites literally control every institution of power, they own every major influencer on all sides, they have their malevolent woke AI scanning all electronic communications, so whatever their controlled media highlight is always going to be used against your interests.

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe:
Email delivery remains on Substack for now.

1 A symbol is a sign, object, or event that carries meaning beyond its literal form, often because it evokes shared ideas, emotions, or archetypes. Its key features are: (1) polyvalence, where it can be interpreted in multiple ways depending on perspective, culture, or context; (2) condensation of meaning, where complex ideas, feelings, or narratives are compressed into a single image, word, or gesture; (3) evocative power – it can inspire action, emotion, or reflection, often resonating at a psychological or cultural level; and (4) connection to larger patterns, where a symbol usually taps into myths, archetypes, or collective consciousness, giving it weight beyond the immediate.

2 “Blooding” is the more traditional term and contains an archaic, ritual resonance. It comes from ritual or hunting language: to “blood” someone is to mark them with blood as initiation. Here it suggests a rite of passage for the symbol, an event where it’s consecrated or made powerful through sacrifice. “Bloodening” is more neologistic; it suggests not just a marking but a process of saturation – the symbol being soaked or swollen with blood. It’s jarring, destabilizing, and emphasizes the grotesque modern spectacle of it.