After some time reflecting on the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I began analyzing his career in its aggregate, trying to figure out why would Jews eliminate one of their most prolific supporters. That line of thinking led me straight back to The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene. I had read the book four years ago, and after Kirk’s death, I returned to it for a refresher.
Greene’s first law — “Never Outshine the Master” — immediately came to my mind. It was itched in my brain for a personal reason. In it, he uses the example of Nicolas Fouquet, an intelligent and wealthy man surrounded by influential allies. Fouquet hosted a lavish celebration at his château in honor of King Louis XIV, hoping to impress him. Instead, the king felt threatened by Fouquet’s influence and ambition. Soon after, Fouquet was imprisoned for life under dubious charges of embezzling public funds.
However, this alone didn’t seem enough to explain what happened to Charlie Kirk. There must be another reason. And I found it in the second law of power. Greene’s second law — “Never put too much trust in friends, learn how to use enemies” — recounts how Michael III of Byzantium trusted his close friend and advisor Basilius, elevating him to co-emperor. In the end, Basilius had Michael assassinated and took his place on the throne.
This led me to suspect that Kirk’s downfall may have been driven by Jewish fears that he was beginning to outshine them — that he was beginning to set his own agenda. They must have feared that he will take away their place and give them the axe. But I initially dismissed the idea. It seemed too simple.
So I turned to others, curious if someone else had a better explanation. But after reviewing others' opinions, I became more convinced that my original theory made the most sense. Still, it’s worth examining what others have proposed. Most explanations fall into three main categories.
One theory suggests Kirk was eliminated for criticizing Israel or the Jews. I considered this, but it seems unlikely. Kirk had long been a vocal supporter of Israel. It’s difficult to believe that isolated comments — even if critical — would warrant such an extreme response. For comparison, consider the case of Valentina Gomez, who had previously criticized AIPAC. They very likely threatened her life; and later on, her public stance shifted dramatically. She recently attacked Muslims, burned Koran and urged people to believe in the "God of Israel." This suggests to me that Jews counter criticism through pressure or co-option, not necessarily through elimination. So while plausible, this explanation doesn’t fully align with how such situations are typically handled.
Another theory posits that his death was posed to be blamed on the political left, either to distract from the scandal of Iryna or to justify taking gun rights. However, this line of thinking seems speculative and convoluted. If distraction was the goal, wouldn’t they focus on something with more direct political importance, such as distracting us from Epstein client list? Furthermore, Kirk’s death hasn’t distracted us from other major events — if anything, it has amplified public discontent. Both his assassination and events like the death of Iryna are perceived as symbolic attacks on whites and Western civilization. And gun rights are seen as more paramount and nonnegotiable than ever for the safety of the public.
A third line of thought claims the killing was intended to be blamed on Muslim extremists, in order to rally support for Israel and Jewish causes. Yet that doesn’t quite fit either. Historically, when Muslims are scapegoated, it's often in the context of bombings or mass attacks — not targeted assassinations. If you ask somebody who is most likely to commit a targeted assassination, they are very unlikely to list a Muslims vis-a-vis asking them who likely commits a bombing. Plus, considering Kirk’s long-standing alignment with pro-Israel causes and fundraising, it’s hard to see how his death would serve Jewish interests. This makes this explanation appear inconsistent and hence unfulfilling.
Which brings me back to my initial suspicion.
Kirk had grown into a formidable political force. He was ambitious, media-savvy, and capable of setting his own ideological course. Perhaps, as he began to rise beyond Jews control, he became a liability. They couldn’t afford to let him set the narrative. They needed to reassert control over Western politics. They had to stop him, and stopping him they did.
If my theory is correct, the next logical step will be an attempt to replace or absorb his political organization — Turning Point USA — and turn it into a new organization, led by Jews. It may retain the same audience and messaging style, but the leadership will change.
Greene’s first law — “Never Outshine the Master” — immediately came to my mind. It was itched in my brain for a personal reason. In it, he uses the example of Nicolas Fouquet, an intelligent and wealthy man surrounded by influential allies. Fouquet hosted a lavish celebration at his château in honor of King Louis XIV, hoping to impress him. Instead, the king felt threatened by Fouquet’s influence and ambition. Soon after, Fouquet was imprisoned for life under dubious charges of embezzling public funds.
However, this alone didn’t seem enough to explain what happened to Charlie Kirk. There must be another reason. And I found it in the second law of power. Greene’s second law — “Never put too much trust in friends, learn how to use enemies” — recounts how Michael III of Byzantium trusted his close friend and advisor Basilius, elevating him to co-emperor. In the end, Basilius had Michael assassinated and took his place on the throne.
This led me to suspect that Kirk’s downfall may have been driven by Jewish fears that he was beginning to outshine them — that he was beginning to set his own agenda. They must have feared that he will take away their place and give them the axe. But I initially dismissed the idea. It seemed too simple.
So I turned to others, curious if someone else had a better explanation. But after reviewing others' opinions, I became more convinced that my original theory made the most sense. Still, it’s worth examining what others have proposed. Most explanations fall into three main categories.
One theory suggests Kirk was eliminated for criticizing Israel or the Jews. I considered this, but it seems unlikely. Kirk had long been a vocal supporter of Israel. It’s difficult to believe that isolated comments — even if critical — would warrant such an extreme response. For comparison, consider the case of Valentina Gomez, who had previously criticized AIPAC. They very likely threatened her life; and later on, her public stance shifted dramatically. She recently attacked Muslims, burned Koran and urged people to believe in the "God of Israel." This suggests to me that Jews counter criticism through pressure or co-option, not necessarily through elimination. So while plausible, this explanation doesn’t fully align with how such situations are typically handled.
Another theory posits that his death was posed to be blamed on the political left, either to distract from the scandal of Iryna or to justify taking gun rights. However, this line of thinking seems speculative and convoluted. If distraction was the goal, wouldn’t they focus on something with more direct political importance, such as distracting us from Epstein client list? Furthermore, Kirk’s death hasn’t distracted us from other major events — if anything, it has amplified public discontent. Both his assassination and events like the death of Iryna are perceived as symbolic attacks on whites and Western civilization. And gun rights are seen as more paramount and nonnegotiable than ever for the safety of the public.
A third line of thought claims the killing was intended to be blamed on Muslim extremists, in order to rally support for Israel and Jewish causes. Yet that doesn’t quite fit either. Historically, when Muslims are scapegoated, it's often in the context of bombings or mass attacks — not targeted assassinations. If you ask somebody who is most likely to commit a targeted assassination, they are very unlikely to list a Muslims vis-a-vis asking them who likely commits a bombing. Plus, considering Kirk’s long-standing alignment with pro-Israel causes and fundraising, it’s hard to see how his death would serve Jewish interests. This makes this explanation appear inconsistent and hence unfulfilling.
Which brings me back to my initial suspicion.
Kirk had grown into a formidable political force. He was ambitious, media-savvy, and capable of setting his own ideological course. Perhaps, as he began to rise beyond Jews control, he became a liability. They couldn’t afford to let him set the narrative. They needed to reassert control over Western politics. They had to stop him, and stopping him they did.
If my theory is correct, the next logical step will be an attempt to replace or absorb his political organization — Turning Point USA — and turn it into a new organization, led by Jews. It may retain the same audience and messaging style, but the leadership will change.
Is that even wise? When jews shill for their own it looks bad no matter how you slice it
Jewish descent is figured through the mother not the father. This means that all of the grandchildren of sons married to Jews are themselves bona fide recognized Jews.