WHAT kind of woman would wear a live microphone, a fresh manicure, and a large diamond-encrusted ring with a Masonic G on it while embracing her husband in a casket?

And what kind of woman would not notice that he is a dummy? (Notice the rubber hands.)

Ah, that must be the saintly Erika Kirk!

What kind of people would swallow this nonsense?

 

— Comments —

Janice writes:

The smirking, the corny monologue, the all-around insincerity has marked EK’s performances as suspect at the very least.

There have been a number of commenters on different sites and channels that have wanted to appear as the more open-minded about this, the more rational – throwing out for the benighted the trope that “everyone grieves differently”. Uh-huh. One of them brought up the case of the Australian “Dingo lady”, the one convicted of the murder of her child whom she claimed was taken by the wild animal.  Her conviction was based, in large part, on her lack of emotion and almost indifferent affect during trial. The conviction was later reversed, after more convincing evidence came to light that the dingo killed her baby.

In my opinion, Mrs. Kirk is no dingo lady! If the Australian mother was the picture of apathy, it could be attributed to deep depression or some other psychological ailment, added to the strain of enduring trial. Mrs. Kirk hasn’t shown herself to be apathetic, at that low point where you aren’t even able to care how you present yourself. She shows presence of mind. She cares greatly about getting her looks, her show of grief, and most importantly, her appeal to the “movement” just right for public consumption.

Oh…did anyone else notice the ‘blowing’ sound she made toward the end of the coffin video (while out of camera range after whispering to Charlie and kissing his hand)?  She did it in her ‘speech to the world’ video, too. Those were not at all like the sad, automatic sighs of emotional pain and exhaustion, but the “whew” sound made when facing something arduous, irritating, or perplexing. In this case, role play? I had heard that same ‘whew’ coming from Robbie Parker (of SH infamy), as I was watching footage of him taking the stage to share a story of his hours-dead little boy (a disgusting thing in itself!).  I remember thinking: Wait! That was weird! This guy sounds like he is needing to pull off a really big performance, here!

Sept. 18, 2025

Tracy writes:

I am so grateful that I checked your page recently as you enlightened me to this enormous hoax that has engulfed almost everyone. I cannot understand how the other (enlightened?!) Catholic commenters I usually tune into cannot see it for what it is. I have been down the rabbit hole and I believe there are 3 possibly 4 women being presented as Mrs Erika Kirk. They are not even trying to hide it! When I watch interviews with ‘Charlie and his wife’ it is so obvious they are faking it. This is a monstrous psyop and really shows the depths of deception and manipulation at play. We are truly at the mercy of God alone to clean up this mess!

WF writes:

To all of those people claiming Charlie Kirk was not assassinated, I would like to ask them a question. Before I do, please take a minute to calculate how many thousands of man-hours and effort it would take to pull off that hoax (in an amphitheater setting). My question is, why would those evil demons go through all of that trouble when they could have simply executed him?

Laura writes:

You mean they could have just said he was dead?

Well, they would’t have created a martyr.

Without the violent scene that traumatized viewers they wouldn’t have whipped up emotional support for that martyr. And it would have seemed less convincing without a crowd there who supposedly saw it.

It worked for the fake assassination attempt of Trump in Butler, Pa. That gave him a nice bump of support and he took the staged victimization and ran with it.

Charlie’s death has placed a golden halo around Conservatism, Inc., with its wars for bankers and oppressive monetary system (which Charlie supported with his promotion of “free” markets and Milton Friedman economics).

They’d like white Christians to fight and die for that system.

Laura adds:

Oh, and I don’t think it was all that much trouble. But anyway, there’s a lot at stake so it would be worth it.

Regardless of whether Kirk was killed or not, the effect of the massive publicity and mind-control trauma surrounding this event has been to valorize Conservatism, Inc., which is just a bunch of puppets pacifying the people with a highly decadent, emotionalized simulation of Christianity while the last remnants of this country are taken down.

The left-right divide is a convenient distraction. Not that there aren’t real differences, of course, but in terms of running the government, either will do the job. Neither has a real solution for trillions in debt, except that we all, right and left, will pay for it. Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, you will pay.

So to keep people thinking they’re effectively fighting a system that is rapidly impoverishing them is a goal worth some trouble.

WF writes:

Sorry for any confusion. I was asking why they would run an elaborate hoax instead of just executing Charlie (as I believe they did on that campus)? They’ve committed hundreds of millions of murders over the past 100 years, so why bother running an elaborate hoax to save Charlie’s life? Assassinating him would be a miniscule task when compared to what it would take to pull off this hoax.

Another way to put it: there are 2 options:

1. kill him

OR

2. run an elaborate hoax to make people think he was killed.

Did these psychopathic, mass-murders develop a soft spot in their heart for Charlie? Of course not…they executed him.

I hope that makes sense, because once you look at it from that perspective, the idea of it being a hoax becomes nearly impossible to believe.

Laura writes:

Well, let me ask you this: If they really wanted to get rid of him why has he been turned into a national martyr? If he was so dangerous, why are we surrounded by Charlie Kirk everywhere, why has a congressman said he would have been the 13th apostle if he lived 2,000 years ago?

It seems there’s quite a soft spot in their hearts for Charlie.

WF writes:

My issue is simply whether or not they actually killed him. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever their motive may have been does not matter (in this discussion). People are claiming CK is  alive and well. Why would they perpetrators go through all of the trouble to run this elaborate hoax instead of just killing him? I’ve tried to explain it as well as I can. I give up! :-)

In any case, I always look forward to reading about your thoughts about all things great and small.

Laura writes:

Thanks. : – )

Why would they perpetrators go through all of the trouble to run this elaborate hoax instead of just killing him?

And I don’t understand why they would even want to kill him. You say there are two options, but there is another: Reward a man who served the party well (TPUSA took in more than $80 million in contributions in one year) and let him retire. Your premise is that he was an enemy of the state and I am saying he was not. Perhaps Kirk had served his purpose and he himself wanted to get out of the limelight and live a normal life. We can only speculate, but it is possible. I cannot possibly know.

At the end of the day, all we know is that this event includes some real oddities and has been turned into political theater. We can’t know more.

Here is part of an interesting comment by “Panertos” at September Clues. The conclusion the commenter is drawing here is what I would take away from this:

I’m not going to pretend I know the absolute truth here, but the more you look at the official narrative surrounding Charlie Kirk, the more it falls apart. The entire event is riddled with suspicious details and illogical actions.

A few things stand out as particularly strange:
The personal behavior: The spectacle of his wife giving political speeches after his death and allowing herself to be filmed kissing her “dead” husband’s hand is, to put it mildly, a little bit weird. A performance.
The logistics of the crime: Why would an assassin choose a high-security, chaotic public event? It would be infinitely easier and more logical to target him near his home or a local supermarket. The chosen setting maximizes spectacle and minimizes logic. And why Kirk? Some good government boy with kids and a blond wife.
The quality of “evidence”: Once again, we are presented with grainy, low-quality footage. For an event with thousands of smartphones, the visual record is characteristically poor, which seems to be the case in these situations.
The marketing effect: Before this, Kirk was a niche figure. Now, his name is known globally. It’s an incredibly effective, if morbid, way to build a brand and solidify a broader political narrative.

I see some getting lost in numerology and complex codes, but I think that’s a mistake. That’s part of the game meant to distract us. The core issue is simpler: this is theater.

We live in an age of state-sponsored video productions. The moon landing, the official 9/11 story, the “cold war,” Elon Musk’s rocket launches, nukes—it’s all part of a grand performance designed to shape public perception. The American state is a master theater organizer, and this Charlie Kirk event has some of the hallmarks of another one of its plays.

Ultimately, it doesn’t even matter what “really” happened to Kirk—whether he was truly murdered, put into a witness protection program, or something else. We are all trying to solve a mystery where the game developer (the state) provides all the clues, all the footage, and all the conflicting narratives. The game is rigged from the start because they provide us the clues and the material to look at. [bold added]

This doesn’t mean every tragedy is fake from the start. I think the state is just as skilled at hijacking random, real events for its own purposes. A real school shooting can happen, for instance, but the immediate, coordinated theater that follows—the media blitz, the mayors screaming for new laws, the televised funerals—is the manufactured spectacle designed to push an agenda.

This event has all the weirdness and inconsistencies needed to be placed firmly in that list of state-managed narratives. [cont.]

Hurricane Betsy writes:

Comment on unz:

I’m ready for a “Charlie Kirk Fatigue Helpline”

LOL.

If I had some technical knowledge & ambition, I’d set up such a help line.  I’ll listen to callers complain for up to 3 minutes for $1.99.

Laura writes:

Go for it.