Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the story unfolding is not just about grief — it’s about shaping a martyr, weaponizing outrage, and erecting legal and regulatory scaffolding to crack down on political opposition. What we are witnessing is far more than rhetorical posturing: it’s the construction of a myth and pretext for authoritarian control.
What’s happening now
1. The martyr narrative is being constructed with precision
Trump and his allies are rapidly elevating Charlie Kirk as a symbolic martyr — someone whose death validates the narrative of a country under siege by the left. His death is becoming more than a tragedy; it’s becoming the foundation of a rallying cry.
The declaration of a National Day of Remembrance, flags at half-mast, public grieving ceremonies — these are more than homage. They are signals: this is a moment for mobilization.
2. Media being weaponized: the case of Jimmy Kimmel and ABC
ABC indefinitely suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! after Kimmel’s remarks about the response to Kirk’s killing, including commentary that MAGA supporters were trying to capitalize on the event. Nexstar Communication, a major station affiliate, pulled the show. Meanwhile, the FCC, under Trump’s appointee Brendan Carr, threatened regulatory action over what it termed “misleading content.”
This episode is more than a controversial talk-show moment. It illustrates a pattern: regulatory pressure and the threat of sanctions being used to shape or punish speech. These threats do not come from vague marketers or private individuals; they come from government agencies — including the FCC — raising the stakes for media outlets that stray. Critics (including FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez) warn that this sets a dangerous precedent for the First Amendment.
3. The authoritarian frame: painting dissent as extremism
The narrative being established is: violence against conservatives = proof of left-wing extremism. The logic is being inverted: rather than investigating where political violence comes from, the emphasis is increasingly on silencing voices that challenge conservative power, by associating them (by accusation or implication) with violence or “misinformation.”
The regulatory tools being assembled include broadcaster threats, potential FCC license revocations, and media companies being forced into self-censorship or removal of content under pressure. That’s how control looks, under the guise of “public interest” or “protecting trust” or “clamping down on extremism.”
The historical mirror: Horst Wessel and the Nazi martyr machine
To understand the deeper risk here, it helps to see a precedent. The case of Horst Wessel in Germany in 1930 offers a chilling template.
Wessel was a young SA member, known for street-violence against Communists. After he was shot (possibly over a political dispute mixed with personal conflict), the Nazi propaganda machine, led by Joseph Goebbels, seized his death and mythologized it. He was transformed into a martyr — not just someone who died, but someone who symbolized sacrifice for the cause.
The “Horst Wessel Song” became a key symbol, promoted, sung at SA rallies, eventually becoming a national anthem. The funeral was public spectacle. Wessel’s name was used as a rallying cry. His memory became infrastructure for Nazi identity and legitimacy.
What we see now around Charlie Kirk has echoes: death used as symbolic capital, martyrdom used to energize a political base, media mobilization, suppression of counter-narratives.
Why this matters — the danger of the pattern
By combining the martyr narrative with intense regulatory pressure on media, what’s being built is a playbook for suppression.
- Free speech becomes conditional. When media speech analysts or late-night hosts are punished, suspended, or “canceled” because they challenge the official narrative, then dissent is chilled.
- Dissent-as-disorder rhetoric gives political cover: If the left is painted as dangerous, unstable, or violent, then restrictions (some of which may violate constitutional rights) become presented as necessary.
- Regulatory apparatus becomes a tool of political enforcement, not public service. FCC threats of sanction, broadcaster reprisals, affiliate pullouts — these aren’t neutral or accidental; they are tools in a political struggle.
- Historical precedent shows where this leads. The Wessel example isn’t just academic. In Weimar Germany, the martyr myth helped legitimize authoritarian ascendency. Symbols, songs, public mourning, suppression of “opponents” — that path led directly to a regime that silenced opposition, controlled media, and outlawed dissent.
What to watch for
To understand whether we are crossing a red line, we should be alert to:
- Legislation or executive orders that define “domestic extremists” or “misinformation” in vague terms, particularly speech that challenges conservative power.
- Regulatory actions that punish media entities for content, even when that content is factually based, opinion, or dissenting commentary.
- Consolidation of media power under corporations that are subject to regulatory pressure, mergers, or licensing decisions, which may make them more compliant for fear of reprisals.
- Cultivation of symbolic days, monuments, or memorials to Kirk that parallel what we saw with Wessel — turning a person into an icon to be used rhetorically.
- Suppression or legal action against left-leaning groups, nonprofits, journalists, etc., under the guise of combating “extremism” or “violence,” especially when evidence is weak or accusations vague.
Conclusion: The stakes are immediate
Charlie Kirk’s death is tragic. It deserves due investigation, accountability, and respect. But what we are seeing now is not just an honoring of the dead — it is a mobilization of myth. And myth, when created by leaders with power over media and regulation, becomes machinery.
Jimmy Kimmel’s firing isn’t just about a joke. It’s not just about comedy. It is a warning: the narrative is being policed. The memory of the dead is being politicized. Dissent is being suppressed. The line between public mourning and public manipulation is being blurred — dangerously so.
If we allow this pattern to take root unchecked, we risk more than polarization. We risk seeing the freedoms that define democratic life — free speech, dissent, press independence — eroded in the name of symbolism and control. And then, like the martyrs of past authoritarian movements, we will discover too late that the myth built to sustain power was the same myth that justified its repression.