![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/637\/2025\/09\/Horst_Wessel_Nr._10_farbige_AK_aus_der_Serie_Manner_der_Zeit_1931_NS-Propaganda-Postkarte_NSDAP_nazi_postcard_SA_Sturmabteilung_Colourised_portrait_photo_No_known_copyright_restrictions.jpg\")
<\/a>One of the ways the Nazis controlled the general populace was through propaganda<\/a>. Sometimes, the propaganda<\/a> was aimed at creating an emotional bond with the people so that the people not only agreed to what the regime wanted, but ending up fighting, and wanting destroyed, anyone who denounced what the Nazis were doing. The propaganda encouraged citizens to report to authorities anyone<\/a> who did not show proper compliance and acceptance to the Nazi regime. Those who were turned in were punished (and often executed). One way the Nazis created their propaganda was through the use of \u201cmartyrs,\u201d those who were said to be killed by the Nazi\u2019s enemies, such as the communists, among which were Horst Wessel<\/a> and Herbert Norkus<\/a>. The Nazi used such deaths not only as a means of denouncing those who resisted the Nazi regime, but also to reinforce the bond the Nazis wanted to create with society, to draw them in emotionally by feeling bad for those who were killed. Sadly, many Christians fell for it, and those who did not, were often persecuted, with one of the most famous examples of Christian resistance being centered around Deitrich Bonhoeffer<\/a>.<\/p>\n It is easy for me to see the way the Nazis engaged society, the playbook the Nazis used, is once again being used, and it is being used by the Trump<\/a> administration. Trump<\/a> now has his martyr with Charlie Kirk. Obviously, Kirk should not have been killed, but neither should Kirk be turned into something he was not:\u00a0 the representation of the American (and Christian) ideal. Despite what the propaganda suggests, Kirk was not for free speech, nor for proper debate; he got started trying to have professors targeted and fired<\/a> because of what they said, that is, what they taught, which Kirk, a college dropout, did not like. While many have seen videos of Kirk supposedly debating anyone who would take him on, those videos are highly edited and selective: others<\/a> have videos where they confronted Kirk with questions he could not answer, and those videos never made it onto his social media platforms (which, if he were interested in free debate and engagement of the issues, he would have done). Kirk was only interested in giving the appearance of promoting free inquiry. His videos often made it seem as if no one could beat him in his debate, making his position must be irrefutable.\u00a0 Kirk, like so many from the extreme right, often used the right words, but, like sophists, used them to mean the opposite of their ordinary use, of what they public expects them to mean. This is exactly what we see happening with his claim for free speech. He advocated that he and his fellow ideologues should be free to say whatever they want, to misrepresent or defame anyone, and that is what he meant when saying he advocated free speech: he did not advocate free speech for everyone, which is why he actively worked to have professors (and others) silenced (similar to the way Elon Musk has silenced<\/a> people on twitter all the while pretending<\/a> to be for free speech).<\/p>\n It is quite apparent that that there is a campaign to make Kirk into something he wasn\u2019t, and to use that vision of Kirk for dubious ends. Some are trying to turn Kirk into a national hero; they want a statue<\/a> built for him, even as they want a special day to commemorate him<\/a>. While this is bad, what is worse is the way he is being promoted by many Christians. I was taken back when I heard Cardinal Dolan suggest Kirk was a modern-day Saint Paul<\/a>. Sorry, but no; he was not close to the likes of Paul. Paul, once he was converted to the Christian faith, promoted Christ\u2019s universal love, making sure Christians were more, not less, inclusive. \u00a0Paul said that Christians needed to transcend racial and gender-based biases when he said that in Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew or Gentile<\/a>. Paul encouraged Christians to look beyond racist ideologies, while Kirk did the opposite. Kirk attacked<\/a> civil rights<\/a>, he ridiculed<\/a> the abilities of African Americans<\/a>, suggesting they were inferior to whites, and he attacked women<\/a> by essentializing<\/a> them, telling them to get married and have children to fulfill who they are meant to be (how can anyone reading Paul, who promoted celibacy as superior to marriage<\/a>, see any comparison between the two?). Kirk was far from representing the Christian ideals; he represented the right-wing culture war<\/a>, and like many engaging that culture war, he attacked Christian teachings of social justice. He mocked Pope Francis, saying Francis was a Marxist<\/a> because of Francis\u2019 concern for social justice. Kirk represented an ideology, one which would and did use Christ\u2019s name, but one which did so in\u00a0 a way which countered what Christ taught. Jesus warned us that many might speak in his name, but if they did evil in his name, if they hurt the vulnerable, the poor, the needy, they stood against him and his way<\/a>. How can Kirk be seen as a Christian martyr? He can\u2019t, for he wasn\u2019t, unless you want to say every Christian that is killed, no matter the reason for their death, makes them a martyr. That would mean, for example, every Christian on death row would become a martyr once they were executed. That is absurd. To be an authentic Christian martyr, one must be killed for their faith, and they must not have provoked their martyrdom.<\/p>\n The way people react to Charlie Kirk<\/a>, and what he said and did is now being collected<\/a> and used to have people fired from their jobs<\/a>. If you say one word against him, if you show what he actually said, the government wants to know. Even if you say he should not have been killed, but point out\u00a0 how his rhetoric might have helped create the condition for his death, you are not safe<\/a>. You are not allowed to try to understand how things turned out as they did. You are not to question Kirk or his goodness. You are called to look up to him, to worship him with the rest of civil society.\u00a0 I\u2019ve seen this message promoted by many in positions of authority and power. We are being warned our passports<\/a> might be taken away from us if we say the wrong thing. Networks are having their licenses threatened<\/a> if they do not enforce official government propaganda. And, not only are we warned against questioning Kirk and his values, we are told that his death is proof that his critics, and so Trump\u2019s critics, are all violent, all part of a great conspiracy which must be stopped. That is, we are told that the \u201cfar left<\/a>,\u201d must be squashed, despite the fact that history shows<\/a> it is the \u201cfar right<\/a>\u201d which tends to be violent, bloodthirsty and seek out the death of those they oppose, a history which, to be sure, Trump and his administration wants forgotten (as official reports which indicated this have now been scrubbed from governmental websites<\/a>).<\/p>\n I am afraid Kirk has become the American Horst Wessel. However, I do have some hope. I don\u2019t think many Americans care either way about Charlie Kirk. He was a social media phenomenon, one which was aimed mostly at youth. This attempt to turn him into a cover for the administration\u2019s tyrannical policies might not work because most people do not have any bonds with him and his activity. But, to be sure, even if people are not convinced, that doesn\u2019t mean tyranny will stop what it is doing. They will keep going, whether or not the public is with them. And that means, those\u00a0 who are opposed<\/a> to such tyranny must make sure they do not stop resisting<\/a>, even if they are threatened, especially if they are threatened, because it is easier to deal with the threats when they start than later, when tyrants have full power to execute their every desire.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n * This Is Another Post From My Personal (Informal) Reflections And Speculations<\/a> Series<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n