On September 10, 2025, at an event called “The American Comeback Tour” at Utah Valley University, a student asked Charlie Kirk:

“Do you know how many mass shootings there have been in the last ten years?”

“Counting gang violence?” Kirk responded ironically.

Kirk was a professional right-wing haranguer, credited by President Trump for helping him win the election. He had previously argued that a few deaths from gun violence (40,000 annually) were a reasonable price to pay to uphold the sacred Second Amendment. According to the National Rifle Association, which overturned previous Supreme Court interpretations, this amendment protects the right of individuals to carry AR-15 rifles. The 1791 print doesn’t speak of individuals but of “well-regulated militias.” By arms, it meant muskets that wouldn’t kill a rabbit at 100 yards. By “the people,” it meant, not in the least, Black, mixed-race, Native American, or other nonwhite people.

Before he could articulate a complete response, Kirk was shot powerfully in the throat from a building 150 yards away. In the process, coincidentally or not, his enemies on the right—like Ben Shapiro and, perhaps, Tel Aviv—got rid of a traitor who had questioned the October 7, 2023 story.

The media and social networks exploded, blaming “the left,” despite the fact that, in the last fifty years alone, right-wing massacres account for 80 percent of the deaths, while left-wing massacres barely reach five percent.

But who cares about reality if the word creates the world? From Europe to the Southern Cone, those who heard Kirk’s name for the first time organized moving ceremonies for the new martyr of “left-handed violence” and were unstinting in their praise for his “profound influence” that “blazed a path” for good people.

Two days later, the governor of the Mormon state of Utah, Spencer Cox, announced the identity of the killer. Almost in tears, he acknowledged that he “had prayed for 33 hours that the killer would be someone from outside, from another state or another country,” but God didn’t listen. Two days later, he returned to the media, more relieved: the killer, although conservative, a gun lover, and a voter for President Donald Trump, had been influenced by the “leftist ideas” of his partner, a young transgender man.

Religious capitalists don’t believe in collective sin but in individual sin, yet they are always looking for a sinner within an outside group to criminalize the entire group. When Cox acknowledged, “For 33 hours I prayed that the killer would be someone from another country… Sadly, that prayer went unheard,” it didn’t occur to him that “we, who lead the way in giving across the country,” might be criminals, sinners. If we close our eyes to telling God what to do, we can’t be bad.

Now, what’s the social logic (if not engineering) in all this? Let’s put it with a metaphor that spans three continents and more than a thousand years of history: chess.

Like modern mathematics, factual sciences, and Meccans, in the 9th century the Arabs introduced Indian chess to Al-Andalus (present-day Spain). Europe adopted and adapted it. The European feudal system concentrated all social prestige on land ownership and the honor of wars. Like today, nobles invented wars in which their subjects would die in the name of God, while they reaped the spoils and honor. Pawns, that line of faceless and nameless pieces, are modern soldiers and, more recently, civilians who serve only as cannon fodder.

Where’s the trick? In geopolitics, the two sides represent two blocs or alliances of countries. Still, those on the bottom are the first to die. If a pawn survives until the end of the game, it’s because it leaned against the king to protect it.

At the national level, it represents a civil war, but these tend to be rare; they’re the last instance of a longer war that precedes them. When we see these pieces in action, we see White against Black. We see a “culture war”—a war that doesn’t exist today because, if it really were a culture war, freedom of expression would be guaranteed, something that, in the United States and under the libertarian Trump-Rubio administration, has been dying every day.

In other words, the culture war prevents us from seeing the real war that precipitates the conflict: the class war. In the firing line, we have the pawns. Further back, the aristocracy, the rich. Finally, the true masters of the battle: everyone fights and dies to defend a king (BlackRock?) who, without sacrifice, takes it all.

In The Narrative of the Invisible (2004), we proposed a thesis on the political struggle of semantic fields: whoever managed to define and limit the meaning of the ideolexicon (later “culture war”) set the direction of history. This is without denying that the main force of conflict lies in class struggle, which the ruling classes (and their amanuenses) always deny or attribute, with perverse intention, to Marxist critics, conspirators of evil.

Today we can see how this class struggle, exercised by financial elites, has constantly promoted a culture war as the perfect distraction: Black against White, Christian against Muslim, sexist against feminist, God’s chosen against God’s flawed creations…

This oligarchy, which continues to hijack and concentrate the wealth of societies, has realized two problems: (1) The gap between those who have everything and those who have nothing has increased logarithmically—ergo, dangerously. (2) The vampirization of the colonies that supplied the empires of white capitalism is drying up, and the people, who barely benefited from this historic genocide that left hundreds of millions dead, no longer feel the privilege of this international system. They are impoverished, indebted, destroyed by hard drugs and by the drugs of passionate and useless arguments of the entertainment networks, producers of sectarian, nationalist, and tribal hatred.

The main drug of the elites is money and power. They always need more to maintain a minimum of satisfaction, but they know that this situation, both nationally and internationally, is not sustainable. On a national level, it’s the perfect formula for a bloody rebellion. On an international level, it means the collapse of a dictatorial power that in the 19th century was called “white democracy.”

Domestically, to avoid or postpone this rebellion, they need to promote hatred among those at the bottom and militarization as the solution. Abroad, the goal is genocide, the annihilation of any emerging power, or the Third World War.

Palestine is the perfect laboratory where they decide how to achieve brutality despite the opposition of a powerless world. Propaganda is failing them, so they accelerate the silent resort to war violence, whose objective is the cleansing of inconvenient humans through massive, endless, unpunished bombings.

All to please a strange god.

Jorge Majfud, September 14, 2025

Ideology and Intervention: A Critical Review of Jorge Majfud’s The Wild Frontier