Those who have been following the recent murder of Charlie Kirk in the US would have noticed something very revealing about how narratives are built and deconstructed in real time. The moment the unfortunate killing happened, the compromised legacy media machinery went into its usual discriminatory overdrive — speculating, twisting, and determining for the public who the likely killer “must” be.

Before any facts emerged, the headlines and debates were already pointing that the killer could belong to certain categories — Muslim, Jews, Black, immigrant, Russian, African, left wing etc. — basically, anyone who fit the “usual suspect” profile. This was a field day for the media. The tragedy became an opportunity to demonize entire communities, dehumanize them, and build public pressure for harsh actions — calls for deportation, bans, and even policy changes that would target those groups.

This is a familiar trademark pattern of the compromised media. Whenever a crime happens, the urgency is not to find the truth, but to build the stereotyped narrative so it reinforces an already existing bias. It is a powerful manipulating strategic tool to divide society. This is a well thought out strategy to create dissension among the public and to make it a war narrative like the “us vs. them”.

This division within the society is essentially done to ensure that the powerful remain powerful and the ideological narrative stays unchallenged. They are doing it to implant preconceived notions and manufactured bias in the minds of the younger generations against certain class and category of people. This has been the most potent weapon of indoctrination used by the anti-humanitarian zionist imperialistic media.

But notice what happened when the actual killer did not fit the expected profile. When it turned out that the killer was not Muslim, not Black, not Brown, not foreign, but a white Christian, conservative, male with the usual gun-culture upbringing, the entire tone and tenor of the compromised media changed overnight.

Suddenly, the killer was no longer a “terrorist.” His religion was not questioned, his skin color was irrelevant, his family’s values were not dissected, and his ideology was not blamed. Instead, sympathetic profiles appeared about how “good” the family was, how “troubled” the boy must have been, and how society failed him. The conversation shifted from punishment to empathy — blaming the education system, the college environment, or even “mental health pressures” rather than the individual or his ideology.

This seems weird but even law enforcement officials seemed uncomfortable presenting the case, almost wishing the killer had belonged to any other "stereotyped group”. This hypocrisy and double standard is glaring in the western ruling class. It shows us how narratives are not about truth but about control — about who gets vilified and who gets humanized.

This is the bias we must question. This “manufactured exceptionalism” we all must confront in the western world. Justice cannot be selective, and accountability cannot depend on skin color, religion, or ideology. A killer is a killer — no matter who he is. A terrorist  is a terrorist — no matter who he is.

What are your opinions ?