“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” — Abraham Lincoln
As an intelligence analyst, my first instinct has never been only what happened, but how the message travels. In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s tragic murder, the message is traveling fast, and not in one stream. It is splintering into silos.
If I only drew from a single silo, I would be no better than the voices locked inside it. I would simply be broadcasting into an echo chamber. That is why I spend my time in three spaces: Substack, Truth Social, and X. Each one offers a different lens. Each one reveals a different America.
Less than 24 hours after the shooting, the divide is already clear.
Substack – Reflection and Irony
On Substack, the immediate response was condemnation of political violence. But the surface-level rejection of violence was paired with sharper undercurrents. A significant share of commenters noted the irony that Kirk had long dismissed gun deaths as an acceptable cost of the Second Amendment, only to be claimed by the very culture of firearms he promoted.
The frequency of calls for gun reform was striking. Comment after comment insisted that no vest, no armed guard, no sidearm would have saved Kirk from a sniper’s bullet — only regulation could. Readers pointed out that if America can lower flags for Charlie Kirk, it should be lowering them for murdered Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota, or for the thousands of schoolchildren lost to shootings.
The other common thread was hypocrisy. Substack readers were quick to note how Trump selectively expresses outrage depending on the victim, highlighting how mourning itself has become partisan theater. The conversation here wasn’t about canonizing Kirk but about using his death to expose what many see as structural rot.
Truth Social – Martyrdom and Mobilization
Truth Social told a wholly different story. The message volume here was massive, amplified by coordinated posts from Gateway Pundit, Real America’s Voice, and others. The tone was apocalyptic: Kirk was a warrior felled in battle, his death a turning point after which “America will never be the same.”
The martyrdom narrative dominated. Hashtags like #RIPCharlieKirk, #PrayForCharlieKirk, and #CharlieKirkForever were trending, creating a sense of collective mourning and defiance. The repetition was not casual; it was orchestrated, with influencers pushing the same slogans within minutes of one another.
Alongside grief was mobilization. The volume of posts blaming Democrats, “Marxists,” or the “radical left” was overwhelming. Many treated the shooting as proof of a national war, urging followers to stay vigilant and prepare for retaliation. Intermixed with this rage were platform promotions: subscription offers, Patriot badges, and boosted content pitches. Mourning blurred with marketing in a way that felt deliberate.
X – Chaos and Contradiction
X was the noisiest silo, and also the most fractured. Within hours, the platform was flooded with every kind of reaction: condolences, rage, satire, conspiracy, and opportunism.
Mainstream figures like Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg condemned the violence and offered prayers. Their posts gained wide circulation, but they were immediately drowned out by louder, more polarizing voices. Elon Musk accused Democrats of being “the party of murder.” Laura Loomer declared Democratic rhetoric directly responsible. Right-wing influencers claimed the left was celebrating Kirk’s death.
At the same time, counter-voices pushed back. Stephen King pointed to America’s gun crisis, and journalists reminded readers of slain Democrats who received no flag-lowering honors. Satirical posts circulated widely too, including dark jokes about Kirk’s pro-life stance and his own words on gun deaths as “the price we pay.”
The overall effect was chaos. Roughly a third of the conversation was grief from conservatives, another third irony from critics, with anger, satire, and conspiracy filling the rest. No single narrative held the field for long. X produced not a coherent story but a clash of emotional frequencies, where grief and irony were loudest, anger amplified the fight, and satire and speculation swirled at the edges.
Three Platforms, Three Americas
Substack leaned toward reflection and reform. The dominant themes were irony, hypocrisy, and repeated calls for gun control. Readers condemned the violence, but just as strongly condemned the political culture that treats gun deaths as inevitable.
Truth Social turned the tragedy into martyrdom and mobilization. The volume of posts framing Kirk as a fallen warrior was overwhelming, with hashtags, slogans, and coordinated outrage directed squarely at Democrats and “the left.” Grief was fused with anger, and both were channeled into partisan loyalty and platform promotion.
X was a picture of chaos and contradiction. Grief and irony were the loudest voices, anger and satire kept the fights alive, and conspiracy theories floated around the edges. The result was not a narrative but a clash of frequencies, amplified by an algorithm that rewards whichever emotion spikes the highest.
Together, these three silos reveal not just how Charlie Kirk’s death was received, but how America itself is split in the processing of tragedy. One America searches for reform. One America rallies to war. One America spirals in noise.
The feeds we scroll are not just windows into the same country. They are competing realities. And that is why, after each tragedy, the divide grows deeper.
Final Take
Yesterday, I wrote about the conflict I feel in trying to maintain friendships with my MAGA peers. Someone asked me how America could ever become unified. If social media is any indicator, it won’t.
All morning, CNN and other outlets have been filled with voices from the right and left calling for calm. Politicians say it is time to lower the heat, to speak civilly, and to return to discourse. Former Congressman
even wrote a piece, From Tragedy to Resolve: Rejecting Political Violence After Orem, urging us to appeal to our better angels.But President Trump has called for retribution. And on Truth Social, his followers are not preparing for dialogue. They are preparing for war. Whoever the assassin turns out to be, his identity will be wielded as fuel for MAGA fury.
Let’s hope Truth Social is not the true indicator of where this country is headed.
Call to Action
I want to hear from you: which of these three Americas do you feel most people around you are living in? Do you see yourself drifting toward one silo, or do you try to read across them as I do? Drop your thoughts in the comments, and let’s test whether we can bridge silos here, even if the rest of the country refuses to.
Frequency Snapshot
To give a sense of the weight and volume of reactions, here is a rough snapshot of the most common themes across platforms in the first 24 hours:
This is not a complete dataset, but the pattern is unmistakable: Substack produced a reflective chorus, Truth Social a coordinated rally, and X a cacophony of contradictions.
Good analysis Chuck! I am not a regular user of any of these platforms precisely because of the echo chambers, anarchy and vitriol. Personally I have a deep respect for Charlie Kirk because he was a man of dialogue and peace, in much the same way I revere Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. for his peaceful civil disobedience. Both men of conviction, dialogue and peace. How do we bring our country together? Charlie Kirk was traveling from campus to campus inviting anyone and everyone to engage him in dialogue. Where do we go from here, when the prophets and poets are murdered for their ideas?
My feeds are split with the Maga folk condemning the left for cheering the murder and calling it hypocrisy, with zero self reflection on their own hypocrisy. And those on the left condemning the murder (I don't see anyone actually cheering) but also expressing zero empathy for the man.