Bolshevik Playbook: Freedom of Speech Targeted

The assassination of Charlie Kirk shocked the nation. A man of faith, conviction, and courage was silenced not by debate or ideas, but by a bullet and an ideology. And while the tragedy feels immediate and raw, history teaches us that this tactic — eliminating opposition through violence — is nothing new. It is the ultimate attack on freedom of speech, proving once again that those who cannot win in the marketplace of ideas will instead try to silence their opponents by force.

This is not the first time radicals have used fear and force to suppress opposing voices. We have seen it before in history, most strikingly during the Bolshevik Revolution.

The Bolshevik Playbook

In 1917, Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution toppled the old order and paved the way for decades of dictatorship. Russia in the early 20th century was already a nation under strain. Years of war, poverty, and political instability had left the people exhausted and desperate for change. In this environment, radical groups flourished.

The Mensheviks represented the broader majority, advocating for more gradual reform. The Bolsheviks, by contrast, were a radical minority who demanded total revolution. They did not win the hearts of most Russians — they simply outmaneuvered and outgunned their opponents.

What the Bolsheviks lacked in numbers, they made up for in ruthlessness. After stealing weapons from the St. Petersburg arsenal, they set about dismantling their opposition. One by one, the leaders of the Mensheviks were targeted and eliminated. The rest of the movement was slowly ground down into submission, not by persuasion, but by fear.

It was not a quick process. It was slow, bloody, and relentless. Over decades, violence and intimidation replaced reason, and the Russian people were forced into compliance. Christian values were trampled underfoot, and what followed was one of the darkest dictatorships of the modern age.

The Echoes Today

When we look at what is happening now, the parallels are impossible to ignore.

Radicals today, much like the Bolsheviks of a century ago, represent a loud minority. They do not seek to win arguments on the battlefield of ideas. Instead, they aim to silence their opponents outright. If they cannot discredit someone, they intimidate them. If they cannot intimidate, they threaten. And when all else fails, some believe violence is the final solution.

The celebration of Charlie Kirk’s death by some corners of society reveals this chilling truth: there are those who do not want dialogue — they want domination. They do not want discussion — they want submission. And, just as in Bolshevik Russia, Christianity and traditional values stand in the crosshairs.

This is visible in today’s culture wars. It is no longer enough to “live and let live.” Increasingly, radicals demand not just tolerance, but forced affirmation. They insist society adopt their language, their definitions, their worldview — and punish those who refuse. But compelled speech is not freedom. It is not dialogue. It is coercion, the same old tactic dressed in modern clothes.

The irony in all of this is they call themselves “anti-fascist,” but their actions betray the truth. To brand opponents as “fascists” while using intimidation, suppression of speech, and outright violence is not resistance — it is fascism itself. The tactic is as old as tyranny: accuse your enemy of what you are guilty of, and then justify silencing them in the name of “justice.”

The Stark Contrast

One striking difference between the Bolsheviks of the past and the radicals of today lies in their appearance and demeanor. The Bolsheviks, for all their brutality, projected themselves as disciplined and methodical. They carried an air of grim seriousness, presenting their revolution as an inevitable march of history.

Today’s radicals, by contrast, often appear chaotic, unhinged, and emotionally unstable. Their rage spills out in slogans, violent outbursts, and frenzied celebrations of their opponents’ suffering. This contrast is revealing. Yesterday’s tyrants cloaked themselves in order to mask their cruelty; today’s cloak themselves in chaos to justify theirs.

The method may differ, but the goal is the same: silence opposition, seize power, and destroy the values that stand in their way.

The Danger of Forgetting

Most people today know little of the Bolshevik revolution. Schools skim over the details, softening the brutal truth of how communism took root through bloodshed and oppression. The globalist narrative prefers to bury this history, because it exposes how minority radicals seize power by force when they cannot win it by consent.

Instead, we hear endless talk of “protecting our democracy,” even as the very freedoms that define democracy — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought — are under systematic attack. The language is different, but the tactic is the same.

The Lesson of History

The Bolsheviks rose not because they convinced the majority, but because fear silenced the majority. That silence gave a ruthless minority the power to dominate.

Today, we face the same danger. Christians, Jews, and all people of faith and conscience are increasingly in the crosshairs. The answer is not to retreat in fear or muzzle our voices. The answer is to speak boldly, to defend truth, and to refuse to bow to intimidation.

But words alone are not enough. History has shown us time and again that freedom of speech cannot stand without the protection of the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms was enshrined in our Constitution for precisely this reason: to ensure that tyrants — whether foreign or domestic — cannot strip away our voices by force.

Freedom of speech survives only when free people refuse to surrender it — and when they are prepared to defend it.

A Call to Awareness

The assassination of a political leader on American soil must not be dismissed as an isolated event. It is a tactic — a play from a very old book. The Bolsheviks used it to silence their rivals. Today’s radicals are using it again.

But Charlie Kirk was more than just a political leader. He was a thought leader, a voice of reason, a man who loved his fellow Americans and sought to awaken them to the truth. His mission was not rooted in power for its own sake, but in service to God, to country, and to the future of a free people.

Charlie Kirk was not killed over hate speech — he was killed over speech they hated.

We must wake up. We must get educated. We must refuse to cower in the face of intimidation and violence. Because history shows us what happens when good people stay silent while radicals eliminate leaders one by one.

“Without free speech, there is no such thing as truth. The moment you silence opposing voices; you destroy the foundation of democracy.”

Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk’s voice was stolen. But his mission, and the values he stood for, remain. To honor his life, we must learn the lessons of history and stand firm in truth, faith, and unity.

As the old warning reminds us: those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.