Did Israel kill Charlie Kirk? The alleged shooter is now in custody, turned in by his own father. Case closed. Right. A lone gunman. A young man chasing infamy. The assassin of one of America's most popular political activists. The most viral political assassination in modern history.
But there's an issue. A very serious issue. Given how authorities have handled this investigation, we can't treat their information as concrete. So it begs the question: what if there is more to this story?
Shortly after Kirk’s assassination, speculation of Israel's involvement spread like wildfire. The claims were so viral that a Newsmax journalist was forced to ask Benjamin Netanyahu himself during an interview, where he appeared agitated and nervous as he denied the allegations.
“Before I let you go, I want you to address one thing, and, uh, it's just the absurdity of it. Some of the internet rumors that somehow Israel is behind the Charlie Kirk, um, murder. And, you know, I don't believe it for one second, but, uh, I want you to, you know, make a statement. It's so absurd.”
“That’s insane. That’s insane. It’s not only insane. It’s, I think it’s so absurd, so stupid, so stupid, and so ridiculous. You can’t believe that people are saying that. They just found the perpetrator. They’ll get to the bottom of this.”
This speculation about Israel being behind Charlie Kirk’s assassination came across as absurd to many people, myself included, given Kirk’s history of loyal servitude to Israel and the Zionists. I mean, what motive would Israel have for killing their own loyal subject?
But then came this bombshell. Journalists Max Blumenthal and Ana Parampill revealed Kirk was beginning to break ranks with the Zionists. He was questioning Israel. He was refusing Zionist money and platforming critics. And for that, he was met with intimidation and backlash from powerful Zionist figures. He was afraid of them.
In this video, we'll dive into the article, lay out the claims, and we'll confront the very important question: was Charlie Kirk’s assassination just the act of a lone gunman? Or was it a violent coup by Israel to gain control over the most influential conservative organization in America?
There’s a famous expression in Latin, dating back to the classical period, used when attempting to identify criminal suspects: quī bono? , “who benefits?” This question comes to mind when considering whether or not Israel is responsible for arranging Charlie Kirk’s assassination. To even consider whether or not Israel may be responsible, you first have to believe that they somehow benefited. Therefore, for Israel to benefit from Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Charlie Kirk would have to no longer be of benefit to Israel.
To many, including myself, Charlie Kirk was a loyal and beneficial propagandist for Israel. He spent his entire career spreading the myth of Judeo-Christian values: this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian construct, which is a gift from the Lord, and we must honor that. He routinely claimed Israel was America’s greatest ally and propagated the false claim that Palestinians never existed.
“What are you trying to say?”
“I don’t think the place exists.”
“What?”
“’Cause it doesn’t. It’s called Judea and Samaria. It’s not called Palestine. It’s a non-existent place.”
All of this serves Israel and Zionism. The organization he founded, Turning Point USA, received tons of financial support from Zionist donors, including the David Horowitz Foundation. He repaid his wealthy backers over the years by unleashing a relentless fire-hose of anti-Palestinian and Islamophobic diatribes, accepting propaganda trips to Israel, and sternly shutting down nationalist forces challenging his support for Israel during TPUSA events. So the idea that Kirk was somehow becoming a threat to Israel was absurd.
But as many social media users have pointed out, Kirk was in fact showing signs of evolution, the same kind of evolution that saw personalities like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Megyn Kelly, to name a few, change their tune regarding America’s relationship with Israel. According to The Grayzone, as Israel’s genocidal assault on the besieged Gaza Strip drove an unprecedented backlash within grassroots right-wing circles, where only 24% of younger Republicans now sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians, Kirk began to shift.
At times he towed the Israeli line, spreading disinformation about babies beheaded by Hamas on October 7th and denying the famine imposed on the population of Gaza. Yet he simultaneously seeded to his base, wondering aloud if Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli intelligence asset, questioning whether the Israeli government allowed the October 7th attacks to proceed in order to advance long-term political goals, and parroting narratives familiar to his most vociferous critic on the right, streamer Nick Fuentes.
Back in July, Turning Point USA held a Student Action Summit for young conservatives in Tampa, Florida. As head of the organization, Kirk would decide who to platform at this event. In a decision that enraged Zionists, Kirk decided to platform Israel critics Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and comedian Dave Smith. At the event, Tucker Carlson made several incendiary comments, taunting the Zionist billionaire Bill Amon.
“How did Bill Amon get 9 million billion dollars? Bill Amon, a pretty impressive guy. I know Bill Amon. No, Bill Amon’s like well-connected and super aggressive. That’s it.”
He even suggested that Americans serving in the IDF should lose their citizenship.
“‘Cause you can only really pledge your loyalty to one person or one country. That’s just a fact. Like anybody, by the way, who serves in a foreign military should lose his citizenship immediately. There are a lot of Americans who’ve served in the IDF; they should lose their citizenship. You can’t fight for another country and remain an American. Period.”
Megyn Kelly suggested that Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli Mossad agent.
“So, he wasn’t American, which leaves basically three options: MI6, Saudi, or Mossad?”
“Yep.”
“Which one would you choose?”
“I guess Mossad, given his connection to Ghislaine Maxwell.”
“So, what does that mean?”
“Well, I mean, it’s possible that that’s the reason everything’s getting buried; there is some treasure trove and it’s getting buried because, how many people here believe that? Raise your hand. Okay, I’d say about half. Half the hands think that it’s being buried because of an Israeli thing.”
Dave Smith heavily criticized Israel’s actions in Gaza: “because it’s not a war. It’s the destruction of a captive people. Gaza’s been occupied since 1967 by the Israelis and they’re now just slaughtering the people there.”
On social media, Zionists went into a frenzy, denouncing Charlie Kirk as a traitor. The Jewish Zionist Laura Loomer tweeted, “After this weekend, I’d say he has revealed himself as a political opportunist. Lately, Kirk has decided to behave like a charlatan. It really is shameful and honestly I am just disgusted with the constant flip-flopping on the right.”
In The Times of Israel, a blogger called Kirk out for promoting anti-Semitism. “Charlie, what are you doing? You know the difference between good-faith critique and coded anti-Semitism. When people obsess over AIPAC while ignoring Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia, the UN, that’s not objectivity. That’s targeting. Leadership also means knowing when a conversation is no longer a conversation. It’s manipulation. It’s how the seeds of Jew scapegoating get watered, not by swastikas, but by just asking questions. Don’t abandon your post. You’ve stood for truth when it wasn’t easy. Stand now with Israel, with reason, with your own better judgment.”
Jewish Zionists Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro also voiced their displeasure with Kirk over who he platformed at the summit.
“We, you and I, have people who we thought were conservatives sounding a lot like the Marxist Islamists who were attending this event last week, don’t they? They find that conservative groups and conservative organizations, weekend events, seminars, whether for young people or think tanks, they sort of sprinkle these events with these cooks, with these American-haters who claim to be American firsters and are fake MAGA and even stab the president in the back.”
“I mean, I think it’s definitely an attempt by some of these organizations to quote-unquote maintain the big tent. The problem with a big tent is that you may end up with many, many clowns inside.”
But the backlash against Kirk wasn't just happening in public. It was being done in private as well. According to The Grayzone article, Kirk was bombarded with infuriated text messages and phone calls from Netanyahu’s wealthy allies in the U.S., including many who had funded TPUSA. According to his longtime friend, the Zionist donors treated Kirk with outright contempt, essentially ordering him to fall back into line. He was being told what you’re not allowed to do, and it was driving him crazy. Kirk’s friend recalled the conservative youth leader was not only alienated by the hostile nature of the interactions but frightened by the backlash.
And apparently Kirk wasn’t just disturbed by Zionist donors or leaders here in America who were calling and texting him. He was feeling the heat from Israel itself through its war criminal president, Benjamin Netanyahu. Kirk rejected an offer earlier this year from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to arrange a massive new infusion of Zionist money into Turning Point USA, America’s largest conservative youth association. In the weeks leading up to his September 10th assassination, Kirk had come to loathe the Israeli leader, regarding him as a bully.
Kirk was disgusted by what he witnessed inside the Trump administration, where Netanyahu sought to personally dictate the president’s personal decisions and weaponized Israeli assets like billionaire donor Miriam Adelson to keep the White House firmly under its thumb. According to Kirk’s friend, who also enjoyed access to President Donald Trump and his inner circle, Kirk strongly warned Trump last June against bombing Iran on Israel’s behalf.
“Charlie was the only person who did that,” they said, recalling how Trump barked at him in response and angrily shut down the conversation. The source believes the incident confirmed in Kirk’s mind that the president of the United States had fallen under the control of a malign foreign power and was leading his own country into a series of disastrous conflicts.
By the following month, Kirk had become the target of a sustained private campaign of intimidation and free-floating fury by wealthy and powerful allies of Netanyahu, figures he described in an interview as Jewish leaders and stakeholders. He was afraid of them, the source emphasized. “The reports of this fear are consistent with other claims made by sources also close to Kirk.” A month ago, Harrison Smith, a well-known media personality and political commentator, tweeted that someone close to Charlie told him that Kirk was worried Israel might kill him for criticizing them: “I’m not going to name names, but I was told by someone close to Charlie Kirk that Charlie thinks Israel will kill him if he turns against them.”
Charlie himself told Megyn Kelly a month before his assassination that he was afraid. “But I am sick of being lectured on, like you, you have to see it exactly as we see it and support everything or you’re against us. I got texts about you, Megan. Why is Megan like doing the bidding of Hamas? I was like, what are you talking about? Megan’s the best. And I said, why are you texting me about Megan? This is what they don’t understand. You and I, Megan, and Tucker are in the same category, and they’ve tried to go after Tucker. The more you attack our moral character, the more we’re going to double down because screw you. I don’t do it that way. On some part of the population, you can scold them into silence. But if I have any deviation of a purity test, any deviation whatsoever, such as hosting a focus group, right, Megan, with a bunch of our students that went viral, having Dave Smith or Tucker at my event, it is all of a sudden, ‘Oh, Charlie is no longer with us’ and all that. Wait a second. What do you mean, ‘with us’? What does ‘with us’ mean exactly? Right? I’m an American. I represent this country. The more that you guys privately and publicly call our character into question, which is not isolated, it is dozens of texts. Then we start to say, ‘Hold the boat here.’ And to be fair, some of my really good Jewish friends are like, ‘That’s not all of us. It’s all, ’ But these are leaders too, right? These are stakeholders. I’m afraid because, again, I want civilization to win. I feel the connection to Israel, and I, but at the same time, when the hostile reaction is that now Megyn and Charlie are enemies, right?”
Now, you might think it’s weird that Israel would go to such lengths as to kill a former ally for even beginning to question them. But as several social media users have put it, given the influence and power Kirk had on over 3,500 college campuses across the country as the director of Turning Point USA, the very possibility that he could flip on them was a dangerous threat. The mere possibility that Kirk could start down the same path as Tucker and Candace is enough to send shivers down the spine of any Zionist with half a brain. Losing Kirk, even to a moderate degree, would represent a devastating blow to the Zionist power base in America.
Zionist concerns over Kirk’s leadership of Turning Point USA have been brewing for some time. Over a year ago, Ben Domenech, a co-founder of The Federalist, wrote, “If Charlie Kirk remains the head of TPUSA, the right has an anti-Semite problem.” And a few weeks ago in The Times of Israel, Jewish Zionist Daniela Bloom wrote, “Turning Point must continue to be a safe haven for aligned pro-America, pro-Israel Jews on campus and for future generations.”
What we have established here is a consistent thread of Zionist outrage over Charlie Kirk’s platforming of Israel critics and concerns over his leadership of TPUSA, the most influential conservative organization in America. You see, Turning Point USA isn’t just another conservative group. With over 3,500 chapters nationwide, its conferences became the beating heart of Republican youth politics. Charlie Kirk developed it into a machine that energized young conservatives like no one else. Even Donald Trump credited Kirk and TPUSA for his election victory, calling it “your victory, not mine.”
This is why the stakes were so high for the Zionists. If Kirk had continued drifting toward criticism of Israel, it wouldn’t just be another commentator questioning Zionism. It would mean the entire conservative youth movement could begin shifting its views. Unlike Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, or Nick Fuentes, who can be dismissed as fringe and independent commentators, Kirk and TPUSA had mainstream power. They organized the grassroots. They had access to the White House. That is exactly why Netanyahu offered to bankroll TPUSA, to make sure Kirk never turned that influence against Israel. As the founder of this organization, rejecting this funding essentially denied Israel the ability to gain leverage over Kirk’s position as leader of the organization. So without access, they couldn’t threaten to remove him from the position. And when gangsters can’t buy you or control you, well, they kill you.
“Kid, you work it out any way you want, but nobody’s backing out of the deal.”
“Mr. Chinelli, I’m sorry, but the bottom line is I’m not selling the company to you.”
“I’ll tell you the [expletive] bottom line, Latty Buck. The Baron routes are now Chinelli routes. That’s that.”
So even though Kirk routinely amplified Israeli propaganda, simply questioning Israel’s actions in a critical light seems to have been a step too far for Zionists who have lost virtually all support from young Republicans. In Charlie Kirk’s final interview, he raised what can only be described as the gentlest of questions with Ben Shapiro about ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
“We’ve pushed back against the media on COVID, on lockdowns, on Ukraine, on the border. It’s like maybe we should also ask a question: Is the media totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel? Just a question, you know, that maybe we shouldn’t believe everything the media says because I know I’ve been conditioned to ask a lot more critical questions over the last couple of years. So Ben, some people would accuse Israel of wanting to ethnically cleanse. Some people in the Israeli government are saying, again, it’s all over the place, right? You have opinions all over. In your opinion, what would a good outcome five years from now be? And how does one respond to the claims of ethnic cleansing?”
Twenty-four hours later, Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck and killed. With Kirk now dead, Zionists began covering up this tension by claiming he was a loyal friend of Israel until the very end. Netanyahu first tweeted prayers for Kirk at 3:02 p.m. on September 10th, minutes after news of the shooting broke. He has since authored three additional posts about Kirk, even breaking away from the Israeli war cabinet to spend the afternoon of September 11th memorializing the conservative leader on Fox News. During that interview, Netanyahu did his best to insinuate that Israel’s enemies were responsible for murdering Kirk.
“The radical Islamists and their union with the ultra-progressives, they often speak about human rights. They speak about free speech, but they use violence to try to take down their enemies.”
None of this, of course, is concrete evidence that Israel was behind the assassination of Charlie Kirk. But what this does reveal are three important facts. The first is that Kirk was beginning to criticize Israel, even if it was too soft, too little, too late. The second is that Charlie Kirk was growing frustrated over Israel’s attempt to control what he says and who he speaks to. And the third is that the Zionists were also incredibly frustrated with him and worried about his position as the leader of TPUSA. So when it comes to the famous Latin expression quī bono, who benefits, there is evidence to believe that Israel and the Zionists do.
Within 24 hours of Kirk’s death, Shapiro announced that he would be launching his own campus speaking tour, vowing, “We’re going to pick up that blood-stained microphone where Charlie left it.” But what do you think? Is there anything that I’m missing? Let me know in the comment section.
And, of course, don’t forget to read the article by The Grayzone, which is linked in the comment section below. If you liked this video, please consider subscribing and donating to keep me going. Thank you, and take care of yourselves.
“Trust nothing.”
“No lies. Free your mind. Everything is propaganda.”
“Everything is propaganda. Everything is propaganda. So why not choose your own?”
No comments:
Post a Comment