[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Israel/Zionism See other Israel/Zionism Articles Title: Who Killed Charlie Kirk? the Case Against Israel In just a couple of days, an impressive amount of information has been brought to light pointing to Israel’s strong motive to take out Charlie Kirk ASAP. I will here compile that information, as I found it on X and other Internet outlets. In doing so, I am not influenced by my personal opinion on Kirk. I hardly ever listened to him before the last three days, and my opinion was mostly negative. Today, I still feel that Nick Fuentes was right in his very severe judgment of him as a traitor to his country paid by Israel to keep the MAGA movement in line with Israel’s interests, even when he was doing some “damage control”. That doesn’t mean, in my view, that Kirk was not sincere in his defense of Israel. As an evangelical Christian, he probably really saw this as a calling from God. On the other hand, I think that ambitious men are never exclusively interested by truth, that men in general (women included) are very good at lying to themselves about their true motivations, and that religion is a very practical way to lie to yourself. I also think that Kirk, although an energetic and talented fast talker, was not extremely intelligent—less intelligent than Fuentes, in my view. Like Fuentes, I don’t think anybody who supports Israel because the Bible tells him so can be very intelligent. So based on what I have seen recently, I believe that Kirk was turning, but I wouldn’t be able to say to what extent his turning was motivated by his love for truth and morality, or by his concern for keeping the trust of his base of followers, and saving his political future. I suppose he was feeling opposite pressures from two sides: from his pro- Israel backers on the top, demanding that he keeps his unconditional support of Israel, and from his grass-root followers on the bottom, who find Israel’s actions and Israel’s influence on U.S. policies more and more unbearable (Kirk’s followers also listen to Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens or Nick Fuentes). Whatever his motivations were, and no matter how far he was planning to go in his critics of Israel, the fact is that he had gone quite far already. Candace Owens, who holds him in great esteem as a friend, said he was going through a “spiritual transformation”, and believed he would have ultimately changed his mind entirely on Israel. That’s a reasonable possibility. Tucker Carlson, also his friend, encouraged him in this way, and there are unmistakable signs that Kirk was listening to him and moving in the same direction. Would Kirk have gone all the way? No one can say, but there is a major difference between Owens and Carlson on the one hand, and Kirk on the other: Owens and Carlson both left comfortable situations to build their own platforms, whereas Kirk is not his own man: some influential people have invested a lot in him and will not let their investment go to waste. If for some reason they thought Kirk would be more useful dead than alive, then dead he would be. In any case, Charlie Kirk was slowing turning, and he had been turning faster in the last few months. He had been the most pro-Israel MAGA influencer, together with Ben Shapiro, drawing millions of young people behind him. But his followers and others had been noticing that he was starting to ask embarrassing questions for Israel, about October 7th, about the “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza (he used the term, and “not lightly”), about the Epstein files, and about Israeli censorship in the media. And he could see that his public applauded him for it. In July, he invited Tucker Carlson as a guest speaker to his Turning Point USA (TPUSA) event; Carlson spoke about Epstein as a Mossad agent, and encouraged the public (as he had Kirk privately, without doubt) to ask questions without fear of being called antisemites: “you’re allowed to do that, because you’re not a slave.” The clip went viral. Kirk actually heeded his advice and voiced the same questions himself on stage. Other guests like Megyn Kelly or comedian Dave Smith spoke very harshly of Israel under his watch. Obviously, Trump’s decision to close and dismiss the Epstein affair created strong resentment among the MAGA youth, and Kirk could not ignore it. Weeks later, August 13, Kirk was reported by Harrison Smith of InfoWars to have said to a friend that “Israel will kill him if he turns against them” (watch Smith’s second follow up on his tweet). You don’t say such a think unless you have received some warning or implicit threat. Then Kirk received a phone call from Netanyahu (confirmed by Netanyahu) inviting him to Israel, and Kirk is believed to have declined. Worse, he continued to raise questions. In his last interview aired the day before his death, as if heeding Carlson’s encouragement, he challenged Ben Shapiro, the arch-Zionist Jewish editor of the Daily Wire, telling him “You Jews own the media, Ben,” insisting that we have a right to question the mainstream narrative on Israel, and stating that he doesn’t like Bibi Netanyahu’s statement: “You can’t be MAGA if you’re anti- Israel”. From what I have seen of his recent interventions (here is a 32-minute compilation), it seems that he was moving in the direction that Carlson and Owens had taken before him, hesitantly for sure. And it is clear that he was testing his public on these issues, and receiving positive encouragement from them. It is also evident that he was receiving very negative pushback from his Jewish backers and donors, as well as from the White House. Knowing Kirk’s colossal influence on young MAGA supporters, it’s plausible that Netanyahu’s mafia had decided to eliminate him (and also punish him and make an example). He had to be eliminated before he completed his turn, while it was still possible for Netanyahu to mourn the death of a “lion-hearted friend of Israel” (killing two birds with one stone). It is the turn that is most dangerous. In this article, Kevin Barrett illustrates the threat hanging over Kirk with the warning issued to him on August 5 by Daniella Bloom in The Times of Israel. On the Qui Bono aspect of the case the best source on this affair so far is The Greyzone article titled “Charlie Kirk refused Netanyahu funding offer, was ‘frightened’ by pro-Israel forces before death, friend reveals.” The authors (Max Blumenthal and Anya Parampil) start like this: Charlie Kirk rejected an offer earlier this year from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to arrange a massive new infusion of Zionist money into his Turning Point USA (TPUSA) organization, America’s largest conservative youth association, according to a longtime friend of the slain commentator speaking on the condition of anonymity. The source told The Grayzone that the late pro-Trump influencer believed Netanyahu was trying to cow him into silence as he began to publicly question Israel’s overwhelming influence in Washington and demanded more space to criticize it. In the weeks leading up to his September 10 assassination, Kirk had come to loathe the Israeli leader, regarding him as a “bully,” the source said. Kirk was disgusted by what he witnessed inside the Trump administration, where Netanyahu sought to personally dictate the president’s personnel 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. On the investigation, I recommend listening to Jackson Hinkle’s talk posted september 12. Hinkle provides crucial information about inconsistencies concerning the suspect, such as: the gun found in the wooded area that is not seen on any image of the suspect, the “full tactical gear” that the FBI had said the suspect was wearing but that he is not wearing on the photos allegedly taken of him at the event, and the private jet owned by wealthy Chabad Jew Derek Maxfield that took off one hour after the crime from Faro airport (a 12-minute drive from the crime scene), and turned off its transponder. Obviously, there is a lot of explanation expected from the FBI, and Hinkle doesn’t miss the opportunity to mock FBI director Kash Patel and his Mossad honey-pot wife. Nick Fuentes has not commented clearly on the Israel theory, and wisely: he is now strongly attacked by leftists for having incited hatred against Kirk, and accused of having motivated the killer, with rumors that the killer followed him on X. Candace Owens has not dwelled into the case, but has expressed her conviction that Kirk “was going through a spiritual transformation,” and her anger at Netanyahu’s attempt to capitalize on Kirk’s death. She has accused him of having lied by omission when reading on television a letter that Kirk had sent to him, the content of which Owens claims to know. In that letter, according to Netanyahu, Kirk wrote: “One of my greatest joys as a Christian is advocating for Israel and forming alliances to defend Judeo-Christian civilization.” However, Owens is implying that the important part of the letter was the following part starting with “but…” Carlson has also, to my knowledge, made no comment on the investigation, but, in tweets and in a talk with Megyn Kelly, has confirmed his conviction that Kirk was turning away for his support of Israel. Carlson said that Kirk who had personal access to Trump, tried to convince him not to let Israel drag the U.S. into a war against Iran, and that Kirk was receiving a lot of backlash for trying to oppose the neocon agenda. Though there is still a lot of blanks to fill, I feel rather confident at this point that this is an Israeli targeted assassination, approved probably by Trump (who at this stage approves anything Netanyahu asks him). I’m not sure if the exact simultaneity of Trump and Netanyahu’s first posts on Kirk’s death is a clue, but I do find Trump’s reaction to Kirk’s assassination rather bizarre. I also think it is significant that Kirk was executed very publicly, in front of cameras: this reminds me of JFK’s assassination filmed by Abraham Zapruder. My tentative conclusion is simply based on a rational assessment of Israel’s interest in removing Kirk as soon as possible, and having Shapiro take up his “blood-stained mic”. How high were the stakes is well expressed in this 19-minute breakdown by Propaganda & Co. Stew Peters summarizes what I think is the most rational hypothesis at this point: “Pretty obvious that Israel ordered the hit after Charlie started noticing and now they’re handed his organization over to Shapiro, an actual Mossad operative.” Good point also from Ryan Dawson: “Kirk’s organization had $40 million mostly from Jewish donors. He said what they paid him to say. When you invest that much in someone and they start to go off script at all…” Also a sensible comment by Mats Nilsson : “When Charlie Kirk, ‘Israel’s biggest supporter’ starts suggesting that Oct 7th was an inside job, that Epstein was a Mossad agent, that Jews hate white people, and that the US should not be involved in Iran, Israel had a problem.” Charlie Kirk’s evolution on Israel Let’s get through Kirk’s evolution stage by stage. It apparently started in the weeks following Hamas’ attack on October 7, 2023. He said on Patrick Bet-David’s show that he found Israel’s official story “very hard to believe” and suspected a “stand-down order”. That must have been his first red pill. On his Charlie Kirk Show, he also complained about “Jewish donors” being “the number one funding mechanism of radical open-border neoliberal quasi-Marxist policies… This is a beast created by secular Jews.” This was not aimed at his own donors, but was certainly perceived by them as a disgraceful antisemitic trope at the very least. Sure enough, Fox News contributor Ben Domenech posted: “If Charlie Kirk remains the head of TPUSA, the right has an anti-Semite problem that will follow them into the coming elections.” There were many complaints along this line, as reported in this December 2023 Rolling Stone article titled “Turning Point USA’s Americafest is Infested by Antisemitism.” In the last couple of months, Kirk crossed new lines: On July 11, as I said before, he invited Tucker Carlson to his Turning Point USA yearly event. Carlson said that “every single person in Washington, D.C.” thinks that Epstein was running a blackmail operation for Israel. In the same event, Kirk openly discussed the Epstein issue, was cheered for it, and asked “how many people believe that [Epstein was working for Israel]? Raise your hand.” He was clearly trying to figure where the wind was blowing. He asked for the files to be released, a treason to Trump. Here you can hear him also saying that Epstein was a Mossad agent. In the same month, Kirk spoke strongly against taking military action against Iran and went to the White House to talk to Trump about it. Trump reportedly “barked” at him. 35 days before he died, Kirk seems worried and afraid when complaining to Megyn Kelly: “I have less ability… to criticize the Israeli government than actual Israelis do. And that’s really, really weird.” August 13, Harrison H. Smith of InfoWar tweeted: “I’m not gonna name names, but I was told by someone close to Charlie Kirk that Charlie thinks Israel will kill him if he turns against them.” Smith later confirmed and elaborated on what his source told him, without still naming him or her. Around the same time, Smith spoke at length about the fear of people like Kirk to “step on a landmine” by saying something against Israel. Two weeks before his death, Netanyahu personally called Kirk to invite him to Israel. In his last interview, recorded 48 hours before he was shot, Kirk was telling Ben Shapiro to his face that we should be allowed to ask some critical questions about Israel. In this clip filmed around the same time (before or after, I don’t know), Ben Shapiro says: “You can’t be a leader of the right if you think the president is covering up a Mossad rape ring or struck Iran for Israel.” There is little doubt that Kirk is targeted. And now, Ben Shapiro is already implicitly announcing that he will replace Kirk at the head of TPUSA, saying he will “pick up that blood- stained microphone where Charlie left it.” Crime and investigation Here what doesn’t seem to fit the official narrative. On the shooting scene, we have indisputable evidence that this was a professional hit. I quote Dave Martin: “We have a black-clad rooftop sniper videoed fleeing the scene, who had a predetermined escape route, and was miraculously able to evade campus security, local police officers, and hundreds of hurt, scared, and angry people also fleeing the scene. This shooter also managed to kill Mr. Kirk at 200+ yards with a cross breeze and noonday sun glare, using one, single shot, and striking Mr. Kirk in one of the only locations on the frontal torso that would not have been protected had he been wearing Kevlar body armor.” The we have a “decoy suspect” placed strategically at the scene, claiming to have shot Charlie Kirk, and when arrested, saying twice “shoot me”: His name is George Zinn, he is a seventy-one-year old Ashkenazi Jew, and has appeared on a 9/11 documentary blaming Al-Qaeda for 9/11 (details in Hinkle’s video at 5 minutes). The day after the shooting, John Solomon of Fox News reported about “foreign intelligence” being involved, probably meaning that they were involved in the investigation, which is enough of a red flag. Simultaneously, the FBI announced offering a reward for any information leading to the shooter, implicitly admitting they had no clue. Regarding the suspect Tyler Robinson, it is still too early for a detailed analysis of his credibility as the assassin. There are some major inconsistencies in the official information (Jackson Hinkle raises some of them in the video already mentioned). Provided that the information in the Daily Mail is confirmed, his grandmother explains why it is impossible that Tyler is the shooter. Hardly conclusive, I admit. One of his former high school classmates (anonymous) describes him as a “Reddit kid” who spent his time on the Internet. Possible, but a Reddit kid does not become a sniper. We would like to hear from those who trained him in shooting. Personally, at this point, I think Tyler Robinson is a patsy, and I note that his dual (slightly contradictory) profile as a gun enthusiast and a young man radicalized by the internet will be the perfect pretext for strengthening anti-gun laws and increasing censorship of information, and, as a bonus, the fight against anti-Zionism, since Kirk is said to have died for his support of Israel (just like, remember, Bobby Kennedy). One of the oddest aspect of the case is that Bibi Netanyahu posted his sympathies about Charlie’s death minutes after the shooting, before Trump or any American public figure, as Jackson Hinkle has pointed out. It is also remarkable that the Jerusalem Post was the first news outlet to report Kirk’s death worldwide. It is difficult to know where this will all go, and how efficient Israel’s hasbara will be. But it is very significant that Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Jackson Hinkle, Max Blumenthal, Ian Carroll, Kim Iversen, Sneako, Ahmad of Propaganda & Co, and many other major commentators with huge followings are not buying the official narrative. The “Internet rumors” have taken such proportions that on September 12, the Israeli Prime minister booked himself on Newsmax to deny that Israel had anything to do with Kirk’s death. As evidence, Netanyahu brought up the Holocaust, October 7th, the Nazis, rumors of poisoned wells and drinking children’s blood, “you name it.” Here is an excellent analysis of Netanyahu’s reaction to the question, by the great Harrison Smith. A memorial war has now begun between two Charlie Kirks: there is the Charlie that was beginning to question October-7, to accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing , and to say that you can be MAGA and anti-Israel; and there is the holy Charlie that Netanyahu will keep promoting, who once declared: “The world’s a better place because of the State of Israel.” Updates Update 1: A New York Post interview with pro-Israel rabbi who talked with Kirk the night before his death, published Sept 13. My summary, reading between the lines: The night before Kirk’s talk at UVU, Rabbi Pesach Wolicki, “an American-born cleric who lives in Israel”, asked his “good friend” Kirk to have a one-hour Zoom conversation with him, to go through his pro-Israel “talking points”, because, said the rabbi, many of his fans “were turning on Israel” and “there were prominent people … actively working to [get him to] drop his support for Israel on a daily basis.” (In other words, Kirk was pulled in an anti-Israel direction by his followers and by people like Carlson and Owens, and needed strong opposite “encouragement” to stay in line.) Kirk was “in a combative mood” and “playing the role of devil’s advocate,” also said the rabbi. (In other words, the conversation turned into an argument.) Kirk was assassinated the next day. The rabbi has since posted this explanation. According to Chris Menahan, Rabbi Wolicki is part of the group Israel365, who “has a contract with the Israeli govt to fly MAGA/pro-Trump influencers to Israel for Hasbara tours”. Menahan refers to his article dated July 21, 2025 titled “Israel to Fund Tours for MAGA and Pro-Trump Influencers.” Another member of Israel365, Josh Hammer, now claims to have been part of the same Zoom conversation. Josh Hammer has recently written a book titled Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West, arguing that “Israel is the frontline of Western Civilization.” Update 2: Utah Governor Spencer Cox has reported that Tyler Robinson has pleaded not guilty and is refusing to cooperate with investigators. “But everyone around him is cooperating.” My Comment: Plead not guilty? What’s wrong with him? Did he say “I’m just a patsy”? Transfer him from one prison to the next, and call Jacob Rubenstein. And if he makes it alive to the hospital, have the president call Dr Crenshaw to “take his death-bed confession”. Then set up a Warren Commission headed by Rabbi Pesach Wolicki. I’m being sarcastic here, but it brings the point that the assassination of Charlie Kirk is immensely important because he was not just a “political activist”. He was actually a potential presidential candidate in the coming decades. At least this is how Candace Owens and a few others saw him; “that man was destined to be president” (Ryan Matta). I would think that this is one aspect that his killers took into account. Update 3: This post by Propaganda & Co is important: the Governor of Utah is reporting fake evidence connecting Tyler Robinson to the gun and the crime. We are given to understand by his report that investigators have taken photos of a conversation on Discord between Tyler and his roommate (we have now learned that his name is Lance Twiggs), and that one message pertains to “the need to retrieve a riffle from a drop point”. But Discord released an official statement to dismiss this claim, saying that no such message were sent on Discord from Tyler’s account. The referenced messages seem to have been shared between Tyler’s roommate and a third person. The messages were “about” Tyler, not “from” Tyler. This is absolute proof that they are busy fabricating a false trail of evidence. We must now assume that Tyler is pleading not guilty because he is not guilty. They are framing him. What means of pressure they have on his family and/or his “transitioning” roommate, we don’t know, but we can trust them on that. Update 4: The ballistic evidence: According to Zeb Boykin, the position of the exit wound, and possibly other details from a frame by frame analysis of three films, prove that “the FBI is lying. It’s not possible for the shooter to have been on the roof where they claim he is.” It’s hard to disagree with Zeb’s demonstration. So if Tyler Robinson is the guy on the roof 200 yards away in the front, he was not the shooter, no matter what kind of fingerprints they can find on his screwdriver. He is a patsy. That’s a whole new area to explore. Update 5: : Tyler’s DNA and his note: Kash Patel informs us that Tyler Robinson wrote a note saying he was going to kill Kirk. How does he know? Simple: there is evidence that there was a note, and although the note has been destroyed, the FBI has found “forensic evidence of the note” and “we have confirmed what that note says because of our aggressive interview posture at the FBI.” I’m starting to like Patel. Did they find Tyler’s fingerprints on the gun. Well, no, but they found his DNA on a towel wrapped around the gun where they found it. And they found his DNA on a screwdriver on the roof too Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||