Assassination of Charlie Kirk

[Lauren Johnson]

Like a couple of wiseguys who approach the wife of the guy they just whacked expressing their sincerest condolences, Netanyahu and Trump just a few hours after the murder, call out the liberal anti-Semites who created the environment that created the lone gunman to kill this brave man. Other facts are of course coming out.  From the Greyzone:

A Trump insider and longtime friend of Charlie Kirk tells The Grayzone how the assassinated conservative leader’s turning point on Israeli influence provoked a private backlash from Netanyahu’s allies that left him angry and afraid.

The source said anxiety spread within the Trump administration after an apparent Israeli spying operation was uncovered.

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.

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.  

At TPUSA, the rift with Israel widens

Kirk was 18 years old when he launched TPUSA in 2012. From its inception, his career was propelled by Zionist donors, who showered his young organization with money through neoconservative outfits like the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He repaid his wealthy backers over the years by unleashing a relentless firehose 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. In the Trump era, few American gentiles had proved more valuable to the self-proclaimed Jewish state than Charlie Kirk.

But 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 toed the Israeli line, spreading disinformation about babies beheaded by Hamas on October 7, and denying the famine imposed on the population of Gaza. Yet he simultaneously ceded to his base, wondering aloud if Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli intelligence asset, questioning whether the Israeli government allowed the October 7 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. 

This July, at his TPUSA Student Action Summit, Kirk provided a forum for the right-wing grassroots to vent its fury about Israel’s political hammerlock on the Trump administration. There, speakers from former Fox News stalwarts Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, to the anti-Zionist Jewish comedian Dave Smith, denounced Israel’s blood-soaked assault on the besieged Gaza Strip, branded Jeffrey Epstein as an Israeli intelligence asset, and openly taunted Zionist billionaires like Bill Ackman for “getting away with scams” despite having “no actual skills.”

Following the confab, Kirk was bombarded with infuriated text messages and phone calls from Netanyahu’s wealthy allies in the US, 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.

The friend’s account dovetails with those of multiple right-wing commentators with access to Kirk.

“I think, in the end, Charlie was going through a spiritual transformation,” Candace Owens, a conservative influencer who shifted decisively against Israel after October 7, reflected after her friend’s killing. “I know it, he was going through a lot. There was a lot of pressure, and it’s hard for me to watch the people who were pressuring him just say the things that they’re saying.”

She continued: “They wanted him to lose everything for changing or even slightly modifying an opinion. It’s very hurtful to me.” 
Kirk appeared visibly outraged during an August 6 interview with conservative host Megyn Kelly, as he discussed the menacing messages he was receiving from pro-Israel bigwigs. 

“It’s all of the sudden: ‘oh, Charlie: he’s no longer with us.’ Wait a second—what does ‘with us’ mean, exactly? I’m an American, okay? I represent this country,” he explained, before addressing the powerful Zionist interests harassing him.

“The more that you guys privately and publicly call our character into question—which is not isolated, it would be one thing if it were just one text, or two texts; it is dozens of texts—then we start to say, ‘whoa, hold the boat here,’” Kirk continued. “To be fair, some really good Jewish friends say, ‘that’s not all of us’… But these are leaders here. These are stakeholders.”

He went on to complain to Kelly, “I have less ability… to criticize the Israeli government than actual Israelis do. And that’s really, really weird.”

In one of his final interviews, conducted with Israel’s premier influencer in the United States, Ben Shapiro, Kirk once again tried to raise the issue of censorship of Israel critics. 

“A friend said to me, interestingly: ‘Charlie, okay, we’ve pushed back against the media on COVID, on lockdowns, on Ukraine, on the border,’” Kirk told Shapiro on September 9. “Maybe we should also ask the question: is the media totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel? Just a question!” 

According to Kirk’s longtime friend, Kirk’s resentment of Netanyahu and the Israel lobby was spreading within Trump’s inner circle. In fact, they said, the president himself was terrified of Netanyahu’s wrath, and feared the consequences of defying him. 
During the past year, the Trump insider was told by contacts in the White House that the Secret Service had caught Israeli government personnel placing electronic devices on its emergency response vehicles on two separate occasions.

While The Grayzone was unable to confirm the story with the Secret Service or White House, such an incident would not have been unprecedented. Indeed, according to a report in Politico citing three former senior US officials, a cellphone spying device was placed by Israeli agents “near the White House and other sensitive locations around Washington” toward the end of Trump’s first term in 2019. 

Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson recounted a similar incident in his memoir, writing that his security team found a listening device in his bathroom soon after Netanyahu used his personal toilet.

The Israel-did-it theory

Kirk was killed this September 10 with a single shot fired by a sniper apparently positioned on a rooftop 200 meters away. He was shot while seated before a crowd of thousands at Utah State University in Orem, Utah on the first leg of his American Comeback Tour. The scene of Kirk collapsing from the impact of a gunshot to his neck just as he began answering a question about transgender mass shooters was perhaps the most shockingly vivid spectacle of assassination – and certainly the most viral – in human history. 

There is currently no evidence of an Israeli government role in Kirk’s assassination. However, that has not stopped thousands of social media users from speculating that the pro-Trump operative’s shifting views on the issue contributed in some way to his death. By the time of publication, over 100,000 Twitter/X users have liked a September 11 post by libertarian influencer Ian Carroll declaring about Kirk, “He was their friend. He basically dedicated his life to them. And they murdered him in front of his family. Israel just shot themselves.” 

Many advancing the unsubstantiated theory have pointed to a Twitter/X post by Harrison Smith, a personality at the pro-Trump Infowars network, stating on August 13 – almost a month before Kirk’s assassination – that he was told by “someone close to Charlie Kirk that Kirk thinks Israel will kill him if he turns against Israel.”

The frenzied speculation has set off shockwaves in Tel Aviv, where Netanyahu was compelled to explicitly deny that his government killed Kirk during a September 11 interview with NewsMax.  

Netanyahu and his allies bury the Kirk crisis as “big tent” collapses

That appearance was just one of several interviews and statements the Prime Minister dedicated to Kirk in the wake of his killing in an effort to frame the late conservative leader’s legacy in a uniformly pro-Israel light. The major public relations push has occurred while Netanyahu wages a military campaign on seven fronts, punctuated by a regional assassination spree that most recently reached into the heart of Qatar, a US ally.

Netanyahu first tweeted prayers for Kirk at 3:02 PM in the afternoon on September 10, 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 11 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, despite the fact no suspect was named or in custody at the time:

“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,” the Prime Minister told Harris Faulkner. 
In a September 10 Twitter/X post eulogizing the conservative leader, the Israeli Prime Minister described a recent phone conversation with Kirk.

“I spoke to him only two weeks ago and invited him to Israel,” Netanyahu declared. “Sadly, that visit will not take place.”

Left unmentioned was whether Kirk declined the invitation—just as he did with the Prime Minister’s offer to reload TPUSA’s coffers with donations from his coterie of wealthy American Jewish cutouts. 

At the time of publication, a 22-year-old resident of Utah has been taken into custody after supposedly confessing to killing Kirk. The public may soon learn the true motives of the alleged assassin. Perhaps they will fuel the narrative which Trump and his allies advanced in the immediate wake of the shooting – that a leftist radical was responsible, and that a wave of draconian repression must follow. 

But after the shooter’s initial escape and a series of federal law enforcement mishaps, a large sector of Americans will likely never believe the official story. Nor will they ever know where Kirk’s turning point on Israel would have taken the conservative movement.

Four days before the assassination, frustration among pro-Israel commentators bubbled over in public during an Fox News interview in which Ben Shapiro launched a chilling attack on Kirk without naming him.

“The problem with a ‘big tent’ is that you may end up with many clowns inside,” Shapiro told Fox host and fellow Zionist gatekeeper Mark Levin in an apparent critique of TPUSA.

“Just because you’re saying somebody votes Republican—that doesn’t mean that they ought to be the preacher at the front of the church, they’re not the person that ought to be leading the movement, if they are spending all day criticizing the President of the United States as ‘covering up a Mossad rape ring’ or ‘being a tool of the Israelis for hitting an Iranian nuclear facility.’”
When Kirk took his usual place at the “front of the church” four days later, he was cut down by a sniper’s bullet.

Within 24 hours of Kirk’s death, Shapiro announced that he would be launching his own campus speaking tour, vowing: “We’re gonna pick up that blood stained microphone where Charlie left it.”

[Lauren Johnson]

Charlie Kirk and the Cult of Human Sacrifice by Kevin Barrett

It was Wednesday, the eve of the 9/11 anniversary. I was brushing up on my Spanish by watching a few minutes of TV news in a hotel lobby in Malaga when the story broke: Charlie Kirk had been shot. Though I have never been especially interested in Charlie Kirk—he always struck me as one of countless TV talking heads who somehow draw big audiences for unknown and perhaps unknowable reasons—I immediately sensed that his death might be more important than his life.
The mass-mediated demise of Charlie Kirk had all the earmarks of spectacular, politicized ritual sacrifice. Experts in the construction and maintenance of public myths, which is how Jewish-Zionist 9/11 czar Philip Zelikow memorably described himself, know that literary anthropologist René Girard was onto something: Most human beings are motivated by myths (sacred stories) not by facts, and one of the most powerful catalysts for mythmaking and myth-maintaining is ritual sacrifice. That’s why Zelikow & Co. scripted 9/11 as a spectacular ritual sacrifice of thousands of Americans designed to consecrate, in blood, a sacred bond between Americans and Israelis, and trigger the murder of millions whom Zionist Jews view as their enemies.
Charlie Kirk grew up in the shadow of that myth, the myth of 9/11, and lent his telegenic looks, voluble tongue, and modest intelligence to the cause of maintaining it. He was shot and killed on the eve of the 24th anniversary of 9/11, symbolically mixing his blood with the blood of the thousands of victims of the Israeli attacks on New York and Washington.
It’s suggestively mythic, though perhaps coincidental, that Kirk was felled by a shot to the throat. JFK, too, was initially struck in the throat, shortly before his brains were blown out the back of his head. Ritual sacrifice victims are commonly killed by throat-cuts, which sometimes extend into complete beheadings. Symbolically, cutting the victim’s throat can send a message about silencing the victim—as, for example, when freemasons ritually slash the throat of a moser who has spilled unspeakable secrets:

The Freemasonry oath for an Entered Apprentice includes a symbolic penalty where the candidate promises "to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots" if they reveal Masonic secrets. -Google

Might Charlie Kirk have spilled a secret or two? Ricky Hale points out: “While Kirk had supported Israel's genocide, he had started examining October 7 and called it an inside job.” Kirk was also starting to let his conservative Christian followers in on another big, nasty secret: Zionist Jews dominate the media and are by far the biggest force behind all forms of censorship in the West.

(Kirk) had complained about how Israel is the one country he is not allowed to criticize and Zionists were turning against him. He opposed Trump's crack down on anti-Israel protests at universities…

Kirk had also begun unveiling another awful secret: that Jewish money is behind “cultural Marxism.”

Charlie Kirk: Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. Now I don't like generalizations. Not every Jewish person believes that. But it is true. The Anti-Defamation League was part and parcel with Black Lives Matter.
It is true that some of the largest financiers of left wing anti-white causes have been Jewish Americans. They went all in on woke. And it wasn't just ADL, it was some of the top Jewish organizations in the country that have done that. In fact, we have seen this with the recent retreat of Jewish donations that are no longer going to be administered to colleges.
Mark Rowan, Leon Kopperman, can we get that full list? It's very powerful.
So that's totally true. And by the way, Tucker Carlson reinforces this.
So I'm going to kind of…It was quite a day on the Internet. Tucker Carlson was interviewing Candace Owens. We have Candace Owens coming up next hour. And Tucker Carlson mentions that Jewish Americans have primarily been financing cultural Marxist ideas.
We said this by the way, last week and people came after us. We actually said it in a different way. We said, I'm glad that Jewish Americans are reconsidering their financing of cultural Marxism. And people misunderstood it intentionally and slandered us as being anti-Semites. But listen to this.
Tucker Carlson is completely correct by saying that the philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.

Worst of all, from the viewpoint of his likely killers, Kirk was turning against the pro-Israel narrative he was being paid to parrot. One month before Kirk’s assassination, he received what in retrospect could be read as a chilling warning from a pro-genocide Zionist fanatic named Daniella Bloom.* The topic: Kirk’s Turning Point conferenced featured plenty of people who, like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, recognize that Zionist Jews are not just genocide perpetrators, but the likely authors of such monumental crimes as the JFK assassination and 9/11.

[/url]
Bloom evinces anguished betrayal as she laments that her once-reliable genocide-friendly shabbos goy Charlie has just presided over a Turning Point conference that Israel views as disastrous:

But after watching the recent focus group on Israel and AIPAC, I’m heartbroken—not just by what was said, but by what wasn’t…what are you doing? Watching that focus group unfold was gut-wrenching…

Bloom accused Kirk of spreading the message “that Israel is the problem.” Her long, vapid, repetitious, excruciating and obviously AI-assisted rant basically screams “get back on the Zionist reservation, Charlie!” People with similar views, who make their living killing journalists, were probably adding—privately—“or else.” Since then, Mossad’s spying on Kirk’s private as well as public communications may have alerted them to, as they say, “a situation.” If Kirk were indeed moving toward an anti-Israel position echoing Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Marjorie Taylor Green, Thomas Massie, and millions of their followers, the natural response of Mossad’s Journalist Assassination Bureau would have been: “Let’s hurry up and let our media make him a pro-Zionist martyr while such a thing is still possible.”
[url=https://www.councilestatemedia.uk/p/make-no-mistake-the-charlie-kirk?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1336368&post_id=173341922&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=b9vf2&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email]Ricky Hale thinks the Trump Administration should be put alongside Israel on the suspects list:

Why the Trump administration? Well, Kirk had been a Trump supporter, but then he started talking about Epstein and appeared to be joining the dots. The last thing Trump needed was a highly influential conservative turning against him and demanding transparency on Epstein. If Trump loses his fan base, it's over for him.

Kirk’s refusal to obey Trump’s orders to “forget Jeffrey Epstein” may indeed have helped seal his fate. A tweet with almost 5 million views shows Kirk, just days before his death, essentially telling Trump to go to hell, by insisting on a complete release of all information being held on Epstein.
But for all of its thuggery, the Trump Administration is unlikely to be running a unit charged with assassinating annoying or dangerous journalists. They leave that stuff to Mossad and its friends in the Jewish-dominated organized crime community. So Hale’s “blame Trump” scenario is really just another way of pointing the finger at Israel, Trump’s owner and handler.
Ron Unz’s “American Pravda: Mossad Assassinations” makes a convincing case that Israel should always be the top suspect in any political assassination that it might benefit from:

Their use of political assassination as a central tool of their statecraft even recalls the notorious activities of the Old Man of the Mountains of the 13th century Middle East, whose deadly techniques gave us the very word “assassin.”

And the shooting did indeed show signs of being a professional hit. While Israeli snipers pride themselves on being able to put a single bullet into a child’s genitals or kneecap or eye or jugular or what-have-you from over a hundred meters, few angry collegiate leftists share that skill. Only one bullet was fired at Kirk, hitting him in the neck. According to ChatGPT, “Trauma studies suggest mortality rates for penetrating neck injuries are around 10–15% overall.” So the gunman was either very lucky or, more likely, very skillful. (If he had depended on luck he would have fired many more shots; and if he was an amateur rather than a pro who know he’d hit a fatal spot, he likewise would have kept firing. So the shooter must have been a pro.)
The Charlie Kirk “lucky neck shot” recalls the Donald Trump “lucky ear shot” of July 13, 2024, which annointed the forthcoming selection of Trump as Israel’s genocide-puppet-in-chief. Admittedly, the odds that a lucky amateur could squeeze off a single kill shot to the neck are quite a bit higher than the odds that Trump would be nicked in the ear, producing exactly the right amount of blood for him to smear on his face as war paint to jazz up the obviously pre-scripted photo op in front of the flag. But that isn’t saying much.
Israel, Judaism, and Sacrifice: “The Jew Cries Out as He Strikes You”
René Girard tells us that human sacrifice is typically used to unite a community by turning it against a despised outsider. Human sacrifices are basically lynching parties, and everyone lies about what’s really going on.
Girard gives Judaism some of the credit for humanity’s progress towards neutralizing and abandoning this barbaric custom. According to Girard, when God told Abraham not to sacrifice his son, and when Jews created a pro-underdog, pro-victim mythology, humanity set off on its long road toward transcending sacrifice.
But that is at best a half-truth. From another perspective, Jews are actually the premiere practitioners of human sacrifice. They have been conjuring up false or exaggerated images of outsiders (goyim) supposedly plotting to kill Jews, as an excuse for Jews to rise and kill the goyim first, for millennia. As I tire of repeating: The old joke that every Jewish holiday is the same—“they tried to kill us, we killed them first, let’s eat”—suggests that the “they tried to kill us” part is highly dubious. Pharaoh’s plot to kill every Jewish firstborn, Haman’s plot to kill all the Jews of Persia, Amalek’s nebulous designs on killing Jews, Hitler’s plot to throw all the Jews in gas chambers, the Kazakhstanis’ plot to throw the Jew down the well (recounted in The Book of Borat) and of course the Palestinians’ alleged effort to throw the Jews in the sea all fail to pass the smell test.
Similarly, the alleged radical Muslim attack on Jew-heavy Lower Manhattan 24 years ago turned out to be a fraud whose real purpose was to trick the Americans into killing—you guessed it—“the enemies of the Jews.” And it worked. The Americans killed millions and laid waste to the Middle East (and, more subtly, to themselves).
If Israel did indeed kill Charlie Kirk on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary, in a sacrificial false flag designed to unite conservative supporters of Israel behind the ever-accelerating genocide—and to shore up support for Israel’s beleaguered genocide puppet, Donald Trump—we may expect more such attempts to scapegoat real and ostensible enemies of Israel, and to legitimize ever-greater violence against them.

---

*It’s “chilling,” of course, because the media always uses that trite expression and I’m making fun of them…and because the high-level Israelis who spend their days thinking about which journalists to murder next were no doubt thinking exactly the same thing as Bloom.

[Lauren Johnson]

[Lauren Johnson]

---

Interview on this film with Kevin Barrett: https://rumble.com/embed/v70acpw/?pub=4