Send this article to a friend:
September
24
2025
|
Send this article to a friend: September |
Israel, Charlie Kirk, and the 9/11 Attacks
Although the September 10th assassination of Charlie Kirk was horrifying, the death of that young conservative activist was merely the latest in a long history of such high-profile killings in our deeply troubled society. Just a few months earlier, an agitated gunman had shot and killed Melissa Hortman, the former Democratic Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives along with her husband. Earlier this year, an individual outraged over health insurance policies had killed United Healthcare CEO Brian Robert Thompson. Last year, gunmen had twice unsuccessfully tried to assassinate Donald Trump as he campaigned for the White House. Back in 2017, a deranged leftist gunman had seriously injured House Republican Majority Whip Steve Scalise and three others, while a half-dozen years earlier, an equally deranged right-wing gunman had critically wounded Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others. In 1972 Arthur Bremmer had shot and permanently crippled presidential candidate Gov. George Wallace, in 1975 Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme and Sara Jane Moore had separately tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford, while in 1981 John Hinckley Jr. had similarly targeted President Ronald Reagan. In 1978 former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White had killed Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, while in 1980 Mark David Chapman had shot to death Beatles star John Lennon. Successful, very high-profile American assassinations had been even more common during the 1960s. President John F. Kennedy and his younger brother Robert both died by assassins’ bullets during those years, as did black leaders Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. The latter’s white racialist counterpart was George Lincoln Rockwell, and he too was assassinated in that same decade. Beginning with President Abraham Lincoln’s killing in 1865, the list of American political assassinations has been a very long one, filling an entire 12,000 word Wikipedia page despite even omitting some of the cases listed above. Although assassinations have been quite common throughout American history, the reverberations of Kirk’s death still dominate our media headlines nearly a dozen days after the crime, perhaps partly because the killing of a charismatic 31-year-old seemed like such a terrible, senseless tragedy. I am not aware of any past American political assassination in which the victim had been so young. Prior to his tragic death, I’d paid very little attention to Kirk so the bare facts I knew about him were minimal. After dropping out of college at the age of 18, he had founded Turning Point USA, then spent the next dozen years building it into one of the largest grassroots political organizations in America. As a result, he’d become a hero to millions of youthful conservatives, many of whom regularly listened to his daily political podcast. His stature in Republican circles was enormous and I was shocked to learn that knowledgeable journalists such as Max Blumenthal expected him to eventually mount a serious campaign for the presidency, perhaps even running as soon as the 2028 election cycle. But when I considered the long list of high-profile American political assassinations in our national history, I noticed that certain aspects of Kirk’s killing seemed to set it apart from the overwhelming majority of the others. A few days after Kirk’s death, I published an article in which I discussed my conclusions. Meanwhile, the actual circumstances of Kirk’s killing raised all sorts of questions in my mind. From media reports I soon discovered that Kirk had received many death threats over the years. Therefore, he had taken steps to ensure that he was extremely well protected against any such attack, surrounding himself with a professional security detail while also wearing body-armor. But none of that availed him against the sniper who killed him with a single, well-placed shot, hitting him in the neck from a distance of around 200 yards. Over the years and the decades, considerable numbers of prominent Americans had been targeted by an assassin’s bullets but almost none of them had ever been killed in such a classic manner. Instead, a large majority of the victims were shot at close range with simple handguns, and the deranged attackers were often immediately apprehended at the scene. Consider the case of last year’s killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Robert Thompson by someone angry over health insurance policies, with the corporate executive shot as he entered a midtown Manhattan hotel, totally unprotected against any such attack. Earlier this year, a Minnesota state representative and her husband had both been killed at home by an agitated gunman who merely knocked on their front-door. Indeed, I would suspect that Kirk was better protected against any lethal attack than well over than 99% of all the American elected officials, senior corporate executives, billionaires, and Hollywood celebrities who constitute the most likely targets. Thus, his killing demonstrated how easily almost any of our public figures could be slain by a determined attacker. Many such influential individuals may certainly take this lesson to heart, perhaps leading them to support severe crackdowns on our civil liberties in order to reduce their personal risks. Even last year’s two unsuccessful assassination attempts against Trump during his presidential campaign seemed far less professional than Kirk’s killing. In each case, the carelessness and incompetence of the attacker was balanced out by the severe security lapses of Trump’s Secret Service team. A sniper firing at long range seems the most classic sort of professional political assassination but the last such examples that come to my mind were the 1960s killings of JFK and MLK…Just as with the Kirk assassination, the killing of Kennedy in Dallas also involved a heavily-guarded public figure slain by a sniper who initially escaped…So in many regards, the closest historical parallel to Kirk’s assassination was that of JFK sixty-two years earlier. When was the last time that an American public figure has been successfully assassinated while wearing body-armor and surrounded by a security detail? It’s been a staple of countless Hollywood films, but I’m not sure it’s ever previously happened in real life. Combine that with the single shot fired and Kirk’s killing might rank as the most professional political assassination in modern American history. That’s a pretty impressive achievement for an agitated 22-year-old pro-tranny activist whose grandmother claims may have never previously fired a gun. In the week since I wrote that piece, the widespread claims that Kirk was wearing a bullet-proof vest or body-armor turned out to be mistaken, but I think that the rest of my analysis still stands, with the closest match to Kirk’s killing being the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy. But whereas Kirk was killed by a single bullet, at least three shots had been fired at Kennedy, one of which went completely wild, even though the sniper was firing from roughly half the distance. So all things considered, Kirk’s killing would indeed seem to rank as probably the most professional political assassination in modern American history. Over the decades, I’ve frequently seen examples of very well-protected American VIPs targeted for death by a distant sniper firing a scoped rifle. But all of those scenes had played out in films and television shows, while almost nothing like that had ever happened in real life. Kirk’s Bitter Rupture with His Pro-Israel Backers I’d only first begun paying any attention to Kirk two months before his death. A huge national controversy had erupted over Trump’s reversal on his promise to release the government files on Jeffrey Epstein’s blackmail ring, and I’d been greatly impressed by the remarkably courageous speech that Tucker Carlson had made at the national convention of Kirk’s TPUSA organization. As I wrote at the time: Former FoxNews host Tucker Carlson is probably the biggest figure in today’s fragmented media landscape and a crucial supporter of Donald Trump. But he and many others like him have strongly denounced the administration’s reversal on the release of the Epstein files. The largest youthful pro-Trump organization is called Turning Point USA, and Carlson happened to give a speech to the huge audience at their annual convention a few days after Trump’s decision. He dramatically declared that that not a single person he knew in DC doubted that Epstein had been running a blackmail operation on behalf of the Israeli Mossad, and despite that controversial statement his speech drew widespread cheers. This suggests that his remarks—and the positive reaction they attracted—may themselves mark “a turning point” in what had been decades of uniformly pro-Israel sentiments among American conservatives. So ideas once marginalized or considered entirely forbidden may now apparently be freely discussed, sometimes even attracting widespread support, and this may be the most important lasting legacy of the current political firestorm over the Epstein files. Indeed, given Carlson’s words only the most willfully blind could fail to connect such Mossad operations with the unwavering levels of support that Israel has long enjoyed from our members of Congress. Over the last couple of years, nearly the entire rest of the world has reviled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as one of modern history’s worst war-criminals, now under indictment by the International Court of Justice for his horrific ongoing massacre of Gaza’s helpless civilians. But when he has visited Congress, the trained barking seals of that political body have provided him endless standing ovations. Obviously the money and media deployed by the Israel Lobby explain most of this behavior, but the powerful role of blackmail has almost certainly supplemented those factors. The notion that many of our own elected officials are being ruthlessly blackmailed by a foreign power must surely outrage most patriotic Americans, and the increasing circulation of these ideas may eventually have important consequences. Just a few days after Carlson’s remarkable speech, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of the fiercest MAGA partisans in Congress, surprisingly joined with Democrats Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, two of her most leftwing colleagues, in voting to cut U.S. funding for Israel. This resolution only attracted a handful of supporters, but small cracks in a dam sometimes presage much larger breaks. I’d always regarded Kirk as an absolutely committed supporter of Israel and the Zionist project, much like almost all other American conservatives. Therefore, I had been shocked by Kirk’s willingness to provide Carlson with such a high-profile platform to make a speech taking such a contrary position. Indeed, a few days ago Carlson revealed that Kirk had strongly encouraged those very controversial remarks.
Although I can’t quite remember the details, during the weeks that followed I’d gotten a strong impression that Kirk was becoming much more publicly critical of Israel, perhaps even starting to follow the political trajectory of his longtime friend Candace Owens, who had originally come from a very similar ideological background. Therefore, when the media suddenly announced that Kirk had been killed in such a highly professional assassination with the sniper cleanly escaping, my thoughts turned in suspicious directions. Early the next morning, the police announced that they had recovered the rifle used from a nearby wooded area, apparently left behind by the assassin as he fled the scene. The shells had been marked with various leftist slogans, including support for trans-rights, suggesting the apparent motive for killing the young conservative leader. But none of this assuaged my much darker suspicions. Over the decades, Israel and its Mossad intelligence service had committed an enormous number of political assassinations all around the world, eliminating their real or perceived enemies with unmatched skill and subtlety. In January 2020, I’d published a very long article on that topic that heavily drew upon Rise and Kill First, Ronen Bergman’s highly authoritative 2018 volume, whose contents I summarized in an early paragraph: The sheer quantity of such foreign assassinations was really quite remarkable, with the knowledgeable reviewer in the New York Times suggesting that the Israeli total over the last half-century or so seemed far greater than that of any other nation. I might even go farther: if we excluded domestic killings, I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel’s body-count greatly exceeded the combined total for that of all other major countries in the world. I think all the lurid revelations of lethal CIA or KGB Cold War assassination plots that I have seen discussed in newspaper articles might fit comfortably into just a chapter or two of Bergman’s extremely long book. But in the last few years, this campaign of Israeli political assassinations had gone into extreme overdrive, successfully striking down such huge numbers of targets that I published an additional article three months ago. Therefore, a few hours after hearing of Kirk’s death, I decided to very gingerly raise these possibilities with someone well situated in conservative circles who personally knew Kirk, and I was shocked by his response. Although I had never mentioned Israel by name, he unequivocally told me that everyone in Kirk’s circle, even including important Trump Administration officials, suspected that Israel had probably killed the young conservative leader. While such beliefs might not necessarily be correct, I was astonished that they were apparently so widespread without even any hints reported anywhere in the mainstream or conservative media. Two days later, this media silence was dramatically broken as the story I’d been privately told by a conservative insider was fully confirmed by the outstanding investigative reporting of Grayzone editors Max Blumenthal and Anya Parampil. According to their account, during the weeks prior to his violent death, Kirk had come under enormous pressure from pro-Israel groups outraged over his increasing deviation from their positions, with his willingness to provide a platform to Carlson being a particular flashpoint. Netanyahu had offered Kirk an enormous ocean of additional funding—$150 million has been the figure widely mentioned—if he agreed to fully return to the Zionist fold. But Kirk had flatly rejected that proposal. Therefore, during the weeks leading up to his death, tremendous pressure had been exerted upon Kirk and he deeply resented this situation as he recounted in an early August interview with Megyn Kelly. In that clip, Kirk described how Israel and its American advocates had entered a “hyper-paranoid state,” regarding him and anyone else who deviated from their unswervingly pro-Israel line as their “enemies.” And over the last few years, everyone had seen in dramatic fashion how Israel and its Mossad regularly deal with their “enemies.” All of this was reported in the Grayzone article:
Blumenthal and Parampil are careful journalists who restricted themselves to reporting the facts that were known, but many of these seemed fully consistent with what I had been privately told very soon after Kirk’s death. As they went on to write:
A few days ago, Netanyahu felt compelled to broadcast a second statement taped from this prime minister’s office and distributed on his official government channel, once again declaring to the entire world that he had not been responsible for Kirk’s assassination.
Cynical observers might recall the famous line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet “The lady doth protest too much,” or the Biblical proverb “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.” Furthermore some of Netanyahu’s earliest responses to Kirk’s assassination have provoked additional suspicions. Columnist Patrick Lawrence spent decades as a journalist on leading newspapers, and a few days ago he published an article focused on the question of Cui Bono in which he also raised these issues:
Charlie Kirk, Bill Ackman, Ben Shapiro, and Nick FuentesIn the aftermath of the October 7th Hamas attack, Jewish multi-billionaire Bill Ackman soon emerged as one of Israel’s fiercest and most energetic American supporters. Married to an Israeli, he played a central role in forcing the resignation of the president of Harvard University for permitting freedom of speech on her campus and was also apparently involved in organizing the massive, violent 2024 attack upon the peaceful encampment of UCLA students protesting the attack on Gaza. As Blumenthal revealed in a subsequent Grayzone expose, Kirk was persuaded to spend a couple of days in early August at Ackman’s lavish Long Island estate in the company of dozens of leading pro-Israel influencers, who devoted their efforts to changing the mind of the young conservative leader. But Ackman’s heavy-handed efforts to bring Kirk to heel completely failed, and the latter deeply resented the enormous pressure being exerted on him. Blumenthal noted that once Kirk was dead, Ackman immediately began portraying himself as one of the slain leader’s strongest supporters:
I would strongly recommend watching Judge Andrew Napolitano’s interview with Blumenthal, in which the journalist discussed these same matters but provided many additional telling details. For example, according to Blumenthal, one of the Jewish activists invited by Ackman to the meeting began shrieking at Kirk in mindless rage, which surely must have unnerved the young conservative leader. Blumenthal’s sources also informed him that Trump was “always afraid of assassination” and “very afraid of Netanyahu and his capabilities.” And near the end of the interview, he mentioned that members of the Trump Administration were quite disturbed that they were receiving so few details from the FBI regarding the state of the ongoing investigation. Blumenthal was also interviewed for an hour by Pulitzer Prize winning former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges, with some of the most important portions provided in a much shorter video: In his first article, Blumenthal noted that shortly before his death, Kirk had had some very contentious exchanges with Ben Shapiro, an ultra-Zionist podcaster a decade older than Kirk but having a far smaller audience despite the lavish funding he had long enjoyed:
Certain developments relating to another young right-wing influencer also raised some dark suspicions in my mind. Blumenthal had emphasized that for years one of Kirk’s leading rivals and tormenters had been podcaster Nick Fuentes, who regularly attacked Kirk from the right, presenting ferocious criticism of Israel and Zionism, often with a strongly conspiratorial slant. Therefore, I was very surprised to hear that unlike quite a number of other prominent conservatives such as Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, Fuentes seemed to quickly reject any possible Israeli role in the Kirk assassination, even ridiculing the many others who raised that possibility. One of the most worrisome consequences of Kirk’s assassination has been that the fervently pro-Israel Trump Administration is using the crime as an excuse to begin a massive and unprecedented crackdown on dissent and free speech, with Attorney General Pam Bondi and Trump himself calling for enforcement of harsh new political hate speech laws.
Jimmy Kimmel is a late-night comedian whose very popular show had been on the air for more than twenty years, but I’d never watched it and was only slightly aware of him. Then last week he was suddenly accused of having insulted Kirk’s memory and under massive government pressure, his show was immediately dropped from the airwaves, making him the highest-profile casualty of America’s new climate of ideological censorship. The stories I read in all our media outlets puzzled me since the remarks of Kimmel they quoted seemed rather innocuous, lacking any attacks or insults against Kirk. But then I came across a Times of India article explaining that the actual target of Kimmel’s ridicule had been Trump, whom he had accused of showing a casual disregard for the killing of his young friend. The comedian said: “This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a four year old mourns a goldfish.” And watching the full video clip confirmed this very different version of what had caused the purge of Kimmel’s show.
So matters have reached a point at which a popular television comedian makes a joke about our president and is then immediately pulled from the air by massive government pressure, without a single major American media outlet even being willing to truthfully explain what had actually happened. This is a dark situation for American society, and although according to the latest reports, ABC may have unexpectedly decided to revive Kimmel’s show, a dangerous precedent has been set. Yet strangely enough, Fuentes seemed to strongly endorse some of these outrageous new Trump administration policies, even suggesting that they didn’t go far enough. Fuentes had once been a friend and close ally of right-wing Internet provocateur Andrew Anglin, but they had an acrimonious rupture a couple of years ago, so the latter soon published a long article fiercely attacking Fuentes on these matters. Although we must discount Anglin’s notorious tendency toward hyperbole, his piece did include a long list of Tweets by Fuentes that seemed to support his accusations.
 In one of these, he even implied that Max Blumenthal, Candace Owens, and Tucker Carlson were somehow associated with Russia.  As a 27-year-old independent podcaster lacking even a sliver of the powerful organization and lavish funding that Kirk had built up over time, it’s easy to understand why Fuentes would be very fearful about being personally targeted in the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, whether with government arrest or by even something more violent. Given these realities, his reaction has not been so difficult to understand. However, in the wake of momentous political events, strange coincidences strike me as highly suspicious. I discovered that the day before Kirk was killed, the New York Times had published a major 2,100 word profile of Fuentes, the tone of which seemed far less hostile than I would have expected and indeed seemed to promote him as the rising new leader of right-wing youth. Fuentes had previously been fiercely demonized in nearly all past media coverage, which had made him one of the most vilified figures in America. But although this piece certainly included a long list of his extreme ideological transgressions, it also suggested that his beliefs might evolve over time as he matured, just as had already been the case in his views about Trump:
I’d think that the lead-time of this sort of journalistic project might be about a month or so, suggesting that it may have been put into the works just after the complete failure of the early August effort by Bill Ackman and others to bribe or browbeat Kirk into submission. So to take a very conspiratorial slant, perhaps some powerful individuals then concluded that there might soon be a new opening at the top for a youthful right-wing podcaster, and decided to audition Fuentes for that role. Powerful Colombian drug cartels used to offer local officials the choice of plata o plomo—“silver or lead”—and these two options may have been implicitly extended to Kirk, with the decision he made sealing his fate. Then after his death, perhaps a similar sort of offer was extended to Fuentes as well, and mindful of his predecessor’s violent demise, he decided to take the other path. Tyler Robinson as Skilled Assassin or Hapless PatsyThus, within days of Kirk’s death, a great deal of circumstantial evidence had come to light implicating Israel in the killing. Kirk had long been one of Israel’s most important Gentile supporters in America, so his recent move into apparent criticism and growing opposition might have had devasting political consequences for that country, especially if he ran for president in the near future. He had decided to provide a powerful public platform at his TPUSA national conventions to some of Israel’s leading conservative critics such as Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene. He had flatly rejected an offer of perhaps $150 million in additional funding if he agreed to change his positions and then afterwards told his friends that he feared for his life and personal safety. And he was killed in one of the most professional assassinations in modern American history, certainly suggesting the handiwork of the country boasting the world’s most skillful and ruthless corps of professional assassins. Kirk’s personal circle of friends had been fully aware of all these developments and the terrible pressures he was facing long before they became known to the outside world so we can easily understand why so many of them immediately suspected that Israel had been responsible for his death. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s repeated public declarations that he did not order Kirk’s assassination have surely stoked rather than dampened such suspicions. And the timing of the rather friendly Times profile of Fuentes would either be a remarkable coincidence or an indication of foreknowledge in some quarters. But all of this evidence is merely suggestive or circumstantial, and would easily be swept aside by hard facts. And according to all of our media and government sources, a guilty suspect named Tyler Robinson was arrested less than 36 hours later, a young man having absolutely no ties to Israel and who had acted for entirely different reasons. Indeed, the killer turned out to be the classic example of an emotionally agitated lone gunman, just as had been the case in virtually all of America’s other political assassinations during the last 150 years. Robinson may very well be guilty, so the focus on all those other suspicious elements could have merely amounted to constructing a castle in the air that blew away in a gust of wind. But we should carefully explore the strength of the case against Robinson and the logical consistency of the statements made by the government and its investigators who have constructed it. According to the official narrative, the killer took his rifle with him to the rooftop perch that was his firing point, then brought it back down as he escaped, afterward abandoning it in a nearby wooded area as he fled, where it was later found by the authorities. Long before his identity was known, the Salt Lake City FBI released a couple of grainy still images of the suspect taken from a security camera, showing him climbing a stairwell. They did so to enlist the help of the public in identifying him, and their Tweet attracted nearly 90 million views, resulting in his subsequent capture. We are asking for the public's help identifying this person of interest in connection with the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. But I noticed something rather odd. These were apparently the only two photos released, and neither of them showed him holding a rifle. If the authorities had other photos or videos, why would they not have released those as well in order to help the public better identify the suspect? But if these were the only photos available and they showed him without any weapon, why was the FBI so convinced that he was the killer? The rifle abandoned by the fleeing sniper was soon found and the Wall Street Journal reported that the etchings on the cartridges revealed that the motive for the killing had included Kirk’s alleged hostility towards the transgendered. And sure enough, after Robinson’s capture, we learned that he had been living with his transgendered roommate and lover, thereby confirming that motive for the assassination. However, it later turned out that none of the statements on the cartridges had actually mentioned anything about transgenderism. So although Robinson might have had such a motive, the authorities could not have possibly known it at the time that they declared it to the public. Thus, even before identifying the suspect, the government had correctly determined the very unusual motive for his crime, doing so on the basis of evidence that actually turned out not to exist. So we must either accept that our FBI investigators possess powers of extrasensory perception or that much of the case against Robinson has been concocted, choose whichever you prefer. Moreover, as Anglin had emphasized in an article sharply criticizing Kirk, the TPUSA leader had long been one of the conservatives most sympathetic to transgenderism. Indeed, he had publicly declared that men could choose to become women and vice-versa, while also heavily promoting a transgendered Trump supporter called “Lady MAGA.”
 Although transgendered individuals suffering from severe mental illness have committed mass-shooting rampages, as far as I can recall not a single one of them had ever plotted a deliberate assassination, nor am I aware of any such high-profile killing motivated by the victim’s opposition to gay rights. So it would seem odd indeed if the first and only example of such an American assassination had mistakenly targeted one of the conservative leaders who was most sympathetic to those particular causes. According to media reports, Robinson was a 22-year-old electrical apprentice who had dropped out of college after just a few months, someone heavily involved in Internet gaming culture, but with no record of political activity or having ever even voted in an election. He had absolutely no history of violence and according to his grandmother had never owned a gun nor may have ever even fired one. While it’s certainly possible that such an individual might wake up one morning and go out to singlehandedly commit the most professional political assassination in modern American history, it hardly seems the most likely possibility. One of Kirk’s oldest and closest friends was conservative podcaster Candace Owens, who had known the slain activist since they worked together many years ago at TPUSA. She was naturally horrified by his murder and outraged when Netanyahu and Ackman both immediately claimed to have been among Kirk’s closest friends and supporters although she knew that he had personally despised and feared them. Based upon their personal communications, she believed that Kirk may have been following her own religious and ideological trajectory, and wondered whether that had been a factor in his death. She became very suspicious of the claim that he had been killed by a deranged lone gunman as the authorities alleged. About a week after his death, she began producing a series of hour-long daily podcasts analyzing the case and airing her doubts, and these have already accumulated an astonishing 25 million views on YouTube, constituting a very powerful opposing force to the official narrative promoted by the mainstream media. Although Owens is rather discursive and long-winded in her monologues, and sometimes overly conspiratorial, I watched all of those podcasts and felt I was well rewarded for the time that I had invested. Her first video has been viewed 8.5 million times and a major portion of it was devoted to describing and analyzing the emerging official narrative, raising quite a number of plausible objections that the authorities will need to address. One of Owens’ important assets is her army of five million devoted subscribers found all across America, including in Utah near the scene of the killing. In her fourth video, she explained that many of these local supporters had sent her an alleged camera image of Robinson calmly getting a bite to eat at a local Dairy Queen not long after he had supposedly assassinated Kirk, suggesting either that the 22-year-old gamer had nerves of steel or that the official narrative might have serious holes. Most recently, Internet investigators have noted that there does not appear to be any exit wound, indicating that the fatal bullet lodged in Kirk’s throat. However, they emphasized that rounds fired by the alleged murder weapon, a .30-06 rifle, are far too powerful to have been stopped by the victim’s throat tissue, proving that some other sort of firearm had been used and demolishing the official narrative. Indeed the surgeon who operated on Kirk has described what had happened as “an absolute miracle.” We should always be extremely skeptical when the government narratives of high-profile assassinations require us to accept “absolute miracles.” Dissecting Robinson’s Alleged Text-Message “Confession”After Robinson was in custody, government officials announced that he had confessed to killing Kirk but they also declared that he was refusing to cooperate with authorities, which seemed somewhat contradictory. I think that the explanation is that the “confession” refers to the long series of text messages that Robinson allegedly exchanged with his roommate/boyfriend, supposedly provided all the details of how and why he had committed the assassination. But many observers have been extremely skeptical of the reality of these texts, suspecting that they were fabricated by the government to incriminate the suspect. Portions of the second and third videos released by Owens made those arguments, so it’s worth carefully reviewing the texts:
One element that immediately made me suspicious was the extreme density of the incriminating material, with motive, means, opportunity, and all the other details of the crime squeezed into less than 500 words, constituting a remarkably convenient and terse “confession,” a central pillar of the case against Robinson. But Owens also focused on the language used in the text exchange, providing some very shrewd observations that I hadn’t properly considered. She noted that none of the texts had any time-stamps, making it very difficult for researchers to try to match Robinson’s statements with the timelines that they were constructing. She couldn’t understand why the government had omitted those except as a means of hindering efforts to validate the internal consistency of the official story. Furthermore, we must keep in mind that Robinson was a 22-year-old who had dropped out of college after a few months and was working as an electrical apprentice while being very heavily involved in the online video gaming culture. Yet Owens noted that some of the terminology he employed in those informal texts hardly seemed consistent with that background. He used terms such as “vehicle,” “retrieve,” and “squad car, and I would also add “interrogated.” Owens is more than a dozen years older than Robinson but when she searched her own history of text-messages for such rather formal, bureaucratic terms, almost none of them ever came up in her many years of texting. They struck her as much more likely to be used by government officials or police investigators than someone in his early twenties who lacked a college education and had just committed a brutal assassination. She suggested that her millions of viewers perform the same simple test on their own archive of texts, and apparently very few of them had ever favored such terms in their lifetimes of texting history. Yet Robinson had allegedly used all those terms in just his dozen or so texts. She also noted that in one text Robinson said that he “changed outfits,” a phrase almost exclusively used by women rather than men. This led her to plausibly speculate that the texts might have been concocted by a team, one of whose members was female. In his most recent interview on the Dialogue Works podcast, Blumenthal discussed some of these same issues and cited Owens’ work. September 10th and September 11thHowever, if we wish to seriously consider the hypothesis that Kirk was killed by Israel, we must squarely face the question of timing. It’s generally agreed—by Blumenthal and everyone else—that for about a dozen years, Kirk and the large TPUSA organization that he had built was one of the strongest bulwarks of pro-Israel influence among younger Americans, funded with many tens of millions of dollars from wealthy pro-Israel donors. It seems implausible that such a long track-record of mutual support could have very suddenly been transformed into lethal hostility culminating in murder. Yet as far as I can tell, the first sharp break between Kirk and his longtime pro-Israel allies came in the aftermath of the TPUSA Summit conference in Tampa, Florida on July 11th, caused by the latter’s outrage at Tucker Carlson’s speech and the public debate over Gaza held between Dave Smith and Joshua Hammer, both Jewish. Is it plausible that just sixty days elapsed between the first signs of Zionist displeasure with Kirk and his death at their hands? Many skeptics have noted that the large pro-Israel donors who funded much of TPUSA’s operations could have simply withdrawn their support, and this is exactly what had apparently happened in some cases. This sort of financial pressure has often brought other organizations to heel, and Kirk might have backed down once he began facing major cut-backs in his operations. He had flatly rejected Netanyahu’s offer of $150 million if he agreed to sacrifice his independence, but perhaps if he experienced severe financial difficulties in six months’ time he would have reconsidered that decision. Israel’s leaders and their operatives are notoriously arrogant and reckless, but surely killing one of their most important and longstanding American human assets merely out of impatience stretches the boundaries of plausibility. In early August concerted lobbying efforts had already been made to return Kirk to the fold by Ackman and his bought-and-paid-for minions, and Kirk had angrily resisted that enormous heavy-handed pressure, but why couldn’t the pro-Israel camp have continued such efforts during the months that followed? There’s a long history of elected officials whose resistance to the demands of the Israel Lobby has gradually been worn down over time, and Kirk might have seemed especially vulnerable given how much of his annual operating budget came from those mega-donors. As the Jeffrey Epstein case strongly suggests, blackmail has always been a favorite weapon employed by Israel and its operatives, so why couldn’t they have tried to gather some powerful dirt against their young, increasingly disobedient ally? Perhaps Kirk’s Christian moral character was as absolutely impervious to serious temptation as many of his followers probably believed, but why not spend a few months testing that possibility? I strongly suspect that the number of important Americans under Israel’s control due to blackmail is vastly greater than the number that have been killed or even seriously threatened with death. Pro-Israel forces had invested more than a dozen years of time and enormous quantities of money in building up Kirk. So unless unusual factors of timing were involved, it hardly seems likely that they would have lethally sacrificed such an important political asset only sixty days after they detected the first signs of a looming ideological rupture. However, I quickly realized that exactly such unusual timing factors may have existed. The most famous date in recent American history is surely September 11th and Kirk was killed on September 10th. But although the immediate proximity of those two dates was probably coincidental, the close connection between those two events may not have been. We just passed the twenty-fourth anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks, and with nearly a quarter-century having gone by, popular interest has largely faded away, as I’ve sometimes emphasized in my own articles on that historical event. Indeed, I had planned to publish a new piece bemoaning what I expected would be the near total silence in our media when that anniversary came and went. However, just a few days before the date arrived, I discovered that matters were about to take a very different turn. Back in late 2022 when he was still a FoxNews host and the biggest star on cable TV, Tucker Carlson had devoted a short segment to the JFK Assassination, declaring that he was absolutely convinced that our 35th president had been killed at the hands of a conspiracy involving the CIA and other elements of our own government. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. immediately praised his work as “The most courageous newscast in 60 years.” In an article, I emphasized that with many millions watching the show as it aired or the video segment found on YouTube and other platforms, Carlson’s shocking claims had probably reached more Americans than anything else on that topic in the thirty years since Oliver Stone’s Oscar-winning film JFK was playing in the theaters. Although Carlson’s segment ran only seven minutes, it played a major role in reviving interest in the true circumstances of the 1963 death of our president. This eventually exerted sufficient public pressure that Donald Trump pledged to declassify and release all the remaining files if he were elected in 2024, then actually did so earlier this year. The result was an enormous wave of renewed public interest in why JFK had been killed, provoking an outpouring of new articles and interviews, including one of my own that attracted a great deal of readership: I now discovered that Carlson was similarly planning to reignite the public debate over the 9/11 Attacks, preparing to release a five-part documentary series on those 2001 events, with his trailer declaring that everything the government had told us at the time was a complete lie. Carlson currently ranks as the most powerful figure in today’s fragmented media landscape, and a five hour documentary taking such explosive positions seemed likely to resurrect great public interest in those events a generation after they had occurred. The first installment was appropriately scheduled for release on the September 11th anniversary date. On the 8th, Carlson was interviewed for an hour on the Piers Morgan Show, describing the series and its controversial conclusions to his skeptical British host, and I thought he did an excellent job. The sudden, shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk on the 10th obviously derailed all of those plans, with Carlson naturally focusing all of his attention on the tragic death of his friend. The first installment of the series was quickly rescheduled for release on the 23rd, and I expect that it will have considerable impact. But consider the far greater impact if Kirk not been killed. Kirk was a close friend and ally of Carlson, and he probably would have endorsed and heavily promoted the latter’s 9/11 series to the millions of youthful conservative Americans in his TPUSA orbit, most of whom only dimly remembered those catastrophic attacks if they had even been alive at the time. During the last quarter-century, those attacks and their aftermath have entirely reshaped American society and our place in the world. Not only were they the greatest terrorist attack in all of human history, but they might have been greater in magnitude than the combined total of all such other terrorist attacks. Even that may severely understate their historic significance, given how dramatically they changed America and the rest of the world. Three thousand Americans died and many billions of dollars of property were destroyed, but under Neocon influence the long series of American foreign wars set into motion cost our country many trillions of dollars and destroyed much of the Middle East, killing or displacing many millions of innocent civilians. The Patriot Act and other legislation severely restricted our own civil liberties at home in ways that would have previously been considered unimaginable, and even something as simple as boarding a domestic flight was completely transformed. Few events of the last one hundred years have had such a traumatic impact upon American society. Within just a few years, the highly suspicious aspects of the official 9/11 story had inspired the creation of a large and energetic 9/11 Truth movement. But faced with the determined resistance by a bipartisan establishment, it had gradually faded over time, receiving less and less media coverage and with its leading figures eventually departing the scene. That movement had always suffered from the major weakness that the vast majority of its rank-and-file members were clearly situated on the left, so that most mainstream conservatives had always dismissed and ignored it as conspiratorial left-lunacy. But Tucker Carlson ranks as one of the most influential conservatives in American society as did Charlie Kirk, and if Carlson’s 9/11 revelations had been strongly supported by the latter, the impact on our ideological and political landscape would have been gigantic. Just as Carlson had probably played the central role in reviving public interest in the true facts of the JFK Assassination, with Kirk’s support his series would have probably done the same with 9/11. Based upon Carlson’s statements during his Piers Morgan interview, his 9/11 series will cautiously focus almost entirely upon the factual evidence demonstrating the fraudulence of the official narrative promoted by our Neocon-dominated government. He seems likely to conclude that the gigantic attack on America that day had been carried out by an organization far larger and more powerful than nineteen random Arab hijackers allegedly inspired and directed by a cave-dwelling Saudi exile suffering from renal failure and therefore chained to a dialysis machine. In particular, Carlson explicitly disclaimed any focus upon Israel and its Mossad as the possible guilty party, and may not even suggest exactly who might have been responsible. If so, he would be following the same cautious, fact-based approach as that of the mainstream 9/11 Truth movement, which was intent upon disproving the official story and describing what had actually happened rather than on speculating about who had probably done it. But as I have emphasized in all my many articles over the last seven years, once we reject the official story and consider all the facts, we soon realize that there is strong, even overwhelming evidence that Israel was responsible for the attacks. And if much of the American public concluded that the Zionist State had been behind the worst attack on America in our country’s history, the political consequences would be enormous, quite possibility of an existential nature. Therefore, Israel and its leadership probably concluded that Kirk needed to be eliminated before Carlson released his 9/11 series, and matters were quickly put into motion. Kirk was killed the day before the series was released, greatly diminishing its potential impact and also providing a massive new media story able to divert popular attention from those half-forgotten events of 2001. Piercing Israel’s Longstanding Veil of ImpunityIf my reconstruction of the circumstances behind Kirk’s assassination is correct, Israel’s leaders probably weighed these conflicting factors and then made the decision to kill Kirk before he could support Carlson’s efforts to reopen the 9/11 case. But I think that they may have failed to correctly anticipate the negative consequences of their assassination. Over the last eighty years, Israel and its agents have freely carried out increasingly bold attacks against America, successfully using their growing stranglehold over our media and our government to conceal what had happened from the American people and thereby always escape any retaliation. In 1948, Zionist agents had probably killed James Forrestal, our first secretary of defense, with the media reporting his death as a suicide. In 1963 Israel had assassinated President John F. Kennedy for his determined efforts to halt that country’s nuclear weapons development program and his plans to destroy the growing power of the Israel Lobby. In 1967 the Israelis deliberately attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in international waters, killing or wounding more than 200 American servicemen, the worst naval attack we had suffered since the huge battles of World War II, but our government and our media have suppressed those facts for more than two generations. And in 2001, Israel attacked America on 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in world history, then successfully channeled the popular outrage generated by that false flag operation into having America destroy most of Israel’s regional enemies and rivals in the Middle East. Given that Israel had successfully mounted all these previous attacks, its leaders naturally assumed that the same would be the case when they assassinated Charlie Kirk, a far lesser offense than any of those previous actions. But such arrogant overconfidence might prove to have been severely mistaken this time. I think they may have now pushed their luck once too often. For nearly two years, Israel has been relentlessly committing the greatest televised massacre of helpless civilians in the history of the world, with that horrific slaughter officially classified as “genocide”—the supreme crime—by numerous reputable international organizations and boards of academic scholars. Nothing like this has ever happened in our lifetimes, yet both our political parties have provided their full support, aiding and abetting these terrible crimes against humanity. Traditional academic freedoms have been severely restricted to suppress any student protests. Meanwhile, anyone whose entire knowledge of the world was restricted to the coverage provided by the traditional print and electronic media would scarcely be aware of these momentous developments, with their news reports generally so skewed, circumscribed, and carefully worded that only an extremely distorted version of events has been presented. Faced with these realities, thoughtful individuals have come to recognize the extraordinary degree of influence and control exercised over both our government and our media by Israel and its American partisans, and have been forced to heavily recalibrate their reality-detection apparatus to take these factors into account. Possibilities and ideas that would have been casually dismissed ten or even five years ago are now taken very seriously, not only with regard to present-day events but also for those of the relatively recent or more distant past. During this same period, Israel has deployed its traditional tool of political assassination to an absolutely extraordinary, unprecedented extent, killing the leadership of those countries and organizations it regards as hostile with total disregard for borders, law, or human decency, often choosing to strike its victims at home, killing their entire families with them. Israeli leaders have proudly boasted that they will kill anyone, anywhere in the entire world whom they consider an enemy or a threat, thereby demonstrating to all onlookers that their country is indeed “the Assassination Nation” as I had styled it. All of these horrific crimes committed so blatantly and undeniably by Israel on a daily basis have therefore reversed the results of generations of intense propaganda-conditioning by our media and entertainment industries, and produced an enormous amount of quiet, concentrated rage directed against the Zionist State. Many individuals whose past psychological framework might have led them to experience automatic blindness when confronted by strong evidence of Israeli culpability will now evaluate that same evidence with full objectivity, or may even have become strongly biased in the direction of assuming Israeli guilt. This weekend the Wall Street Journal devoted the entire front page of the Weekly Review section of its prestigious print edition to a 1,400 word article describing and deriding the profusion of “conspiracy theories” that have become so widespread in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. The theory that Israel had been responsible was certainly featured, but it was minimized by being grouped together with various other unorthodox and implausible accusations directed against “the MAGA movement…transgender militants or the far-right Groypers.” In the past, I think this sort of article—together with similar ones appearing in our other, most prestigious print publications—might have successfully shaped the contours of the ideological debate for respectable individuals and thereby deflected attention away from Israel. But today I doubt it will have any impact whatsoever. The article prominently displays a photograph of Candace Owens, who is ridiculed as one of the leading conspiracy theorists promoting “a wild theory of the shooting.” But I think her videos have probably been watched a hundred—or perhaps a thousand—times more often than this article has been read. I’ve never listened to Charlie Kirk, Nick Fuentes, Ben Shapiro, or any of the other right-wing podcasters, and the only time I’ve watched the shows of Candace Owens has been when I was doing so as research for a particular article such as this one. But I do regularly watch the interviews of leading academic scholars and other credentialed experts such as Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearsheimer, Chas Freeman, Ray McGovern, and the many other such guests appearing on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s channel and a few others. These are all very mainstream, reputable individuals and in the wake of Kirk’s assassination, some of their public statements last week greatly surprised me. After he was asked about allegations that Israel had been involved in Kirk’s killing, John Mearsheimer immediately also brought up the JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks, stating that “a lot of people” believed that Israel was involved in all three of those traumatic American events and that “all sorts of people” thought that Israel was behind the Kirk assassination. While he never for a moment suggested that he himself subscribed to those incendiary notions, the impact of citing those past examples completely unprompted was quite powerful. I think that six months or a year ago only individuals considered on the extreme ideological fringe would have been willing to make such statements in public interviews. One might also easily suspect that he was employing the classic journalistic technique of putting extremely controversial ideas into play by safely ascribing them to others: Other guests were even more direct. The next day former CIA analysts Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson were interviewed on the same subject. McGovern seemed to clearly suspect that the Israelis might have been killed Kirk and when Napolitano then asked Johnson whether the Israelis had ever assassinated anyone on American soil, he seemed flustered when the answer he got was “John F. Kennedy.” During the George W. Bush Administration, former Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowskihad been a staffer on the National Security Council and then became a leading whistleblower regarding some of the outrageous Neocon actions that led to our disastrous Iraq War. In her interview, she not only suggested that Israel had assassinated Kirk, but she argued that the very high-profile nature of the killing had probably been intended to “send a message” to President Trump. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi regarded Netanyahu’s immediate and repeated public denials that he had killed Kirk as effectively amounting to a public confession that he had actually done so. And although Jeffrey Sachs didn’t directly discuss Kirk’s killing, he had some very forceful words to say about related matters. Among other things, he described our government as a “puppet regime” controlled by Israel and denounced our “Mossad government” in DC. Thus, we have now reached a strange state of affairs in which someone who has spent decades as one of the world’s most reputable and influential international academics after becoming one of the youngest tenured professors in Harvard University history is sounding much more radical than Richard Spencer. The Economist is probably the world’s most influential print publication and the first job out of college of its current top editor was working as a young assistant to Prof. Sachs on his highly successful 1990s economic reconstruction of Poland. But I think we may be now approaching a point at which she would be more likely to run a favorable article on Spencer than on Sachs.
|
Send this article to a friend:
 |
 |
 |
Charlie Kirk and America’s Long History of Assassinations
