Rod Liddle in Spector Australia: The Lies of the Land

The lies of the land

Rod Liddle

You can gauge the fragility of an ideology by the blind fury with which it reacts to questioning. So it is with neo-liberalism. Teacher Simon Pearson, for example, was sacked for suggesting that the jailing of Lucy Connolly – who said very nasty things about asylum seekers – was an example of two-tier justice and that, while her words were indefensible, she should not have been sent to prison.

One could counter that opinion, but only at the risk of coming into collision with hard facts concerning sentencing – hence the sacking. Best to get shot of your political opponents, especially when he or she is demonstrably correct. Only by doing that can the ideology cling on. The other form of defence, if you are the adherent of an ideology which is palpably on its way out, is to lie to people, or to withhold information from them. Just shrug your shoulders and say: ‘Search me, mate – we don’t have any information on that, I’m afraid.’

For a good 60 years the British public have been lied to about immigration and had information withheld from them. The reason that information was withheld is because the authorities know full well that possession of it would infuriate the great mass of people. And so, when some deranged jihadi murders somebody, we are not given his ethnicity, or we are told a lie (that he is a Norwegian, say), or a truism – that he is mental. If the police released the ethnicity of the suspect every time a serious crime was committed, the public would be even more averse to continued mass immigration from cultures dissimilar to our own than they are at the moment. I still suspect that Crimewatch was taken off air a decade or so ago because the gallery of criminals displayed each week revealed a remarkable dearth of white folks in it. The programme is back, by the way, with diverse presenters and they don’t do the rogues’ gallery thing any more.

The lying, or obfuscation, about immigration has included withholding crime figures from us. Until recently we were un-aware that foreign nationals living in the UK were 70 per cent more likely to be convicted of sexual crimes. Meanwhile Algerians were 18 times more likely to be convicted of theft. The proportion of the under-18 prison population which is of black heritage is 30 per cent, compared with 5.5 per cent of under-18s in the general population.

These figures are all comparatively new to us and they have been released for the simple reason that the dominant paradigm, the guff we’ve been fed for decades – that multiculturalism is terrific and immigrants commit no more crime than do the locals – is increasingly rejected as being not merely untrue, but absurd. The only comeback you will hear from the left on the issue of, say, young black offenders is that if they constitute 30 per cent of the under-18 prison population, then the majority of underage crime must be committed by white youths. This is what I call the Dave Allen argument, and it has been deployed over and over again in the case of the Pakistani rape gangs, despite what we might agree are its obvious flaws.

The centre cannot hold, the disinformation no longer works – and people are angry

So we have been lied to about crime rates among immigrants, or simply not told. But we have also been lied to about how many immigrants are here, how many will continue to flood in and what benefit they will be to society. It is quite common for the left to insist that an influx of 900,000 or so every year will not have any impact upon our crumbling infrastructure – housing, schools, the NHS and so on – despite the epic denial of reality that this involves.

More recently, however, the truth has begun to leak out. While we are continually told that immigration boosts the economy, a report last year from the Office for Budget Responsibility showed that a low-skilled migrant costs the British taxpayer an average of £150,000 by the time he or she has reached pensionable age, and £500,000 if they make it to 80. This is the first time we have been given such information, and my suggestion is that in future the OBR breaks it down by individual ethnicity.

Meanwhile, at the beginning of this year it was estimated that by 2063 white British people will be a minority in their own country. For decades anti-immigrant groups and right-wing politicians have warned of this and their claims were laughed off as ludicrous. Nope, not ludicrous: the truth. And of course any time conscientious politicians raised the issue of mass immigration, the liberal authorities wheeled out the great wicker man of Enoch and set it on fire, while denouncing all those who questioned the avidity with which this country yearned for suicide as ‘racist’ and ‘far-right’.

The slightly better news is that the public no longer buys this rubbish. For a long while, attitudes towards immigration among the general public seemed to soften, the consequence of being kept in the dark, being lied to and not wanting to seem ‘racist’ to the nice researchers. Not any more. The latest YouGov poll shows that a whopping 45 per cent of Brits are in favour of admitting precisely zero new migrants and wish for large numbers to be persuaded somehow to leave the country. That would have been an unthinkable proportion even ten years ago. Meanwhile, only a small minority believe that immigration has been mostly good for the country, and three-quarters oppose greater numbers still coming here.

The lesson from this is that the centre cannot hold, that the disinformation no longer works – and that people are angry. Here, as in continental Europe, the indigenous populations have roused a little from their enforced slumber. A shame, really, that it’s too late.

ADL Crows about their victory over the NEA

Sorry about the formatting, but a typical case of Jewish activism—pulling out all the stops, mobilizing 25,000 people writing letters, major Jewish organizations getting involved. They are very good at this. And no, students are not “getting the education they deserve.”

 

 

Ron Unz: The Assassination of Charlie Kirk

This is the first half of Ron Unz’s article, focusing on criticisms of Kirk from the right,  some of it based on old statements by Kirk which may well have been outdated by the time he was assassinated. The second part focuses mainly on the important Grayzone article previously posted here. The whole thing is well worth reading.
I should say that I don’t find any of the theories that Israel was involved to be convincing, but Israel certainly benefited, and it’s important that Kirk had rejected funding from the pro-Israel crowd, including Netanyahu. It remains to be seen what directions Turning Point will take. It’s certainly worrisome that the disgusting Ben Shapiro is going to attempt to lead a similar youth-based movement. On the basis of Erika Kirk’s talk, we are going to see much more of her, probably not a good sign given that so few women really have the toughness and courage that are needed to redirect Turning Point in the direction that Kirk seemed to be heading—breaking with Israel and focusing more on White interests.
Credit: Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

Audio Player


I don’t spend any time on social media nor do I have any interest in the mainstream conservative movement, so I’d only been very slightly aware of Charlie Kirk prior to his sudden assassination on Wednesday, shot dead at the age of 31 by a sniper while speaking at the University of Utah Utah Valley University.

I’d vaguely known that Kirk was a young conservative activist who had dropped out of community college as a teenager about a dozen years earlier to found Turning Point USA, an activist organization intended to draw youthful Americans into his ideological camp, and heavily funded by mega-donors, it had grown large and successful over time. Those bare facts exhausted my total knowledge.

Given that I’d paid so little attention to him, I was initially shocked by the enormous outpouring of media coverage his killing generated, seemingly greater than might have been accorded many important American elected officials or even major world leaders under similar circumstances. All our top newspapers gave his story large, front-page headlines, and the discussion of Kirk’s assassination and its implications entirely blanketed much of the Internet.

I’d always regarded Kirk as a rather bland mainstream Trump conservative, hardly the sort of figure most likely to inspire lethal hatred. I wondered whether my impression had been mistaken so I sought to assess his views and positions, and get a better sense of why he had been targeted in that deadly attack.

Given his brutal slaying at such a young age, I was hardly surprised that a large fraction of the commentary amounted to hagiography, with even most of his erstwhile ideological foes mourning his death as a tragedy and casting aside any past criticism. Indeed, when Matthew Dowd, a prominent former Bush-Cheney Republican political consultant made some disparaging remarks about Kirk, he was immediately fired from his longstanding position at MSNBC, demonstrating the risks of straying from that widespread position.

 

Fortunately, I found some important exceptions to this pattern of unremitting praise.

I’d occasionally read pieces by Michael Tracey, a prominent moderate or liberal-leaning Internet writer and the day after Kirk’s death he published a harsh 1,400 word column providing a very different perspective on Kirk.

Many of Kirk’s supporters had described him as a political truth-teller, with President Donald Trump declaring that he had been “a martyr for truth.” But Tracey was scathing in his criticism, portraying him as essentially a political propagandist, someone who regularly shifted his positions to conform to those of Trump, his leading patron:

He was a government functionary. A mouthpiece. He trafficked in ludicrous propaganda on behalf of the Administration he loyally served. And was doing this basically 24/7, in the extremely recent past.

Perhaps most notoriously, after taking a personal phone call from Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk hopped on his podcast the next day and proclaimed, “Honestly, I’m done talking about Epstein for the time being. I’m gonna trust my friends in the administration. I’m gonna trust my friends in the government.” He then bizarrely tried to deny that he said this, or insist it had somehow been taken out of context — which it hadn’t. The context was that Trump got annoyed that a bunch of people had criticized him over Epstein at Kirk’s “Turning Point USA” conference, and then Trump called up Kirk, and then shortly thereafter, Kirk announced he was going to do the government’s bidding. That’s just what Kirk was, and the role he played in US political affairs — notwithstanding how people might now want to exalt him as a paragon of truth-telling virtue because of his untimely death.

His conduct was even more egregious in the run-up to Trump bombing Iran in June. During that episode, he pretty much served as a blatant government disinformation agent. Harsh as that might sound after he was brutally gunned down yesterday, it’s simply true. His mission was to demand uncritical faith in the US government, during a time of war — which is totally inexcusable for anyone who would consider themselves anything even remotely approximating a “journalist.” But that’s clearly not what Charlie Kirk considered himself. He instead considered himself a government media mouthpiece. On April 3, he said “A new Middle East war would be a catastrophic mistake.” Then by June 17, as drumbeats for the joint US-Israeli war against Iran were intensifying to full volume, Charlie changed his tune to mollify Trump, whom his whole identity was built around sycophantically serving. “It is possible to be an extreme isolationist,” Charlie Kirk warned his massive audience. “President Donald Trump is a man made for this moment, and we should trust him.” This was just pathetic. Turn off your critical thinking skills and place unquestioning “trust” in the US government to wage a war on false pretenses! What awesome, noble “truth-telling”!

Kirk then called for Trump to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, for the peace-bringing act of launching a new war in the Middle East. As I wrote at the time, “The shamelessness of these people has no bottom — it’s gotten to the point where you just have to marvel at the spectacle.” That was Charlie Kirk. He openly deceived his viewers and listeners, falsely insisting that Trump had been courageously pursuing “peace,” when in reality Trump was mobilizing for war in conjunction with Israel. At the time, I labeled Kirk a “depraved minion” for doing what he did, and I’m not about to retract that accusation just because he got killed yesterday. That would be absurd.

“We must trust Trump,” declared Charlie Kirk, the martyred truth-teller:

I stand by this completely, and there is zero reason to revise my assessment in light of Kirk’s death:

Charlie Kirk had been a cog in the propaganda machine of the Republican Party, declaring totally baselessly that a vote for Trump in the 2024 election was a vote to “bring peace to the Middle East.” And when the exact opposite happened, Charlie was imploring his followers to simply “pray” and uncritically trust the President. He was detestable.

And he wasn’t just some random commentator or podcaster. He was a full-time, extremely influential Republican Party apparatchik. His mega-donor funded outfit “Turning Point USA” ran “Get Out The Vote” operations for the Trump Campaign in the 2024 election. I’m not saying Charlie Kirk wasn’t entitled to engage in these political activities in a free society with lots of billionaire largesse available for ambitious operatives willing to serve as Republican Party Youth Galvanizer. I’m just saying I’m not obliged to fawningly express reverence for him now, simply by virtue of his sudden and hideous death.

Furthermore, I am very much entitled to challenge the hagiography and mythology that is so quickly congealing around him, such that he’s now being expeditiously put into the pantheon of martyred American saints — which is completely ridiculous. However, I’m fully aware that my limited efforts in this regard will have virtually zero effect. The absurd reverence-fest will continue unimpeded.

 

Even more hostile was the reaction of right-wing Internet provocateur Andrew Anglin, who maintained his angry, contrarian reputation by quickly publishing a series of posts ferociously denouncing the slain conservative activist. The lengthiest of these drew more than 500 comments on our website, with Anglin’s deeply emotional reaction probably explaining the obviously missing word in his title.

Sharply attacking Kirk from the right, Anglin eagerly dredged up quotes that demonstrated the victim’s notably liberal views on various hot-button issues. This hardly surprised me since it merely reflected the leftward shift of our conservative movement, whose right-wing MAGA partisans these days espouse many positions on social issues that would have marked them as extreme progressives as recently as the 1990s.

For example, Anglin noted that one of Kirk’s Tweets praised Trump’s strong support for global gay rights and condemned the media for failing to give the president sufficient credit on that score:

Anglin also highlighted another Kirk clip in which the conservative activist ridiculed the academic dogma that there are 47 different genders while strongly affirming his own support for ordinary transgenderism, saying that men had the right to declare themselves women and vice-versa.

This last example seems to perfectly exemplify the nature of our modern conservative movement. The promotion of totally insane ideas by the mainstream media and the academic community has provided self-proclaimed conservatives with considerable necessary cover, allowing them to win popular support by proudly advocating ideas that are only somewhat less insane in comparison.

As an example of Kirk’s personal support for transgenderism, Anglin noted that his organization heavily promoted an activist of that ilk called “Lady MAGA,” going much farther in that regard than most other pro-Trump conservatives. This certainly seemed to contradict early media reports suggesting that Kirk had been killed for his hostility to transgenderism.

According to Anglin, Kirk had also been a leading proponent of the notion that “America is an idea,” with our ideology and our constitutional principles defining what it means to be an American. Anglin located a 2019 clip in which Kirk took exactly this position, while simultaneously proclaiming that Israel should rightly remain “a blood and soil nation,” falling into a different category because of the holy connection to its land:

Video Link

As with many conservatives, Kirk apparently had some strong libertarian roots, and during Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign he had emphasized that wide open America could easily accommodate almost unlimited numbers of hard-working, productive legal immigrants. Anglin actually claimed that Kirk had invented the meme of “stapling green cards to diplomas” and indeed in this clip the latter proposed that any foreigner who graduated from an American university should be issued a green card allowing permanent legal residency. Kirk even suggested that our country could reasonably absorb an astonishing fifty million new legal immigrants over the next ten years.

 Video Link

Anglin was obviously mining Kirk’s record to find those public statements most likely to infuriate the many right-wingers now mourning Kirk’s martyrdom, and I’m sure that clips could also be found in which Kirk sometimes took the opposite side of these same issues. For example, by 2023 he had apparently proposed halting all immigration.

But that’s the crucial point. Like so many other conservative activists, Kirk’s views on most ideological issues were hardly set in stone, and instead might easily change over time as Trump and other national leaders of his movement chose to move in different directions. This hardly indicated that Kirk was the sort of fanatic ideologue most likely to attract a deadly assassin.

All of this suggested that Tracey’s more cynical criticism of Kirk was probably much closer to the mark.

Col. Douglas McGregor: Jews settling in Ukraine

Israeli Cybersecurity Official’s Case Exposes Israel’s Reputation as a Haven for Sex Offenders

When Tom Artiom Alexandrovich, a top Israeli cybersecurity official, was arrested last month in Las Vegas for allegedly attempting to have sex with an undercover officer posing as a minor, few anticipated the diplomatic and political firestorm his swift release would ignite.

Alexandrovich, the Executive Director for Defense at Israel’s National Cyber Directorate, was initially arrested in Las Vegas after an undercover operation ensnared him with evidence of cyber-luring a supposed 15-year-old for sex, a felony carrying up to 10 years in prison. He was one of eight men caught in a joint task force sting carried out by the FBI and Nevada authorities, involving explicit chats on apps such as WhatsApp and Pure and arrangements to meet in person. The arrest report chillingly details that Alexandrovich brought a condom and planned to take the teenage decoy to a Cirque du Soleil show.

Upon his detention on August 6, 2025, Alexandrovich seemed “shocked” and quickly asked police about the status of his booked international flight home—stressing his family situation in Israel and only worrying about travel logistics, not the charges. He waived his Miranda rights and stated he believed the person was 18, despite the evidence proving otherwise.

Despite the severity of the crime, Alexandrovich was released on only $10,000 bail, given no monitoring or passport seizure, and allowed to leave the country within two days—prior to his initial court date. Other defendants in the same sting remained jailed, faced higher bail, or wore electronic monitors. Criminal defense experts described the release highly irregular and suspicious, noting it broke standard protocol for flight risks in serious felony cases.

Alexandrovich missed his court date on August 27, after his lawyers attempted to claim a back-room deal exempted him from appearing. Judge Barbara Schifalacqua swiftly denied this claim, further highlighting the exceptional treatment he received. The federal government, under President Donald Trump, immediately denied any intervention in Alexandrovich’s release. In an August 19 statement, the State Department insisted, “Any claims that the US government intervened are false,” declaring Alexandrovich did not invoke diplomatic immunity and that his release was a state—not federal—judicial decision.

However, Acting U.S. Attorney Sigal Chattah, an Israeli-born Trump appointee for the District of Nevada, decided not to pursue federal charges, a key decision that prevented leveraging stronger extradition tools. On August 18, Chattah publicly criticized state officials for failing to seize Alexandrovich’s passport and demanded his return. Chattah clarified that “the Clark County District Attorney’s office — not federal authorities — is handling the prosecution” of the Israeli officials.

Moments later, she took to social media, blasting local authorities: “A liberal district attorney and state court judge in Nevada FAILED TO REQUIRE AN ALLEGED CHILD MOLESTER TO SURRENDER HIS PASSPORT, which allowed him to flee our country.”

Chattah also asserted that Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel are “outraged” by the incident. Under heavy fire for her silence on the Alexandrovich case, Chattah bowed to pressure and deleted her personal social media accounts amid the backlash.

This case produced a notable rift in the MAGA movement, long considered fervently pro-Israel. Prominent Republicans and digital influencers aligned with President Donald Trump expressed fury at the double standard and perceived subservience to Israel. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) sounded off on X, “How did America become so subservient to Israel that we immediately release a CHILD SEX PREDATOR after arrest, with a 100% locked up case with evidence, and let him off to fly back home to Israel?? Would we do that with a Mexican child sex predator?”

Other MAGA figures also piled on. Former Navy intelligence officer and MAGA influencer Jack Posobiec stated, “DOJ should file federal charges and demand immediate extradition,” while popular conservative personality Tucker Carlson questioned, “What is going on here? Why would the United States allow a foreign government official charged with a child sex crime to avoid prosecution?” Candace Owens, a conservative influencer who has taken a surprising anti-Israel turn since October 7, 2023,  attributed Alexandrovich’s release to Chattah’s Israeli heritage. “The US attorney general who released him is Israeli-born Sigal Chattah. Makes sense now!,” Owens remarked.

The state of Israel initially appeared to deny the gravity of the arrest. A spokesperson for Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed Alexandrovich “was questioned by American authorities during his visit” and “returned to Israel as planned,” omitting any mention of official criminal charges. The National Cyber Directorate only admitted Alexandrovich was placed on leave pending further developments.

This scandal must be understood against the backdrop of Israel’s reputation as a haven for sex offenders and traffickers. Over the past two decades, Israel’s standing in the U.S. State Department’s annual Trafficking in Persons Reports has fluctuated dramatically. In 2001, Israel was ranked the lowest possible (Tier 3), deemed by the U.S. government as “a destination country for trafficked persons, primarily women.”

While the Jewish state’s standing was later upgraded, in 2021 the country was downgraded to Tier 2 amidst criticisms that Israel made “woefully inadequate efforts to prevent human trafficking” and that key populations, including children, remained extremely vulnerable.

A persistent feature driving headlines has been Israel’s Law of Return, which allows Jews worldwide to acquire instant citizenship regardless of their criminal background.  On paper, an amendment added to the law in 1954 prohibits “a person with a criminal past, likely to endanger public welfare,” yet campaigners argue that sex offenders continue to slip through.

Israel is becoming a safe haven for paedophiles due to the unique opportunity available to all Jews from anywhere in the world to immigrate there,” explained Manny Waks, a child abuse survivor and founder of the advocacy group Kol V’Oz, in remarks to The Independent.

This provides a relatively efficient and effective way to evade justice from other countries. It also provides a sanctuary to those who have already been convicted.

It’s important to note that while there are some criminal background checks as part of the immigration process, there are multiple ways to overcome this requirement.”

Shana Aaronson, director of Magen, an organization which works on cases of sexual abuse in Israel’s Orthodox Jewish community, also had choice words about the Jewish state’s lax policies toward sex offenders. “I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Israel is a safe haven for Jewish sexual offenders,” Aaronson stated. She emphasized that many have found protection through Orthodox networks and legal loopholes.

Thanks to this permissive environment, as many as 100 accused or convicted pedophiles—including notorious figures like Malka Leifer, Jimmy Julius Karow, and Mordechai Yomtov—have sought refuge in Israel over the past two decades. Each of these cases is deeply disturbing.

Jimmy Julius Karow

In 2000, Jimmy Julius Karow was accused of sexually assaulting a 9-year-old girl in Oregon. Before U.S. authorities could apprehend him, Karow fled to Israel. Once there, he took advantage of Israel’s Law of Return to gain citizenship, adopting the name Yosef Chaim Karow to establish his new identity.

Karow did not escape legal trouble entirely. In 2002, he was convicted in Israel on separate sexual assault charges and served a five-year prison sentence. Years later, in 2017, he faced further accusations involving two young Israeli sisters, ages 3 and 7, whom he allegedly raped and sexually assaulted between 1999 and 2001. The charges included rape, sodomy, and indecent assault.

In 2021, Karow signed a plea agreement where he will spend over a decade in prison. Despite his conviction in Israel, it remains unlikely that he will ever be extradited to face the original charges in the United States. Meanwhile, an active Interpol Red Notice continues to list him as a fugitive wanted by U.S. authorities.

Malka Leifer

Malka Leifer served as principal of the Adass Israel School, an ultra-Orthodox girls’ school in Melbourne, Australia, from 2001 to 2008. During that time, she faced allegations of sexually abusing multiple students. Ultimately, she was charged with 74 counts of child sexual abuse and convicted on 18 counts, including rape and sexual assault, primarily involving two sisters, Dassi Erlich and Elly Sapper, between 2003 and 2007.

When the allegations first surfaced in 2008, Leifer fled to Israel. What followed was a prolonged 13-year legal battle, with more than 70 court hearings as she fought extradition. She initially avoided being sent back to Australia by claiming mental illness, but in 2020 Israeli psychiatrists concluded that she had been faking her condition to escape justice. Surprisingly, Leifer would face justice in Australia after being extradited there in January 2021. In August 2023, she was sentenced to 15 years in prison, with eligibility for parole beginning in June 2029.

Mordechai Yomtov

Mordechai Yomtov worked as a Hebrew teacher at Cheder Menachem, an all-boys Orthodox yeshiva in Hollywood that served 185 students. In December 2001, he was arrested on 10 felony counts of committing lewd acts with three boys, ages 8 to 10.

Two months later, in February 2002, Yomtov reached a plea agreement. He pleaded guilty to two counts of continuous sexual abuse and one count of lewd conduct. He was sentenced to one year in county jail and five years of probation. However, Yomtov violated the terms of his probation when he fled the United States. Using a fake passport, he traveled through Mexico before making his way to Israel, where he continues to reside illegally.

When confronted by investigators, Yomtov admitted to violating his probation and offered a general apology to his victims. Yet his escape denied his victims the justice they sought. For at least one former student, Mendy Hauck, the trauma lingered for years. Hauck only came forward in 2016 after being encouraged by another victim who had spoken out.

*   *   *

The Alexandrovich affair is not an isolated scandal but a microcosm of the deeper, abusive relationship between the United States and Israel. Time and again, Israeli officials and fugitives exploit America’s indulgence, slipping past basic standards of law and morality that most of the world still respects. Israel’s outsized influence over Washington ensures that even the most egregious violations, including crimes against children, are shielded from real accountability.

Meanwhile, Israel’s status as a refuge for sex offenders continues to mock U.S. sovereignty, exposing the hollowness of its justice system. Until America breaks free from this humiliating dynamic, cases like Alexandrovich’s will not only persist but proliferate, serving as recurring reminders of the degradation inflicted on a superpower by its supposed “ally.”

 

 

Max Blumenthal: Charlie Kirk was waking up on Israel and Jewish influence

One can only  wonder where Charlie Kirk would have become in a few years after being inundated with mainstream conservative ideology on race and probably some kind of Christian attachment to Israel. He was definitely moving in the right direction and Blumenthal’s column definitely suggests that Netanyahu and Israel are blackmailing him, likely related to Epstein. Very interesting that Kirk refused Israeli financial support for Turning Point USA and argued with Trump about bombing Iran.

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.

 

Charlie Kirk refused Netanyahu funding offer, was ‘frightened’ by pro-Israel forces before death, friend reveals

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.”

Charlie Kirk on Gaza, the Holocaust, White Nationalism, Israel as part of God’s Plan, America as a set of beliefs

KM: I can only hope that Kirk wised up a bit from this nonsense.

Charlie Kirk in His Own Words by Warren Balogh

Read on Substack