reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Charlie Kirk's interview with Megyn Kelly is highlighted, showing him fed up with attacks. 'However, Megan, you're hitting on something very potent and important.' He continues, 'I don't wanna judge an entire group because there's been many people in the Paris World that have been sweet, kind, nuanced, Charlie.' 'I love Israel. I want Israel to win.' But he adds, 'But my moral character is now being put into question, Megan.' He says attacks come from 'the people that are attacking me are in a hyperparanoid state because they're at war.' He invites viewers: 'If you too, just like Charlie, are starting to wake up and notice and you really wanna understand this animal that is Israel, swing over to Ian Carroll's YouTube channel and check out the documentary we just pre produced called creating Israel.' 'It's the perfect icebreaker,' and asks, 'Why is that America? Keep asking those questions.'

Discussion on Hamas and Israel. 'Israel, bombed Qatar, which houses a lot of Hamas officials,' and asks whether this 'will this potentially endanger America's own interest in The Middle East?' They compare Israel’s aims to 'unconditional surrender' and ask, 'What does success look like in Gaza?' noting that twenty three months have passed. They seek feedback from American perspective on how things could have been handled—PR, conduct—and how to respond to claims that Israel is committing genocide. The dialogue questions whether the media is totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel, and discusses ethnic cleansing and what a good outcome five years from now would be. The host adds: 'You can't be MAGA if you're anti Israel,' and 'And it is totally fine to say to people who wish to destroy our civilization, no, your values suck, and they don't belong here.'

Speaker 1 questions the letter's truth; Speaker 2 confirms, "Yeah. I mean, it's it's real." They reference Nick Fuentes claiming Israel killed Charlie and mention "the call, like, Israel called him and told him to to to." Speaker 2 summarizes Charlie's Israel stance as nuanced: "he wanted people who controlled The Holy Land to be civilized people" and "didn't want it to be in the hands of Islam," preferring "a civilized group ... friendly to the West" over hostile Muslim nations. He was frustrated at being unable to criticize Israel without being labeled an anti Semitic, and had vehement disagreements about how the war was prosecuted and messaged; he wanted it to be over and saw more freedom to criticize America than Israel. "Even Tucker Carlson" noted Charlie Kirk's anti Semitic labeling; "BB's comments" were odd; he hosted critics like Dave Smith and recognized that "young people were much more Israeli skeptic," arguing that silencing debate would be a "huge disservice to the conservative movement."

The speaker says the United States is Israel's last ally besides the UK and that Americans lack perspective due to lies from the political class and media. Citing Haley's 2023 remark: 'Last thing we need to do is to tell Israel what to do. The only thing we should be doing is supporting them and eliminating Hamas. It is not that Israel needs America. America needs Israel.' They assert: 'Israel could not survive without The United States' and that 'every dollar that goes to the Israeli military from The United States is a dollar that the nation of Israel can spend on its own people.' They claim Haley was never asked to explain how that could be true, and warn that discussing geopolitics invites accusations of antisemitism, creating a 'state of perpetual intimidation' and no honest conversation.

Megan Kelly and Charlie Kirk frame themselves as ardent defenders of Israel, urging caution against conflating critique with anti-Semitism. They argue that some in the pro-Israel camp punish mild pushback, harming credibility as they face online harassment and accusations of anti-Semitism, including Epstein/Mossad speculation. They cite a culture of hyperparanoia and insist they are Americans first. Megan recalls a Piers Morgan segment: she said 'the photos of the starving children out of Gaza' and 'they're manipulated, and they're masters of propaganda' and 'it's Hamas,' and that she is skeptical of taking those images at face value. They warn Israel risks losing standing with allies as support shifts: 'GOP in June 2024, 76%. Now 71%'; 'Dems in October 2023, 36%. Now it's at eight'; 'Independents ...(47%). Now it's 25%.' They defend hosting diverse voices—'you have no right to come on this show and demand a debate with me'.

Megan Kelly and Charlie Kirk discuss backlash for defending Israel while resisting criticisms, arguing that "some in the pro Israel camp are so knee jerk about calling you anti Semitic or getting deeply offended if you say anything that doesn't align with their narrative that it undermines their own cause." They challenge antisemitism accusations tied to Epstein/Mossad speculation, saying, "What the hell? That's such bullshit." They insist "We are Americans first, period. End of story" against a "sea of Islamic totalitarianism." They warn that Israel has "made itself the villain of the world" and note Democrats have turned. They cite polling: "GOP in June 2024, 76%... Now 71%... Dems in October 2023, 36%. Now it's at eight." They add, "the more you attack our moral character, the actually the more we're gonna double down," and describe Gaza imagery as propaganda: "they're manipulated and they're masters of propaganda."

- "Charlie Kirk is the pro Zionist guy." - "What if they were listening in to him and he was in communications with people saying, hey. I think I'm gonna go this direction and they knew his intentions or saw this pattern." - "Here's this pro Zionist guy with this incredibly powerful platform that they built, by the way, that Charlie has, thanks to them." - "So if he's gonna take what they gave him and turn it against them, that could literally destroy Israel because the youth is people they're most concerned about." - "We can't let him turn." - "Israel was never my top suspect until, you know, I've spent twenty four hours thinking about it, I'm like, it's not unreasonable. It's not even out of the question in terms of would Israel do this." - "it's in their wheelhouse."

This segment recounts escalating pressure on Charlie Kirk over Israel debates. A speaker says: "I'm an American citizen. Yes. I want Israel to win. Yes. I'm a Christian." Kirk says his "moral character is now being put into question" and "I am a bad person if I do this." The piece notes threats to pull funding and that he faced pressure about inviting people, asking "How could Charlie allow these debates about Israel to take place?" It describes a "duress situation" at the Hamptons, with Bill Ackman allegedly pressuring Kirk as Beebe Netanyahu offered "an intervention" and funding. "We just need you to come to Israel and we can make this better" and "We just need you to come to Auschwitz and take a picture." Kirk reportedly "denied that funding" and "Charlie said no to Bebe." Beebe's timing is claimed: "less than twenty four hours after Charlie Kirk was shot."

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and preserve the core facts, insights, and conclusions without adding new analysis. - Highlight unique or surprising elements (e.g., calls for Nuremberg II trials, journalist impact, public opinion data). - Exclude repetitions and filler; focus on the evolution of emotional and political reactions. - Translate any non-English context to English (not needed here). - Keep exact terms where possible (genocide, hostages, journalist reporting, public polls). - Aim for a concise 392–491 word summary that captures both speakers’ points and the dialogue’s tension. The transcript condensed: Speaker 0 describes a mixed emotional reaction to recent developments: Israelis held in Gaza for two years reuniting with families, and Palestinians held in Israeli dungeons—about 2,000 people—many for years or months without charges, whom he also calls hostages lacking due process. He is moved by these reunions and by the momentary halt of what he calls a genocide, preventing bombing and possible incineration of Gazans. Yet he recalls two years of genocidal violence as unspeakable and notes the lack of accountability for Western leaders who participated, observing Western leaders visiting Egypt to commemorate an end to the violence. He questions how to emotionally and intellectually react to this “mixed bag of incentives.” Speaker 1 counters by branding President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu as “two war criminals” responsible for genocide since December 2023 in Gaza, arguing they would be found guilty at Nuremberg II trials and would be hung. He asserts Trump has aided the genocide during nearly nine months in office, and that Netanyahu is guilty as well, yet both are treated as conquering heroes—eliciting his sense of sickness and frustration at the absence of accountability. He suggests that once journalists enter Gaza and report the full story, including on platforms like TikTok, global dismay could hinder Israel from restarting the genocide. He clarifies he isn’t asserting likelihood, but hopes increasing documentation and voices will pressure Israel, the United States, and Europe to shut down the genocide permanently, though he concedes uncertainty. Speaker 0 then notes global public opinion appears to be turning against Israel, particularly in Western states reliant on it, and cites military pause as a tactic to relieve pressure and allow Israel’s military to rebuild. He suggests that Western elites are incentivized to resume pro-Israel positions, aided by domestic lobbying, and questions whether the pause will relieve pressure or enable normalization. Speaker 1 responds that elites are morally bankrupt, including the Biden administration’s deep involvement in the genocide, but acknowledges pressure from below—such as shifts in the Republican Party and Democratic Party, and European actions like Italy’s general strikes and a German poll showing 62% of Germans believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. He believes the rising information will help people “wrap our heads around it” and possible pressure to act, though outcomes remain uncertain.

The speaker says a figure has annoyed the Jewish community over the last few months with criticisms of Israel. He cites a Jerusalem Post piece about backlash after Tucker Carlson spoke at SAS, where people were calling him an anti Semite. "I know Charlie and here he's little do they know half the time he's on college campuses, all he's doing is Hasbara and defending Israel. And he doesn't even wanna be. He doesn't even know the issues that well, but he's forced to." "But he dutifully with a smile on his face, defends Israel left and right." We saw him in England, at the debate, passionately defending Israel. And that's not even what he wants to be doing. Now he's getting criticized as an anti Semite. So I wrote that piece in the Jerusalem Post basically saying, listen, everybody. Stop with the purity tests for every single view that he has to line up with, I don't know, B. B. Cabinet decisions. "Relax. Okay? This is our greatest ally. Yes, he has questions. Yes, he's influenced by the other side as well." "Good. I'm talking to him."

From Israel's perspective, "Charlie Kirk is the pro Zionist guy. He is the pro Israel guy." The speaker notes that without context it wouldn’t make sense to claim Israel would kill him, but asks what if they were listening and he was in communications with people saying, "hey. I think I'm gonna go this direction and they knew his intentions or saw this pattern." They describe "this pro Zionist guy with this incredibly powerful platform that they built, by the way, that Charlie has, thanks to them," and warn that if "he's gonna take what they gave him and turn it against them" it "could literally destroy Israel because the youth is people they're most concerned about." Charlie "is the dude when it comes to Israel." "We can't let him turn" and if he starts to turn and "we take him out before he ever really genuinely turns, and then he's the Zionist martyr"—blame on the Palestinian—could "unify the right" and silence critics. The speaker concedes: "I Israel was never my top suspect" but now thinks "it's not unreasonable" and that "it's in their wheelhouse." It shows how much they needed Charlie Kirk—"nobody's gonna be defending them anymore" and "their reputation is in the toilet."

Some people believe that disagreeing with Israel is antisemitic, which is seen as comparable to calling someone racist simply for disagreeing with them. There's a concern that constantly accusing people of hating Jews could lead to increased disdain towards Jewish people. Similarly, excessive focus on race may exacerbate racism. Canceling someone like Tucker Carlson for alleged antisemitism could increase antisemitism by association. The binary view that not passionately discussing Israel equates to being a hater is potentially destructive. A balanced approach is needed: rejecting Jew-hate while avoiding labeling everyone who critiques the Netanyahu government as antisemitic. The speakers express a desire to talk about Israel less.

Speaker outlines a 'permanent condition of fear' where people are 'walking on eggshells' or 'walking through a minefield,' 'so scared of saying the wrong thing' that 'if you step on the landmine, you die.' This climate is 'deliberately fostered' because there is 'no let the punishment fit the crime' on topics, leaving 'the landmine field' in place. They note 'the outrage about Israel is so overwhelming now' that 'we cannot sustain our reputation' unless the right changes, with 'the wind is blowing' toward criticizing Israel to preserve legitimacy. Megyn Kelly clip: Charlie Kirk says, 'I am afraid... I want civilization to win... I don't want the Islam of fascist barbarians to storm the gates of Jerusalem.' Backlash to anti-Israel voices is framed as risking 'two of your strongest advocates.' The speaker urges Kirk: 'Tell them to go f themselves, and you tell the truth' and 'You're the Golem. Arise.'

Speaker 0 expresses that "The behavior by a lot, both privately and publicly, are pushing people like you and me away" and that he is accused of being an anti-Semite despite "I honor the Shabbat, literally the Jewish Sabbath." He notes online backlash, "thousands of tweets and text messages," and that his "moral character is now being put into question" for supporting Israel. Speaker 1 agrees the treatment is unfair, saying "Dave Smith isn't allowed to criticize Israel" and that "the Israeli side was overrepresented." They discuss Americans first, resisting accusations, and the difficulty of criticizing the Israeli government online. They reference Epstein's controversial topic and say they hosted a debate giving "equal time to Josh Hammer, equal time to a pro Israel advocate." They observe a "hyperparanoid state" online and wonder if patterns resemble "nineteen thirties Germany."

Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson had a heated exchange where Cruz questioned Carlson's "obsession with Israel," implying anti-Semitism. This occurred after Cruz stated he goes to Congress to "advance and serve the interest of Israel." The speaker highlights the US's extensive financial and military support for Israel, arguing it impacts foreign policy, civil liberties, and free speech. They claim criticism of Israel is often met with accusations of anti-Semitism, a tactic they compare to conservatives being labeled bigots for questioning liberal views. Carlson denied being anti-Semitic and accused Cruz of deflecting from valid questions about US foreign policy and loyalty to foreign governments. The speaker criticizes Cruz's "cowardice" for implying bigotry through innuendo rather than direct accusation. They state that Carlson was questioning the propriety of going to war for Israel, and Cruz insinuated that Carlson was an anti-Semite obsessed with Jews.

Megan and Charlie Kirk, both vocal defenders of Israel, say the pro-Israel camp overreacts to criticism by labeling dissenters as anti Semitic, which they believe undermines credibility: "the behavior by a lot, both privately and publicly, are pushing people like you and me away." They recount personal harassment, including "you must be anti Semitic" when raising Epstein/Mossad discussions, and say "What the hell? That's such bullshit." They defend their American-first stance: "We are Americans first, period. End of story," and insist they want Israel to win, even as they note the debate harms Israel's standing. Megan warns that "Israel has made itself the villain of the world" and cites Trump's remark "time to wrap it up." They cite shifting U.S. public opinion: GOP 76% to 71%; Dems 36% to 8%; independents 47% to 25%. They discuss broadcasts, focus groups, and backlash on social media.

Speaker argues that 'you and the Likud party are cut from the same ideological cloth as Trump and the GOP in America.' They reference 'Charlie Kirk's assassination, who was a big mentor of mine' and say 'Evangelicals, from all my research, evangelicals are the reason that Israel has been supported in public sphere outside of just Jews.' They note 'So with Charlie's assassination and with the kind of trajectory that we see with, like, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson.' They ask 'what's another game plan if we lose evangelical support for the state of Israel.' 'What's our backup plan to be strong, like outside of the diaspora?'

Speaker 0 argues there are definitely people who hit Israel who are not anti Semites, ranging from religious motives to threats, asking, "Why attack people who are pretty reasonable... Why denounce them as dangerous antisemites?" Speaker 1 recalls that on Piers Morgan he said Israel was "losing the PR war, that they had lost the Democrats and the independents and were starting to lose the Republican Party in America," and that it was "Time to wrap it up." At Turning Point at Student Action Summit with Charlie, they discussed Epstein and Pam Bondi, and whether he might possibly be an asset, "and Israel, yeah, would make sense to me." After two years of defending them every week turned some weird crowd into she's an anti Semite. "So, I mean, eff these people because it's a lie." They say Charlie Kirk "faced" a smear for hosting you and inviting Dave Smith; "the Israel side fully represented too." Charlie was "31" and "under 30 is against Israel." They call his stance "brave and noble" and say he "did not deserve to be smeared."

This episode features a wide‑ranging, free‑form discussion of politics, media, and conspiracy theories. The speakers touch on being labeled antisemitic after hosting guests and reference volatile events around Charlie Kirk, Jeffrey Epstein, and Trump, asserting deep Israeli influence over U.S. policy. They claim Jewish donors and networks (APAC, Heritage Foundation’s Project Esther) steer government, media, and finance, and advocate an uncompromising, “America first” stance without softening their message. The conversation shifts to foreign policy in Venezuela, Ukraine, and Iran, alleging occupation and betrayal by U.S. leaders tied to Israel. They criticize figures like Alex Jones, Nick Fuentes, and Tucker Carlson, and discuss internal MAGA divisions and alleged dual loyalties. The later segments promote the J Proof crypto project and related sponsors, alongside discussions of censorship, billboards, and broader controversial histories surrounding Israel, 9/11, and the Holocaust.

Speaker 0 opens with "we wanna see the maniacs of Hamas be defeated" and notes "Israel, bombed Qatar, which houses a lot of Hamas officials," asking "What happened here? ... Will this potentially endanger America's own interest in The Middle East?" He contrasts Israel's aims with "unconditional surrender" and asks, "Is that what Israel is aiming for here?" He wonders what "success look[s] like" in Gaza after about twenty-three months and what could have been done differently "on the PR front" or "conduct front." A claim heard is "Israel is committing genocide." The discussion touches on media skepticism, accusations that Israel wants to "ethnically cleanse," and asks for a five-year outlook. The remark "you can't be MAGA if you're anti Israel" prompts Ben Shapiro's response: "And it is totally fine to say to people who wish to destroy our civilization, no, your values suck, and they don't belong here."

Smith onto the space. Harrison, thanks for joining. We’ve got questions about your tweet. How are you? Harrison: I’m pretty good. I just got home, trying to do Advent with my kids, so I have about ten minutes. I heard Matt Baker defending me, so I came to settle objections. What’s up? Smith: First of all, I appreciate you coming on. We’ve had disagreements on X. The first question is about your original tweet about someone telling you Charlie Kirk was going to be assassinated. Explain that, because I’ve got a question about your second tweet. Harrison: That’s it. There’s no further explanation. Somebody with knowledge of the situation told me that, and I tweeted it in response to something Ian Carroll had said, a month before. I told the story again on Moonbase Live when I talked to Jake Shields, a week before the shooting. I won’t tell you who told me because they asked me not to, but it’s basically corroborated. The person I talked to was not the same as those who talked to people like Max Blumenthal. So apparently, multiple people are telling the same story. Only I published it before the event. Did the FBI or TC or something ask you any questions about it? Smith: Nope. Harrison: And that’s the problem, Soleiman. That’s the problem right there. Smith: We’ll move on. He’s got ten minutes. The tweet today said: “the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been a resounding success for the left, they got to kill one of our shining lights, divide the right and normalise political violence and the only backlash they received was Jimmy Kimmel show got suspended for two days.” That seems to contradict your first statement, since the first tweet was before the assassination. How does that message come across? Harrison: The first tweet was before the assassination, so it couldn’t have anything to do with who I thought did it. It was before the assassination, a month earlier, and I had heard the rumor that Charlie Kirk feared for his life. The second tweet reflects the world view that most left people have: “we killed Charlie Kirk. We got away with.” It’s about the left believing they did it and got away with it, and it’s about the weakness of the right to treat threats against us with seriousness. Whether or not it was a leftist is still up in the air; I have unanswered questions about the patsy they have now. Still, the left has benefited. The left acts like they did it. The official story is the left did it, personally. I have questions about that story, but what matters is the widespread perception that the left did it and got away with it, and that informs their behavior. Smith: Do you think the widespread opinion matters? Harrison: I can’t hear you both at once. Matt? Smith: How do you feel about the genocide in Gaza? Harrison: I’m strongly against the genocide in Gaza. Vocally. Since before October 7. I’m against it as an Israeli shill? Smith: No one said that. The argument was that you’ve spoken out against genocide in Gaza before October 7, but Infowars promotes Zionist agendas and Zionist talking points, attacking Muslims in the United States and the UK. Zionist billionaires like Robert Shillman, etc. Harrison: I get it. Zionist interests overlap with mine, but it has nothing to do with Zionism in our calculus. I am for Western culture, America, heritage Americans of all backgrounds, and I’m fighting for Christianity. I’m against Muslims infiltrating Western countries, and I’m against Zionists controlling Western countries. These are not contradictory. There’s nothing Zionist about not wanting Muslims to take over your country, just like there’s nothing Muslim about not wanting Zionists to control your country. Infowars is anti-Zionist recently, and Alex condemns what Israel and Netanyahu are doing. But there’s a deliberate message of unity of all Americans who aren’t trying to dominate or subvert others. Unless they’re Christians, of course. Smith: So you’re saying you’re not arguing for a single team; it’s two enemies, rock, paper, scissors? Harrison: It’s two enemies, not one. I’m against both. I’m against Muslims taking over and against Zionists dominating. It’s not contradictory. It’s not about a single team. Smith: The point isn’t that you must pick sides; the issue is you’ve pushed claims that there is a Muslim takeover, which isn’t supported by numbers or power. People argue this is propaganda. Harrison: Okay. I don’t care whether the takeover has progressed. If I said it’s fake, I’d say that. I’ve got to go, but I appreciate the clarification. Smith: Posted on the day Jake Lang went; you were clearly talking about him. Harrison: I was talking about why Dearborn was the location of the march and why it was appropriate. Jake Lang is Jewish and Zionist; he’s not a Christian. He’s ethnically Jewish. He says he’s Christian, and in Christianity you can convert. I’ll call him a Christian man if that’s how he defines himself. Thanks.

There is a split on the right over support for Israel, led by Nick Fuentes and the Gripers. They challenge America First figures like Charlie Kirk on backing Israel, highlighting conflicts of interest. This divide has roots in past conservative clashes and is now prominent within the GOP base. The Israel lobby is seen as hindering American sovereignty, causing tension for figures like Ben Shapiro and his ally Matt Walsh.