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.'

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."

Charlie mentioned Tucker and Candace forty eight hours earlier as they were trying to control who he's allowed to speak to. He was worried that Israel was infringing upon speech in America; "I have text messages to that effect." He was genuinely pro Israel; "there was nothing. there was not payment that was coming in." Toward the end, he was "over it towards the end because of Jewish behavior". Less than forty eight hours before he died, "Charlie announces that he has no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause because of Jewish donors and their behavior living up to these stereotypes." We never said "Israel killed Charlie Kirk." "I am uncomfortable with how many lies people that support Israel have been telling in the wake of his death."

"BB's holding it up like Charlie just in May said, hey, you know what? I just want to write a love letter to Israel." "I'm an American citizen. Yes. I want Israel to win. Yes. I'm a Christian." "But my moral character is now being put into question, Megan." "But no. I am a bad person if I do this." "Thousands of tweets and text messages." "the people that are attacking me are in a hyperparanoid state because they're at war, and war tends to make things black and white, and you're a hammer looking for a nail." "What would it be like if all of a sudden I'm starting to see a pattern of behavior similar to what my grandparents saw in nineteen thirties Germany online? How would I behave?" "Tucker Carlson was really the focus when it came to America Fest."

Asked about the last meeting with Charlie, it wasn't 'about, like, this is what you should say,' but 'talking through the issues' with Charlie asking questions and 'then saying, Okay, I think I'm going to approach this issue this way and this is going to be my position on it.' They discussed 'USA to Israel,' and 'I'm opposed to USA to Israel. I want it to be drawn down,' noting Netanyahu's stance. They talked through 'why is Israel actually an American interest?' 'Why is it in America's interest to support Israel?' Charlie was a listener, and 'the open marketplace of ideas' was a core fundamental. He believed in that, which is why he annoyed people by platforming Tucker Carlson and others, because for Charlie, 'the idea that you're supposed to silence any opinion was anathema.' 'Do I think he went too far with it? Well, yes.'

Speaker defends American Jews against campus antisemitism, calling the “ripping down of the hostage posters” “absolutely disgusting” and saying, “I don't have to defend Israel, and I don't defend Israel. I generally am on Israel's side.” He is “certainly not on the side of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization” and “cried on the air after it happened” following the “ten seven attack.” He says Hamas propaganda “the Gaza Ministry of Peace” and “those numbers are all lies,” but devastation cannot continue; Israel has “taken out Hezbollah” and Hamas has been “decimated.” He asserts, “it's time to wrap it up” and “I will not be shamed out of it by being called an anti Semite.” On Tucker, “Too fucking bad”—“I love him.” He praises Candace as “a young mom of, like, three young kids” under pressure and refuses to attack her, calling pushback “the same thing as the BLM folks.”

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government. And those two those two things beautifully coexisted." "Exactly. And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

Charlie Kirk is accused of critiquing Israel’s actions in Gaza during this summit, with claims that he is supposed to be a Christian conservative. A number of participants argue that critiques of Israel are being framed as anti-Semitism, while others emphasize that disagreeing with the current Israeli government or questioning AIPAC does not automatically make someone anti-Semitic. One participant says the repeated “anti-Semitism” labeling is being used as an excuse to “spout anti-Semitism.” They argue that people treat Israel as sacred while demanding reduced involvement, referencing uncertainty about “Messiah” and “Reminds me of the CIA.” Another participant responds that an ally should treat an ally differently, and claims they are told that criticizing AIPAC is anti-Semitic. A participant states they have “concerns about AIPAC,” describing it as a prioritization problem: citizens vote and pay attention to American interests, but “a separate group gets higher priority.” Another participant says the entirety of the idea of a PAC is to represent a group, but criticizes allowing a group they claim “doesn’t even represent American interests” to influence representatives. They also claim that only about 20 members across the Senate and House are fully doing the work of the American people. The discussion includes examples of anti-Semitic accusations being dismissed. One participant says they do not hate Jews, and argues that defending a nation should not be treated as hatred. Another participant compares the dynamic to how “racism” is used—if people disagree, they are called names without proof, based on inability to “prove them wrong.” On Israel aid, a participant says the U.S. sends almost $4 billion to Israel “every year,” totaling $319 billion adjusted to inflation since 1948, and says this makes them upset. They argue the money could be better spent supporting an economy at home, including homes, rather than military strikes. They respond to a hypothetical five-year plan for Israel to decouple from USAID by saying Israel could be self-reliant, with balanced budgets and a sovereign wealth fund, and that such a transition would make people think higher of Israel and stop constant discussion. Religious references are raised, including Genesis 12.3 and Romans 9-6, and the conversation notes someone describing being ethnically Jewish and having concerns about AIPAC. A final exchange asks whether canceling Tucker would change anti-Semitism levels; one participant says it would increase because supporters would be treated as anti-Semites by association. The conversation ends with a claim that there is an “earthquake” coming on the issue that others do not believe, and urges hearing it “from people themselves.”

Speaker 0: "We're just gonna try to we're we're gonna just stamp out everything type type of practice, but it goes to the point where if, for example, if I I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?" Speaker 1: "That's not right. Wrong headed." He says he faced blowback after saying, "Mossad, possibilities with Epstein," a comment he stands by, and that he "reported what Alan Dershowitz has said as his lawyer." He writes, "He says, I think he would have told me. He didn't say he had any of those connections. I hear all that. That doesn't mean it's not true." "I think all these things should be explored." "It's one of the many things that should be explored around Epstein." He finishes, "But saying that and also saying he might be a US asset, etcetera, doesn't make you antisemitic."

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "You never you never once said, hey, I'm I'm out on America. On America's right." "And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government."

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 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.

In a focus group, participants debate how canceling Tucker Carlson would affect antisemitism and whether labeling opponents as anti Semitic is productive. One says, 'if we were to cancel Tucker, would anti antisemitism increase or decrease?' The response: 'I think increase because that means any supporter of Tucker Carlson's statement therefore makes them anti semitic. Don't association. Mhmm. 100%.' They critique a binary: 'the binary that's presented is that if you don't passionately talk about it, you are a hater.' The discussion shifts to Israel, with a participant stating, 'I love Israel. I visited there,' and describing American concerns: 'we are, like, flooded with illegals, and no one speaks English, and our hospitals are clogged.' They urge to 'reject the Jew hate' but warn against labeling everyone anti Semite for opposing Netanyahu: 'it's bad for everybody.' They ask, 'welcome us not talking about Israel nearly as much? Yes. 100%.' Finally, they frame the issue as a 'messaging problem' and warn, 'there's an earthquake coming on this issue'—'hear it from people themselves.'

Speaker 0: Is the media totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel? Just a question. You know, look at Maybe we shouldn't believe everything. Look at that. Maybe we shouldn't believe everything. Here too, but they got Charlie Kirk, and it's just heartbreaking. Who's they, b b? Who's they? You got Charlie Carter.

The discussion centers on political criticism and backlash tied to Israel. One participant says Americans can be criticized heavily about their own government—citing being “brutal” on presidents from Barack Obama to Joe Biden and also being critical of Donald Trump “where he deserves it too”—but claims a different standard applies when criticism involves Israel. They describe a “hard no” response from a faction of the conservative movement, where critics are labeled “grifter[s]” and attacked by “bots nonstop online,” alongside an “apparatus” that “immediately turns on you.” They ask who is effectively trying to “veto” or block efforts by figures such as Tom Massie, podcasters, and people raising issues on social media. The other participant argues that the groups involved “entirely support Israel,” and points to Israel-related funding and campaigns, saying they have to set aside “seven hundred and fifty million dollars in a propaganda campaign” and references hiring Brad Parscale. They say Brad Parscale runs Salem Media and “had to register as a foreign agent for a foreign government.” They also claim that during the Trump reelection effort, “millions of dollars had disappeared from the campaign,” and that Parscale was “in charge of it,” implying it is “kind of shocking” and “odd” that he would be responsible for missing money and later overseeing other efforts. They add that it was “so significant” that he “had no choice,” and note that Parscale is “upfront about being a paid—at least… about being” something related to the arrangement being discussed. The conversation then returns to criticizing Israel’s government and foreign policy. One participant says it is “fine to be critical of Israel,” arguing that having “an issue with Israel’s foreign policy” or claiming Israel “getting us into a war” should not automatically make someone an “anti-Semite” or “a bad person.” The transcript ends mid-sentence with “I question the.”

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "And those two things beautifully coexisted." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often." "Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

Speaker recounts meeting with Charlie: it wasn’t about 'this is what you should say,' but 'talking through the issues' as Charlie asked questions and began forming positions. He would 'approach this issue this way' and decide his stance on topics like 'USA to Israel,' which speaker opposed, wanting it drawn down; Netanyahu has said he wants it drawn down. Charlie would articulate his position more quickly than the speaker. They discussed why is Israel actually an American America's interest to support Israel and explored approaches to justify it, not just those favored by Israelis or the Israeli government, but ways to help Charlie feel comfortable with a position. Charlie is a 'listener' who believes in the 'open marketplace of ideas'—his existential core—and he platformed Tucker Carlson; silencing any opinion was 'anathema' to him because of truth seeking. 'For all of us, our best traits we often have to a fault.'

Charlie Kirk faced mounting pressure about Israel debates. "I'm an American citizen. Yes. I want Israel to win. Yes. I'm a Christian." He says "the sum of the mess" and that "my moral character is now being put into question" while insisting "I love Israel. I want Israel to win." He recalls "thousands of tweets" and a pattern "similar to what my grandparents saw in nineteen thirties Germany online?" as well as threats to "pull out money" and "nasty text messages." The discussion centered on Tucker Carlson and why Charlie would allow voices like "Dave Smith, who by the way is Jewish" on stage. Beebe Netanyahu allegedly staged "an intervention" by "Bill Ackman" with "threats" after which Charlie "denied that funding" and was invited to Israel, an invitation Charlie "said no to Bebe." "Just take the last step, Charlie." Charlie was praying the rosary. Charlie was going to mass.

I attended a TPUSA faith event expecting politics to be shaped by biblical principles, but the experience did not meet that expectation. The event opened with a speaker who immediately criticized Candace Owens, calling her evil and antisemitic, and stating that what she’s doing is evil. I wanted to leave, but security was intense—armed men were stationed all around the venue, and there was even an armed man on stage with a hand on his gun. The security presence made me uncomfortable. Inside, the speaker talked extensively about Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, portraying them as evil and antisemitic. He argued that Christians should support Israel because Jesus was a Jew and Judaism underpins Christianity, while claiming that what Israel is doing is evil and corrupt. He suggested that refusing to support Israel would be anti-Semitic. I disagree with this framing, and it struck me as not aligning with what I expect from biblical politics. I also noted that the speaker referenced Charlie Kirk (though I recall it as Charlie Cook) and suggested that Kirk would not endorse the positions being discussed, referencing Kirk’s and Owens’ friendship and his past critiques of Israel. Throughout, the speaker’s preaching style resembled name-calling rather than traditional preaching. He labeled the political left as “idiots,” “freaks,” and “losers,” and spent much of the time denigrating liberals rather than offering constructive biblical guidance. This approach felt discordant with Christian teachings I associate with Jesus, who, as the speaker himself stated he loves, “ate with sinners,” including prostitutes. I felt the message was spreading hate rather than embodying the inclusive example I expect from Christian doctrine. A major concern was the impact on young attendees. Teenagers and young Christians appeared to be absorbing the message, treating this figure as a leader and a future guide for their faith, which raised alarms about further division within the Christian community. In summary, the event did not teach the biblical political perspectives I anticipated. The emphasis was on discrediting the left and on framing Israel in terms of Jewish loyalty, rather than engaging with broader Christian concerns. The speaker’s approach—name-calling of political opponents, calls for aggressive stances, and a heavy focus on left-wing critique—left me feeling that the session did not align with constructive faith-based political discussion. The speaker also touched on issues like men in women’s sports, but stated this was not the most important topic for Christians to discuss amid broader national concerns.

"The American Jewish Committee called in a statement Charlie Kirk an anti Semite and quote dangerous. 'Charlie Kirk, an anti Semite.' 'Yeah. He was not an anti Semite. He was the opposite, and he was not dangerous.' He was 'a great lover of people and a purveyor of peace,' 'the opposite,' and he was 'very stung by that.' 'Charlie was deeply offended by that' and expressed some of those feelings on Megyn Kelly show and in other places, but that did not let up. The story is told because he called me and then came to see me at my house about this topic. And I said to him every single time, 'look, I've got my own way to communicate my views.' This is actually not the most important issue to me. There are lots of things I can talk about. I don't need to come to Turning Point. I can take a year off no problem. I hated seeing how much he was suffering, the hassle he was getting from people, and I was attacked too. By the way, it was a huge effort. I wasn't fully aware of it actually because I don't go online."

The speaker discusses how the Israel lobby and some Congress members labeled Tucker Carlson “literally Hitler” and argue he’s the greatest threat since Hitler to Jewish people, prompting calls for censorship. He then references a leaked video, reportedly from good people in Israel, showing Israeli troops committing mass anal gang rapes, and notes that Netanyahu described the ensuing disclosure as the worst PR attack and disaster in Israeli history, though not condemning the acts themselves but criticizing the leak and the Israeli media for publicizing them. He argues that the exposure is, in his view, a positive development for Israel because it reveals wrongdoing, while condemning Netanyahu for framing it as a PR disaster. The speaker questions why the focus is on PR rather than the morality of the acts, asking why perpetrators aren’t imprisoned and criticizing pundits on Israeli TV who allegedly suggest normalizing or endorsing such violence. He asserts that Hamas and similar groups are morally condemned, but emphasizes that Netanyahu’s reaction is more about public relations than moral concern. He asserts that evil exists broadly, including in communist China and within the US government, and argues for exposing corruption rather than covering it up, insisting that a moral code is necessary—“a creed to live by,” citing John Wayne and declaring Christian and America-first principles. He presents examples of what he characterizes as “truly disgusting” mainline Israeli TV content, including statements endorsing violence against Muslims, and claims that such rhetoric demonstrates a lack of moral authority. He asserts that there is global scrutiny and that certain Israelis who expose wrongdoing should be in charge, not those who defend or hide it. The speaker then shifts to promoting his platform and legal battles to shut down his show, directing listeners to the AlleyShowStore.com (not his ownership), describing it as funding InfoWars and the Alley Show network. He promotes products, including ultra methylene red and methylene blue, claiming strong, quick effects, non-stimulant feelings, and high customer satisfaction (an 80-plus percent reorder rate for methylene blue). He advertises a sale with autoship options, 50% off future orders, and 25% sitewide discounts through a Black Friday/Cyber Monday-style promotion, noting the deals are time-limited and could end at any moment. He mentions the availability of methylene red on alexjonesstore.com and asserts a broader “disturbance in the force” motif, inviting wide access to these products.

The speaker condemns Ian Carroll for making videos that claim Israel is behind conspiracies about Red Lobster, Applebee's, and Burger King, and for a live stream asking, “Where are you Nick? … Why are you with them?” He asks where the evidence is and notes the tendency to attribute almost every event to Israel, stating, “the heuristic seems to be Israel is behind literally everything,” past and future, which he calls ridiculous. He points to a September 7 tweet where Carroll said Charlie Kirk is “working for the Jews that killed Jesus,” and contrasts it with Carroll’s certainty on September 11 that Israel killed him to silence him, questioning what changed in those four days and suggesting Carroll may have ESP or telepathy. He accuses Carroll of grifting, intellectual laziness, and dishonesty, and refuses to be pulled into blaming Israel for killing the number one Israel defender in America. The speaker asserts personal history and credibility, saying, “I’ve been over here. I was at Charlottesville” in 2017, and that in 2019 he led the Gruyper war against Charlie Kirk, labeling Kirk as an “Israel shill.” He claims that from Turning Point’s founding in 2012 to today, the organization has been “owned by Israel and served Israel.” He recounts a June text in which Charlie Kirk told Dinesh D’Souza, “Nick Fuentes is vermin,” and notes the ongoing fight against him for six years, including Kirk’s August statement calling him “anti Semitic garbage” and his refusal to debate. The speaker describes Charlie Kirk’s inner circle and media connections: Kirk’s right-hand man Andrew Colvin comes from Salem Media, a Christian Zionist outlet aligned with Israel, with Melissa Strait having connections to Salem and Prager University and IDF unit 12082. He notes Colvin led a “struggle session about Israel” after a Turning Point SAS conference in July. He claims that when Israel bombed Qatar in contravention of Trump’s foreign policy, Kirk invited Ben Shapiro to present Israel’s position, while Kirk acted as moderator, and on the day Kirk “was shot,” he prepared to defend Israel with his rabbi at Provo as he drafted a book on the Jewish Sabbath. The speaker emphasizes that the person accused of fighting Israel was “the guy that was murdered,” and expresses pity for those who would believe that. He asserts, “I’m right here where I’ve always been, following the facts, following the money, looking at the information,” claiming to be light years ahead of Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, and rejecting the idea that their ideology is about Netanyahu or Israel’s foreign policy, concluding, “No, sorry. Absolutely not. That’s totally ridiculous.”

The speaker addresses Tucker, noting a perceived "obsession with Israel" when discussing foreign countries, unlike when discussing China, Japan, the UK, or France. The speaker claims that when Israel is mentioned, the question arises: "What about the Jews?" The speaker anticipates being labeled antisemitic for raising this point. The speaker denies directly asking if Jews control foreign policy, but the other person insists that is exactly what the speaker implied.