Kirk was caught between his youthful audience’s increasing disdain for Israel and its influence on American politics and his Jewish donors. From Laurent Guyénot at unz.com:
In just a couple of days, an impressive amount of information has been brought to light pointing to Israel’s strong motive to take out Charlie Kirk ASAP. I will here compile that information, as I found it on X and other Internet outlets.
In doing so, I am not influenced by my personal opinion on Kirk. I hardly ever listened to him before the last three days, and my opinion was mostly negative. Today, I still feel that Nick Fuentes was right in his very severe judgment of him as a traitor to his country paid by Israel to keep the MAGA movement in line with Israel’s interests, even when he was doing some “damage control”. That doesn’t mean, in my view, that Kirk was not sincere in his defense of Israel. As an evangelical Christian, he probably really saw this as a calling from God. On the other hand, I think that ambitious men are never exclusively interested by truth, that men in general (women included) are very good at lying to themselves about their true motivations, and that religion is a very practical way to lie to yourself. I also think that Kirk, although an energetic and talented fast talker, was not extremely intelligent—less intelligent than Fuentes, in my view. Like Fuentes, I don’t think anybody who supports Israel because the Bible tells him so can be very intelligent.
So based on what I have seen recently, I believe that Kirk was turning, but I wouldn’t be able to say to what extent his turning was motivated by his love for truth and morality, or by his concern for keeping the trust of his base of followers, and saving his political future. I suppose he was feeling opposite pressures from two sides: from his pro-Israel backers on the top, demanding that he keeps his unconditional support of Israel, and from his grass-root followers on the bottom, who find Israel’s actions and Israel’s influence on U.S. policies more and more unbearable (Kirk’s followers also listen to Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens or Nick Fuentes).
Whatever his motivations were, and no matter how far he was planning to go in his critics of Israel, the fact is that he had gone quite far already. Candace Owens, who holds him in great esteem as a friend, said he was going through a “spiritual transformation”, and believed he would have ultimately changed his mind entirely on Israel. That’s a reasonable possibility. Tucker Carlson, also his friend, encouraged him in this way, and there are unmistakable signs that Kirk was listening to him and moving in the same direction. Would Kirk have gone all the way? No one can say, but there is a major difference between Owens and Carlson on the one hand, and Kirk on the other: Owens and Carlson both left comfortable situations to build their own platforms, whereas Kirk is not his own man: some influential people have invested a lot in him and will not let their investment go to waste. If for some reason they thought Kirk would be more useful dead than alive, then dead he would be.
Comrade kommissar Billy Ayers said that most wouldn’t be able to handle WAR in their back yard in the Weather Underground manifesto Prairie Fire.
Fifty plus years of Long March brought us to this point and communism is a small hat thing, you wouldn’t understand as the old black thang t-shirt said.