It is always good to be skeptical of anonymous sources.
That being said, it lines up quite well with a lot of the public statements he had been making over the past couple of months in terms of distancing himself from Israel, questioning Israel's ties with Epstein, and questioning the roles of Jewish billionaires in the funding of US conservative political machine.
And for what it is worth, I do think Max Blumenthal is an excellent reporter.
Do you find this reporting suspicious for some reason?
I do. I have no idea whether Kirk's murder was just a lone wolf or some bigger fed conspiracy, but it definitely seems like there's a concerted effort here to use this event to gin up support for increased censorship and surveillance.
You never know with normies. You know, the outpouring of emotion and the gnashing of teeth online. I know they all have this sense that if you retweet something enough somebody will do something. The death was spectacular and maybe traumatizing for people who aren't desensitized. But even so, this feels astroturfed. Look at AOU's statement about the number of sleeper accounts that suddenly tried to activate in the last couple days.
But yeah, I think this reporting is suspicious. Someone telling a story about something a dead man said that seems to contradict the way he acted when he lived is suspicious. Kirk was out there aggressively supporting funding for Israel, claiming they were the most moral army, claiming Israel's suppression of aid organizations was a hoax even while this has just been a known fact that MSM hasn't even been trying to cover up. He was completely funded by Zionists. These new "revelations" seem like a work — an attempt to sanitize Kirk's Zionism by insinuating he had a change of heart at the last minute.
It's baffling how quickly even this community of despicable antisemites has completely flipped. Maybe they feel like "our side" is going to win some ground because of backlash, because "the left overplayed its hand." But to what end? Where is this going?
But yeah, I think this reporting is suspicious. Someone telling a story about something a dead man said that seems to contradict the way he acted when he lived is suspicious. Kirk was out there aggressively supporting funding for Israel, claiming they were the most moral army, claiming Israel's suppression of aid organizations was a hoax even while this has just been a known fact that MSM hasn't even been trying to cover up. He was completely funded by Zionists. These new "revelations" seem like a work — an attempt to sanitize Kirk's Zionism by insinuating he had a change of heart at the last minute.
But the article isn't denying that he was heavily funded by Zionists at all? It says right there
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.
And it links to the recent public appearances he made where he appeared to be complaining about getting harassed by Zionists recently for not toeing the line hard enough, mostly for platforming people who were notably more critical of Israel, like Tucker Carlson and David Smith. Here he is saying that in
Overall, I am not even really certain what point you are trying to make here.
I guess I am just not seeing the same contradictions you are seeing in the article3
The admissions in the article about Kirk’s Zionism and funding acknowledge complaints and concerns critical thinkers might have had about his record.
The anonymous source claims — that he rejected a funding offer, that he had, behind closed doors, warned Trump not to bomb Iran, that he despised Netanyahu as a “bully”, and that he was afraid of Israel — put a spin on the facts above that paints Kirk in a good light to those who would have disliked him or been indifferent to his death.
The point I’m making is: I don’t believe the source. This is all narrative weaving based on nothing.
(post is archived)