Tags: candace-owens, matt-walsh, glenn-greenwald, bill-ackman, steve-sailer, tucker-carlson, charlie-kirk, jeffrey-epstein, donald-trump, elon-musk, jd-vance, ben-shapiro, max-blumenthal, benjamin-netanyahu
A letter uncovered by the New York Post addressed to Benjamin Netanyahu dispels rumors that Charlie Kirk was becoming “anti-Israel” before his death.
The episode centered on a seven-page letter dated May 2, 2025 that Charlie Kirk sent to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, published in full by the New York Post and presented as the same document Netanyahu held up in a September 18 video eight days after Kirk was shot and killed. The transcript’s presenter read extended passages and insisted that, absent contrary evidence from Candace Owens or anyone else claiming to possess a different version, the New York Post document must be treated as authentic. He tied the letter’s contents to corroborated artifacts already in the public record, including Kirk’s text message thread with billionaire investor Bill Ackman, and then used the text to challenge a growing online narrative that Kirk had turned against Israel in private before his death.
The letter’s opening paragraphs leave no ambiguity about Kirk’s posture. “One of my greatest joys as a Christian is advocating for Israel, and forming alliances with Jews in the fight to protect Judeo-Christian civilization,” he wrote, noting his then-recent takeover of Mike Huckabee’s TBN show “where we continually support Israel and the Jewish people.” Kirk framed the letter as “tough love,” stating, “I think it’s important to be brutally honest with those you love,” before declaring, “In my opinion, Israel is losing the information war and needs a communications intervention.” The letter describes his Easter 2025 frustration at being “barraged with messages about the Israeli army making it difficult for Christians to access church in Jerusalem on Easter,” and his exasperation that “I did not see any official statements pushing back on this narrative.” He added, “Sometimes, it feels like I’m defending Israel in public more than your own government,” and described himself, verbatim, as a “pro-Israel surrogate.”
Kirk then outlined a tactical communications blueprint. He urged Netanyahu to “revamp your information warfare from top to bottom,” starting with a “rapid response media team” modeled on Donald Trump’s comms shop and a standing “team of pro-Israel experts who can fact-check misinformation in real time.” He recommended that Israel stop “depend[ing] on subcontracting their information war to surrogates in America,” and proposed a new entity with a name and purpose: “You need something perhaps like an Israel Truth Network or ITN,” which would manage social channels, host “a one-stop source of information” with FAQs that “I would love to refer students to,” link to Hillel chapters and Jewish educators “like Dennis Prager,” publish “pro-Israel, pro-Judeo-Christian video clips,” and aggregate news on Israel and “Judeo-Christian efforts to preserve Western civilization.” He suggested sending “some of the released Israeli hostages” on “a speaking tour in the United States,” an explicit example of content to seed into U.S. media and campuses.
Kirk bolstered the operational case with social metrics and distributor-specific advice. “TikTok algorithms have changed,” he wrote, asserting he had increased his following “from a million to six million in the last year,” with “billions of views on TikTok” and “5 billion impressions” on his fall campus tour. He called Elon Musk “a friend to Israel,” saying “X offers a great opportunity to make inroads on social media.” He cited a “recent Pew Research poll” showing “53% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Israel,” calling U.S. support “precarious” and claiming “from my vantage point, Israel has retreated from social media without a fight.” He urged Netanyahu to “stop this retreat,” describing “the front lines of this information war” as “on social media.” He further referenced Israel’s official “Hasbara budget,” writing, “I saw Israel has increased its Hasbara budget by 20 times, which is great news,” and urged Netanyahu to “reshap[e] your Hasbara department into a political campaign headquarters with narrative experts,” explicitly calling Hasbara “the mothership hosting [the] Israel Truth Network.”
The letter’s tone mixed admiration and exasperation. In one passage, Kirk wrote, “I know you’ve got a 7th front war and my kvetching pales in comparison,” using the Yiddish word for complaining, then insisted that “you are losing younger generations of Americans.” He summarized that “Israel is getting crushed on social media,” warned that the information war “will translate into less political and military support from America,” and closed with, “The Holy Land is so important to my life, and it pains me to see support for Israel slip away. Contact me on my private number below if you’d like to discuss this further.”
The presenter argued that these details, if uncontested by anyone purporting to possess the original, align with everything observable in Kirk’s public trajectory. He noted that within a week of the May 2 letter, Kirk initiated texts with Bill Ackman to organize an August “influencer retreat” in the Hamptons that was followed by a sponsor-funded trip to Israel. The presenter said Kirk crafted the guest list and schedule, invited explicitly pro-Israel creators, and used the summit to produce the very “Hasbara” content pipeline his letter described. He cited as examples attendees who subsequently posted pro-Israel “cringe” videos from on-the-ground tours and argued that these facts mirror Kirk’s “pro-Israel surrogate” self-description.
The show directly challenged Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Max Blumenthal by name. It reminded viewers that Netanyahu brandished a letter on September 18 to rebut claims of Israeli culpability in the September 10 killing; that Owens, on the same day, accused Netanyahu of “misrepresenting” its tone and threatened to publish the document if he continued; and that in the three ensuing weeks, she produced neither a scan nor a readout. The presenter emphasized that Ackman’s leaked text thread with Kirk has not been disputed by any party, that the New York Post letter “sounds like Charlie” and contains idiosyncrasies that would make a forgery risky, and that anyone with the real letter could instantly discredit a fake. He said flatly that if Owens, Blumenthal, or Carlson do not specifically challenge the New York Post document’s authenticity “within 24 hours,” the only reasonable inference is that they cannot.
His conclusion was unambiguous. The letter’s contents portray Kirk as an unflagging Israel advocate trying to manage a mounting youth backlash on U.S. campuses, not as a man preparing to renounce Zionism. The presenter’s position was that the May 2 document, the August influencer summit, and the undisputed Ackman messages form a coherent record of Kirk’s strategy to intensify, not scale back, pro-Israel messaging in the United States. He argued that attempts to recast Kirk as a secret dissident after his death collapse under the weight of Kirk’s own words: “Glorious Prime Minister… I urge you to revamp your information warfare” and “Use the funds to start the Israel Truth Network.” In his telling, that is the text, the timeline, and the case.
The episode’s other extended segment dissected a public clash involving Daily Wire host Matt Walsh, journalist Glenn Greenwald, and the presenter himself over how the American right prioritizes its rhetoric about Muslims versus Jews. On October 1, Walsh posted on X that Dearborn, Michigan’s mayor is Abdullah Hammoud and then listed city officials by name — “Nagi Alhamoudi,” “Zainab A. Hussein,” “Issa Shahin,” “Madhu Bazi,” “Ali Abazid,” “Kamal Alsawafy,” and “Mustafa Hammoud” — before asking, “Is this what our Founding Fathers had in mind?” Walsh continued, “That’s a question that the residents of Dearborn can consider as they awake at 5.30 am to the Muslim call to prayer blasted over the loudspeakers by the local mosque. They can keep thinking about it as they get in their cars and drive to work down Osama-Siblani Street. Is this America? If the entire country resembles Dearborn in 50 years, in what sense will America still exist?”
Greenwald replied on X that people who try to convince Americans that “the primary threat to their lives is Muslims are almost always: 1) those eager to convince Americans they have the same enemies as Israel and must thus unite with Israel in its wars, or 2) those who work for people with that agenda.” Walsh shot back, “You got me, Glenn. I’m opposed to building an Islamic state in the middle of the American heartland because of my love for Israel. It couldn’t just be that I’m concerned about my own country. Your Israel fetish has rotted your brain, Glenn. You’re obsessed with Israel, Glenn.”
The presenter used that exchange to level a broader indictment at conservative media figures who rail against immigrants and Black crime but, in his telling, “never talk about Jews.” He cited Daily Wire’s post-Candace Owens environment, asserting “it is basically a condition of working for Daily Wire that you are not against Israel,” and claimed that permissible criticism at the company rarely goes beyond “I am against all foreign aid” or “I’m not an Israeli.” He named Ben Shapiro specifically, described Daily Wire’s posture as “Zionist,” and accused colleagues of avoiding any discussion about “the race relations between Jews and whites.” He contrasted Walsh’s naming of Dearborn functionaries with what he called the right’s refusal to discuss “who runs the banks, the news, the government, the State Department,” and invoked organizations by name: the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, B’nai B’rith, and Hillel. He also rattled off institutions he alleges are influenced by Israel — “the Israeli foreign ministry, the… U.S. State Department… BlackRock, Blackstone” — and argued that combating what he calls “the mothership” of influence must take priority over focusing on municipal Muslim enclaves.
The material included explicit and heated language about popular figures on the right. He accused Walsh, Steve Sailer, and “Bronze Age Pervert crowd” influencers “like Raw Egg Nationalist [and] LoMez” of “ramping up the nativist rhetoric” to “compensate for the fact that they will never criticize Israel or the Jews.” He asserted that conservative media “fear-monger[s] about Sharia law and Muslims” to “make us sympathetic to Israel’s wars against Muslims and Arabs.” He condemned particular Jewish commentators by name and advocated hardline, contested measures against them, framing those measures as “lawful” but unmistakably punitive. He argued that Jewish commentators he listed “are doing what they always do for their own benefit” and said his core grievance is with non-Jewish personalities who, in his words, “work for them,” focusing especially on Daily Wire hosts.
The monologue tied this critique back to the Kirk letter, the August Ackman summit, and what the presenter called a carefully managed effort to neutralize a grassroots backlash against Israel after October 7, 2023. He said the youth-driven shift happened first on Twitter/X and TikTok, then “in come Candace and Tucker to say it’s not the Jews,” citing Owens’s “Frankists” claim and Carlson’s recent comment that “we should treat Israel like every other country.” He highlighted Carlson’s July 2024 Turning Point speech urging Washington to acknowledge allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had ties to Israeli intelligence, not to confront Israel, but “because if we don’t, then we’re gonna look like liars and… the ‘anti-Semites’ are the only ones talking about it.” He argued that framing as evidence of an attempt to “retard this development and steer it,” and placed Walsh’s Dearborn tweet in the same pattern of rhetorical redirection.
Specifics dominated the case against Walsh’s framing. The presenter said U.S. immigration flows are overwhelmingly “Hispanics from the Northern Triangle… Venezuelans… [and] Indians and Chinese on worker visas,” not Muslims from North Africa or the Levant, contrasting that with Europe’s demographics. He identified Muslim concentrations in “Dearborn, Michigan” and Somali communities in “Minneapolis,” but emphasized that major U.S. metro demographic changes reflect “a third Mexican” Chicago and “mostly Mexican” Los Angeles, with “significant Hispanic [and] Asian populations” in Miami and New York. Against that data backdrop, he endorsed Greenwald’s critique, insisting that channeling conservative energy toward municipal Islamization instead of pressing Israel and its stateside supporters is a diversion that preserves a conservative media business model and protects donors.
In closing, the show presented a stark litmus test directed at high-profile conservatives: if you publicly enumerate Muslim officeholders in Dearborn, will you also publicly enumerate Jewish leaders in federal policy, Ivy League administrations, Wall Street, and Hollywood, and demand accountability from named advocacy groups? He argued that the Walsh-Greenwald exchange exposed an asymmetry driven by institutional pressures — advertisers, bosses, and donors with a fixed line on Israel — and urged his audience to measure future statements against that standard. The Walsh segment ultimately functioned as a companion piece to the Kirk letter analysis: in both, the presenter’s position was that the right’s gatekeepers still draw a hard, donor-enforced boundary around criticism of Israel and American Jewish institutions, and that post–October 7 programming choices, from college tours to X threads, should be evaluated for whether they reinforce or challenge that boundary with names, budgets, platforms, and dates attached.