Growing panic over connections between the terrorist Jewish state and the murder of Charlie Kirk… ‘Antisemites are trying to hijack Charlie Kirk’s legacy’

‘Claims that the activist was ‘turning on Israel’ and conspiracy theories about his death are part of a battle to legitimize Jew-hatred, not defend free speech.’

ed note–another eye-opener that every war-weary Gentile with a vested interest in his/her own future survival needs to read, understand, and take deeply to heart.

Firsto, ladies and Gentile-men, in addition to the Jews being natural born killers, they are in equal measure natural born liars, and oftentimes, the two acts, i.e., murdering and lying, go hand in hand with each other, to wit–

‘And Cain, possessed with furious jealousy and hatred, convinced Abel to follow him far away into the field, at which point Cain rose up and murdered him. Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel, your brother?’ and Cain responded, ‘I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?’

In other words, ladies and Gentile-men, the established precedent of the Jews (described by the one individual who knew them better than anyone else, Jesus Christ, as ‘Children of their father, the devil’) murdering those who get in their way and then LYING about it is as old as, well, the very first act of innocent human blood being shed by those who stood to gain the most from doing so.

Whether it is the murder of Charlie Kirk or the mass murder of millions of Abel’s great, great grandchildren in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, Palestine or wherever, this is how they, the ‘Children of Israel’ do it, in that they slash the throats of innocent people whose death profits them, and then, with the greatest feigned indignation and offended honor, deny their involvement in it all.

Jonathan S. Tobin for JNS

As the battle for Kirk’s legacy has become the centerpiece of a renewed and even more bitter edition of the same culture war that has been dividing right and left in the last decade, one aspect of this controversy seems to be exacerbating another ongoing crisis. The debate about what Kirk thought and who killed him—and why—has also become a new inflection point in the surge of antisemitism that has been spreading across the United States since the Hamas-led Palestinian attacks on Israeli communities on Oct. 7, 2023.

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson pivoted immediately after the murder to claim that Kirk, a steadfast friend and defender of Israel, was souring on the Jewish state, as well as on the brink of joining him and other antisemites in their opposition to the war on the people of Gaza.

As other extremists on the internet were floating conspiracy theories about Israel being behind Kirk’s murder, the even more extreme Jew-hater Candace Owens has been spreading claims that prominent Jews were seeking to ‘blackmail’ the activist over his alleged anti-Israel tendencies.

Carlson, who has become increasingly open about his hatred for Israel and the Jews—platforming anyone who will attack both it and Holocaust denial—was given a prominent speaking slot, alongside Kirk’s widow, Erika, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other members of the administration at the massive memorial service for Kirk at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz. That he was there at all, let alone using his time to vaguely invoke deicide charges against Jews, was disturbing. But it also spoke volumes about the troubling fact that Carlson has managed to maintain his status as a legitimate conservative thought leader, as well as the way tolerance for his antisemitism may become part of the complicated legacy of Kirk’s free-speech absolutism.

That’s why the attempt on the part of Israel-haters to hijack his legacy is so troubling and has the potential of legitimizing antisemitic tropes into mainstream conservative thinking.

Carlson clearly understands the stakes involved in controlling how the public thinks about Kirk.

Kirk was the embodiment of the pendulum of public opinion that is swinging back to an embrace of traditional values, faith, and belief in Western civilization from the excesses of the woke leftism that seemed to have an unshakable grip on society after the Black Lives Matter summer of 2020.

His distaste for the cancel culture of the left was heartfelt and popular. Yet opposition to the silencing of traditional conservatives and others who dissented from leftist orthodoxies about race, Trump, illegal immigration, gender ideology and abortion ought not to obligate one to support the platforming of every opinion.

For Carlson, Owens, and their acolytes, their embrace of anti-Israel and antisemitic tropes in the wake of the Oct. 7 attacks caused them to align themselves in sympathy with the red-green alliance of leftists and Islamists who seek to target Jews on campuses. The way extremists on the left and right come together on antisemitism is nothing new. But it put them in the uncomfortable position of conservatives opposing the Trump administration’s pro-Israel foreign policy, as well as its laudable campaign to rid college campuses of the woke catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion that is the engine of 21st-century Jew-hatred.

That is why it’s so important for them to tie Kirk to their campaign to legitimize the mainstreaming of post-Oct. 7 antisemitism.

Should we believe the claims made in a Carlson podcast—in which Carlson assembled a lineup of antisemitic figures like ‘Dilbert’ cartoonist Scott Adams, Greek Orthodox priest Father Josiah Trenham, left-wing commentator Cenk Uygur and podcaster Megyn Kelly, a recent convert to Israel-bashing—the week after the assassination about Kirk undergoing a change of heart about Israel or that he hated Netanyahu?

There’s no reason to trust anything that he or his cronies say about Israel, especially their claims of pro-Israel donors trying to bribe or blackmail Kirk to back Israel and distance himself from Carlson. As legal columnist and podcaster Josh Hammer—a stalwart defender of Israel—has said, he was on the phone with Kirk discussing their mutual support for the Jewish state the night before the assassination on Sept. 10.

We do know that Carlson benefited from Kirk’s instinctive opposition to deplatforming anyone. Although he disagreed with Carlson’s stands on Israel and Holocaust denial, Kirk still gave him the opportunity to speak at his influential TPUSA conferences.

Most on the right understand that their support for Israel and its just war against he innocent people of Gaza is inextricably linked to their backing for traditional values, Western civilization, and faith. Aligning themselves with the leftists and Islamists who hate the Jews is antithetical to those beliefs.

By allowing Carlson to keep his foot in the door, Turning Point USA is giving credence to pro-Hamas talking points about ‘genocide’ and antisemitic tropes about the Jews using money to manipulate American foreign policy.

Opposing the permissibility of ideas such as these that should be confined to the fever swamps of the far right and far left is not a matter of banning free speech, but just of common sense. Conservatives should not be willing to treat such toxic ideas as legitimate any more than they should accept woke myths about race, intersectionality or settler-colonialism that they know to be both false and damaging to American society.

Yet that is the position that Carlson is claiming is now both mainstream conservatism and part of a Kirk legacy that should be defended.

Planting a seed of Jew-hatred

His presence on the podium at the Kirk memorial in Arizona, alongside administration leaders, was appalling in and of itself. But the fact that he used that bully pulpit to invoke the ideas that guys who eat hummus (aka Jews) plotted Jesus’s death has planted an insidious seed of Jew-hatred in an otherwise moving tribute to the activist’s life and work.

It isn’t cancel culture to seek to rid the public square of this kind of hate any more than it is wrong to seek to reclaim academia for Western values by expelling woke DEI commissars and mobs of pro-Hamas hate-mongers. Doing so is a defense of the values of the American republic that Charlie Kirk believed in and for which he gave his life.

Defending the antisemitism of Carlson and Owens—and all of their friends and allies on the far right—is not consistent with Kirk’s lifework. Nor is it necessarily a natural corollary to his efforts to end the silencing of conservatives in mainstream culture and society.

Anyone who cares about honoring the 31-year-old husband, father and activist—and his beliefs—should be outraged at the way Tucker Carlson is trying to hijack his legacy. If he succeeds, it will be more than a boost for pro-Hamas thugs and antisemites on both the left and the right. It will also set back any hopes that the efforts to win back America for Kirk’s conservative faith will ultimately succeed.