Who killed Charlie 3/5: Etsy witches or You-Know-Who?

In this third instalment of our miniseries on the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we consider some further developments, like the County Sheriff’s account of Tyler’s arrest without a confession. Court documents indicate that Tyler’s father is a retired Sheriff’s deputy—which the Sheriff sought to conceal—and that the Sheriff was informed of Tyler’s surrender through a mutual friend who is a retired detective. In other words, all the people involved in Tyler’s ‘surrender’ are police, which could easily be an inside job or a coverup that no evidence could rule out due to the sheer coincidence, suggesting that the actual shooter might have eluded them. Zionist money is also clearly involved. Ben Shapiro, for instance, paid TPUSA $1M and Bill Ackman offered a $1M reward to whoever turns in the shooter. As it happens, Tyler’s father, together with the Sheriff’s close friend—a retired detective—turned him in to their mutual friend: the Sheriff. Critics of the hypothesis of Israel’s involvement, like Nick Fuentes, insist that Charlie was always a friend of Israel, as evidenced by his letter of support to Netanyahu before his death (which could easily be forged). The hypothesis, however, is not predicated on Kirk’s subjective change of heart, but Israel’s objective interest to immortalize his “legacy” and thus the mission of TPUSA. TPUSA is the main conservative youth organization in the US and can be maneuvered against outliers like Nicholas Fuentes, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson to serve as a buffer against the “woke right” (aka the “woke Reich”). Not only do the Benjamins retrace to the Benjamins, but it also bears considering that American public opinion on Israel is a matter of life and death for Israel, which is why it invests enormous amounts of money to influence American public opinion concerning it. Despite this, Israel is losing American public opinion. Larry Ellison—who purchased TikTok USA and, in that period, became the richest man on earth—has close ties to Netanyahu, who regards the battle for hearts and minds on social media as the eighth front of his seven-front war. Whatever the ‘false flag(s)’ may be, two flags have indelibly manifested in this matter; namely, the Pride flag and the Israeli one. More interesting than why certain social media influencers reject the Israel hypothesis is who rejects it. Those who accept it are independent reporters with close ties to Charlie, like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and Candace Owens, who call to fight Zionists. Zionists, in response, lead aggressive campaigns to silence, discredit or otherwise eliminate them. For instance, Candace was assailed by the Rothschild-backed Macrons, who are suing her in America, even though French journalists satirized them with the same (likely false) claims for decades. The purpose is to use the court system to destroy Candace’s reputation and finances. However, Candace et al. are not principled or heroes. They not only served Zionists but also helped to put them in power with full knowledge of their evil, and only began to criticize them after falling out with them. That is why they lie about a lot of things, on one hand, but also tell a lot of damning truths against their opponents, since that is all the power they have left. Conversely, influencers who reject the Israel hypothesis are almost all third parties with Zionist platforms or sponsors whose audiences encompass millions of viewers. Hence, there is an almost perfect correlation between sponsorship and vulnerability and support of Israel. The same third-party influencers are gaslighting the public by claiming that the obvious explanation—that Israel is behind the attack—is “absurd”, like Asch’s conformity experiment. It also bears repeating that if police didn’t capture the shooter right away (which they didn’t) then they have to make up a story, which is what the police and judiciary—who are not scientists—do almost all the time. If they screw up or can’t find the perp, as is often the case, then they will “sprinkle some crack on him” as Dave Chappelle joked. Indeed, no court case ever concludes with “We don’t know” or “We couldn’t find them”, even though it is often the case. It is a “You can’t handle the truth” type of situation. If they told the truth—that they are strangers who don’t know what happened—then people would (rightly) consider them to be liars and wonder why they pay them. There has to be a scapegoat to appease the public and preserve the authorities. However, the fact of the matter is that a successful assassination—which Israel does all the time—leads to a closed or infinite rabbit hole, which is often proof of foul play in and of itself. Conspiracy theories like the exploding lapel mic may seem improbable; but with a suspect like Netanyahu—who, in the wake of the assassination, joked about exploding pagers and everyone carrying Israeli cellphones at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—nothing is out of the question; see IsraeliPM, “PM Netanyahu’s Remarks” (15 Sep 2025) YouTube. In short, there is certainly a lot more to this case than meets the eye. However, the obvious—that there is a police coverup, that Israel’s neck is on the line, and that it has a hand and lots of money in it—is obvious, even through all the gaslighting.

0:00 Outline
0:26 What people are saying
7:46 What the feds are saying
12:02 Speculation
31:02 Culture Apothecary interviews
37:46 Double standards
40:54 “A man need’s a name”
1:01:55 Charlie’s legacy
1:04:32 Scientific and scriptural analysis
1:12:37 Conclusion