In the early afternoon of September 10, 2025, the American conservative movement suffered a seismic shock. Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA)—a powerhouse organization that mobilized young voters for Republican causes—was fatally shot while delivering a speech at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. The attack, captured on video and witnessed by hundreds of students and attendees, has ignited national outrage, a frantic manhunt, and a torrent of speculation that threatens to deepen rifts within the right-wing ecosystem. As the nation grapples with the loss of a polarizing yet influential figure, questions swirl: Was this the act of a lone radical, a foreign hit, or something engineered to sow chaos? This article examines the official account, the burgeoning theories implicating Israel, and the growing schism among alt-right voices over “who got Charlie.”

The Official Narrative: A Swift Manhunt and a Suspect in Custody

According to law enforcement and federal investigators, the assassination unfolded with chilling precision during Kirk’s campus event, part of TPUSA’s ongoing efforts to engage Gen Z conservatives. At approximately 2:23 p.m. MDT, as Kirk addressed a crowd on topics including election integrity and cultural conservatism, a single gunshot rang out from a distance of about 200 yards. The bullet struck Kirk in the neck, severing his carotid artery and causing him to collapse onstage. He was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital despite immediate medical intervention.

The FBI and Utah County Sheriff’s Office swiftly identified 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, a local resident and self-described “Democratic Socialist of America” member, as the prime suspect. Robinson, described in court documents as a reclusive figure with a history of online radicalism, allegedly used a high-powered rifle equipped with a suppressor. Shell casings recovered at the scene bore inscriptions with “anti-fascist” and pro-transgender slogans, such as “Trans Lives Matter” and “Smash the Patriarchy,” fueling initial speculation of a politically motivated attack from the far left.

A multi-agency manhunt ensued, spanning Utah and neighboring states. Robinson evaded capture for nearly a week, reportedly fearing a police shootout upon surrender. On September 18, he turned himself in peacefully at a remote sheriff’s outpost in Orem, prompted by a text message to his roommate days earlier: “Drop what you’re doing, look under my keyboard.” The note contained a confession and instructions for disposal of evidence. Prosecutors filed first-degree murder charges on September 16, with Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray citing “overwhelming ballistic and digital evidence” linking Robinson to the scene.

The investigation revealed no broader conspiracy—at least not yet. The ATF confirmed the rifle and casings were left behind, suggesting a non-suicidal mission where escape was prioritized. Robinson’s online footprint included posts railing against Kirk’s views on LGBTQ+ issues, affirmative action, and immigration, aligning with antifa-style rhetoric. Kirk, a vocal critic of “gender ideology” and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which he called an “anti-white weapon”), had long been a lightning rod for progressive ire. Even in death, his legacy drew fire: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned his “ignorant” rhetoric on civil rights and antisemitic undertones in a congressional resolution, sparking backlash from conservatives who decried it as politicizing tragedy.

As of today, Robinson awaits arraignment, with the FBI dismissing foreign involvement but monitoring for “copycat threats.” A memorial service is scheduled for Sunday, already marred by reports of a gunman arrested at the venue—heightening fears of escalating violence.

The Israeli Conspiracy: From Mild Criticism to a Suspected Mossad Hit?

While authorities point to domestic extremism, a darker narrative has exploded online, particularly among alt-right and paleoconservative circles: Israel orchestrated Kirk’s death to silence an emerging critic. Proponents argue the timing, method, and aftermath scream professional assassination, with Mossad fingerprints all over it.

Kirk’s final weeks were marked by subtle but seismic shifts. In late August, he publicly questioned “secular Jewish donors” funding open-border policies, a comment that veered into territory long taboo on the mainstream right. On September 10—the very day of his death—he elaborated on his podcast: “This is a beast created by secular Jews… Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal policies.” Hours later, he was gone. Kirk had also rejected a $150 million “hush money” offer from pro-Israel lobbyists during a heated confrontation in the Hamptons, New York, and declined an all-expenses-paid trip to Israel extended by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—whom Kirk had begun portraying as overreaching in U.S. affairs.

Conspiracy theorists cite the hit’s hallmarks: a precise neck shot from afar, echoing IDF tactics in Gaza (where X-rays of civilian wounds show similar entry points). Witnesses reported “two elderly Jewish men” creating diversions with pellet guns, allowing the shooter to flee. A private jet linked to a Jewish foundation (with ties to child advocacy groups, per unverified claims) allegedly vanished from radar post-shooting, ferrying the assassin out. Netanyahu’s eerily prescient tweet—”Sadly, that trip will never occur”—mere minutes after the attack, and Israel’s swift media blitz (murals, songs, and dedications honoring Kirk as an “Israel martyr”) only fueled suspicions.

High-profile voices amplified the theory. Podcaster Clint Russell speculated it was an intelligence op to fracture the right, while Alex Jones—initially skeptical—later hosted discussions probing foreign angles. Even international observers, like Iranian professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi, quipped about the casings’ odd inscriptions: “Why pro-trans messages? To narrow suspects? It was Israel.” On X, threads dissected NSA intercepts of 12 Israeli-origin phones near the site and demanded an autopsy (still unreleased) to confirm ballistics.

Critics dismiss this as antisemitic paranoia, noting Kirk’s lifelong Zionism—he fiercely defended Israel against critics like Candace Owens and built TPUSA on pro-Israel foundations. Yet, the theory persists, with users like @ThoughtcrimeRA2 compiling “avalanche” evidence: Kirk’s admitted fears of “Israeli retribution,” the hit’s public spectacle (to terrorize moderates), and Jewish politicians pushing speech curbs in Kirk’s name.

The Alt-Right Rift: “Who Got Charlie?” Tears at the Movement’s Core—With Nick Fuentes at the Epicenter

Perhaps the most damaging fallout is the infighting engulfing the alt-right, where Kirk’s death has become a litmus test for loyalty and ideology. On one side, MAGA loyalists and Jones allies insist it’s a “TransRage” or antifa plot, citing the casings and Robinson’s leftist ties as ironclad proof. “No evidence for Israel,” Jones thundered in a viral video, warning against “division bait.” They view Israel theories as self-sabotaging, potentially alienating Trump-era allies and handing ammo to the left.

Opposing them are paleoconservatives and “America First” purists, who see Kirk’s killing as the ultimate red pill: proof of Zionist overreach strangling dissent. Figures like Laura Loomer (who pivoted from terror alerts to mocking the divide) and @kittenstormer argue ignoring Israel “absurdly” whitewashes the elephant in the room. “Kirk feared they’d kill him,” one post lamented, listing his rejections of Netanyahu’s overtures. This camp accuses pro-Israel right-wingers of complicity, with rifts spilling into personal feuds—e.g., Candace Owens’ “greatest friend” status with Kirk now questioned amid grief-stricken speculation about his “wavering” on Israel.

At the heart of this maelstrom stands Nick Fuentes, the 26-year-old firebrand behind the Groyper movement, whose rapid-fire reactions have both unified and splintered the fringes. Fuentes, long a thorn in Kirk’s side—labeling him a “Zionist shill” during the 2019 Groyper Wars—offered condolences in his first broadcast post-shooting, drawing over 2,000,000 viewers. “It felt like a nightmare & it has not fully sunk in,” he said, acknowledging Kirk as an “adversary” and “foe” but condemning the “public execution” as evil that “we can NEVER give in to.” He rebuked celebrants on the left and right alike, blasting Hasan Piker for failing to disavow the violence and vowing to “name & shame” enablers. Fuentes even invoked forgiveness and anti-violence virtues in a prescient pre-assassination clip, urging restraint against “retributive political violence.”

Fuentes’ pivot on the Israel angle ignited the powder keg. Calling it “unlikely” and “ridiculous” without hard evidence, dismissing Mossad whispers as “shifting goalposts.” This stance aligned him with Jones, who defended Fuentes against “baseless” Netanyahu payroll smears. Yet it drew fire from his own base: accusations of “covering up for Israel,” being a “FULL NATO SHILL,” or getting “the call” from Zionists flooded X, with some branding him an “accomplice” in Kirk’s murder. Groypers, once Fuentes’ loyal frog army, are in “shambles,” with leaked texts and memes painting him as betraying Kirk’s “martyrdom” for a leftist shooter narrative. One user quipped: “Charlie Kirk was a reasonable voice… Now they’ve killed him and we’re listening to Nick Fuentes more. It’s not going to get any better for the left.”

The schism mirrors broader tensions: pro-Israel neocons vs. isolationist nationalists. Posts show deleted tweets (e.g., a Bethesda game promo twisted as “anti-Kirk fascist” mockery) and heated threads debating evidence. “It’s putting people in danger,” one user warned of AOC’s “lies,” while others float wilder psy-op claims: Kirk faked his death, or it’s a deep-state op to ignite civil war. Fuentes’ defenders argue his restraint prevents “civil war” bait, but detractors see it as proof he’s “compromised.”

Kirk’s death wasn’t just an assassination; it’s a mirror reflecting the right’s fault lines, with Fuentes as the reluctant referee. Whether Robinson’s trial exposes more or the conspiracies fester, one thing is clear: the quest for “who got Charlie” may outlive the man himself, reshaping conservatism in its wake.

Tucker Carlson vs. Nick Fuentes – Hypocrisy, Projections, and CIA Shadows

In the ever-volatile landscape of right-wing media and activism, few rivalries have captured as much attention as the ongoing clash between Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes. What began as ideological skirmishes has devolved into personal attacks, accusations of federal infiltration, and charges of hypocrisy. At the heart of this feud lies a potent irony: Carlson and Owens have accused Fuentes of undermining “sincere” conservatives by associating them with extremism, yet Fuentes counters that they are the true establishment gatekeepers—potentially projecting their own flaws while gaslighting their audience. Adding fuel to the fire is Carlson’s inconsistent narrative about his father’s ties to the CIA, which raises questions about transparency and credibility. This article dissects the feud, highlighting these contradictions and the broader implications for the American right.

Background: Ideological Fault Lines and Rising Tensions

Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host turned independent podcaster, has positioned himself as a critic of mainstream conservatism, neoconservatism, and endless foreign wars. Candace Owens, a prominent conservative commentator and former Daily Wire host, has similarly built a brand around challenging establishment narratives, particularly on issues like race, Israel, and cultural decay. Nick Fuentes, the young white nationalist and “America First” advocate, represents a more radical fringe, known for his unapologetic ethnonationalism, Holocaust denial, and criticism of Jewish influence in politics.

The feud’s roots trace back to at least 2022, when Fuentes dined with Kanye West (Ye) and former President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, drawing widespread condemnation. Carlson, who has praised aspects of “replacement theory” in the past, distanced himself from Fuentes, refusing to platform him despite interviewing controversial figures like Ray Epps and Kevin Spacey. Fuentes, in turn, accused Carlson of collaborating on a 2023 hit piece against him in The Grayzone, a publication run by Max Blumenthal (son of Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal), labeling it a targeted smear to discredit his movement post-Ye24.

Tensions escalated in 2024 and 2025. Fuentes criticized Carlson for subliminal swipes, such as blaming him for conservative Joe Kent’s 2022 election loss in Washington state. Carlson, meanwhile, repeatedly “fed-jacketed” Fuentes—implying he’s a federal agent designed to discredit the right—without naming him directly until recently. Owens entered the fray in July 2025, interviewing Fuentes on her show, where they debated race, IQ differences, and antisemitism. Owens later called the experience “entirely fraudulent,” accusing Fuentes of dishonesty.

Calling Out the Hypocrisy: Projecting and Gaslighting on “True Neocons”

One of the most glaring elements of this feud is the apparent hypocrisy from Carlson and Owens. In a recent interview on Carlson’s show, the duo lambasted Fuentes as part of a deliberate effort to “discredit reasonable voices” on the right, suggesting he’s funded by nefarious forces to make conservatives look extreme. Carlson went further, describing Fuentes as having an “angry, gay kid thing going on” and a “weird little gay kid in his basement,” while implying he’s a tool to oppose “true neocons” or establishment critics. Owens echoed this, framing Fuentes as a disruptive force obsessed with her and Carlson.

Yet, this accusation reeks of projection. Fuentes has long positioned himself as an anti-neocon warrior, criticizing Carlson and Owens for what he sees as their ties to establishment conservatism, including support for Israel and reluctance to fully embrace ethnonationalism. He argues that they are the ones gaslighting the base by pretending to be outsiders while maintaining connections to power brokers like Peter Thiel or intelligence-linked figures. Owens herself has noted Fuentes’ “emotional power over neocons,” inadvertently acknowledging his role in exposing what he views as faux-conservatism. By accusing Fuentes of sabotaging “true” critics of neoconservatism, Carlson and Owens appear to be mirroring the very tactics Fuentes uses against them—deflecting scrutiny from their own inconsistencies while portraying him as the infiltrator. This dynamic not only gaslights their audiences but also divides the right, potentially benefiting the establishment they all claim to oppose.

Fuentes’ supporters amplify this point, arguing that Carlson’s refusal to debate him—despite platforming others—reveals fear of exposure. In response to the recent attacks, Fuentes posted a photo of Carlson with accused sexual predator Kevin Spacey, highlighting what he sees as selective moral outrage.

Tucker’s CIA Contradiction: A Timeline of Admissions

Central to Fuentes’ attacks on Carlson is the latter’s family ties to intelligence agencies. Tucker’s father, Dick Carlson, served as director of Voice of America during the Cold War, a U.S. government-funded outlet often linked to CIA propaganda efforts. Tucker himself applied to the CIA after college but was rejected, a fact he’s publicly acknowledged.

The hypocrisy peaks in Carlson’s shifting narrative. In a June 2024 interview on the Shawn Ryan Show, Carlson openly discussed his CIA application and his father’s involvement, stating, “My father worked in conjunction with CIA. I’m not being false about it.” He even declared himself a “sworn enemy” of the agency. Yet, in his 2025 interview with Owens, Carlson claimed he only learned of his father’s CIA ties “this year” after his death in March 2025, expressing shock. This direct contradiction undermines Carlson’s credibility: How could he admit knowledge in 2024 but feign ignorance in 2025? Fuentes and his allies seized on this, arguing it proves Carlson’s duplicity and potential ongoing ties to intelligence circles.

Recent Escalations and Broader Implications

The feud hit a boiling point in August 2025. Carlson and Owens’ interview devolved into personal jabs, with Carlson accusing Fuentes of being a CIA plant. Fuentes fired back, declaring “war” and challenging Carlson to a debate. Observers from both sides have called it “ridiculous” and divisive, with some arguing it distracts from real issues like foreign policy or cultural decline.

Ultimately, this feud exposes fractures within the right: Carlson and Owens represent a more palatable populism, while Fuentes embodies unfiltered radicalism. The hypocrisy—projecting infiltration accusations while dodging accountability—erodes trust. As Fuentes himself asked, “Why not me?” for a fair platform. Until these figures confront their contradictions, the infighting may only strengthen the neocons they all purport to fight.

In the ever-changing arena of American governance, a powerful voice has emerged among the disheartened supporters of the initial Trump movement. Nick Fuentes, with his magnetic persona and unwavering dedication to the America First cause, has become a beacon for those who feel their concerns have been overshadowed by the infiltration of Zionist elements within the Trump administration.

The complaints of these devoted Trump backers are not without merit. They contend that the presence of Zionist forces within the administration has diluted the fundamental principles of an America First government, which should prioritize the interests of the native European population above all else. This perceived betrayal has fostered a growing sense of disillusionment among the original Trump base, who believe their grievances have been disregarded in favor of appeasing external interests.

Fuentes, with his unapologetic stance on critical issues such as immigration, trade, and foreign policy, has become a rallying point for these disenfranchised supporters. His call for a Groyper War 2.0 is a clarion call to those who believe that the original vision of the Trump presidency has been compromised by the influence of Zionist elements.

The Groypers, a term coined by Fuentes himself, represent a new generation of conservative activists who are unafraid to challenge the establishment and demand a return to the principles that initially propelled Trump to victory. They argue that a government that prioritizes the interests of the native European class is essential for the preservation of American culture and values.

Fuentes’ grievances are not merely ideological; they are rooted in a profound sense of betrayal. Many original Trump supporters feel that the president has failed to fulfill his promises to eliminate corruption and put America first. They argue that the presence of Zionist influences within the administration has resulted in a government that is more concerned with the interests of foreign powers than the welfare of its own citizens.

The call for a Groyper War 2.0 is a call to action for those who believe that the only way to restore the America First vision is through a grassroots movement that challenges the status quo. Fuentes and his followers argue that the time has come for a new generation of conservative activists to rise up and reclaim the mantle of the America First movement.

In conclusion, the grievances of the disenfranchised original Trump supporters, led by Nick Fuentes, underscore the need for a reevaluation of the role of Zionist influences within the Trump administration. The call for a Groyper War 2.0 is a rallying cry for those who believe that the only way to restore the America First vision is through a grassroots movement that prioritizes the interests of the native European class. As the battle for the soul of the conservative movement continues, it remains to be seen whether the Groypers will succeed in their quest to reclaim the mantle of the America First movement.