America has no shortage of debates about race. Turn on the television and you will be told that the nation is split between “anti-white” leftists and “racist” conservatives. Democrats and Republicans feed this cycle like an assembly line. One side builds a narrative of systemic racism; the other counters with a story of white victimhood. Both make a living keeping the public angry at each other. But while America is busy fighting over race, a deeper reality goes unexamined: the degree to which foreign money and foreign influence control our politics.
When Candace Owens questioned whether Charlie Kirk had been pressured or even blackmailed by pro-Israel donors, the knives came out. She was accused of antisemitism, opportunism, even betrayal. Yet strip away the headlines, and the substance of her question remains legitimate: are American political leaders free to speak, or are they constrained by donor money tied to foreign interests? Owens may have lacked proof for the specifics she alleged about Bill Ackman. But the broader reality she pointed to is undeniable. Pro-Israel political action committees and billionaires pour tens of millions into both parties. Candidates who cross them find their campaigns defunded, their reputations smeared, and their character questioned. If this is all nonsense, then why have figures as high as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu felt compelled to make public statements about it? On Newsmax, Netanyahu dismissed as “insane, absurd, so stupid, so ridiculous” the growing claims online that Israel had a hand in Kirk’s death. But even that wasn’t the end of it. Tucker Carlson, speaking in conversation about Kirk’s legacy, blasted foreign leaders—Netanyahu included—for trying to hijack Kirk’s murder to advance their own causes. Carlson called it “disgusting” and “literally untrue” to claim that Kirk lived for Israel’s agenda, reminding audiences that while Kirk loved Israel, he opposed another endless war in the Middle East. That kind of pushback is rare, and it tells us that Owens’ questions struck deeper than critics would admit.
Kirk himself lived this contradiction. On his show he admitted that “some of the largest financiers of left-wing anti-white causes have been Jewish Americans.” At his Turning Point USA conference, Tucker Carlson asked directly whether Jeffrey Epstein was running a Mossad blackmail operation. And when Kirk went on Megyn Kelly’s show, he confessed that after platforming Israel’s critics, he was hit with “thousands of tweets and text messages” condemning him as a bad person. Notice what is happening here. A conservative leader who repeatedly declared “I love Israel, I want Israel to win” was not judged on his support for the country, but on his willingness to host a conversation. For that, his moral character was put on trial.
This is where race enters the picture—not as a solution, but as a distraction. On the left, racial politics justifies why Israel’s critics are silenced: anyone pushing back must be racist, bigoted, or hateful. On the right, racial politics is redirected into outrage over DEI, which has been a shield for policies that white people mostly benefited from, layered on top of a Civil Rights Act that has ignored Black people’s rights while being used to fight for gay men to play in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms. Either way, Americans are pitted against each other on racial terms, while the deeper issue—foreign lobbying, foreign aid, and foreign leverage—is quietly preserved. Do people even know how entrenched pro-Israel money is in our politics? While misinformed Black people argue endlessly about race, the United States sends $3.8 billion of our tax dollars every year to a foreign country for war, while at home we face failing schools, high crime, a housing market that locks working families out of ownership, and a mental health crisis devastating Black communities. Yet no matter which party is in power, there is always bipartisan agreement that Israel gets its billions, even if our own communities go without.
The real divide in America is not between Black and White, or liberal and conservative. It is between a nation where citizens govern themselves and a nation where foreign donors and lobbies script the play while we argue over skin color. Kirk, for all his faults, brushed against this forbidden truth. I am not God, so I do not judge. But I believe each of us is here for a reason, and as Kirk’s political star rose, so did his awareness of the messy, manipulative money that drives it all. I have long said there is no God in politics, and Kirk was beginning to see that for himself. Owens took it further, and the fury directed at both of them proves the point: once you step across the invisible line around Israel and its donor network, you are branded untouchable—not because you are wrong, but because you dared to pull back the curtain.
In a recent article, I wrote that “this is not Black people’s fight.” The questions Candace Owens raised, and the defensive answers offered by powerful figures, prove why. The struggle here is not between Black and White Americans—it is over whether foreign interests dictate our future while we are distracted by the politics of race.
Facts matter more than feelings, and the fact is this: until Americans, Black or White, stop letting race be the bait that keeps us distracted, we will never deal with the hook—foreign influence that dictates our politics while we fight each other.
