🇺🇸”SOLVED! Ex-Tucker Associate UNMASKS The Reason Tucker & Candace Flipped on Israel!”
In an explosive revelation that has sent shockwaves through the conservative media landscape, a former associate of Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens has revealed the hidden forces behind their controversial stance on Israel. What began as a seemingly routine pivot has now been exposed as a calculated move driven by a mix of ideology, ambition, and, perhaps most surprisingly, financial interests. The shift, long speculated by political observers, raises questions not only about the personal motivations of these media moguls but also about the broader direction of the conservative movement.
The explosive claims were made during a podcast interview where Desh, a former associate of both Carlson and Owens, delved into the reasons behind their growing antagonism toward Israel—a sharp contrast to their earlier, unwavering support. Desh, who had worked closely with Carlson and Owens, explained that the change in their rhetoric wasn’t purely ideological but rather a strategic pivot aimed at tapping into a rising disillusionment among their audiences, particularly among young conservatives.
“The real reason behind Tucker and Candace’s flip on Israel isn’t as simple as a change of heart,” Desh explained. “It’s rooted in a sense of frustration among their audience—particularly younger conservatives—who feel disconnected from the American dream their parents once had. These are young people who feel alienated, lied to by institutions like the CDC and the FBI, and generally left behind by both political parties. They’re asking, ‘Why should we care about Israel when our own country is falling apart?’”
According to Desh, Carlson and Owens capitalized on this disillusionment by fueling anti-establishment rhetoric that resonated with their audience’s growing frustration. “There’s this feeling that Israel’s issues don’t concern them. They’ve been sold a narrative that the U.S. government cares more about foreign interests than the struggles of everyday Americans,” Desh continued. “And Israel, unfortunately, has become the scapegoat.”
Desh’s insight into their motivations raises an uncomfortable question: Is this truly an ideological shift, or is there something deeper at play? According to him, it’s about power, money, and influence—especially from wealthy, foreign-backed entities. “While Tucker and Candace have built their brand on controversy, they’ve now latched onto something far more dangerous,” he said. “It’s not about Israel per se, but about aligning themselves with an anti-Israel stance to create buzz, stir up controversy, and appeal to an increasingly radical base.”
The conversation then took a darker turn as Desh hinted at the financial incentives that may be driving Carlson and Owens’ anti-Israel rhetoric. While he was cautious about drawing conclusions, Desh noted that figures like Carlson and Owens have, at times, seemed to align themselves with individuals and organizations that have questionable financial ties, including foreign interests in the Gulf states. “I don’t have proof of the Qatari connection, but let’s just say that their rhetoric aligns very well with certain interests,” Desh said, making it clear that financial motivations could very well be fueling their rhetoric.
Desh’s comments paint a portrait of two media figures who, once known for their staunch pro-Israel stance, have now embarked on a different path, one that seems to echo the sentiments of the far-right fringe—people who feel disconnected from mainstream politics and who view Israel as a symbol of everything wrong with American foreign policy.
“Tucker, for example, has been talking about World War II and even suggesting that maybe the U.S. should have allied with Hitler instead of Churchill,” Desh pointed out. “And Candace, she’s built an entire career out of stirring the pot. She’s always ‘investigating’ something, insinuating without offering real evidence. It’s all about creating an aura of controversy, making her followers feel like they’re the only ones who see the ‘truth.’”
Desh also expressed concern over Candace Owens’ role in this shift, claiming that her motivations were rooted less in ideology and more in creating a marketable persona. “Candace has become a businesswoman first, and a political commentator second. Her focus is less about coherent ideology and more about getting the clicks, the views, the controversy. She’s built her platform on making bold, unsubstantiated claims, and now she’s going full force into the anti-Israel lane,” Desh explained.
The consequences of this ideological flip have already been felt within the conservative movement. As Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and other youth-based conservative organizations continue to grapple with these shifts, Desh speculated that the future of these groups depends largely on their ability to navigate this divide. “Charlie Kirk, the founder of TPUSA, has always been pro-Israel. But now, with Tucker and Candace pushing for an anti-Israel stance, there’s real pressure on Turning Point to choose a side,” Desh said. “They can stick with their pro-Israel donors, who are primarily evangelical Christians and Jewish Americans, or they can follow the new path laid out by figures like Tucker and Candace, and risk alienating their more traditional base.”
The implications of this shift are significant, not just for the conservative movement but for the future of American foreign policy. By distancing themselves from Israel, Carlson and Owens risk alienating themselves from the establishment wing of the Republican Party, which has long been a staunch ally of the Jewish state. Desh acknowledged that the growing anti-Israel rhetoric within the right-wing media has created a clear divide, one that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of U.S.-Israel relations.
“I don’t think it’s just about Israel,” Desh said. “It’s about reclaiming the narrative, grabbing power, and appealing to a new generation of conservatives who feel betrayed by the system. But what they don’t realize is that by embracing this populist anti-Israel rhetoric, they’re tying themselves to a movement that’s only going to get more extreme, more divisive.”
As the political climate continues to shift, the motivations of figures like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens will remain under scrutiny. Desh’s unmasking of the financial, ideological, and personal motivations behind their flip on Israel serves as a stark reminder of how far the conservative movement has come—and where it might be heading.
The rise of anti-Israel sentiment among these media figures may not just be a passing trend. As Desh points out, it’s part of a broader ideological shift within the conservative movement, one that increasingly aligns itself with far-right nationalist movements and global populist causes. Whether this trend will continue or whether the broader conservative establishment will reassert its pro-Israel stance remains to be seen.
For now, the true reasons behind Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens’ flip on Israel remain a topic of intense speculation and debate. Desh’s insights offer a glimpse into the personal, financial, and ideological forces at work. Whether or not these revelations will have a lasting impact on their careers—or the conservative movement at large—remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: the conservative movement’s relationship with Israel is changing, and the consequences could be far-reaching.
