Castle Report

The Castle Report

• Will There Be Peace in Gaza?
  Darrell Castle talks about President Trump's 20-point proposal to bring peace or at least the absence of war and famine to Gaza. Transcription / Notes WILL THERE BE PEACE IN GAZA Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday the 3rd of October in the year of our Lord 2025.  I have decided to talk about what seems to be most important for the United States and the world in this report. The government shutdown will have to wait but it might be a good thing anyway. President Trump’s 20-point proposal to bring peace or at least the absence of war and famine to Gaza is my beat for today. The people of Gaza are certainly important and certainly worth talking about because they and their land are central to Mr. Netanyahu’s plan for the Middle East. Israel seems to appear in almost every discussion about almost everything today. Keeping all that in mind, I have a question to ask before I begin the discussion of Trump’s proposed peace plan. According to articles by Max Blumenthal who has done yeoman’s work on the subject, Charlie Kirk had expressed to him his one fear and it was not trans people, homosexual activists or anyone of that ilk. No, he said that what he feared the most was the “the Israeli regime backed by powerful and wealthy Jewish donors in the United States.” He went on to allege that Bibi Netanyahu offered Charlie $150 million to come back into the Zionist fold but Charlie chose to keep his honor. According to Blumenthal, sources within Charlie’s inner circle said that Charlie and Erika had been attending Catholic Mass together. Why is that important, well Mr. Netanyahu was apparently very frightened by it. Candace Owens, close friend of Charlie’s and a recent convert to Catholicism confirmed that for several weeks before his murder Charlie had been distancing himself from the Israeli donors. The investigation by Blumenthal revealed through conversations with Charlie’s inner circle, that many members of that circle as well as members of the Trump administration, believed that Israel killed him. Blumenthal admitted that such beliefs might not be correct, but he was shocked that they were so widespread even with no help from the media. Reportedly, Israeli donors were furious and shocked that Charlie refused Bibi’s money and more importantly his invitation back to the fold. Apparently, Charlie discounted Bibi’s open boast that he controlled America. Afterall isn’t it obvious that both American political parties support Israel’s policies one way or the other. Those donors thought they could threaten Charlie with the end of his career if he didn’t cooperate. He was obviously aware of the threats and intimidation but that did not stop him. I could make this entire report about Charlie again, but I promised Gaza in the introduction so how is Gaza related in any way to Charlie Kirk. Apparently Charlie was separating from the views of his Israeli donors over Gaza and that links them together, but one more thing about Israel and Mr. Netanyahu before I let it go. Foreign Agents Registration Act documents reveal that the Israeli government is paying pro-Israel influencers $7000 per Instagram and Tik-Tok post for each post spreading Netanyahu’s propaganda. So, we know they were putting that $4 billion U.S. taxpayers give them each year to good use. Before I get into Trump’s peace proposal I will ask the question that if members of the Trump Administration really believe that the Israelis killed Charlie as his inner circle believes then how can the U.S. Government, the shining light on the hill, the bastion of freedom, the world’s example of rule by law and not by men continue to act as if nothing happened. The answer to that question would appear to be very frightening indeed.  Well, having said all that Donald Trump, like so many presidents before him, has developed a plan for peace in the Middle East, specifically Gaza. Netanyahu quickly accepted the plan publicly,
• Was Charlie’s Murder a Fort Sumter Event?
  Darrell Castle continues analyzing the murder of Charlie Kirk especially the aftermath including his memorial service. Transcription / Notes WAS CHARLIE’S MURDER A FORT SUMTER EVENT? Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday the 26th day of September in the year of our Lord 2025. I will continue talking and analyzing the murder of Charlie Kirk especially the aftermath including his memorial service. Was this event of such magnitude that it could be a Fort Sumter level tectonic separation of opposing forces. I only know that the official explanation of the murder is not truthful because it simply could not happen that way. Since the assassination of President Kennedy this has been an assassination nation with so many that it would be impossible to list them all in this report. Wikipedia has a 12000-word article and even that doesn’t include them all. We all remember the three big ones JFK, RFK, and MLK but there are literally dozens more of lesser significance. Very few rise to the level of professionalism that the murder of Charlie exhibited. Most killings or attempted killings were done with a handgun from close range. Even the attempt on Donald Trump’s life in Butler, Pa. was done rather clumsily and would not have been possible without the incompetence of the Secret Service. Charlie’s murder, on the other hand, was very professional similar to JFK’s assassination in that it was done from long range with a scoped rifle and with only one shot to a lethal area of his body. That shot was planned and carried out by a lone nut who was 22 years old, living with his trans lover, and who had little to no experience in long range shooting especially with that rifle. There are so many inconsistencies in the official explanation that it’s hard to keep up with them. I’ve seen interviews with military, i.e. Navy Seal snipers, who say that shot under the circumstances was impossible. I’ve seen videos attempting to prove that he was shot from close range with a small caliber handgun. Apparently the medical examiner’s preliminary report said that there was no exit wound which, if true, would be impossible with a 30.06 caliber rifle from 200 yards. That bullet would tear through human flesh like a knife through butter from that range and that’s not speculation it’s a fact. I hate to be gruesome about it but a 30-06 round would have blown his head apart. So was there an exit wound or not because if not then the official story is a lie. The whole thing is a lie and a fabrication and I am totally convinced of that. The official narratives of many stories include impossibilities that we are expected to believe. For example, the way building 7 came down blocks from the World Trade Center in its own foundation footprint. We are told it was weakened by the towers, collapsed and fell, an obvious impossibility told without any embarrassment. In Charlie’s case there are many flaws in even the long-range rifle story that as yet have no explanation. The video shows the shooter on the roof he used as a firing platform. He then got up and ran without a rifle apparently until he reached the edge of the roof where he climbed over and dropped down, again without his rifle. He then ran off into the woods where he left his fully assembled rifle with the spent cartridge still in the chamber. In other words, he didn’t cycle the bolt to chamber another round in case he had to fire again to kill his target or to defend himself. The explanation for his running without his rifle, then it appearing in the woods, is that he disassembled it at the scene and put the barrel in his pants so it would not be visible. So, he took the time to do that at the murder scene, then ran with a rifle barrel in his pants and climbed down from a high roof then went into the woods, reassembled the rifle, wrapped it in cloth and left it there. He was only there seconds after the shot and trained experts take about 1 minute to...
• IT ALL SEEMS LIKE A GIANT PSYOP
  Darrell Castle talks about recent events, in the history of America, from assassinations to simple murders and how we never seem to get the complete and truthful picture of what happened. Transcription / Notes IT ALL SEEMS LIKE A GIANT PSYOP Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. I will be talking about recent events in the history of America from assassinations to simple murders and how we never seem to get the complete and truthful picture of what happened. If we go back in history only so far as World War ll we find that psychological warfare was an important weapon for all combatants. It was important but also primitive compared to the worldwide grip it holds on us today. Sometimes it was millions of leaflets dropped from airplanes across Europe and sometimes it was Tokyo Rose broadcasting from Japan to American sailors opposing the Japanese navy. There were no video cameras, no satellites, no social media, and no internet whereby everyone was monitored and ordinary people could become celebrities overnight. Sinister forces became the status quo and opposing the status quo became very dangerous. President Eisenhower saw these forces coming to power in the world and he warned President Kennedy about them. President Kennedy, a genuine war hero, and a man of courage and determination took those warnings to heart and tried to oppose the forces that were fast becoming the status quo. He died for his efforts and even though it’s been 62 years future leaders have all understood that you oppose the status quo at your own risk. JFK’s brother Robert, who was most likely our next president, opposed those same forces and was determined to punish those who murdered his brother. The same year gave us Martin Luther King who also opposed the status quo and a man who argued for peace abroad and racial reckoning at home. Those three men met the same fate at the hands of a lone nut or so we are told. Hardly anyone today believes the demonstrably stupid explanations of their murders but at the time we still had some tiny amount of faith that our leaders might tell the truth occasionally but today, of course, we know better. Recently, in one of his Liberty Reports, Ron Paul, age 90 gave a pretty good explanation as he addressed the assassination of Charlie Kirk. “The turbulent 1960’s saw several killings of major US figures, including JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King, who were challenging the status quo and pushing for a shift away from the Cold War confrontationist mentality. The real assassins of these peace leaders from last century were Nihilists who did not believe in truth. They only believed in power—the power that comes from the barrel of a gun. Rather than compete in the marketplace of ideas they preferred to snuff out any challenges and therefore decapitate any possibility that our country could take a different course.” There were many other assassinations, of course, during that same time period. Those of us who lived through it wondered what had become of us but then as usual it got worse. A couple of others worth mentioning were John Lennon, influential man obviously who talked often about peace and voiced opposition to America’s wars. He was killed outside his Manhattan apartment by Mark David Chapman. John Hinckley, connected distantly to the Bush family, tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan who was in the process of peace with our worst enemy, the Soviet Union. I forgot to mention Richard Nixon who was ending the Vietnam War and who opened trade with China. The nation had just experienced several high-profile political murders so killing him might have aroused even the insouciant Americans’ ire. Nixon didn’t have to be assassinated because we had people who could false flag him and politically assassinate him. I mention all this history of death and destruction to present recent history as a massive psychological warfare experiment on the American people.