Charlie Kirk: gone rogue or trying to hijack the dissident Right?
1,474 words
There have recently been stories about how this or that mainstream conservative commentator is some kind of closet and/or ex-dissident Rightist, or is consuming dissident Right content on the down low. In March, liberals raked Tucker Carlson over the coals after leaked internal text messages revealed that he had read a Takimag article by notorious “Holocaust denier” David Cole and commented favorably on it. And then last month, a hot mic recording of Daily Wire star Matt Walsh surfaced in which he could be heard making “demographics are destiny” arguments about how non-whites would not be able to maintain America’s Anglo-Saxon culture. And then there was the case of conservative rising star Richard Hanania, who was recently exposed as a former White Nationalist.
But the recent “mainstream conservative says something uncharacteristically based” story that really floored me was a tweet by none other than Turning Point USA (TPUSA) leader Charlie Kirk in which he stated: “Whiteness is great. Be proud of who you are.”
Kirk’s tweet stands out for a few reasons. First of all, this is Charlie “stable green cards to diploma” Kirk, a shameless Con Inc. stooge whose name has been synonymous with Zionism and cookie-cutter neocon talking points until relatively recently: “America is a nation of ideas,” “Israel is our greatest ally,” “socialism sucks,” race denialism, and so on. Kirk is also famous in dissident Right circles for being the bête noire of the 2019 Groyper Wars, when college students showed up at Charlie Kirk events in order to dominate the Q&A with dissident Right talking points about demographic change and dancing Israelis, leaving Kirk flustered and tongue-tied.
But hey, people can change, right? We were all normies at once who had embarrassing political views. Charlie’s just taking a little longer to red-pill — but better late than never, right?
That’s the problem, though. It’s hard to tell whose behalf Charlie Kirk is speaking on. It’s possible that he has been slowly red-pilling and is now “going rogue.” But then again, this is Charlie Kirk, leader of Conservatism, Inc.’s de facto youth wing. I find it hard to believe that he would say anything as provocative as “be proud to be white” without clearing it with his donors and testing it on half a dozen focus groups.
Charlie Kirk is someone who runs a multi-million-dollar operation that is deeply integrated in the GOP apparatus. He’s not merely a player in the Con Inc. game, but is in fact a cog in their machine. Kirk’s job is to be a spokesman of and gatekeeper for that machine. If you are a high school graduate and want a career in conservative politics, you go to college, join TPUSA, and put it on your resume when you apply for your Washington internship. For years, Charlie Kirk regularly kicked people out of TPUSA for expressing overtly pro-white sentiments — in fact, for saying the sort of things Kirk himself is now tweeting. Unlike Matt Walsh, Richard Hanania, and Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk is in a unique position to gate-keep the next generation of conservative professionals — which is what make Kirk’s comments worthy of consideration.
Kirk stubbornly persisted with his race-blind neoconservatism for years until April 2022, when he blindsided the public with his shock announcement that there was a war on white people.
Before his unceremonious dismissal from FOX News, Tucker Carlson had begun popularizing the term “anti-white,” which subsequently caught on with other conservative commentators. It was possibly Tucker’s greatest contribution to the cause. No longer were people calling the trend “woke” or Critical Race Theory. No, mainstream conservatives were finally doing away with the euphemisms and calling a spade a spade. That thing the Left are doing? There’s a term for it: anti-white.
But being anti-anti-white is easy, because one can argue for anti-anti-whitism within socially approved parameters: “I oppose all forms of racism.”
But while Tucker Carlson was willing to talk about anti-white racism, he stopped short of pro-white identity politics. He’d either say that we’re all individuals, or else make class-based arguments about how there’s a battle between rich fat cats and salt-of-the-earth common folks. But Kirk’s tweet, telling whites to “be proud of who you are,” goes a step beyond being anti-anti-white to full-on white positivity. And this from a card-carrying Con Inc. mouthpiece. Charlie Kirk is now to the right of Tacker Carlson on race.
So has Charlie Kirk “gone rogue” and currently getting tons of frantic calls from his donors and Mossad handlers saying ,“Oy vey! Lay off the pro-white stuff!” Or is Charlie Kirk speaking as usual — as a spokesman for Con Inc.? If it’s the former, we’ll know when he is streaming on DLive is six months. But if it is the latter, and Kirk got his recent statements cleared by the money men upstairs, what we may be seeing is the beginnings of Conservatism Inc.’s attempt to co-opt white advocacy.
What will Kosher Pro-White look like? It will most likely be just another thing that the GOP will pay lip-service to while having no intention of doing anything about. If people think they have a place to express white grievances in one of the two mainstream parties, they will be less likely to seek out the fringe. Obviously, keeping out the anti-Semites will be a major feature.
Take this tweet from a few days ago:
Whatever it was in the past, today the ADL is a hate group that dons a religious mask to justify stoking hatred of the left’s enemies. I believe in the First Amendment and free speech as a principle regardless of what the law says. I don’t want to ban anyone’s speech. But the ADL has no place extorting X/Twitter or any other social media companies, nor should it dictate to federal law enforcement agencies what hate speech is. The ADL itself is America’s number-one purveyor of hate speech (and the SPLC is #2).
Having already gone white-positive, Kirk is now willing to show some Judeo-critical leg by supporting the #BanTheADL hashtag. Given Kirk’s history as a Zionist neocon, it might have been eyebrow-raising that he would even venture within the same zip code as anti-Semitism — or rather, take a stand on an issue that would place him on the same side as anti-Semites. But at this point, the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) censoriousness has become so reckless that even controlled opposition, Zionist conservatives see it as a threat to their grift.
But before posting that tweet, Kirk posted a different tweet which he then quickly deleted:
I love the Jewish people. I love Israel. I do not love the ADL. I believe in the First Amendment so I don’t want to ban anyone’s speech, but if I was going to start somewhere it would be #BanTheADL, which has no place extorting X/Twitter and other social media companies or dictating to federal law enforcement what is and is not hate speech.
We see a few notable differences between the first and second drafts of Kirk’s tweet. He removed all references to the ADL being in any way Jewish, describing it as a generic anti-free speech organization. Even more conspicuous than that, Kirk removed the claim that “the ADL is a mass purveyor of anti-white hate.”
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
Kirk appears to know the score. He knows about white genocide and the Jewish origins of anti-whiteness. He knows that the dissident Right’s arguments on this point are true, and is trying to incorporate the safest and most popular themes related to it while shaving off some of the sharper rough edges.
There’s the old joke that goes, “Why do dogs chase cars? They wouldn’t know what to do with one if they actually caught it.” At the moment I feel like a dog that just caught a car. We’ve been working for years to try to push dissident Right ideas into the mainstream, and now a prominent mainstream figure is using one of our talking points. I’m not sure what to do. Do I say, “Welcome to the club, brother?” Or do I hold him in even deeper suspicion?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Charlie Kirk is saying the things he is saying. It’s good for the Overton window that a card-carrying gatekeeper for Con Inc. is moving past the color-blind arguments and acknowledging the existence of white people as a group, and affirming that they have distinct interests as a group. Even if this intended to be a Con Inc. gatekeeping operation, I don’t think gatekeeping really works in the Internet era. I was in the original Proud Boys Facebook group and saw Gavin McInnes scrambling to keep the White Nationalists out as the Alt Right virus swept through it.
By dabbling in white identity politics, Kirk and his overlords are playing with forces they do not understand.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
19 comments
I’m not fooled by any of this anymore. They do this every election cycle. Even George HW Bush had that commercial and Reagan popularized ‘welfare queen.’ Every single message is kosher-approved. Too much money and power is at stake for them to not completely manufacture this fleeting white identitarianism. It’s all cyclical. None of these people can ever be trusted. They all know the score. They know our facts. They simply take a paycheck to not say it and keep us out of the spotlight. Look no further than the Republican debates with former Trump allies seeking to be the biggest turncoat. The donors are wasting billions of dollars on this forlorn attempt to internally jettison Trump and bring back neoconservatism even though Trump is a already martyr. All of these guys from Charlie Kirk to Matt Walsh and under Gavin McInnis, Cernovich, Pedro Gonzalez etc all tried to make DeSantis the new Trump and instead made him the new Ted Cruz. They still tried this after all these years because of money. Never trust them. They purge the actual mainstream nationalists every time like in National Review. We cannot work with these people ever again. We don’t need their outlets. They all have to go. All that needs to happen is for their Gentile angel investors to pull their seed money. It happened instantly with the unprofitable Weekly Standard. Zero chance Ben Shapiro would not allow Matt Walsh to say this stuff. The Daily Wire has to go, not be subverted.
The one thing that Kirk’s open pro-White views tell us is that the level of ‘concern’ about anti-Whiteness by ordinary Whites in America is very, very high.
Most people don’t understand that 99% of all polling is private. The jews and their NGOs are doing private polling all the time. They’re also running studies at universities to figure out how to manipulate Whites more effectively.
The jews have a problem: They’re the ruling class now. Jewish privilege is enshrined in law and lots of normally ‘anti-racist’ Whites are kind of wondering why the interests and feelings of the jews always take precedence over their own.
Being the ruling class also means that jews are responsible for maintaining the legitimacy of the institutions of government and culture.
And, it turns out that, the jews are very, very bad at maintaining ‘legitimacy’ anything except jewish privilege.
The result is that the legitimacy crisis that has been haunting the US for over 70 years is starting to redound on the jews and their privilege.
This is the problem they’re trying to solve and they’re hoping that taking Greenblatt out of the driver’s seat at the ADL (in putting him in his own specifically anti-White jewish NGO) will take some of the momentum out of anti-jewish and pro-White sentiments.
It’s all quite cynical.
Which means it will probably work.
At least for some ‘concerned Whites’ who have no ‘map’ for dealing with this territory.
True. I just imagine what con.inc would do if there emerged a powerful independent organization that would carefully stay within con.inc’s talking points and openly celebrated Whites – would Whites flock to it, send their kids to its summer camps and reading circles? They couldn’t possibly be condemned by them and also not controlled… What if they started a little ethnic nepotism? Give your fellow DieRasse member a hand?
They would find a way to condemn anyone who threatened their power, no matter what the excuse.
My view is that the ethic anti-Whites who bankroll people like Kirk and Walsh know that the best way to maintain their ‘special status’ in society is to ‘give the little people a win’ and that ‘win’ will be the ADL’s Greenblatt stepping down to be replaced by a less in-your-face representative of jewish privilege like the previous ADL head, Abe Foxman. Foxman did far, far more harm to White interests in America than Greenblatt, but he played the role of ‘avuncular jew’ to a ‘T’ and avoided being openly anti-White.
Greenblatt’s out.
A different but less abrasive 100% anti-White jew will replace him.
‘Concerned’ but ‘conservative’ Whites will feel they got a ‘win’ and go back to sleep.
The ADL goes back to infiltrating every law-enforcement agency in the US.
The ADL goes back to ‘influencing’ investments in the US.
The jews love the ‘bad apple’ argument and know how to ‘lose once, win many’.
I appear to be in the minority in our circles when it comes to Hanania, Kirk, Rufo, Walsh, Heather MacDonald, etc. I see it as great news that these mainstream or semi-mainstream figures are breaking taboos around civil rights laws, black criminality and anti-whiteness. I would even go so far as to say that outlets like VDARE, American Renaissance and Counter-Currents made this possible.
The shift in our enemy’s tactics is being forced by problems they have created and we exploit. The goal is to redirect the energy and attention of ‘concerned Whites’ into channels where that energy can be either dissipated in pointless ‘anti-racist activism’.
‘Conservatives’ are adapting to a situation where lots of Whites no longer see the ruling class and their institutions as legitimate. Since much of that ruling class is anti-White jews, they need to find a way to keep ‘the jews’ from being caught up in anti-ruling-class sentiment.
That’s the problem they’re trying to solve with guys like Kirk (and Stephen Miller) opposing the ADL.
I see this as a positive that the Overton Window has shifted. That said, until we see proof we can’t rely on people inside of the machine and dependent upon it to commit heresies.
We just keep the full court press on and get better and better at doing it. We are leading them and that is all that matters.
Kirk should be publicly celebrated and promoted as “a powerful new white voice for pro-white solutions” whether he likes it or not.
Johnson, Hood, Zeeman, etc ought to come up with a simple, clear, undeniable and ecumenical bumpsticker-ish slogan for 2024, something that is metapolitical and political at the same time.
Something that only shills, golems and feds will countersignal.
Something that puts the idea of a white voting boycott in the mind of the white voter unless Republicans use the word White, talk about how their policies affect white families, and so on.
The point of such a slogan would not be to affect an electoral outcome (although that could be ok) or bolster the electoral process but to raise racial consciousness while creating another headache for the GOP and the usual suspects.
Ron Unz, who is Jewish, published an article on his website saying the ADL was founded to frame a black man to free a Jew who murdered a young girl. He cites a book produced by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. I was aware of the book, but I didn’t know it was so convincing.
Louis Farrakhan is often denounced by Jews as an “anti-Semite”. Elon Musk is fiercely criticizing the ADL and threatening them with a huge lawsuit, but I haven’t heard of anyone bring up the origins of the ADL on Twitter yet. Typically, when the Jews smear someone, their victim can’t win against their media power, but it would be interesting if the Jews were forced to admit defeat in this case. I can imagine that if this is brought into the conversation, the ADL will scream “anti-semitism” much louder. I have heard Sean Hannity denounce Louis Farrakhan more than once as anti-Semitic.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-leo-frank-case-and-the-origins-of-the-adl/
That is a good article from the Unz Review. Here is an earlier one on the same topic – https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-adl-in-american-society/. There is no doubt that Leo Frank was guilty as charged.
It cites a book from the Nation of Islam (NOI) entitled, The Leo Frank Case: The Lynching of a Guilty Man – about a rape & murder committed by Leo Frank, a factory owner, of one of his employees, a White girl, when she visited his office to get her pay. His lawyers initially tried to blame the night watchman, who found the body. When this fell thru, they switched to Frank’s servant, Jim Conley. The police were not fooled by either gambit – nor was the jury later.
The ADL was created in 1913 to defend Leo Frank, a murderer, rapist and pervert. Leo Frank was convicted of his crimes, and the verdict was upheld by the US Supreme Court, despite all the Jewish money spent on his defense, on bribes and on media propaganda. The ADL responded with accusations of “anti-semitism”.
Louis Farrakhan is a persuasive public speaker, of unimpeachable integrity. He has skillfully rejected all Jewish attempts to bribe and flatter him. He sees through their tricks. He argues persuasively that the Jews are the greatest enemy of the Black race. The ADL answers his arguments with accusations of “anti-semitism”.
I’ve looked into the case. A lot of people have been getting this one wrong from the beginning. The Black janitor did it, not the Jewish accountant. The janitor made up a story – in which he demonstrably lied about what went on that day – telling police that the accountant talked him into participating. (Conversations I’ve never heard at work: “Hey, I’m thinking of raping and murdering that chick over there – want to go in with me on that?”) Then because of the usual sort of prosecutorial tunnel vision, as well as sensationalistic journalism whipping up a storm of pre-trial publicity, the accountant got a very raw deal in court. BTW, this is not a fringe opinion; the judge saw through it but had to go along with the jury’s verdict.
We know what happened to the Jewish guy after that. The Black star witness, because of his helpful testimony pointing the finger at the other guy, dodged the noose and got off with one year in prison. He eventually died peacefully.
Other consequences:
— The creation of the pestilential ADL
— The Jews decided they needed to start buying up the media
I haven’t studied the Leo Frank case to the exhausting details, for example, of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas sixty years ago, but I think that the innocence of the accused Negro in the Frank rape-murder case has been somewhat overstated.
That being said, I have little sympathy for the Jewish factory boss with the battle-axe wife and far finer tastes for underage pencil girls.
I think Leo Frank got what he deserved ─ but that doesn’t make his bumbling Black janitor innocent. Frank left the lid open to the cookie jar. Uh Oh!
🙂
[94 words]
Well, one or the other is guilty, not both. I suggest you read the article I linked to, written by Ron Unz. I feel confident justice was done when the jury convicted Leo Frank. From the article: “Five of the Grand Jurors who voted to indict Frank for murder were themselves Jewish, and none of them ever voiced regret over their decision”.
I read the Unz article some time ago and I am sure that Frank was guilty.
But I’m not convinced that the Negro is entirely blameless. I can read Unz again, I guess, but I am not convinced that the helper monkey dindu nuffin.
I am not sure why you think that they both can’t be guilty.
Conspiracy is almost as serious as an actual murder.
For example, in the recent Lori Vallow Daybell case, she was convicted of several counts of Conspiracy and is now serving something like five consecutive Life sentences in Idaho without the possibility of parole. She still has to face trial in Arizona for the murder of her previous husband (almost certainly a domestic violence shooting setup) and the attempted murder of her niece’s Tesla-driving ex-husband. The Death Penalty was taken off the table in Idaho because they could not prove that she actually murdered her two children and her boyfriend’s wife. Vallow’s now-deceased brother was the probable henchman. But it was mighty suspicious that Mom was vacationing on the beach in Hawaii when her two missing children’s bodies turned up buried in her boyfriend’s back yard, wound in plastic wrap and burnt to a crisp. Nobody who heard the Boise trial proceedings doubts the conspiracy. The elected Fremont County Coroner, who is an EMT in a tiny rural county and not a big city budget forensic MD, got heavily criticized for obeying the wishes of the family and failing to order an autopsy for the suffocated wife ─ but it is hardly impossible for people in their fifties to just die in their sleep of natural causes unless there is reason to suspect foul play.
In any case, Some jurisdictions will go so far as charge everybody with Murder 1 who took part in a felony that (unintentionally or otherwise) led to a death. That means the getaway driver, the lookout, the dodgy Negro janitor, whomever.
I am not disputing the idea that the Frank case was bungled and that the ADL was created to take steps to deflect all criticism of Jews ─ even if they are caught red-handed in the most heinous of crimes.
🙂
[362 words]
What do you base that on? Jews pulled out all the stops to get him off, yet his sentence was repeatedly upheld by multiple appeal courts. It was only commuted by a corrupt governor who was a partner in the same law firm that defended Frank.
The Overton window has definitely shifted and indeed governments are viewed with less legitimacy now. In a way, the crises of government policies based on the lies of the civil rights era, shortly followed by neoliberalism, are finally reaching boiling point in many parts of the West. The next few years may be possibly exciting, as governments are finally forced to deal with issues that ordinary people have been feeling since at least the 1990s or even the 1960s. While it may not bode a win for pro-white movements, the sheer scale of problems (war on Europe’s doorstep, inflation, housing prices, crime, demographic replacement and confusion, rise of wealthy geopolitical competitors) has made it acceptable to say things that once were not.
In Canada the sacred cow of non-white immigration is finally beginning to be challenged. At the federal level all the main parties are still complicit, but resistance is rising from the provinces – first from Quebec early this year and now from Saskatchewan.
Tiktok has emerged as a prime network for radicalisation, due to its censorship regime being weaker (less influenced by the ADL?) and the ease of making meme-style content which the dissident right has always been good at.
“Even if this intended to be a Con Inc. gatekeeping operation, I don’t think gatekeeping really works in the Internet era.”
I think this is the most important sentence in this article. Some doors are easily opened for the sake of election year expediency, but not so easily closed after the election in the Internet Era. Access to the internet has changed so many things for the better by providing access to pro-white views and opening doors to intellectually curious people, of which there are many.
Kirk and others like him admittedly have been shills. Will they continue to be? I don’t know. I do believe they’re playing with fire by expressing explicitly pro-white views. Fires can spread. In the 2016 election cycle protesters decided to “protest” by burning an American flag after soaking it with gasoline. Unfortunately (for him) he splashed enough gas on himself that when he ignited the flag, he caught fire too. Unfortunately the police put out the fire and saved his life.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3703592/Gregory-Johnson-sets-fire-burning-flag-RNC.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/cleveland-police-protests-flag/
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/protest-fail-flag-burner-outside-dnc-accidentally-sets-himself-on-fire
Kirk et al are fanning flames that might not be so easily extinguished as the ones set by the hapless protesters in 2016.
I agree with those who say that we should treat sudden converts to our position (or some elements of it) with caution. I also agree with those who say that we should at least be open to the possibility that a shift in the Overton window is emboldening hitherto shy dissidents to speak out against the system.
Since both points of view have been well argued in the comments section, might I offer a more original observation?
The concept of “controlled opposition” needs to be examined carefully. Sometimes the “controlled opposition” remains under the control of the ruling elite only for so long as things are going well for the ruling elite. If its grip on power loosens, all of a sudden the “controlled opposition” can skitter out of control.
I have a long-standing interest in the “German Democratic Republic”, which I visited in 1984, when it appeared to be completely controlled by its rulers with their efficient police surveillance system, then again a few years later in 1989 when it was on the verge of collapse.
From its very inception, the GDR not only tolerated but encouraged so many as four “controlled opposition” parties, the so-called Blokparteien, in order to veil the reality of one party rule by the SED (die Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, created by a forced merger of the Social Democrats and the Communists after the murder of the leader of the Social Democrats, who unwisely said that they would only merge with the Communists over his dead body).
The weird menagerie of the bloc parties included a Christian Democratic Party (CDU-Ost), a Liberal Democratic party (LDPD), a farmers’ party (DBD) and (believe it or not!) a party for “former adherents of fascism and militarism”, the NDPD (Nazional-demokratische Partei Deutschlands, not to be confused with the West German NDP, though the two drew upon a similar support base.
As the realisation grew that under Gorbachev the Soviet Union would no longer crush anti-Communist dissent in its satellites with armed force, dissent began to manifest itself more openly in the GDR. So, for example, elements of the hitherto tightly controlled media began to engage in some truthful reporting, especially about the luxurious lives of leading figures in the SED. Meanwhile the bloc parties began to criticise the SED led regime in the Volkskammer (the East German sham parliament). Just when the SED needed the bloc parties to prop it up, they defected to the opposition.
Was the SED therefore so clever as its sometime leader Ulbricht thought to allow the bloc parties to function for forty years and more? Ultimately they turned out to be no help at all, but on the contrary used their bully pulpit in the Volkskammer to critique the SED. The four jokers jumped out of the pack and began to play their own game. I wonder whether something similar will follow if our own system begins to weaken. We shall see!
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.