Charlie Kirk arrived at a crossroads where he had to choose between conscience and control. He never got to choose.
Most in the dissident sphere hardly paid attention to Charlie Kirk but for the fact that his TPUSA organization was an object of mockery(usually by the so-called Groypers around Nicholas Fuentes). Kirk came across as manufactured, typical shabbos goy, reliable shill for Zion, or an outreach con-artist for the youth vote working in cahoots with Conservative Inc. In Rock culture, there are self-made artists and industry-made idols. Politics is no different, and Kirk was clearly an idol, like the Teen Idols of the early 1960s. Within that context, Kirk could hardly be considered a dissident, maverick, or alternative figure on the Right.
Yet, he wasn’t entirely an Establishmentarian either, given that part of his appeal owed to a youthful spirit at odds with the moribund GOP that has yet to digest the MAGA phenomenon, which too has been marked by ambiguity given the multi-faceted and contradictory nature of Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016.
Now, it’s questionable if the notion of the Establishment Right or Conservative Establishment is even valid anymore. In order for any organization, agenda, or movement to claim establishment credentials, it has to have a dominant or at least competitive positioning in the most powerful institutions and industries, but it hasn’t been the case for American Conservatives as long as anyone can remember.
The media, academia, legal institutions, cultural industries, federal agencies & departments, urban centers, and etc. have all been utterly dominated by Democrats. Even the military and the church, traditionally bastions of rightism, have largely gone ‘woke’. It’s been said immigrant groups arrive with generally conservative values, but their children soon take notice that success, power, privilege, and prestige are all synonymous with the Democrats, whereas the Republicans are saddled with the ‘sinful’ legacies of the US(and ‘loser’ or ‘white trash’ working class).
Social and ideological trends haven’t been favorable to the Republicans for a long spell, but at least the Conservatives, especially during the Cold War, had the business class by promising higher profits via lower taxes, ‘free trade’, and de-regulation. But then, the Cold War ended, and anti-communism became a dead horse, with global capital taking over everything. The global rich no longer needed the anti-communist political parties to fend off the threat of radical socialism.
And Clintonite Democrats dumped big labor and won over the business class that, over the years, came to contribute more to the Democrats than to the Republicans. The GOP could once boast, “We don’t have the institutions, but we still have the industries.” It used to be Republicans and Big Business vs. Democrats and Big Government. But when the biggest industries went with the Democrats, who also had the institutions, the Republicans looked lost and stupid, made worse by the tongue-tied brand buster George W. Bush and the Neocon cretins around him. It was telling that Karl Rove’s strategy was to dig deeper into the Base, an admission that the Republicans were hopeless at winning over new converts, especially among the young.
Of course, Republicans could still rely on the support of at least half of the American electorate and thus could fill up sufficient numbers of seats in Congress and state houses to matter in the sports of politics. But when it came to elite establishment power, they were toast, utterly without prestige. They totally lost out in academia. They hardly had any representation in urban centers where wealth and influence were concentrated(as Albert Brooks’ character realizes in LOST IN AMERICA). Even patriotic military men couldn’t do anything about the homos prancing around as officers, Pentagon waging wars to promote sodomy, top brass taking it up the arse from Israelis, and campaigns promoting jungle fever & trannies. And just about every other church in the US came to display ‘gay rainbow’ banners. They say Israel is ‘the gayest country on Earth’, which means Zionism has effectively morphed into Sodomism, which further means so-called Christian Zionism is really Christian Sodomism. (Israelis sure love to anal-rape their Palestinian prisoners. All for the gods of Sodom.)
Given the grim reality, the ONLY qualification for Republicans to have a seat at the Establishment Table came by the way of Israel Firsterism. After all, the biggest power in the US wasn’t Democratic but Jewish, or Jewish-Zionist-Supremacist. Even though the great majority of Jews were Democratic, the reasons were tribal & ethnic instead of ideological & principled. If most powerful Jews had to choose between progressive/liberal principles and Jewish Power, they’d always opt for the latter.
As the cucked and wussy Republicans lost the Culture War on just about every issue, their only remaining admittance to the Establishment Table came by way of total obeisance to Zion.
Even though the Democratic Party Establishment was reliably pro-Zionist, Jews figured it’s always better to have boot-lickers on both sides. Besides, rich and powerful Jews could always threaten the Democrats with less funding in favor of the GOP as long as the Republicans had a place at the table.
Politicians crave prestige and privilege; they want to be part of the Club. Given that the Democrats totally dominate so much of the Establishment, it’s understandable why the Republicans are so desperate to cling to Israel-Firsterism as their last remaining lifeline to the Club.
Trump, the chieftain of the MAGA movement, made noises to the contrary in 2016, threatening to drain the Swamp and expose the Neocons, but Jewish Power so thoroughly thrashed his arse and donged his bung that he got the message in no uncertain terms that, in order for him to survive the lawfare and regain the presidency, he would have to bend over for ass-ramming by Netanyahu all day and all night.
Thus, his re-election had nothing to do with patriotism or principles and everything to do with assuaging his fat wounded ego; Jews would at least grant him that if he served them like a dog. He would get his revenge of sorts to the consternation of those who loathe him at the personal level, but he would totally deliver on Jewish demands, rather ironic since his main tormentors have been the Jews, not least the Neocons in the GOP.
Imagine Jews doing everything to destroy you and bury you alive, but you climb out from the grave to show that you’re still alive and unbeaten, only to take your revenge on everyone and everything but the very Jews who hit you over the head and buried you alive. Can politics get any more demented and pathetic than this? Well, that’s Trump whose idea of acting tough and getting even is to throw his weight around against the enemies of the very people who did most to hurt his reputation and fortune. Maybe there’s a Book of Job dynamic in all this. Just like Job remained faithful to God who tormented him to no end, white goyim are expected to take all the slings and arrows from the Jews as the god-race.
The National Review is a prime example of the GOP’s clinging to Israel-Firsterism as the last ticket to the Establishment inner-circle. The National Review used to pride itself as a voice of conservative values and patriotism. Over the years, it has accepted defeat in or ran from just about every culture war. It’s resigned to the GOP relying on the bulk of its donations from the parasitic and corrupting gambling industry dominated by Jewish globalists & Zionist imperialists who don’t give a damn about America. (How long before the GOP takes pride in taking donations from Jewish pornographers?) Its idea of patriotism is eulogizing Sheldon Adelson whose biggest regret was having served in the US military than in the IDF. It’s totally embarrassing, but ‘cuckservatives’ just have to maintain a toehold in the Club. As long as Republicans are useful to the all-powerful Jews(as the ‘Masters of the Universe’), they are accorded access, however limited, to Establishment circles, and that’s all that matters to the likes of Rich ‘bitch’ Lowry and Lindsey ‘pansy’ Graham.
No doubt Charlie Kirk was a player in the game. Still, two factors set him apart from Conservatism Inc. His grass-roots style of politics placed him in closer proximity with the base, hoi polloi of American conservatives/patriots but, more significantly, the rabble-rousers who attended his events and posed some tough no-holds-barred questions.
Also, his fanbase was mostly among the youths who came into their own in the age of the internet, therefore less influenced by the ‘legacy media’ on key issues. Over the years, many of the conventional levers of politics and opinions have been circumvented via new technologies that gave rise to personalities that would have remained unknown in the past. There was once a time when someone banished by the media, academia, and think tanks was effectively written off as a person of consequence. Think of how Joe Sobran became a nonentity overnight. He was not only purged by Con Inc. but denied an opportunity to give his side of the story.
In contrast, even some individuals who’d been utterly excoriated and excommunicated by the Establishment have been able to claw their way back to relevance if tough enough. And there are few better examples than Nick Fuentes.
In a way, Cancel Culture, the main feature of Wokeness(but a lurking enforcer in Con Inc. as well) was both a blessing and a curse for Charlie Kirk. With the likes of Fuentes and other confrontational and/or inflammatory figures kept out of the limelight, Kirk and TPUSA gained an advantage, as did Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire crowd. Even as Facebook, for example, was shutting down ‘white supremacist’ voices, it was promoting Shapiro’s outfit despite its obvious Judeocentrism, Jewish supremacism, and Zionist Imperialism. Pro-white politics was ‘unacceptable’, whereas pro-Jewish politics was not only tolerable but obligatory on the American Right, i.e. the only way conservatism or rightism could operate in the sunlight is by prioritizing Jewishness uber alles. As a happy tool of the Jews, Kirk’s movement rapidly gained momentum, especially at the expense of those less willing to skirt around controversial matters. Because of Kirk’s essentially Christian Zionist stance, he remained uncancelled, even enjoying big donations. (Even as the vast majority of TPUSA donors were goyim, the super donors who doled out millions, so essential to any political movement, were disproportionately Jewish-Zionist, and they certainly had leverage with Kirk.)
But in the age of the internet, Kirk’s success didn’t go unquestioned and unchallenged, and soon enough there was widespread impression that Kirk was just another shabbos goy with no mind of his own, a wind-up toy of his handlers. Even if TPUSA events banned Nick Fuentes, they couldn’t keep out his supporters nor silence adjacent voices. No doubt Kirk came to dread the Groyper challenge.
But, an even bigger challenge unwittingly arose from Kirk’s close allies, whom he considered as personal friends, the two most important being Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. If Carlson had remained reliably pro-Zionist and if Owens had remained as a cotton-picking mammy on Ben Shapiro’s plantation, Kirk’s compromises would have been less blaring. But once Carlson started to hold the MAGA feet to the fire of America First, constantly questioning exactly why the US must suck up to a tiny Middle East country, the political culture was shifting even in the ‘respectable’ conservative sphere.
And when Candace Owens blurted out, “Why you Jew mofos be slaughterin’ babies in Gaza n shit?”, it surely sent a nervous chill, followed by a defiant thrill, throughout the American Right. I mean, here was this Negress who was supposed to be a token and a good little pickaninny, but she showed more courage of spirit and independence of mind than 99% of white males on her side of the political aisle.
Imagine that, a token ‘porch-monkey’ turned out to have bigger balls than all those supposedly patriotic and tough white male conservatives who kept looking over their shoulders in fear of the likes of Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Randy Fine, and Dave Rubin.
Owens exposed the pussy-whipped wussy-boy nature of White American Males, yes, even those on the Right who claim to be so manly but get on their knees to suck off little Benny Shapiro or Bibi Netanyahu(whose dong is usually up Trump’s bung). Something clearly changed in the air when figures like Carlson and Owens refused to play along.
When even pro-Zionist bimbo-flunkies like Megan Kelly weren’t fully signed up with Netanyahu’s policies and instead stood by ideological compatriots smeared as ‘Anti-Semites’ by the Lobby, Kirk surely noted a change in the political weather. There was also Marjorie Taylor Green, a stalwart Trump supporter, calling the Gaza horror a ‘genocide’ and demanding that the US cut off aid to Israel.
Individuals in a crowd fear charging a gunman lest they get shot. But once a bold individual makes his move and others follow, the rest are emboldened as well. Something clearly changed during the Gaza horror. Not only did anti-Zionist protests erupt all over the world but many connected the dots between Zionism(as Jewish supremacism) and the Jewish Power Network. Voices grew bolder on both the Left and the Right, with even the likes of Ana Kasparian and Candace Owens joining the chorus on Israel.
Things got so gorily horrific in Gaza that even Nick Fuentes, once dismissed as a ‘Neo-Nazi’ and ‘white supremacist’, came across as a moral voice condemning racial supremacism and genocidal imperialism.
Thus, the challenge to Kirk could no longer be dismissed as the fulminations of the ‘far right’ or the ‘woke left’. It was coming from all sides, even allies, associates, and/or friends like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens.
Under these circumstances, he was forced to reassess his own position in the movement. Was he really an independent voice and a leader of young conservatives? Or had he been groomed to be a reliable mouthpiece and flunky of Jewish donors who didn’t give a damn about anything but Zionist supremacy?
It is this crisis moment that makes Kirk an interesting figure, even adjacent to the dissident sphere despite having spent his entire career as a creature of Conservative Inc. The texts of his chats in the weeks leading up to his death suggest a change of heart, weighing whether to damn the torpedoes, and begin a new chapter in the spirit of Carlson and Owens who’d already broken free.
Alas, we will never know whether he would have remained in the fold(as there was too much to risk and lose otherwise) or taken the plunge(in a baptism of courage). Surely, the Zionist supremacists would have been outraged(as indeed they already were behind the scenes over Kirk’s invitation of Carlson and other true America-Firsters), and there would have been consternation among Kirk’s closest associates in the TPUSA who valued the movement as a business, career opportunity, or ‘grift’. Kirk-going-independent would have endangered all that. Apparently, a good number within Kirk’s circle regarded him less as a leader than a front-man for what they deemed to be a reliable gig and a cash cow of sorts.
An inner crisis within Kirk resulted from a growing self-awareness, a quality he lacked for most of his career. He’d entered the fray in the flower of his youth and, for the first several years, was probably grateful that he was a somebody, a recognizable brand. Also, it was a time when American Conservatism was less fractured and contentious, as yet to face the thornier questions of loyalty, conscience, and truth.
Before Trump jumped into the fray as the bull in a china shop in 2016, American Conservatism’s biggest hope for the post-Obama presidency was Jeb Bush with his milquetoast proposals and formulaic platitudes. Without someone like Trump(with his MAGA stunt) to jumpstart a new kind of politics, it’s likely that the GOP would have been directionless and would have died a slow death as the perennial loser party.
But, Trump upended not only GOP’s business-as-usual approach but politics in general, and what will surely be remembered as his biggest feat wasn’t anything he did in the Oval Office but his demolition of Hillary Clinton, thereby interrupting the more-or-less flow from Clinton to Bush II to Obama. In addition, the panicked media’s eagerness to associate MAGA with the Alt Right exposed the wider public to many controversial views and once fringe ideas.
2016 was nearly ten years ago, and Kirk was pretty fresh and green, hardly a major player albeit not without promise. Still, he would have been torn between Conservatism Inc. and MAGA, vacillating back and forth between the two. He would have taken notice of many Republican Jews(like Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro) reviling Trump as dangerous and despicable, only to surround and pressure him upon his victory toward perpetuating the Neocon Agenda of All-Zionism-All-the-Time.
With the all-too-quick immolation of the Alt Right under Richard Spencer, MAGA hardly lived up to its billing as the Swamp-drainer, and Trump was soon heeding the advice of the usual GOP hookers and crooks. Still, the widespread disappointment in the man didn’t kill the spirit of MAGA and its challenge to the GOP and Con Inc. If anything, some on the Right began to seriously wonder if the system could be untangled from the stranglehold of the Uni-Party(with Jewish supremacists as the ultimate boss).
Ironically, the MAGA torch was kept lit in reaction to the vast forces arrayed to destroy Trump’s presidency(and legacy as well). 2020 was surely the craziest year of 21st Century America, even more so than 2001 with 9/11, which was tragic but brought the country together. 2020 was the purest demonstration of anarcho-tyranny, with Jewish Power and the Deep State exploiting and harnessing radical energies & savage outbursts to delegitimize Trump’s America and to dethrone the Orange Man.
And it worked… except that it worked too brazenly, leading to a backlash from diehard MAGA loyalists that resulted in the infamous January 6 ‘insurrection’ or ‘fedsurrection’ or whatever. Even though Joe Biden was installed as the new president and Donald Trump was targeted for lawfare and destruction, things didn’t exactly go as planned. The shenanigans of 2020 were so blatant and outrageous that even many MAGA folks who’d soured on Trump’s first term stood by him. Soon, a myth developed that Trump would have carried through with his true agenda upon re-election but had been cheated by a ‘rigged’ and ‘stolen’ election. Thus, Trump’s defeat emboldened MAGA for another round of passion politics.
The sense among MAGA hopefuls was that Trump simply hadn’t been ready in his first term, but the promises of MAGA would come to fruition in a second term, which eventually became a reality, one that however busted the MAGA myth that Trump, with enough authority and experience, would fulfill his political destiny.
In truth, Trump was always a charlatan and fraudster. Also, whatever that might have been bold and patriotic about the man had been stamped out by ceaseless lawfare that would have utterly broken most men. If Trump had a chance of re-election in 2024, it depended on Democratic incompetence and stupidity, and lucky for Trump, Biden’s border security and law-and-order policies had been disastrous, the latter really beginning in Trump’s term with the George Floyd riots set off by the Democratic Jewish-powers-that-be in the media and government.
One decisive factor was the Gaza crisis, most remarkable in unleashing a genuine grassroots movement based on principles, in stark contrast to the partisan-inflected protest movements prior. Consider how the Anti-War progressive types who howled about George W. Bush’s warmongering were either silent or supportive of Barack Obama’s continuation of the Neocon/Neolib foreign policy. Or how the ‘progressive’ types bitched and whined about ‘Nazis’ and ‘white supremacists’ but were indifferent to or supportive of the Judeo-Nazi alliance in Ukraine. More often than not, Democrats and Republicans were driven by partisanship than principles. “We oppose it if YOUR guy does it, but we support it if OUR guy does it.”
The Gaza protests were different. Though fully cognizant of the harm it might do to Kamala Harris’ campaign, many progressives, liberals, and leftists, who were reliably supportive of the Democratic Party, took to the streets in large numbers to call out America’s culpability in Israel’s crimes against humanity.
It proved to be a double gift to Trump. On the one hand, he could pose as the Peace Candidate who would work out a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians; as such, he beat Harris in many Muslim-heavy districts in the key state of Michigan.
On the other hand, he knew that the Jewish powerbrokers were nervous(and angry) about the Democratic base’s increasing hostility to Zionism. Even as he ran as the Man of Peace, he cut a deal with Jewish oligarchs that he’d totally have Netanyahu’s back, which has been the case thus far. Trump’s re-election came by the way of many dead bodies in Gaza. Many principled Democrats simply couldn’t support Harris the whore of Zion, and Jewish Power just sufficiently tilted in favor of Trump to slide him back into the Oval Office.
Both what Trump campaigned on and failed to deliver(and betrayed outright) created a crisis of conviction on the Right. The stark difference between Trump’s bluster before the crowds and his timidity before the Jewish oligarchs forced many on the Right to reevaluate their political situation. Trump sounded like Pat Buchanan(even David Duke at times) but acted like Marco Rubio or John McCain. Many gave up on Trump(but voted for him anyway in 2020 and/or 2024 because the Democrats were deemed beyond the pale).
Some figures on the Right, like Tucker Carlson, tried to have it both ways. He supported MAGA against GOP business-as-usual and even joined the Trump campaign in 2024, perhaps in the hope that Trump Administration II would correct the mistakes of Administration I. Surely, Carlson is upset with Trump’s second term so far but isn’t yet ready to blame Trump himself and chooses instead to name the bad actors around him, such as Lindsey Graham, which is giving Trump too much credit.
In the great reevaluation, individuals like Tucker Carlson began to think outside the box. Maybe, the divide wasn’t a simple case of the left vs the right, and besides, what exactly was ‘right’ or ‘left’ in the shifting cultural landscape? How did leftism go from Mayday to ‘Gayday’? Just when did ‘gay marriage’ become a ‘conservative value’? Was libertarianism really rightist or conservative? Did its worldview have validity in pretending that a multi-billionaire monopolist oligarch is just another private citizen, a mere individual, like any Average Joe? Just how was it that ‘leftist’ Democrats and ‘rightist’ Republicans, regardless of their ideological differences(over nonsense like trannies in women’s restrooms), were usually united on issues pertaining to Jewishness, Jewish Power, Israel, and Jewish foreign policy goals(like the Judeo-Russian War in Ukraine)? How was it that Nancy Pelosi, supposedly an arch-enemy of Donald Trump, joined with virtually the entirety of Congress in a standing ovation for his hostile stance against Venezuela, a country targeted by World Jewry for its friendly ties with Iran and its sympathies for the Palestinians?
While the establishment ‘left’ and the establishment ‘right’ were united in their total groveling self-debasement at the feet of Jewish Power, the real right and the real left gradually and unwittingly(at first) but steadily found common ground in their criticism of and/or opposition to Jewish-Power-gone-wild(and-totally-gangsta). Over time, figures like Jimmy Dore, though generally affiliated with the left, noticed that some of their interests and views were more aligned with the real right than with the Democratic ‘left’(as represented by the likes of Chuck Schumer, the Cuomo brothers, Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris).
And in 2024, two lifetime Democrats, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard(once heralded as the future face of the Donkey Party) switched alliances and joined the Trump camp, a move that was welcomed by many on the Right who, far from opposing it as Trump’s caving to the left, lauded it as the melding of the better elements of the right and the left.
In time, even those on the Left began to sound a bit like the reformed David Duke who took up the Palestinian cause(in renunciation of all forms of racial supremacism). As an honest discussion of the JQ became central to the newly emerging right(with a large ‘zoomer’ cohort), even a controversial figure like Nicholas Fuentes could no longer be ignored — sure, the kid said some crazy things about a host of topics, but few have been as sharp-minded and analytical on the problems of Zion. The question of Jewish Power was like a cat out of the bag, darting and spraying everywhere; and, for his expert critique on that subject alone, many on the right(and even some on the left) were willing to overlook Fuentes’ lunatic side. If you really need a plumber, you worry less about his character flaws.
Even if Trump proved to be a faker, he’d inadvertently opened up a can of worms that Jewish Power had dreaded all along. Compounded by the power and reach of the internet, the emergence of younger generations independent of ‘legacy media’ influence, the overreaction of Jewish Power & Deep State in 2020(that made even many Democrats feel like fools and suckers in hindsight), the sorry sight of Biden as a hapless & senile dupe of Jews surrounding him, and the horrors in Gaza, a more honest and even brazen discussion of Jewish Power became a badge of courage and authenticity.
Against this barrage, Jewish Power could only throw money and lean back on old tropes(of ‘muh holocaust’). But then, money alone was never a guarantee of political reliability, e.g. the Japanese and Saudis poured in many billions to influence American business and politics over the decades, but it’s always been fair game to bash either group. Jewish Power relied on both lots of money and the control of neo-spirituality, especially the Holocaust Narrative, Anne Frank cult, and the evil bogeyman of ‘antisemitism’.
But over the years, as Jewish gangsterism became ever more obnoxious and then manifested itself in Judeo-Nazi-like mass murder in Gaza and elsewhere, the old quasi-spiritual formula began to lose its magic or turned against itself. While some yawned at “Holocaust once more… zzzzzzzzzzzzzz”, others were outraged that Jews, the very people who’d suffered one of the greatest tragedies in modern history, had become a mirror image of their evil enemies.
It’s no wonder that the likes of Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Randy Fine, and etc. aren’t having an easy go at convincing the public that Tucker Carlson is the New Hitler(or at least the new Charles Lindbergh). They drone on and on about ‘white supremacism’ and the ‘Nazis’, but their ideology is clearly the racial supremacism of Zionism embodied by Bibi Netanyahu, who is Jewish Hitler or worse. (At the very least, Nazi Germans were honorable enough to fight their own fights and pay for their actions. In contrast, Jewish supremacists start the fires but then hand over the torches to the cucked goyim to either spread the fire or put it out, or to take the blame).
Given the stark contrast between Trump’s words and deeds, an ideological crisis appeared on the American Right. What was one to do when the very leader of MAGA was unwilling or unable to live up to his promises? Depressingly, as had been customary in American Politics, a seemingly upstart movement(of MAGA) was swallowed by the Establishment(of the Zionic Anaconda).
If many Jews in 2016 were railing against MAGA or America First as fundamentally ‘Anti-Semitic’, many prominent Jews today, having ass-rammed Trump into their toady bitch, are more apt to invoke the slogans as confirmations of unconditional support of Israel and Jewish hegemony, especially when the Orange Man himself is now campaigning with the help of Miriam Adelson’s money to unseat Rand Paul and Thomas Massie.
In such a political climate, what exactly is a white leader? The picture of reality is of Jewish Masters being served by House Honkeys and giving orders to white shabbos goy overseers to whip the Field Honkeys into compliance. House Honkeys, like House Niggers, cannot claim leadership credentials as they exist to serve their Jewish masters than to lead the masses of their own kind. And overseers can’t be leaders as their main role is to employ psychological and physical violence to keep the Field Honkeys in line. If white elites and/or authority figures can only be House Honkeys or Shabbos Overseers, it means leadership in any authentic sense has been rendered inconceivable for the white race.
The recent brouhaha over Tucker Carlson struck a nerve on this very point. From the Jewish perspective, someone like Carlson, for long an acceptable figure in ‘mainstream media’ and Conservatism Inc., should be berating figures like Nicholas Fuentes and other troublemakers who dare to be white slave rebels. Carlson is supposed to curse them out, chase them down, and whip them good. Make Fuentes say, ‘My name is Toby’. And there was a time when Carlson was a reliable overseer, unloading on Patrick Buchanan as an ‘Anti-Semite’ and demagogue, maybe even a ‘racist’.
Jews are especially frustrated because they finally reined in the ‘whigger’ Trump, the House Honkey who ran wild for awhile and got the Field Honkeys all excited about draining the Massuh’s swamp. Through endless rounds of legal harassment, financial bleeding, political persecution, character assassination, and psychological torture, Trump emerged as a pliable House Honkey. The agreement was that Trump would be allowed to regain the presidency(as balm for his wounded ego) but would be a good House Honkey and do the bidding of Zion and bend over to be ass-rammed by Bibi Netanyahu over and over and over.
Jews figure, “If we can do this to Trump, reduce a bulldog into a chihuahua, who the hell are figures like Tucker Carlson and others to say NO to us?” It’s somewhat similar to the Jewish frustration with Russia, i.e. Jews subjugated the once great Anglos, the mightiest empire-builders in history, into their bitches and toadies; so, who are the lowly and lazy Russians to ever say NO to the Jews?
In 2016, Jewish Power was confronted by the MAGA or America First challenge and got very nervous about the Great White Awakening, but through a combined operation of money power, media manipulation, legal wrangling, and political muscle, they were able to own MAGA as just another reiteration of MIGA(or Make Israel Great Again). Via the newly vamped MAGA(or MIGA), the Jewish message to the White Field Honkeys is “You be a bunch of Miggers now and do as told.”
But as things turned out, MAGA or America First movement turned out to be bigger than Donald Trump, whose arse has been locked inside a box with a hole reserved for Netanyahu’s penis.
When Jewish Power loses the loyalty of an overseer, the latter is demoted to slave status. Jewish Power simply hands the role to another willing ‘Migger’. When Pat Buchanan got uppity back in the day, just about all of GOP and Conservatism Inc. types served as overseers to whip that buck good and hard. Everyone from George Will to Rush Limbaugh to William F. Buckley to Tucker Carlson picked up their whips and went after Buchanan to please their Jewish masters. Thus, Buchanan was all but driven out of the movement.
But, things are no longer so black and white. Recently, Jews called out Tucker Carlson as a renegade, slave rebel, bad honkey, and evil goy. While plenty of white cucks unsurprisingly answered the call and beat up on Carlson, just as many stood by him.
One of the more interesting political dynamics is between Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump. Carlson remains true to MAGA and America First, whereas Donald Trump has mostly betrayed them in his servitude to Zion. Yet, Carlson, even as he pounds hard against the Zionists and Neocons, continues to hold out hope for Trump(like Luke Skywalker for Annakin Skywalker), as if, wink wink, despite Trump’s many compromises, his instinct may still be with the MAGA agenda. So far, Trump has mostly been silent about the Jewish demand for Carlson’s head. He hasn’t gone after Carlson like he did against Thomas Massie and Rand Paul, perhaps a sign of appreciation for Carlson sticking by him when so many wrote him off and were rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of him spending the rest of his life behind bars with all his fortunes gone.
If far right white right types idealize white heroes as the Nietzschean Overmen(or the ubermensch), Jewish elites insist on white elites as overseers, constantly vigilant against transgressions on the plantation. So, if a white slave dares to speak up, the white elite as overseer cracks the whip to frighten him into obeisance. Thugs like Dan Crenshaw serve no purpose but as whip-hands for their Jewish Supremacist masters.
Overseers, while wielding authority, do not qualify as leaders. They are rather like the Kapos used by the Nazis in concentration camps. Thus, Jewish Kapos watched over other Jews in the manner of ‘better you than me’. If they served the Nazis, maybe they had a chance of survival even if it meant participating in the oppression, even execution, of other Jews.
Likewise, white overseers are selected by the Jewish Masters for their selfishness, greed, cynicism, cravenness, and lack of conscience/character. Every pore of Ted Cruz’s skin oozes such filth, making him an ideal Kapo. His example proves that character isn’t synonymous with intelligence, something Cruz certainly doesn’t lack. His mental abilities, however, don’t serve the good and the true but the cult-worship of Jews as the Chosen-Master-Race on account of the Biblical Narrative and/or higher Ashkenazi intelligence, which from a secular perspective means Jews are the ‘fittest’ race by the rules of evolution, and therefore, we should all live groveling at the feet of the likes of Ben Shapiro, Randy Fine, Mark Levin, Laura Loomer, Bibi Netanyahu, and John Podhoretz.
Charlie Kirk was clearly groomed for overseer duties. Hoodwinked into a ‘leadership’ role, his real purpose(as far as his Jewish donors and shabbos goy handlers were concerned) was to maintain an Israel-First orthodoxy within the ranks of young Conservatives/Republicans, not least by expelling anyone suspected of ‘antisemitism’, which these days can mean just about anything, even the mildest criticism of Israel-centric policies. Jews may loathe Joe McCarthy and the blacklist, but they insist on a McCarthyite figure to purge the Right of ‘wrong-think’.
Jewish Power plays it clever. It praises to high heaven the shabbos goyim who’re willing to do its bidding. Consider how Jewish Power hyped John McCain as a Conservative-of-Principle and the finest patriot that ever was(except during the 2008 presidential race when he was dragged through the mud). Why all the nonsense about McCain as a principled leader of the Conservative Movement? Because McCain was invaluable as one of the biggest flunkies of AIPAC.
If shabbos goy figures were exposed for what they really are, dog-like whores of Zion, they’d be far less useful because no one respects an overseer or henchman. So, such figures must be made to project an aura of independence and integrity.
But, for how long can Jewish Power maintain the charade that the biggest shabbos goy flunkies are the most high-minded leaders? For how long can people be fooled into believing Don Knots is John Wayne?
After a while, people begin to wonder why all these so-called ‘leaders’ are such spineless, gutless, impotent, and suck-ass servants of Zion? Besides, even as these supposed ‘leaders’ display zero courage in the face of Zionic power, they fulminate against any criticism of Israel and/or Jewish influence. Mere puppy-wuppies, mewling and rolling over at the feet of their Jewish Masters, suddenly turn into rabid dogs foaming at the mouth and barking madly at anyone who refuses to fetch slippers for Bibi Netanyahu. Some leadership!
The Jewish Way is Flatter-or-Flatten. Jews will flatter any flunky as a
‘true patriot’, ‘man of principle’, and/or ‘strong leader’, but will go to any length to flatten any white figure with genuine independence, autonomy, courage, and/or conscience, all qualifications of true leadership.
The young Charlie Kirk was likely naive, ignorant, and easily manipulatable. Thus, he was expected to be a good little Christian Zionist(which is really a Christian Overseer) and duped into taking pride in his ‘self-made’ success, as possibly the most promising face of the new generation of conservatives.
But then came the Groyper Wars that pelted Kirk with tough questions about Jewish influence(and its general anti-whiteness), the crimes of Israel, the whoredom of US politicians beholden to AIPAC, inconvenient questions about 9/11, and etc. Kirk fended them off and kept on with his mission, but here was the rub. Even the anti-Fuentes and anti-Groyper conservatives among the younger crowd(especially weaned on the internet) couldn’t help but notice that the Fuentes-Groyper side was exhibiting courage, defiance, and independence(and had a point), whereas the Kirk-TPUSA side dared not think outside the box of permissible thought as ordained by the Jewish-Powers-That-Be.
It must have irked Kirk to some degree because there’s video evidence of Kirk expressing frustration about Jews being supportive of anti-white politics similar in kind to ‘Anti-Semitism’. In other words, Jews call on whites, liberals and conservatives alike, to condemn the racial hatred of ‘antisemitism’, all the while promoting rabid and virulent animus against whites that is collective and eternal.
Kirk never relinquished his role of overseer and failed to transform into a real (slave rebel) leader, but there were signs that were beginning to unnerve Jewish Power.
The real challenge for Kirk wasn’t Nick Fuentes and the Groypers. As effective as the latter was, they could be dismissed, at least for a time, as a marginal bunch of rabble-rousers shouting from the sidelines. It was different when Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens began to confront the JQ. Fuentes and his gang, however valid their points, could always be written off as ‘white supremacists’, ‘Nazis’, or ‘trolls’, not least because Fuentes had at various times spouted crazy views and indulged in cartoonish antics(especially in joining the Kanye-for-President campaign, surely one of the most ridiculous clown shows in recent times), some hyperbolic but some downright loony.
In contrast, Tucker Carlson had steadily built up his credentials as an acceptable if not entirely respectable conservative. And Candace Owens was prepped as a token-darling of the Conservatism Inc., an attractive and engaging black face of Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro’s gig. So, whereas Kirk understood from day one that TPUSA should in no shape or form cavort with Fuentes and the Groypers, he knew it was safe, even rewarding, to form bonds with Carlson and Owens.
As things turned out, the bonds weren’t merely political or professional but personal, which greatly complicated matters. One can easily cut ties at the ‘business’ level but not so much at the personal level. Why did ‘Et tu, Brute?’ cut like a knife? Because Julius Caesar had considered Brutus a dear friend, not merely an ally. Likewise, Joseph Sobran took it hard when William F. Buckley knifed his back because they’d developed a personal bond over the years.
Then, it’s easy to understand why Kirk found himself between a rock and a hard place. Even though he’d been more or less a Christian Zionist flunky, cuck maggot, shabbos goy dog, and Con Inc. poster boy throughout his career, he possessed just enough pride, dignity, self-respect, and sense of loyalty to stick by those who’d stood by his side through the years. Whereas Fuentes and the Groypers were always a thorn in his side(and could therefore be brushed aside), Carlson and Owens had been at his side despite their diverging ideological worldviews, especially on the matter of Zionism.
If Kirk were a purely cold-blooded ‘business’-minded person, he might have done what William F. Buckley did to some of his closest compatriots, but his heart didn’t want to go there.
Besides, it’s possible that he was growing somewhat envious of Carlson and Owens, not in a negative but in a positive and admiring way, i.e. that Tucker and Candace had freed themselves at the cost of being fired(from Fox News and Daily Wire), whereas Kirk was trying ever more anxiously to balance the demands of his donors with the concerns of his fans/supporters, mostly young and increasingly conscious of Zionism’s baleful influence on American Politics. It was like walking the tightrope.
When Carlson and Owens had been tolerable to the Jewish Establishment, Kirk wasn’t under pressure to betray his friends. Carlson and Owens used to be either supportive of Zionism or mildly critical, hedging their complaints with general praise for what Israel stood for. But as they deviated further from the party line, especially in light of Israeli horrors in Gaza and the fall of Syria to ISIS thugs(supported by Israel, Turkey, and the CIA), Kirk began to feel the pressure, initially behind the scenes but increasingly out in the open, to cut ties with two individuals he’d grown fond of.
As Jewish pressures intensified, it probably dawned on him that his Jewish allies/donors didn’t really regard him as any kind of leader. Instead, his value to them was as an overseer. His purpose was less to inspire and lead American conservatives to the Promised Land but to keep them on the Zionic plantation to build pyramids for Jewish Pharaohs.
When push came to shove, Jews didn’t communicate on the basis of mutual respect but shouted out marching orders: “Do as we tell you or we’ll destroy you.” Just like Kanye West’s billions went up in smoke overnight as soon as he angered the Jews, making him wonder if that wealth had really been his, Kirk was likely forced to reflect about his role in politics for the first time. Was his leadership thing just a sham paid for and propped up by Zionists whose real agenda has been to use him as an overseer, a gatekeeper of ‘acceptable’ opinions, especially pertaining to Jewish Power and Israel?
Things got even more complicated for Charlie Kirk with the sudden rise of Dave Smith as a popular commentator on the Right. Smith’s willingness to discuss the JQ and the crimes of Zionism violated the unspoken agreement between Jews and American Conservatism. The heretofore understanding, in favor of Jews of course, was premised on some Jews siding with the Respectable Right on condition of the latter totally clamping down on the JQ(or ‘antisemitism’) and pledging absolute fealty to Israel.
In other words, even as the great majority of Jews remained in the Democratic or ‘progressive’ camp, the ‘conservative’ Jews dangled the hope that more of their Tribesmen would come over to the Right on condition that it demonstrate beyond any doubt that it had utterly rid itself of the rabid & virulent, pathological & irrational, and sinful & evil scourge of ‘antisemitism’, traditionally associated with the Right. (According to Jewish logic, any of the goy victims of the Marx Brothers is ‘anti-semitic’ if he or she expresses anything other than sheer joy and delight in his/her torment at the hands of the zany Jewish comics. Similarly, you’re a ‘racist’ if you have negative feelings about blacks ruining your community with crime, and you’re a ‘homophobe’ if you harbor disdain for homosexual behavior that led to so much disease and death.)
Anyway, the alliance of Jews and Conservatives was based on a tease. Jews teased the Conzos with the possibility of more Jews joining the GOP. Why did this matter? Republicans are Mammonites who worship money and ‘business’, and Jews are best at wealth-creation. Conservatives are into hierarchy and have come to regard Jews as the rightful Master Race with the highest IQ. Many conservatives are religious nuts who conflate modern Jews with the righteous Ancient Hebrews of the Torah. (In a way, conservatism always had a problem with Christianity, a more liberal interpretation of Judaism and the Old Testament. Christianity is universalist and egalitarian, which doesn’t sit well with conservative instincts and inclinations. With Christianity as the spiritual bedrock of the West, it came to define tradition, heritage, & power/privilege, but its core message has always been liberal, at least relative to Judaism. For that reason, even as goy conservatives came to God via Christianity, they found themselves more drawn to the Old Testament than the New Testament, hardly surprising given that the former is more tribal, more about us-and-them, more about strict boundaries of identity and hierarchy. People like Mike Huckabee essentially use Christianity as a mere bridge toward a parallel-universe-Judaism in which white goyim get to identify and roleplay as Alternative Jews. As such, it’s hardly surprising that the Gaza horror gives the likes of Huckabee a hard-on as a replay of the Israelites slaying the Canaanites on the path to the Promised Land.)
There’s also been the prickly matter of traditional ‘antisemitism’ being mainly associated with the political right, Christian Conservatives, and goy ethno-nationalists. And the supposedly ‘far-right’ Nazis carried out the Holocaust. What easier way for the Right to expiate itself of historical guilt than by winning over the Holy Holocaust Jews to its side.
Undoubtedly, Jews understand this cuck-psychology on the Right and manipulate it for all it is worth, thereby maintaining control not only over the Democratic Party but the Republican Party as well. Democratic Party is the current Jewish Party, and the GOP hopes to be the future Jewish Party.
In order for this dynamic to work its magic, just enough Jews must play-act as ‘conservatives’ while goy cuckservatives mute themselves on the JQ and denounce/destroy any blasphemer who ‘goes there’, as have happened with Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran. While Jews can support Judeo-Nazi Zionism-Sodomism and roll out the red carpet to Jewish Hitler Netanyahu, the brownnosing white cuckservatives must berate and disavow any ‘noticer’ of Jewish Power over the years.
Dave Smith possibly did more than any Jewish figure to dismantle this unwritten contract between Jewish Power and Conservatism Inc. Something like the old saying in the communist world used to apply to Jews and Conzos as well. The commie saying went as follows: “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.” The saying between Jews(mostly Neocons) and Conzos might as well have been, “They(Jews) pretend to be patriots, and we(white cuck goyim) pretend not to notice Jewish treachery.” By bestowing upon Conservatism Inc. the sanctity of approval and benediction, the token Jewish ‘conservatives’ bought the conzo silence on the JQ and the conzo hosannas for Israel.
But then, Dave Smith comes along and blows it all out of the water. He identifies himself as a libertarian-rightist Jew and is more than candid on the JQ and its deleterious impact on American foreign policy. He’s willing to call out Zionist-Sodomist excesses. He’s even willing to call what’s been going on in Gaza a genocide. Instead of using his considerable Jewish wit and intelligence to hoodwink hapless white cuckservatives into silence on the JQ, he speaks to open up new and honest dialogues and engage with all sides(left and right) on the problems pertaining to Israel and its lobbying groups in the US.
The emergence of a figure like Smith put Kirk in a quandary. Kirk was used to dealing with Jews, receiving their donations and approval, on the basis of total support for and obeisance to Zionism-Sodomism, but here was Smith who threw a monkey wrench into the arrangement.
Yet, it also must have been refreshing and liberating. Finally, if a Jewish guy is willing to address these thorny issues, why shouldn’t people like Kirk and others do likewise? Besides, Smith polemically, factually, and morally gave an ass-whupping to the loathsome Josh Hammer, a Zionist-Sodomist who seethes about white people having antisemitism coded into their DNA yet expecting them to blindly support the Empire of Judea. Talk about neuroticism: “You were born to hate me, so why don’t you suck my dick?” (Maybe, there is a logic to Hammer’s madness. If indeed white goyim are instinctively anti-Jewish, they must be constantly browbeaten and even physically beaten into philosemitism.)
Kirk found himself in a tight spot. The money was coming from Zionist Masters but the energy was flowing from the slave-rebels, with more whites shouting “I am Spartacus.” The Jewish donors got ever more infuriated and desperate, finally throwing down the gauntlet and demanding that Kirk go into full overseer mode, pull out the leather, and whip the uppity ‘antisemiggers’ back to picking cotton on the plantation.
This could only have led to a crisis of confidence, as well as of identity and direction, for Charlie Kirk. There were two paths before him, but which one should he choose? Having been reminded by the Jewish donors that they could make him or break him, should he be just like Ted Cruz, Mike Johnson, Sean Hannity, Dan Crenshaw, Sebastian Gorka, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi, and even Donald Trump(who exposed himself as an ass-bitch of Netanyahu)? Should he consent to a master-slave relationship, with Jews as the masters, with the likes of Kirk as the mini-masters(or House Honkeys or overseers), and with the white & goy masses as less-than-human slaves? Or should he move in the direction of true leadership, one where free people follow someone out of genuine admiration and inspiration?
What is the difference between a master and a leader? A master is someone who enforces his authority over others. His power is based on force and fear. Some obey mainly out of fear, like prisoners-of-war used for slave labor at the point of the bayonet. But others internalize their submission as a kind of duty, the concept behind what is known as ‘Oriental Despotism’, a system where the servants and slaves accept their blind obedience as a kind of moral(and even spiritual) obligation, e.g. samurai serving their masters ‘kanarazu'(or without fail), the Hindu caste system, and etc. Thus, despotism and abnegation of freedom, dignity, and self-respect are upheld as social norms and ideals.
From the Western perspective, this is worse than mere despotism where the slaves at least know they’re slaves lacking in freedom and dignity. So, Spartacus was admired as a heroic figure for rebelling against Roman tyranny. The Western view rejected the simple dichotomy of the Despotic East and the Free West. The West knew full well that its own domain was full of tyrants and exploiters. The difference was that the flame of individual pride/dignity and desire for freedom was kept alive in the Western soul even amidst tyranny. Thus, when a Westerner was in bondage, he knew of his lot and strove for liberty and dignity.
In contrast, despotism had become so ingrained in the Eastern Soul that the minions clung to their submissive roles as a cosmic law, the Tao, Bushido, or dharma/karma. (Of course, the Nietzscheans would disagree, positing that Christianity had instilled the Western soul with the slave mentality. But then, Christanites would argue the opposite, that the figure of Jesus Christ imbued the soul of every person, however humble, with spiritual autonomy.)
Thus, the Western Ideal was leadership, whereas the Eastern Ideal was mastership. A leader inspired and earned the trust of free men, whereas the master enforced his will on people with a slave mentality. Free men lived up to their fullest potential as human beings, whereas men with slave-mentality adopted the mentality of dogs and domesticated animals. (Blacks form their own unique category. Too wild & funky for any functional leadership and too crazy & unruly for any viable mastership, they go for gangsta-ship. As with Oriental Despotism, blacks remain at the level of animals, except of the wild kind than the domesticated kind. If Asians are like obedient dogs, Sub-Saharan Africans be like rambunctious baboons.)
Leadership is distinct from ‘mastership’ in attracting a following organically. A leader doesn’t try to enforce his personality or will on others. He’s not out to impose his authority as the king of the hill. Instead, he demonstrates his expertise and skills, his character and virtues. Others sense an aura of magnetism. Thus, they are drawn to him out of their own volition. Jesus might be deemed such a leader. He didn’t capture and force men to be his followers. Instead, He spoke and acted in ways that drew men(and women) to Him.
Same could be said for Vito Corleone in THE GODFATHER PART 2. Initially, Vito Corleone(Robert De Niro) is something of a novice in relation to the more socially savvy Sal and professional gangster Clemenza. But over time, Vito shows his mettle, acumen, balance of boldness and caution, and earns the role of the leader of the group and then of the entire enterprise. The legend of Salvatore Giuliani is also that of the natural leader, lionized as a kind of secular Christ-like figure of post-war Italy. (Guilt is a key element in the leadership dynamic. Because the followers freely chose their leader, an act of betrayal is far worse than between a slave and his master. No wonder the Disciples were racked with guilt over their betrayal because, in effect, they’d betrayed themselves, their own freely chosen mission. In contrast, the hoodlums who murder Nick Santoro and his brother at the end of Martin Scorsese’s CASINO don’t give a damn as their bond was based purely on greed and fear.)
American Mythos is, of course, all about leadership. George Washington has especially been acclaimed as a man who didn’t pursue power nor impose his will. Rather, men followed him as a man of character and virtues. According to the 1776 narrative, tyrannical King George sought mastership over the colonies, whereas George Washington led in the struggle for political liberty with the support of free men. And upon victory, he didn’t seek the presidency but took on the burden(and for two terms only) for the good of the new republic.
Like all myths, it’s only half true. King George wasn’t particularly tyrannical, and George Washington employed ruthless force(over his own men) when necessary. Mastership isn’t entirely about coercion, and leadership isn’t entirely about inspiration. Consider the elder leader in Akira Kurosawa’s SEVEN SAMURAI. As a master-less samurai or ronin, he has no domain to serve. However, his skills, experience, and character draw other men to him despite the mission being a thankless task of defending a dirt-poor farming village from marauding bandits. Even though he is a true leader in the Western sense(plausibly constructed within an Oriental context), there are times when he has to impose his will to keep the plan from unraveling.
There are limits to freedom even in the leadership scenario. Even though the leader gains the voluntary loyalty of free men, once the ball gets rolling new dynamics appear, as in Howard Hawks’ RED RIVER, where, initially, John Wayne’s character of Thomas Dunson is presented as a natural leader, the kind that other men want to work for, ride with, and fight for. But along the way, he grows increasingly frustrated & tyrannical as he tries to impose his will on his men, like a master over servants, whereupon the men switch their loyalty to Matt Garth(Montgomery Clift) who takes on the leader-like role, the kind that allows for a measure of freedom. Dunson loses his way, and Garth takes over and sets it straight, and the men freely choose Garth over Dunson.
Granted, there is a dark side to leadership, powerfully illustrated in David Lean’s LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Peter O’Toole’s T. E. Lawrence enters the Arab world as a stranger, a nobody, but gradually and steadily wins over the admiration and trust of the Arabs. He is neither a tribal chieftain lording over his men nor a classic Western imperialist with superior technology imposing his will on the ‘wogs’. Rather, he’s like a freelance warrior who, by the dint of vision, strategy, and will power, wins over the loyalty of the Arabs who freely want to ride and fight with him.
However, if mastership comes with a sense of limits — control of a particular domain and subjects — , leadership can be limitless and boundless. It’s not about the anxiety of keeping and controlling what one already has(like a master over his slaves and properties) but about the power to inspire and expand across the world. While most forms of leadership know when to stop, there are the likes of Alexander the Great and Napoleon whose megalomania was fueled by the adulation of countless men willing to go to the ends of the earth with them. There’s a limit to how many men one can enslave but no limit, at least at the emotional level, to how many one can liberate. If masters think in terms of power-by-enslavement, leaders think in terms of power-by-liberation. It’s no surprise that the Jesus tale went from a man of vision winning over a handful of disciples to the Man of Destiny whose Disciples would convert and redeem all of humanity.
Another problem of leadership is that different types tend to gravitate to different kinds of leaders. Thus, even though leadership is based on freedom, the unsavory types will go with the unsavory leader. Take Oliver Stone’s PLATOON with its scenario of divided loyalty. Both Sgt. Barnes(Tom Berenger) and Sgt. Elias(Willem Dafoe) have their core followers, and both men have earned their trust and respect through skill and courage. They are tough warriors who put themselves on the line with the men. Still, Elias has a heart and a reflective side whereas Barnes is all business, the brutal kill-or-be-killed art of war. Some freely gravitate toward Elias while others freely prefer Barnes. For sure, many of the leaders that free peoples have favored in democracies have proven to be disappointments, even disasters.
Charlie Kirk was a lightweight. He lacked the conviction of Pat Buchanan, the sophistication of William F. Buckley, the intelligence of Nick Fuentes, the wit of Joseph Sobran, the toughness of Robert Novak, the vision of Richard Spencer(at his best, which wasn’t often), the erudition of Thomas Sowell, or even the cunning of Ben Shapiro.
In a way, one could say he was just another product of Con Inc.’s ideological grooming operation whereby young halfwits with some attractive qualities are trained, hyped, and thrust forth as the ‘new generation of conservative leaders’, only to be ass-rammed by Zionists throughout their entire careers. It’s a form of political prostitution, and the results have been dire for both Democrats and Republicans.
But as recent revelations about his last days have suggested, Kirk was not without qualities. He was unwilling to stab in the back real friends, those who’d stood by him. He wasn’t averse to listening to different opinions, opposing views, and reassessing his values.
No doubt, the internet not only confronted him with more challenges but provided him with more options. He’d taken notice of how Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens survived the ‘canceling’ and even grew bigger in some ways. In the pre-internet days, Kirk would likely have just played ball, making all the compromises to make his brand grow. But there was a new dynamic, most powerfully represented by Nick Fuentes, who’d been one of the most censored, blacklisted, demonized, and ‘canceled’ personalities yet gained considerable traction mainly by hammering at inconvenient truths that could no longer be ignored. And in this new dynamic, even Con Inc. types were beginning to address the JQ that, back in the days, was broached only by the likes of David Duke who, it must be said, was ahead of the curve.
Kirk is of little interest as a thinker or personality. Most of his ideas were handed to him by Con Inc. His personality was winning and appealing but not particularly interesting or special.
His case is worthy of attention as an exemplar of the crossroads at which stands white goy conservatism. Does it choose leadership based on white/American/goy/Christian/humanist interests or does it choose mastership under the iron boot of Jewish Supremacism?
Until the last year of Kirk’s life, Jewish Power applied minimal pressure on him, who was reliably their boy. As Zion was nice to him, Kirk could make believe that their relationship was based on mutual respect. But it was like an obedient dog thinking it is free because of the kindness of the master. In fact, the master is nice because the dog usually behaves as expected.
When Kirk showed signs of independence and autonomy, especially in relation to Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, two figures who’d already left the plantation, he felt the heavy boot of Jewish Power bearing down on his neck. He realized that whereas the likes of Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin could say and do whatever they want, always in the interest of Jewish Power, goyim like himself faced stiff opposition whenever they exhibited anything like agency & choice and were reprimanded as if they were dogs or little children.
Also, while the independent right didn’t mind the TPUSA maintaining a working relations with the Neocon faction, the latter insisted that TPUSA purge and remove anyone who’d dare to question the pro-Zionist line. One side was for free speech and free exchange of ideas, whereas the other side was for ‘free speech for me but not for thee’, a mono-ideological position that hogged the Truth as an exclusive property of Zion.
Notice how Ben Shapiro whines about Nick Fuentes having spouted pro-Nazi views while totally approving of the Judeo-Nazi alliance in Ukraine and Naziesque campaigns by IDF death squads in Gaza. Shapiro’s position is, “You guys must condemn the Nazis, but we Jews can act like Nazis.” Also, Carlson never said Kirk shouldn’t speak to Shapiro, but Shapiro and his ilk demanded that Kirk cut out Carlson and anyone affiliated with him.
Kirk and his cohorts were expected to go along with this masquerade. In other words, his ‘leadership’ at TPUSA had been illusory. He was treated nicely by the powers-that-be because he’d been an obedient shabbos goy, but when he began to think for himself and opened up the debate at TPUSA to include people like Tucker Carlson and Dave Smith, he felt his days were numbered, at least within the Jewish-captured enterprise of Con Inc.
We’ll never know what path Kirk would have chosen had he lived. What matters is that his conundrum(which ended tragically) came to embody the difficult but necessary choices the white race must make as it faces the future. Does it go with Christian-Zionism-Sodomism and/or HBD(Hebrew Bio-Domination) on account of Biblical myths and/or reverence of Jewish IQ & Nobel Prizes, despite the fact that the bulk of Jewish Power remains hostile and contemptuous toward goyim, whites and Palestinians alike, OR does it choose freedom, choice, agency, and self-generated sense of identity, destiny, and purpose?
Should men like Kirk be true leaders, freely expressing what’s on their minds and winning over converts and leading them on the basis of liberty and dignity OR should they opt for roles as House Honkeys or overseers, always looking over their shoulders like dogs for approval and treats from their Jewish Supremacist masters?
The final pieces of evidence suggest that Kirk was preparing to take the plunge and baptize himself of the swamp water of Con Inc., the kind that Donald Trump is drowning in, but of course, we’ll never know.
Yet, the struggle didn’t end with Kirk’s death and has to be grappled by every would-be spokesman, organizer, and/or leader of the movement, be it conservative, liberal, right-wing, left-wing, Christian, Gentile, humanist, and Jewish-independent(like Dave Smith). Killing the person doesn’t kill the problem, which must be faced by all in the dramatically shifting political and cultural landscape.
No comments:
Post a Comment