Tags: donald-trump, candace-owens, charlie-kirk, max-blumenthal
Right-wing activists are compiling a database of those who celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk and advocating for their removal from influential positions. Nick Fuentes pushes back against Candace Owens for suggesting Israeli involvement in Kirk’s death without proof.
The death of Charlie Kirk, co-founder of Turning Point USA, ignited a firestorm of responses, particularly from the right wing. The host, citing the database compiled by the Charlie Kirk Data Foundation, applauded the effort to identify over 60,000 individuals who allegedly celebrated Kirk’s death or criticized him. This database, according to its organizers, aims to “reshape the rank and file of America’s institutions,” including academia, law enforcement, the military, and healthcare. The host enthusiastically endorsed this goal, echoing the foundation’s stated mission to purge left-wing radicals from positions of influence. He argued that these institutions wield significant power in shaping society, and therefore, their composition should reflect the values of those who hold conservative beliefs. This, he claimed, is the essence of political victory: gaining control of the levers of power to safeguard the interests and way of life of white Christian Americans.
This stance, he asserted, is not a call for violence but a necessary measure to disempower those who harbor a deep-seated hatred for conservatives and everything they represent. He pointed to the widespread celebration of Kirk’s death among leftists as evidence of this ingrained animosity. He highlighted specific examples, including teachers, nurses, and professors, who publicly rejoiced at the news, questioning the sanity of a society that entrusts its children and vulnerable populations to such individuals. “You send your white children to a public school,” he questioned, “They’re being taught by these fucking monsters.” He argued that this level of hatred cannot be reasoned with or negotiated away, and the only recourse is to ensure they hold no sway over conservatives or their families. This, according to him, means actively working to remove them from positions of influence within these key institutions.
The host’s argument hinges on the belief that conservatives are engaged in a multi-front war, one facet of which involves a struggle against a radical left that seeks their destruction. He argued that while influential entities like Israel and Silicon Valley may be manipulating the country, the immediate threat stems from the left’s increasing hostility toward traditional American values and the white Christian majority. This hostility, he claimed, manifests in the promotion of divisive ideologies, the celebration of violence against conservatives, and the erosion of American culture and heritage. He cited the changing demographics of American neighborhoods, the rise of non-Christian religions, and the promotion of progressive values in schools and universities as evidence of this ongoing cultural war.
He further contended that the left, if given unchecked power, would dismantle the very foundations of American society, including free speech and property rights. He drew parallels with South Africa, suggesting that a left-wing victory would result in a similar scenario where conservatives are stripped of their rights and freedoms. He argued that the left’s calls for hate speech laws and their celebration of Kirk’s death demonstrate their willingness to silence opposing viewpoints and even condone violence. Therefore, he concluded, conservatives must preemptively seize power to prevent such a dystopian future. He advocated for removing individuals who hold these radical views from positions of authority and, ideally, expelling them from the country. “President Trump has terminated your citizenship in America,” he imagined a scenario, “You’re going home.”
This “right-wing reprisal,” as the host termed it, necessitates a shift in conservative strategy. He criticized the traditional conservative emphasis on limited government and “rising above” the fray, arguing that this approach has proven ineffective in the face of relentless attacks from the left. He pointed to the censorship of conservatives on social media, the legal persecution of Trump, the lawsuits against Alex Jones, and the imprisonment of January 6th protesters as evidence of the left’s willingness to use any means necessary to achieve their goals. The host insisted that conservatives have been pushed to the brink and must now adopt a more aggressive stance, prioritizing victory above all else. He dismissed concerns about hypocrisy or free speech violations, stating, “The time for arguments is over. It’s been over.” He urged conservatives to embrace power and use it to protect their interests and ensure their survival, proclaiming, “We win or we die.”
The host vehemently denounced Candace Owens for what he perceived as her cynical manipulation of the narrative surrounding Charlie Kirk’s death. He criticized her for insinuating, without providing concrete evidence, that Israel was responsible for the assassination. He cited specific examples from Owens’ show where she claimed Kirk was killed because he refused a bribe from Netanyahu and was about to turn against Israel. He further lambasted her for claiming to possess evidence while refusing to release it, accusing her of gaslighting the public and damaging the credibility of the Israel-critical right wing. He ridiculed her subsequent claim that she never accused Israel of involvement, stating, “We all know what you said. We all know what you meant, you dummy, you irresponsible, grifting dummy.”
The host argued that Owens’ behavior exemplifies “low IQ antisemitism,” which he defines as the tendency to blame Israel for every negative event without evidence. He expressed concern that such reckless accusations undermine the credibility of legitimate critiques of Israel. He warned that if every incident is attributed to Israel without proof, then when Israel genuinely engages in wrongdoing, their warnings will be dismissed as the “boy who cried wolf.” He pointed to Israel’s actions in Gaza and their intentions towards Iran as examples of legitimate concerns that require credible reporting, not baseless speculation. “Israel is rolling tanks through Gaza City,” he reminded his audience, “destroying all their remaining buildings.”
The host extended his criticism to other figures who he believes engage in similar behavior, specifically naming Max Blumenthal and Jackson Hinkle. He labeled them “Russian shills” and questioned their integrity, calling Blumenthal “ghoulish” and Hinkle “dumb as a fucking rock.” He argued that these individuals, along with Owens, are discrediting the Israel-critical right wing by promoting conspiracy theories and engaging in dishonest rhetoric. He expressed frustration with what he perceives as a lack of intellectual rigor and seriousness among certain figures on the right, arguing that this behavior repels intelligent people and pushes them back towards mainstream politics. He insisted on the importance of fact-based arguments and rigorous evidence, stating, “We have to bring to the best of our ability, intellectual rigor."
He also contrasted his approach with Owens’, emphasizing that he hasn’t altered his views on Israel and will continue to address the Middle East conflict. He challenged Owens to release the letter she claimed Kirk sent to Netanyahu, accusing her of employing the same tactics as the “lying Jewish media” if she fails to provide this evidence. He reiterated the importance of truth and credibility for the dissident right, arguing that these qualities are their primary advantages in the face of censorship and slander. “The one superpower that we have is the truth,” he proclaimed. He warned that if figures like Owens continue to prioritize grifting and manipulation over honesty, they will ultimately lose their audience and undermine the credibility of the entire movement.