If detached to that degree, that's something else. But the question probably goes more to shack009's and the cites made.

Well at least you're honest.

Stone Choir said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago. Christian based conservatism. Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

---

No he wasn't, not at all. If you think this then you clearly never paid attention to him. He went from supporting legal immigration to wanting a near total ban on the H1-B and wanting all loopholes fixed. This year in particular he had been going more and more hardline on a number of issues. It's not surprising given what has been happening recently.

---

He was always very protectionist of American jobs, I think that's pretty semantic. He was never a big fan of H-1s and getting everyone to move here. I do think he got more animated about stopping abuse but I didn't notice a significant shift in his position. More importantly I don't think that shift had anything to do with someone like Fuentes. The greater point is Fuentes trying to act as though he is this great thought leader that Kirk followed or felt pushed by when the reality was more of the "I don't think about you at all" being a lot closer. Kirk was involved in much bigger things than Fuentes would ever dream of being.

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago. Christian based conservatism. Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

---

No he wasn't, not at all. If you think this then you clearly never paid attention to him. He went from supporting legal immigration to wanting a near total ban on the H1-B and wanting all loopholes fixed. This year in particular he had been going more and more hardline on a number of issues. It's not surprising given what has been happening recently.

---

He was always very protectionist of American jobs, I think that's pretty semantic. He was never a big fan of H-1s and getting everyone to move here. I do think he got more animated about stopping abuse but I didn't notice a significant shift in his position. More importantly I don't think that shift had anything to do with someone like Fuentes. The greater point is Fuentes trying to act as though he is this great thought leader that Kirk followed or felt pushed by when the reality was more of the "I don't think about you at all" being a lot closer. Kirk was involved in much bigger things than Fuentes would ever dream of being.

---

Wrong. In 2019 he was calling for stapling green cards to diplomas- that means giving work status to foreigners. That was and is terrible for American workers. This was one of the topics that groypers pressed him on back then. Like it or not, Fuentes IS the thought leader in the online right wing space by now.

Im Gipper said:

---

Red Pill Ninja said:

---

Why did that little bit upset you that much? The topic was literally asking if people have known who Nick was before all of the recent events.

---

Nothing upset me. Why the sock account?

---

Sorry for the late response. It's not a sock account it's my "main" since I have been banned on here several times over the years. I'd suggest you look up what a true sock puppet account is.

Nick was fantastic here. It's worth a listen.

Stone Choir said:

---

Red Pill Ninja said:

---

I encourage ya'll to start watching his show and welcome you if you are new. Groypers are everywhere and are inevitable.

Some of us on here were at groyper war 2019, so about 6 years.

Tons of lies about Nick, which is expected.

I can't have any political discourse on here without getting banned, so it's hard to respond to anyone. I'd love to hang out and be able to browse and comment. You can grill me all you want it doesn't bother me. It's annoying seeing fellow conservatives get lied to about a lot of things though and we hate seeing that.

---

I'm not a groyper but I am in that arena. There are a lot more frens than just groypers out there as well. This board is way behind the times. The racist claims don't mean anything at all anymore. The answer is and always will be "yes I am" and "so?"

These guys here have no idea what is brewing among the right at all. It's not just men following him either, a lot of young women do now as well.

Ive been telling people that moms, and just a lot of women in general, are getting really hooked on Nick's show for like a year and a half. Nobody believed me. https://t.co/oS8oSqZkjN

— Cassandra MacDonald (@CassandraRules) September 14, 2025

---

Hello fren! Yes I know this board is way behind. It's fine, it's a public space so there are all kinds of people lurking and commenting.

There isn't anything "brewing" among the right. I suggest not fedposting (I know you didn't mean that intentionally, just be aware). There aren't a lot of young women following, they are just posting bait on TikTok. Don't take offense to that, just don't be so naive.

titan said:

---

aggie93,

You once went to bat for the controversial Alex Jones to some degree, so know fully aware of the nuances and layers of government realities.

What do you make of a sizable block of the young right, let alone the left, believing indeed claiming they see (not saying a lie either) "tens of thousands" being killed? Is it not important to discover why this impression is there and especially to show it has no basis? (As in, the deaths may be so, but are a product of war, and not off-scale)

---

I have no doubt that there are huge numbers being killed in Gaza but war is hell and Hamas certainly would do the same if given the chance. I certainly don't see Israel as some kind of white knights but Hamas are bottom of the barrel. The only winning move for the US is to be allied with Israel but at arms length. We can't ally with Hamas (which is really just Iran) because they have no interest in peace and will always see us as the enemy. In the meantime let Israel spend their money and men dealing with it how they wish.

In terms of convincing the young right that's a tough one. These are complex issues with no good answers and sometimes it just takes experience to understand them much less people that simply have strong feelings on one side or the other. Also there is a lot of misinformation and propaganda mixed in on all sides.

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago. Christian based conservatism. Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

---

No he wasn't, not at all. If you think this then you clearly never paid attention to him. He went from supporting legal immigration to wanting a near total ban on the H1-B and wanting all loopholes fixed. This year in particular he had been going more and more hardline on a number of issues. It's not surprising given what has been happening recently.

---

He was always very protectionist of American jobs, I think that's pretty semantic. He was never a big fan of H-1s and getting everyone to move here. I do think he got more animated about stopping abuse but I didn't notice a significant shift in his position. More importantly I don't think that shift had anything to do with someone like Fuentes. The greater point is Fuentes trying to act as though he is this great thought leader that Kirk followed or felt pushed by when the reality was more of the "I don't think about you at all" being a lot closer. Kirk was involved in much bigger things than Fuentes would ever dream of being.

---

Wrong. In 2019 he was calling for stapling green cards to diplomas- that means giving work status to foreigners. That was and is terrible for American workers. This was one of the topics that groypers pressed him on back then. Like it or not, Fuentes IS the thought leader in the online right wing space by now.

---

I have never heard Kirk say that we should give automatic Green Cards to foreign students, love to see that reference. He wasn't an extremist that I heard either the other direction, I mean he was doing events with Vivek during the campaign. I'm sure you can find some comments one way or another but my perception of his views are certainly not that he had this massive shift from super pro immigration to cut it all off as you imply.

I'm also cracking up at the "Fuentes IS the thought leader" comment to go along with the intellectual comments. Then of course you have videos on this thread of Fuentes cursing and screaming.

Stone Choir said:

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

---

kirk was a weather vane, he shifted right because that's where the clicks and dollars were. if anything, the dissident right toxified the space so thoroughly that mainstream conservatives distanced themselves to preserve relevance.

aggie93 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago. Christian based conservatism. Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

---

No he wasn't, not at all. If you think this then you clearly never paid attention to him. He went from supporting legal immigration to wanting a near total ban on the H1-B and wanting all loopholes fixed. This year in particular he had been going more and more hardline on a number of issues. It's not surprising given what has been happening recently.

---

He was always very protectionist of American jobs, I think that's pretty semantic. He was never a big fan of H-1s and getting everyone to move here. I do think he got more animated about stopping abuse but I didn't notice a significant shift in his position. More importantly I don't think that shift had anything to do with someone like Fuentes. The greater point is Fuentes trying to act as though he is this great thought leader that Kirk followed or felt pushed by when the reality was more of the "I don't think about you at all" being a lot closer. Kirk was involved in much bigger things than Fuentes would ever dream of being.

---

Wrong. In 2019 he was calling for stapling green cards to diplomas- that means giving work status to foreigners. That was and is terrible for American workers. This was one of the topics that groypers pressed him on back then. Like it or not, Fuentes IS the thought leader in the online right wing space by now.

---

I have never heard Kirk say that we should give automatic Green Cards to foreign students, love to see that reference. He wasn't an extremist that I heard either the other direction, I mean he was doing events with Vivek during the campaign. I'm sure you can find some comments one way or another but my perception of his views are certainly not that he had this massive shift from super pro immigration to cut it all off as you imply.

I'm also cracking up at the "Fuentes IS the thought leader" comment to go along with the intellectual comments. Then of course you have videos on this thread of Fuentes cursing and screaming.

---

Here's a compilation of Kirk answering questions from groypers with the "staple green card to the back of a diploma" quote just after the 10:00 mark.



He states numerous times throughout that he's for lots of legal immigration including up to 500,000 legal immigrants per year. That's obviously not pro-America.

His defenses of Israel are also extremely dumb, including saying the Israel attack on the Liberty is a conspiracy and that we should fund Israel because they don't throw gays off buildings.

I'll add that this was 6 years ago and he was only 25 at this time. He's obviously allowed to change his mind about things and that can especially happen when you get married and have kids (happened to me). Maybe his positions on immigration changed, but I don't think his position on Israel changed.

Red Pill Ninja said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Red Pill Ninja said:

---

I encourage ya'll to start watching his show and welcome you if you are new. Groypers are everywhere and are inevitable.

Some of us on here were at groyper war 2019, so about 6 years.

Tons of lies about Nick, which is expected.

I can't have any political discourse on here without getting banned, so it's hard to respond to anyone. I'd love to hang out and be able to browse and comment. You can grill me all you want it doesn't bother me. It's annoying seeing fellow conservatives get lied to about a lot of things though and we hate seeing that.

---

I'm not a groyper but I am in that arena. There are a lot more frens than just groypers out there as well. This board is way behind the times. The racist claims don't mean anything at all anymore. The answer is and always will be "yes I am" and "so?"

These guys here have no idea what is brewing among the right at all. It's not just men following him either, a lot of young women do now as well.

Ive been telling people that moms, and just a lot of women in general, are getting really hooked on Nick's show for like a year and a half. Nobody believed me. https://t.co/oS8oSqZkjN

— Cassandra MacDonald (@CassandraRules) September 14, 2025

---

Hello fren! Yes I know this board is way behind. It's fine, it's a public space so there are all kinds of people lurking and commenting.

There isn't anything "brewing" among the right. I suggest not fedposting (I know you didn't mean that intentionally, just be aware). There aren't a lot of young women following, they are just posting bait on TikTok. Don't take offense to that, just don't be so naive.

---

I don't care if I get banned with some minor fedposting, I'll just reregister like I have before.

I post here to push the Overton window, which has definitely happened since 2015.

I'll be honest, I rarely ever use Tik Tok. I'm an older millennial and that social media service is more of a Zoomer thing.

You don't need to educate me on how things work though, I have been around the far right for more than a decade at this point.

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

---

kirk was a weather vane, he shifted right because that's where the clicks and dollars were. if anything, the dissident right toxified the space so thoroughly that mainstream conservatives distanced themselves to preserve relevance.

---

What is said on this forum would have had you immediately banned in 2015. How do I know? I was banned for innocuous things all the time that is now allowed. The idea that the Overton window has not moved is hilarious because it so obviously has to anyone paying attention.

The dissident right is almost exclusively responsible for this.

Thank you for posting this. That Ohio State groyper line up had all the best questions/comments. He is asked about the stapling green cards again at 33:30 and further defends it.

Keyno said:

---

Thank you for posting this. That Ohio State groyper line up had all the best questions/comments

---

Ohio State was a disaster for TPUSA. I'm really not sure how any semi-intelligent person can watch that and think TPUSA got the better of any of those exchanges.

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago. Christian based conservatism. Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

---

No he wasn't, not at all. If you think this then you clearly never paid attention to him. He went from supporting legal immigration to wanting a near total ban on the H1-B and wanting all loopholes fixed. This year in particular he had been going more and more hardline on a number of issues. It's not surprising given what has been happening recently.

---

He was always very protectionist of American jobs, I think that's pretty semantic. He was never a big fan of H-1s and getting everyone to move here. I do think he got more animated about stopping abuse but I didn't notice a significant shift in his position. More importantly I don't think that shift had anything to do with someone like Fuentes. The greater point is Fuentes trying to act as though he is this great thought leader that Kirk followed or felt pushed by when the reality was more of the "I don't think about you at all" being a lot closer. Kirk was involved in much bigger things than Fuentes would ever dream of being.

---

Wrong. In 2019 he was calling for stapling green cards to diplomas- that means giving work status to foreigners. That was and is terrible for American workers. This was one of the topics that groypers pressed him on back then. Like it or not, Fuentes IS the thought leader in the online right wing space by now.

---

I have never heard Kirk say that we should give automatic Green Cards to foreign students, love to see that reference. He wasn't an extremist that I heard either the other direction, I mean he was doing events with Vivek during the campaign. I'm sure you can find some comments one way or another but my perception of his views are certainly not that he had this massive shift from super pro immigration to cut it all off as you imply.

I'm also cracking up at the "Fuentes IS the thought leader" comment to go along with the intellectual comments. Then of course you have videos on this thread of Fuentes cursing and screaming.

---

Here's a compilation of Kirk answering questions from groypers with the "staple green card to the back of a diploma" quote just after the 10:00 mark.



He states numerous times throughout that he's for lots of legal immigration including up to 500,000 legal immigrants per year. That's obviously not pro-America.

His defenses of Israel are also extremely dumb, including saying the Israel attack on the Liberty is a conspiracy and that we should fund Israel because they don't throw gays off buildings.

I'll add that this was 6 years ago and he was only 25 at this time. He's obviously allowed to change his mind about things and that can especially happen when you get married and have kids (happened to me). Maybe his positions on immigration changed, but I don't think his position on Israel changed.

---

Something that must be allowed for is all that seems to be before 2020. It was before your time, but this kind of moment has happened in a milder way before. Those who lived through after Watergate in the mid-70s and the lies around Viet Nam War emerged far more skeptical and dismissing of government credibility than those before. Those generations could barely relate any more in their degree of political cynicism -- some being the same person of course. Well, 2020 and the admin aftermath was a Watergate moment on steroids times 10, maybe more. Very few except the most credulous now give government and institutions a great deal of benefit of doubt or credit compared to the same person in 2019, and especially in 2008.

In 2019 all involved, Kirk, Fuentes, were much younger than. They clearly changed a bit.

Charlie Kirk grew in leaps and bounds as is obvious from his later symposiums and his experience with 2020.

Aside: Liberty is a bit of a distraction. Its a long time ago, and all that can be said is that it is worse than some on the right think, but it is also a case of Israel was going into an an all-or-nothing war. The old British Empire was probably capable of similar with such stakes -- they sank the former ally France's fleet on the North African coast while manned -- (Oran, Mers el Kebir) to make sure they didn't somehow get turned over to Germany.

I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but that is a lot of words to deflect from addressing any arguments.

The Liberty is just proof that Israel will do whatever it takes to defend its own interests, and we should keep that in mind. Israel puts Israel first. Fine. We should put America first.

shack009 said:

---

I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but that is a lot of words to deflect from addressing any arguments.

The Liberty is just proof that Israel will do whatever it takes to defend its own interests, and we should keep that in mind. Israel puts Israel first. Fine. We should put America first.

---

Its not alot of words. Sorry you see it as a deflection. From their videos both Kirk and Fuentes like many seems to have changed from 2019 and given their youth, that only makes sense. Nor is pointing out that 2020 is a dividing line that has to be taken into account when dredging up old statements against either side, a deflection.

Any sensible country should do whatever it takes to defend its own interests. So no argument there. But Kirk seemed genuinely unaware that its not some hyperbole. It was bad. As cold as Mers-el-Kebir. But seen in similar context.

That was what commenting on, not attempting to address any particular argument. (If you mean in the video--not thru it but can already say we should not be funding another's health care system if we aren't going to have one)

Fair enough. It's possible that Kirk changed his views on many things. It was 6 years ago and before he was married with children. That changes people.

To my knowledge, he never changed on Israel and he never changed his position on the Liberty. If you view the Liberty as an accident, then it's easy to be Israel first. If you realize it was intentional to keep the Liberty away, then you understand that Israel will do whatever it takes to undermine America/Americans in its own interest. That doesn't deserve our support.

Maybe not uncritical or blind support. Frankly, believe most major powers will look out for their interests firsts. Even if it means undermining or thwarting an ally in some points. Its doesn't even seem that crazy. What you are describing seems more to be a case of calling for a more reality based cynicism. Empires didn't make alliances based on the fact they thought they could absolute trust the other to look out for their interest before their own. They knew better.

The video is good. Charlie Kirk is giving effective answers so far -- but its also good at revealing the grievances in a way allowing hearing out. The bit about stapling a green card to the diploma is interesting in its goes against one of the reasons we had wanted to start educating foreigners in the first place (i.e., the hope they would return and "export" our values) His one big mistake so far is just genuinely having believed I guess the school or news version of Liberty. But that's not an indictment. What said above is the fact of the matter. But not thru it.

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago. Christian based conservatism. Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

---

No he wasn't, not at all. If you think this then you clearly never paid attention to him. He went from supporting legal immigration to wanting a near total ban on the H1-B and wanting all loopholes fixed. This year in particular he had been going more and more hardline on a number of issues. It's not surprising given what has been happening recently.

---

He was always very protectionist of American jobs, I think that's pretty semantic. He was never a big fan of H-1s and getting everyone to move here. I do think he got more animated about stopping abuse but I didn't notice a significant shift in his position. More importantly I don't think that shift had anything to do with someone like Fuentes. The greater point is Fuentes trying to act as though he is this great thought leader that Kirk followed or felt pushed by when the reality was more of the "I don't think about you at all" being a lot closer. Kirk was involved in much bigger things than Fuentes would ever dream of being.

---

Wrong. In 2019 he was calling for stapling green cards to diplomas- that means giving work status to foreigners. That was and is terrible for American workers. This was one of the topics that groypers pressed him on back then. Like it or not, Fuentes IS the thought leader in the online right wing space by now.

---

I have never heard Kirk say that we should give automatic Green Cards to foreign students, love to see that reference. He wasn't an extremist that I heard either the other direction, I mean he was doing events with Vivek during the campaign. I'm sure you can find some comments one way or another but my perception of his views are certainly not that he had this massive shift from super pro immigration to cut it all off as you imply.

I'm also cracking up at the "Fuentes IS the thought leader" comment to go along with the intellectual comments. Then of course you have videos on this thread of Fuentes cursing and screaming.

---

Here's a compilation of Kirk answering questions from groypers with the "staple green card to the back of a diploma" quote just after the 10:00 mark.



He states numerous times throughout that he's for lots of legal immigration including up to 500,000 legal immigrants per year. That's obviously not pro-America.

His defenses of Israel are also extremely dumb, including saying the Israel attack on the Liberty is a conspiracy and that we should fund Israel because they don't throw gays off buildings.

I'll add that this was 6 years ago and he was only 25 at this time. He's obviously allowed to change his mind about things and that can especially happen when you get married and have kids (happened to me). Maybe his positions on immigration changed, but I don't think his position on Israel changed.

---

He does say that quote but it is couched with a lot of discussion about serious immigration reform and limiting of visas. I'll give you credit for finding the quote though. He goes on to say that we should be very strict in who we allow in and only do so for people with skills that we need. His point on GC's was more that if we have someone who can meet that strict criteria it doesn't make sense to spend the money and resources to educate them and have them leave. That's very, very different than saying he wants some open immigration system. I also disagree that saying favoring a high standard of merit based legal immigration is "not pro America". From Einstein to Musk and beyond we have benefited from getting the best and brightest to move here. I say that as someone who can trace their lineage to prior to 1700 in the Colonies and had 2 direct ancestors that fought in the Revolution as officers in the Continental Army.

It's also a tremendous reach to say that somehow groypers are why he has become more strict about immigration. Lots of reasons for that (count me as one) but it certainly wasn't because of Fuentes. Most people have evolved on immigration on the right for a variety of reasons. Kirk was an auto didact and a voracious reader, he evolved on many things as he studied them.

Israel is a separate topic. Charlie was probably more pro Israel than I am but I don't see him in the neocon camp that we need to treat Israel as if it were part of the US instead of an ally. I see Israel the same as other allies and I think that's fairly close to Charlie, though as an Evangelical he had some views that made him more pro Jew/Israel than most Catholics like Fuentes. The grand conspiracy stuff really loses me though. Are there some really evil Jews? Sure, same could be said of most religions though and Jews certainly aren't of a single mindset. Ben Shapiro and George Soros (who isn't even really a Jew he was just born a Jew and uses it when it's advantageous) have absolutely nothing in common. Ironically Soros is much closer to Fuentes on Israel policy than Shapiro.

I'm also someone that makes no bones about the Liberty and that Israel works in the interests of Israel not the US. Doesn't mean we can't be allies though anymore than many other countries. Our options in the Middle East are limited in choices of allies and it's an area of the world we do need allies.

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

---

kirk was a weather vane, he shifted right because that's where the clicks and dollars were. if anything, the dissident right toxified the space so thoroughly that mainstream conservatives distanced themselves to preserve relevance.

---

What is said on this forum would have had you immediately banned in 2015. How do I know? I was banned for innocuous things all the time that is now allowed. The idea that the Overton window has not moved is hilarious because it so obviously has to anyone paying attention.

The dissident right is almost exclusively responsible for this.

---

the overton window has shifted rightward on some issues, but the dissident right had little to do with it. the forces that mattered were demographic realignment, partisan polarization, cable shows and talk radio shaping gop orthodoxy, and establishment politicians chasing votes.

the dissident right was mostly noise, provocative online but politically irrelevant. at best, their rhetoric was co-opted selectively by opportunists who had real institutional leverage. they claim credit for shifts they only watched from the sidelines.

Nick Fuentes and his followers are bad for the conservative movement. They want to push things so far
to the right that the vast majority of Americans will lurch back left. See the current backlash against liberalism.

Two weeks ago we had Charlie Kirk and no one reasonable had heard of the groyper cult.

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

---

kirk was a weather vane, he shifted right because that's where the clicks and dollars were. if anything, the dissident right toxified the space so thoroughly that mainstream conservatives distanced themselves to preserve relevance.

---

What is said on this forum would have had you immediately banned in 2015. How do I know? I was banned for innocuous things all the time that is now allowed. The idea that the Overton window has not moved is hilarious because it so obviously has to anyone paying attention.

The dissident right is almost exclusively responsible for this.

---

the overton window has shifted rightward on some issues, but the dissident right had little to do with it. the forces that mattered were demographic realignment, partisan polarization, cable shows and talk radio shaping gop orthodoxy, and establishment politicians chasing votes.

the dissident right was mostly noise, provocative online but politically irrelevant. at best, their rhetoric was co-opted selectively by opportunists who had real institutional leverage. they claim credit for shifts they only watched from the sidelines.

---

Above all, the main reason is the behavior and policies of the Biden Democratic Left and their absolutely clapping seals media. None of that other would have had much impact if none of the massive negative was really happening. The Right prefers good times. Its why for all his fault, Clinton handily won 1996. It didn't make alot of sense to disrupt that and for all the goings on --- it just didn't amount to a sense of ongoing menace and deconstruction like Biden championed---especially with his elevation of degeneracy agenda.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nick Fuentes and his followers are bad for the conservative movement. They want to push things so far
to the right that the vast majority of Americans will lurch back left. See the current backlash against liberalism.

Two weeks ago we had Charlie Kirk and no one reasonable had heard of the groyper cult.

---

In this instance "reasonable" is a substitute for "old and/or intellectually unchallenged."

shack009 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nick Fuentes and his followers are bad for the conservative movement. They want to push things so far
to the right that the vast majority of Americans will lurch back left. See the current backlash against liberalism.

Two weeks ago we had Charlie Kirk and no one reasonable had heard of the groyper cult.

---

In this instance "reasonable" is a substitute for "old and/or intellectually unchallenged."

---

I may be old but I'm an absolute constitutional conservative and I think Fuentesites and his Candace cult are absolutely vile and disgusting people. If you can't convince me good luck getting America in general to support your cause.

Stone Choir said:

---

Stonegateag85 said:

---

Are you trying to say you openly cop to being racist?

---

Yes

---

Thanks for proving my point. Your movement is DOA.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nick Fuentes and his followers are bad for the conservative movement. They want to push things so far
to the right that the vast majority of Americans will lurch back left. See the current backlash against liberalism.

Two weeks ago we had Charlie Kirk and no one reasonable had heard of the groyper cult.

---

In this instance "reasonable" is a substitute for "old and/or intellectually unchallenged."

---

I may be old but I'm an absolute constitutional conservative and I think Fuentesites and his Candace cult are absolutely vile and disgusting people. If you can't convince me good luck getting America in general to support your cause.

---

Further displaying your utter ignorance of what you are talking about. Fuentes and Candace are openly hostile to each other

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nick Fuentes and his followers are bad for the conservative movement. They want to push things so far
to the right that the vast majority of Americans will lurch back left. See the current backlash against liberalism.

Two weeks ago we had Charlie Kirk and no one reasonable had heard of the groyper cult.

---

In this instance "reasonable" is a substitute for "old and/or intellectually unchallenged."

---

I may be old but I'm an absolute constitutional conservative and I think Fuentesites and his Candace cult are absolutely vile and disgusting people. If you can't convince me good luck getting America in general to support your cause.

---

Further displaying your utter ignorance of what you are talking about. Fuentes and Candace are openly hostile to each other

---

Maybe because Fuentes is a racist. But both groups can at least come together and break bread while discussing the Rothschildz and Jewish space lasers.

The common denominator is still attracting crazy fundamentalists that want to cosplay the Crusades.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nick Fuentes and his followers are bad for the conservative movement. They want to push things so far
to the right that the vast majority of Americans will lurch back left. See the current backlash against liberalism.

Two weeks ago we had Charlie Kirk and no one reasonable had heard of the groyper cult.

---

In this instance "reasonable" is a substitute for "old and/or intellectually unchallenged."

---

I may be old but I'm an absolute constitutional conservative and I think Fuentesites and his Candace cult are absolutely vile and disgusting people. If you can't convince me good luck getting America in general to support your cause.

---

Further displaying your utter ignorance of what you are talking about. Fuentes and Candace are openly hostile to each other

---

Maybe because Fuentes is a racist. But both groups can at least come together and break bread while discussing the Rothschildz and Jewish space lasers.

The common denominator is still attracting crazy fundamentalists that want to cosplay the Crusades.

---

Nope thats not why

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nick Fuentes and his followers are bad for the conservative movement. They want to push things so far
to the right that the vast majority of Americans will lurch back left. See the current backlash against liberalism.

Two weeks ago we had Charlie Kirk and no one reasonable had heard of the groyper cult.

---

In this instance "reasonable" is a substitute for "old and/or intellectually unchallenged."

---

I may be old but I'm an absolute constitutional conservative and I think Fuentesites and his Candace cult are absolutely vile and disgusting people. If you can't convince me good luck getting America in general to support your cause.

---

Further displaying your utter ignorance of what you are talking about. Fuentes and Candace are openly hostile to each other

---

Maybe because Fuentes is a racist. But both groups can at least come together and break bread while discussing the Rothschildz and Jewish space lasers.

The common denominator is still attracting crazy fundamentalists that want to cosplay the Crusades.

---

Nope thats not why

---

It's only half the reason why. The other half is that he doesn't think women have a place outside the kitchen.

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago. Christian based conservatism. Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

---

No he wasn't, not at all. If you think this then you clearly never paid attention to him. He went from supporting legal immigration to wanting a near total ban on the H1-B and wanting all loopholes fixed. This year in particular he had been going more and more hardline on a number of issues. It's not surprising given what has been happening recently.

---

He was always very protectionist of American jobs, I think that's pretty semantic. He was never a big fan of H-1s and getting everyone to move here. I do think he got more animated about stopping abuse but I didn't notice a significant shift in his position. More importantly I don't think that shift had anything to do with someone like Fuentes. The greater point is Fuentes trying to act as though he is this great thought leader that Kirk followed or felt pushed by when the reality was more of the "I don't think about you at all" being a lot closer. Kirk was involved in much bigger things than Fuentes would ever dream of being.

---

Wrong. In 2019 he was calling for stapling green cards to diplomas- that means giving work status to foreigners. That was and is terrible for American workers. This was one of the topics that groypers pressed him on back then. Like it or not, Fuentes IS the thought leader in the online right wing space by now.

---

I have never heard Kirk say that we should give automatic Green Cards to foreign students, love to see that reference. He wasn't an extremist that I heard either the other direction, I mean he was doing events with Vivek during the campaign. I'm sure you can find some comments one way or another but my perception of his views are certainly not that he had this massive shift from super pro immigration to cut it all off as you imply.

I'm also cracking up at the "Fuentes IS the thought leader" comment to go along with the intellectual comments. Then of course you have videos on this thread of Fuentes cursing and screaming.

---

Here's a compilation of Kirk answering questions from groypers with the "staple green card to the back of a diploma" quote just after the 10:00 mark.



He states numerous times throughout that he's for lots of legal immigration including up to 500,000 legal immigrants per year. That's obviously not pro-America.

His defenses of Israel are also extremely dumb, including saying the Israel attack on the Liberty is a conspiracy and that we should fund Israel because they don't throw gays off buildings.

I'll add that this was 6 years ago and he was only 25 at this time. He's obviously allowed to change his mind about things and that can especially happen when you get married and have kids (happened to me). Maybe his positions on immigration changed, but I don't think his position on Israel changed.

---

---

Quote:

---

He does say that quote but it is couched with a lot of discussion about serious immigration reform and limiting of visas. I'll give you credit for finding the quote though. He goes on to say that we should be very strict in who we allow in and only do so for people with skills that we need. His point on GC's was more that if we have someone who can meet that strict criteria it doesn't make sense to spend the money and resources to educate them and have them leave. That's very, very different than saying he wants some open immigration system. I also disagree that saying favoring a high standard of merit based legal immigration is "not pro America". From Einstein to Musk and beyond we have benefited from getting the best and brightest to move here. I say that as someone who can trace their lineage to prior to 1700 in the Colonies and had 2 direct ancestors that fought in the Revolution as officers in the Continental Army.

---

It's pretty anti-American to allow foreign nationals in to our universities to take spots away from Americans and then in to the work place to take jobs away from Americans. You can disagree, but your disagreement makes no sense. A policy that does actual harm to Americans in favor of foreign nationals is anti-American. The correct position is to never allow foreign nationals here in the first place and train Americans to do the high-quality jobs.

Quote:

---

It's also a tremendous reach to say that somehow groypers are why he has become more strict about immigration. Lots of reasons for that (count me as one) but it certainly wasn't because of Fuentes. Most people have evolved on immigration on the right for a variety of reasons. Kirk was an auto didact and a voracious reader, he evolved on many things as he studied them.

---

I think it's reasonable to think that being thoroughly embarrassed in front of crowds of students and online for the world to see is a good way to force someone to the right. But getting married and having kids does that as well. Maybe a little bit of both going on here.

Quote:

---

Israel is a separate topic. Charlie was probably more pro Israel than I am but I don't see him in the neocon camp that we need to treat Israel as if it were part of the US instead of an ally. I see Israel the same as other allies and I think that's fairly close to Charlie, though as an Evangelical he had some views that made him more pro Jew/Israel than most Catholics like Fuentes. The grand conspiracy stuff really loses me though. Are there some really evil Jews? Sure, same could be said of most religions though and Jews certainly aren't of a single mindset. Ben Shapiro and George Soros (who isn't even really a Jew he was just born a Jew and uses it when it's advantageous) have absolutely nothing in common. Ironically Soros is much closer to Fuentes on Israel policy than Shapiro.

---

He absolutely was unabashedly pro-Israel to the point of Neocon. Did you watch him answer other questions in the video I linked? Disgusting glaze for Israel. Nobody is saying "grand conspiracy" where every worldly problem is the Jews other than Candace who is an idiot and possibly having a psychotic break.

Shapiro is an interesting case because he's clearly going to put Israel before America in every single instance. He doesn't just have dual loyalty but a ranked loyalty where Israel clearly comes first. I know because I used to listen to his show daily.

Quote:

---

I'm also someone that makes no bones about the Liberty and that Israel works in the interests of Israel not the US. Doesn't mean we can't be allies though anymore than many other countries. Our options in the Middle East are limited in choices of allies and it's an area of the world we do need allies.

---

We should have a peace treaty with them (with everyone) but we should not be allies. Being allies means we have to join them in whatever war they want, including regime change in Iran.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nick Fuentes and his followers are bad for the conservative movement. They want to push things so far
to the right that the vast majority of Americans will lurch back left. See the current backlash against liberalism.

Two weeks ago we had Charlie Kirk and no one reasonable had heard of the groyper cult.

---

In this instance "reasonable" is a substitute for "old and/or intellectually unchallenged."

---

I may be old but I'm an absolute constitutional conservative and I think Fuentesites and his Candace cult are absolutely vile and disgusting people. If you can't convince me good luck getting America in general to support your cause.

---

Further displaying your utter ignorance of what you are talking about. Fuentes and Candace are openly hostile to each other

---

Maybe because Fuentes is a racist. But both groups can at least come together and break bread while discussing the Rothschildz and Jewish space lasers.

The common denominator is still attracting crazy fundamentalists that want to cosplay the Crusades.

---

Fuentes may be your enemy, but you should understand who your enemy is. You have absolutely no clue. and for that reason, you have appeared extremely childish and also completely unprepared to defend against attacks from the right.

Just like TPUSA at the groyper wars, when you don't know how to reckon with these ideas other than ad hominem, you appear intellectually inferior.

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nick Fuentes and his followers are bad for the conservative movement. They want to push things so far
to the right that the vast majority of Americans will lurch back left. See the current backlash against liberalism.

Two weeks ago we had Charlie Kirk and no one reasonable had heard of the groyper cult.

---

In this instance "reasonable" is a substitute for "old and/or intellectually unchallenged."

---

I may be old but I'm an absolute constitutional conservative and I think Fuentesites and his Candace cult are absolutely vile and disgusting people. If you can't convince me good luck getting America in general to support your cause.

---

Further displaying your utter ignorance of what you are talking about. Fuentes and Candace are openly hostile to each other

---

Maybe because Fuentes is a racist. But both groups can at least come together and break bread while discussing the Rothschildz and Jewish space lasers.

The common denominator is still attracting crazy fundamentalists that want to cosplay the Crusades.

---

Nope thats not why

---

It's only half the reason why. The other half is that he doesn't think women have a place outside the kitchen.

---

Women should not have a place in politics. Or sports for that matter. They are male "spaces," to use a phrase/word that makes me hate myself.

Okay, have watched the whole video. Very informative and illuminating about the divide. IMO Charlie Kirk came out ahead much of the time, especially when they were going after the gay conservative Rob Smith, (he gave as good as got too though) but not always. Remember too, this is Kirk 2019 pre "grand disillusionment" about government we all endured in 2020 and which 46* admin did nothing to relieve.

Kirk needless set himself back on defensive over Liberty. It is as above. Could have told him in a paragraph that its not defensible from the receiver's (American) pov. Probably few French appreciated Mers-el-Kebir. He lost ground needlessly trying to rebut that.

But on some topics, Kirk clearly came out more reasonable. I didn't like the bit about one of the speakers having been cast out of CPAC, but don't know if he was acting like Leftist do and being disruptive. Definitely didn't care for Fuentes just being not allowed to watch a thing. Not a good look. So for understanding some of where the dissident right is coming from, this sure was useful eye-opening.

No, not endorsing much at all, but hold to a motto: "If you are going to judge it, watch it/or read it. Know what is really said."