by Kevin DeAnna, The Unz Review:
The last time I wrote about Charlie Kirk, it was in a tone of blistering criticism. Charlie Kirk was my White Renegade of 2019. “His organization Turning Point USA could have been a real force for American nationalism, but he has led it up yet another Conservatism Inc. blind alley,” I said. I concluded:
[Young whites] need a group that puts America First. They need young people who declare, without apology, not only that It’s OK to Be White, but that it’s OK for America to stay white. They don’t need Charlie Kirk or TPUSA.
In the aftermath of someone’s death, it is tempting simply to forget everything bad he did. It is even more tempting to forget everything bad you said about him. Politically, it is often best to pretend that a martyr agreed with you on everything all along. It is unseemly, but it is effective. The dead cannot rebut you.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Many of Kirk’s critics on the Right are engaging in such historical revisionism, even to the point of speculating that Zionists may have killed him because he was about to “turn” on them. Alternatively, some of his other colleagues are claiming that Kirk’s top priority at the end of his life was combating anti-Semitism. Both seem unlikely.
Still, what someone “would” have done is ultimately unknowable. Cloaking one’s own beliefs in the blood of martyrdom is inevitable in politics. Yet what really lives on is the fame of a dead man’s deeds. Charlie Kirk’s deeds and words speak for themselves. What he said since 2019 in many ways effectively rebuts much of what I said then.
Everyone has a line that separates friends from foes, and those they consider too extreme or unhinged from those they consider productive. For me, it is simply a question of whether someone is pro-white or not. It is not mere face-saving to say Charlie Kirk had joined the “friend” camp for white advocates years ago by explicitly saying it was good to be proud of one’s identity.
