Why So Many People Are Questioning Erika Kirk's Sincerity and Message
|
Time
Text
My friend, I have been deliberately, deliberately avoiding the Erica Kirk story, the appraisal, the review, for a while.
For some obvious reasons, I thought, listen, what this woman went through is just unbelievable.
She's a widow, mother of children, two children.
She has to deal with that.
I thought, not now, not now.
Don't jump on her.
I'm not going to be a part of this troll mentality, which a lot of people are, because that's what social media produce.
This, ah!
I mean, nobody's sacred.
They make fun of Trump, but they make fun of this one and this one's nose and this one.
And through AI, you're dancing.
I mean, there's just, I thought, not yet.
Not yet.
I don't want to give the old too soon, Mrs. Lincoln.
But I got to tell you something.
It is now absolutely pouring from every area.
People are saying flat out, please forgive me.
Erica, we're not buying it.
Let me clarify.
Not that her heart's not broken.
Not that she didn't love Charlie.
None of that.
That's not it.
It's this performance, this seeming performance.
It's not working.
And let me tell you something.
There's a lot to be said for that.
As a prosecutor, former prosecutor, as a trial lawyer, the thing which you always give in terms of jury instructions, you ask the jury, do you believe this witness?
Do you believe the person who is upset over the fact that his building burned down, that it wasn't arson?
That he, sure, he's collecting millions of dollars, but he would never, ever want to see his family business burned out.
Do you believe it?
Do you believe the police officer when he says, no, I read the defendant his rights.
Do you believe?
You have to ask yourself, do you believe it?
Why?
Because you're a human being.
And you know how people react.
You know how mendacity works.
And I've been biting my tongue for a long time about Erica Kirk.
Again, not because I lack sympathy for a widow or a mother.
That's not it.
But because sympathy is not a strategy.
And grief, and sometimes, I'm sorry, performative grief is not some kind of a governing model.
Now she is the CEO of a multi-million dollar political operation.
And Erica, let me tell you something.
Those vultures are going to bounce you out of that so fast.
And first one to watch, Ben Shapiro.
If you don't know, if you can't see this, there's no help for you.
Then nobody's helping you.
They're going to use you as long as they can to push you out in your gold lame and this and the sequence and the dabbing.
I mean, they're going to push you out.
You're going to be almost like, you know, bring them out.
Bring her out.
They're going to roll you out because nobody's even interested in who killed Charlie.
We know more about Rob Reiner.
And there's no, we know who did it.
What are we talking about?
That's different because the shadow government said, okay, that you can watch.
That's a great distraction.
Here, you want to talk about a murder?
Talk about Rob Reiner.
That's okay.
But don't talk about Charlie Kirk.
Okay?
And this Amfest in TPUSA.
Oh, my God.
Do you not see this?
This cluster that this is about?
Welcome, Rob Schneider.
What, the Lenny Bruce of our generation?
I don't think so.
Now, Erica, the role that you've got of CEO comes with expectations.
And those expectations are clarity and consistency and discipline.
And above all, please, credibility.
The problem you keep making is unforced errors.
And every time you do, it doesn't just hurt yourself.
It splashes doubt on the entire enterprise that Charlie built.
And I'm not blaming you.
I'm not.
That's not it.
Let me say this cleanly.
It is not immoral for people to ask questions after a major political killing.
It is normal.
It is human.
It is historically predictable, acceptable, and warranted, and a good thing.
In the real world, which I think last time I checked, we're in, when public trust is low and information is tightly managed and the stakes are enormous, people do not simply accept the first version of events because it arrived in this nice little package, you know, constructed the official narrative.
Here it is.
Don't deviate from that.
Don't you dare deviate from this woman's story.
That's the story.
Don't question it.
You know how that goes.
They ask who?
Citizens.
Who?
Why?
They ask how.
They ask what's being withheld, whether it's the Epstein photos, whether it's the president's own assassination, whether why he renamed the Kennedy Center.
We ask questions across the board.
And if you don't like it, don't be in the public eye.
It ain't going to happen.
Nobody's going to say, oh, no, Remember, nobody's going after you as a mother.
You're the CEO and they keep pushing you out.
And after a while, when you do the same tell all the time, maybe that's just the way you are.
People are a different story.
Now, they ask these questions because they are trying to make sense of what is chaos.
Dismissing that impulse as some kind of brain rot or something might feel satisfying in the moment, but it is absolutely a catastrophic communications and data mistake if your stated mission is to awaken people and mobilize them.
Okay, you got what we're saying here?
What's it going to be, Erica?
What's it going to be?
God love you and your family, but you want this?
It's like the old Jack Reger thing.
Remember, you wanted this, okay?
Now, here are what makes here's what makes this so maddening.
Erica is not being targeted because she's fragile.
She's being scrutinized because she's powerful.
She's not being asked to, you know, to answer for her pain.
She's being asked to answer for her posture, her affect, her messaging, her choices, her sudden, you know, pivoting into the posture of an institutional scold.
You know, how dare you?
And then going after Candace and others are like, what are you nuts?
Again, I keep telling people, ignore them.
Don't elevate anybody to a position that you want to supposedly dethrone.
Now, the vibe that we're seeing is not just offensive, it's like managerial.
It's a tone that says, stop looking, stop asking, stop thinking, trust us, don't ask any questions.
We know what's best.
And if you've been in politics long enough or been alive long enough, you know exactly what that tone triggers in people.
Suspicion.
Not because every suspicion is true or valid, but because that posture, that countenance is the same one that every compromised institution uses right before it demands this compliance and this obedience and this obeisance.
You will not question this story.
How dare you?
Have you no mercy at long last?
Sound familiar?
So what's the core issue?
It is not whether Erica can cry on cue or glare at the right moment.
It's not about whether a body language guy on YouTube or somebody sees a squint on a chin jut or whether she's using some kinds of some camphor or menthol on her tissues to cause lachromation.
Those analyses are kind of entertainment with the thinnest layer and veneer of science.
Useful only if you already understand how easily people project their own feelings onto what other people are saying somebody else's faces.
Basically what these language folks are, these body language, which is fraudulent, is basically they're showing you, they're projecting what they feel onto somebody else.
But the real issue is the pattern of communications.
That's what I want to focus on.
The pattern of message control.
The pattern of this, you know it, selective outrage.
That's what we're talking about.
You see, when a CEO goes public to attack specific questioners rather than to calmly establish facts and timelines and evidentiary boundaries, people notice.
When a CEO treats questioning as some kind of betrayal, people notice.
When a CEO uses this moral frame to delegitimize curiosity, people notice.
Look at Candace.
And when the CEO seems to reserve special hostility for certain names, like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson and others, and the people, the people who have merely, merely, you think Erica would be thanking them.
They've been merely demanding answers.
People notice.
It's like, why are you finding this offensive?
What?
Do you own this?
Did somebody tell you?
This doesn't.
Have you ever heard about a woman whose children, let's say, were kidnapped, begging for people, stop involving yourselves in this.
Stop going to the police.
Stop going to the police and demanding answers.
Nobody does this.
You need all the help you can get.
It's like we're like an intellectual kind of a search party.
This is the part that kills me.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and claim that I know who killed Charlie or why.
We're not even talking about this.
And by the way, nobody knows yet.
Nobody knows.
Because whoever did this knows what they were doing.
All right?
Haven't caught anybody.
And there's so much stuff being cleaned up that we may never get to it.
Okay?
Let's make sure we understand this.
I'm not saying I know who did what.
But I do love the fact that great independent crowdsource citizens are coming forward and saying, you know what, I know about this.
I'm a former Marine sniper or I'm a ballistics expert or I was in law enforcement.
I know about hunting or I know about, I have an angle, I've got a picture, I've got this, this, I love this.
Crowdsourcing.
It's beautiful.
Beautiful.
Something wrong with this.
So we're not saying we know anything.
Okay?
I don't.
You don't.
Podcasters don't.
In any responsible world, which I think we are, that is what trials are for, if it ever gets to that point.
Due process, evidence, cross-examination.
Direct circumstantial evidence, direct examination, okay?
Documents, testimony, pictures, you name it, expert witnesses, facts.
But the question is not whether people should, you know, pre-try a case on the internet.
The question is why the leadership posture seems to be that their goal is to shame people for asking questions at all.
Especially when those questions come from people, from people who were and are not cheering the death, but are trying to determine what happened.
And there are many of us, many people in particular, who took this very, very seriously, who really were affected by this greatly.
Remember, one of the most important pieces of evidence ever to encourage folks to investigate the JFK assassination was the movie JFK.
Oliver Stone.
Not the House Assassinations Committee or the Warren Commission.
No, And also, by the way, it was Geraldo Rivera who released the Zapruder film in 1975 or whatever it was on Good Night America.
That's what did it.
We did it.
We are an adjunct to law enforcement.
We help things.
Ask John Walsh.
All the people that were found from a TV show.
FBI didn't do it.
Kash Patel isn't going to do it.
Oh, Kash Patel.
Oh, my God.
You know what happens as soon as he's bounced from the FBI?
Think his girlfriend's going to leave too?
Just saying.
Just saying.
Okay?
We're just merely trying to figure out what happened.
Because last time I checked, I think it was okay for us to mourn Charlie's death and to feel sorry for him.
Candace Owens, by the way, did not become famous by whispering.
Okay?
She became famous by interrogating narratives.
And Chucker Carlson, by the way, made his bones, so to speak.
Got his butt in his badge.
He was straightened out.
And his entire brand by walking into the places the approved storytellers refused to enter.
Steve Bannon built a career in the idea as well.
Alex Jones, Matt Drudge in his own day.
I don't even know if Matt Drudge is alive today.
But that, remember this.
Remember the whole notion that politics is downstream from power and that power hides behind ritualized messaging.
Now look, you can disagree with any of these folks or with me or anybody else.
That's fine.
No problem.
But do it on specific claims.
Disagree with them on facts that have been adduced.
But you can't pretend that the movement is somehow the energy doesn't come from the impulse to challenge the script.
That's precisely what it is.
When Erica tries to shut down that inquiry, you know, with a finger wag or a hard stare, those stares.
That day when she was on cable news shows and Barry Weiss, that was the worst.
It was whoever packaged that one after another.
Became performative, rote, ritualized, systematic, unbelievable.
And now she's not just attacking individuals, she's attacking the engine.
And by the way, that AmFest, that was a joke.
This TPUSA, what are these people doing with the sparklers and this and that?
And Ben Shapiro screaming at Tucker and Tucker screaming at him.
And everybody goes, What is this?
What was the point of this?
Let me just say something on a side note.
If you care anything about the conservative movement, whatever the hell that is, we are going to lose drastically in the midterms because this is incoherent.
Because this is about a bunch of talking heads and influencers screaming and yelling.
And by the way, let us talk about the unforced error, shall we?
Because this is where it gets ugly.
Okay?
And I'm sorry, Erica, but you got to hear this.
A CEO cannot afford casual contradictions.
If you build a public persona on piety and restraint and moderation and a certain lifestyle story, then your past becomes relevant.
Not because you owe strangers a confessional.
That's not it.
But because credibility is the coin of the realm, so to speak, right?
If there are clips, if there are photos, if there is evidence, anecdote or otherwise, or older statements that contradict your curated produced narrative, you've got to handle that with maturity.
You address it once.
You clarify, specify with pellucidity, a limpidity, and you move on.
You don't pretend the internet will not dig.
Anticipate, address it, and move on.
Be able to say, I already answered that.
The internet always digs.
You know this.
This is what they do.
This is what this new realm is.
And when you mix that with the optics of scrubbing posts and complicated relationships and all this other kind of stuff, then, then suddenly, suddenly, I guess elevating a figure linked to your past into a how-to-lead like Charlie touring surrogate, you know, you're begging people to connect dots, whether the dots exist or not.
That's how optics work.
People want to know about your past.
They want to know who you are, what you did.
How did you meet?
What did you, I mean, who doesn't?
It's normally your past, which makes the story your negative.
You came from hard, scrabble time.
You worked your way through how you met.
But then when you find out, wait a minute, if something is not true, that becomes a part of your narrative now.
You don't get to demand people ignore the optics of current and past while you simultaneously demand that they accept your conclusions 100%.
It doesn't work that way.
Now, you've also got to look.
And I'm sorry, it's happening right now.
You might have wanted to put this off for a while.
Here's the larger institutional point.
TPUSA is not a grief group.
It's not a church circle.
It's not an advocacy group or some 12-step thing or grief counseling.
It's a political operation and it's a machine.
And Charlie built it to win.
And winning requires trust.
And trust requires consistency and legitimacy.
And consistency requires humility.
And humility requires something involving admitting when your tone is wrong.
And right now, the tone and the affect is wrong and you know it.
Pay attention.
Is anybody helping you on this?
If Erica believes the case is open and shut, fine.
Terrific.
Then the correct move is not to mock people asking questions.
The correct way, and this makes, I think, implicit sense, is to say something to the effect of we are cooperating with investigators.
We will respect the process, blah, blah, blah.
We will not litigate evidence in public.
We will recognize a proper tribunal, the proper forum.
We will provide verified updates when appropriate.
And we ask everyone, here's the part, we ask everyone to avoid spreading claims that cannot be verified.
Maturity, you know, that kind of thing.
That is leadership arrogance.
That is credibility.
And that, that is how you protect the organization without, and this is important, without insulting the base.
You hear what I'm saying?
That's what that's about.
Instead, instead, I'm sorry to say what we are seeing looks like an impulse to kind of police the conversation, to declare certain questions legitimate.
Off base, can't say that.
To label anybody skeptical with legitimate questions as malicious, conspiratorial.
To define inquiry as betrayal, uh-uh.
That's just bad politics.
And it's anti-movement.
It's the very institutional reflex the movement claims to oppose.
Charlie Kirk, your beloved husband, made his name by saying, I talk to everybody.
I go everybody.
And when you talk about things like Mossad Handler and all this stuff and the ring nonsense and airplane tracking, look, We're kind of getting out of the realm here.
Sure, there's a lot of online speculation.
Some of it is ridiculous.
Some of it's interesting.
I hate mere speculation without something somewhere.
Some of it's pure theater.
Look, if it's Mossad, CIA, ISI, if it's MI6, if it's the Junior League, I don't care.
But don't sit back and say, no, let's see.
What familiar trope, what familiar construct can we use and burnish and dust?
No.
Maybe, look, I've been through this.
I'm older than you.
I was red pill during 9-11 and I can tell you, oh my God, there's a lot of stuff that says, you know, I think maybe, and it never went anywhere.
And you lose credibility when you're bringing in all these suspicions that can never be validated.
And as you know, some of this is pure theater, I understand this.
Some of it is people trying to feel important by narrating drama.
I know, I understand.
Fine, I dig it.
But if your response to the loudest idiots become a blanket condemnation of questioning itself, no.
No.
You lose the serious people with legitimate concerns.
And that is exactly what seems to be happening.
Let me say this.
If you do believe that airlines or countries are tracking people, present your evidence.
Don't read, don't tell me what it means.
Tell me what it is.
I'm not stupid.
Does anybody question the past of our own CIA?
Anybody?
Do you think with the people with the dispatches that our government has included, you don't think it's impossible for other countries to do the same thing?
They all talk to each other.
They're part of the same ecosystem.
I hate that word.
Listen, the serious audience, which I think we all are, we don't want permission to speculate.
They want you to ask permission to ask.
And that is why the Candice and Tucker and Bannon and Alex Jones and whoever it is, all of these angles matter.
You can dislike their tone.
You can dislike their volume.
You can hate their platform incentives.
You could hate the way they look or the way they scream in their pati, whatever you want.
It's okay.
You could suspect that they're monetizing controversy, which is the funniest.
You're talking about monetizing controversy when you're in something called Anfest and TPUSA to raise money when basically what you're doing is you're monetizing a memory.
You're monetizing grief, which is fine.
Monetization is capitalization.
How do you propel something without capital?
Nothing wrong with that.
Okay?
But you don't get to posture as a champion of truth, seeking to brand the truth seekers as dangerous.
They're crazy when it becomes inconvenient for you.
You got to stop doing this.
And you know, Erica, that they're telling you to do this.
They're telling you to do this.
And there's also a strategic problem here that the GOP, in particular, the leadership keeps refusing to understand.
And this I've said a gazillion times.
If you treat your own coalition like daycare, like a daycare or something, if you scold them and point your finger and shame them, how dare you?
And you demand this subsequent compliance, you're going to fracture what you, GOP, are going to need to win the midterms.
The establishment always thinks they can control populace by placing a manager at the top.
See, this is nuts.
That's what this feels like.
Right now, as we speak, Dave Chappelle's routine is blasting the internet.
Do you see what's going on there?
Do you understand what's happening?
Meanwhile, you're doing this.
You're playing whatever this Disney World stuff is.
What are you, Wink Martindale?
All you need is Vanna White next.
What is this?
This is not what America believes in.
See, this is what this feels like.
This is like this managerial turn.
You've got some risk management CEO.
This is nonsense.
And in a movement, by the way, in a movement I'm saying, that's built on disruption, that posture is poisoned.
Believe me when I tell you that.
So this is where the GOP and the donor class and the consultants and, you know, the priesthood of the consultants and the advocates, this is where they show their hand.
See, they want the energy of the movement without the questions, without the responsibility that come with it.
See, they want turnout and they want the money themselves without skepticism.
They want you there just as some kind of a NPC little cutout standing there clapping like some barking seal.
They want loyalty without scrutiny.
And they want America first votes while quietly returning to the old foreign policy consensus.
Do you not see this?
They want to use Charlie's legacy selectively, fungibly.
They want to use it as branding while kind of sanding down everything that made him effective.
And if Erica Kirk truly becomes the instrument, truly becomes the instrument or the article of that, you know, sanding down, whatever, then she's not protecting Charlie's work or his image or his memory.
She's converting it into some institution like all the others that he hated.
So let me make this even simpler, if that's even possible, because I want you to understand this.
If the movement is built on telling people, do not believe the official story.
Do not believe the official narrative.
Ask questions.
Trust your eyes.
Then you cannot suddenly flip and say, shut up.
Trust the official story.
Stop asking questions.
Stop noticing.
Stop thinking.
Stop speaking.
That's not leadership.
It's hypocrisy.
It's lunacy.
It's what will kill everything.
Eroga, you've got to know this.
And hypocrisy is how you lose people.
So here's the question.
What should happen now?
Good question.
What happens?
What do we do?
Three things.
Keep it simple.
The troika, the triad, the triumvirate.
The rule of three.
First, TPUSA needs a credibility reset.
Clear communications, fewer sermons, more specifics, more going out and proselytizing and getting in and recruiting young people.
Not evidence dumps, not trial commentary, but basic accountability.
Timelines where possible.
Confirm statements if appropriate.
If you've got them.
You've got to maintain a posture of respect, a respect for the audience that loved Charlie and loves his memory rather than contempt for it.
Okay, you got that?
Okay.
Second, I hope you're keeping square of this.
The movement needs to stop eating itself.
It's like autophagy.
It's like a, call it hormesis and something.
You don't build resistance.
You're just destroying yourself.
You're cannibalizing yourself.
You don't have to love Candace.
You don't have to love Tucker or any of these other people.
You don't have to love Steve Bannon or anybody, people who really care, or Trump or anybody for the matter.
But you do not even have to, well, any GOP or anything.
But you can't pretend that the coalition is strengthened by internal excommunications.
These excommunications, whenever someone dares to ask the wrong question or evince the wrong suspicion in the wrong tone, at the wrong time.
If the goal is to win and to govern, you need a big tent, Erica, with strong boundaries, not some little tent with constant purges that you're out and you're not in.
And third, and finally, this.
And I've thought this through.
You, the audience, you, you, my friend, you need to grow up in one specific way.
Stop treating a rumor as fact.
Stop sharing claims you can't verify.
I know it's fun.
I know it's fun.
It's great.
It's gossipy.
Stop letting provocateurs hijack your attention.
That's what they're doing.
Trust me.
Do what I do.
Make sure you ask yourself, how do I know what I know?
But do not repeat.
Do not stop asking questions.
Do not stop demanding transparency.
Remember, there's a difference between hunch and proof.
There's a difference between probable cause and reasonable doubt.
Don't stop pressing for accountability.
Please, I'm with you on that.
Let's work together.
Those are different things.
You know, one is chaos.
The other is citizenship.
It's responsibility.
Now, here is the call to action.
Here is it.
If you care about Charlie's legacy, if you care about the mission and the plan and his worldview, demand better from people running the machine.
That's simply this.
Demand humility.
Demand discipline.
Demand clarity.
Demand from Erica and others that leadership stop lecturing the base like a problem to be managed.
And while we're at it, get rid of Ben Shapiro.
What are you doing?
Do you not understand what this miserable twit is doing to the cause?
For God's sake, who put him up?
You know what I think.
I'd be violating my own rule with that one.
I got a lot of suspicions about it, but I think you know what that's about.
Look, if you care about the movement, if you believe about what Charlie's word was about, refuse this trap of this personality cult infighting and this nonsense, and refuse this similar trap of institutional obedience, no basis.
I'm not going to be, you're not going to tell me what to think.
I'm going to ask questions responsibly.
I'm going to share facts, not fantasies.
And I'm going to tell the GOP this in plain language.
You do not get to win on populist energy while punishing populist skepticism.
You're going to need us.
You do not get to build a movement on question and inquiry and investigation and then outlaw it when it becomes uncomfortable.
We've been through this before.
And no more name-calling.
We've been called racist, conspiracy theorists, anti-Semite, un-American, done, finished through.
That rule doesn't apply anymore.
We're done with that.
Either we are serious about truth and truth seeking and truth objection, objectification objectives, I should say, or we're just another brand.
Pick one.
That's what we're going to do.
Pick one.
And my friend, if turning point or Ramford, whatever the hell it is, if they're going to claim it, claim that it stands for truth, encouraging the people, then it needs to act like it.
It's that simple, my friends.
What I've said is nothing that profound, but it needs to be said.
And listen: do not worry if what you are saying offends people.
Good.
It's the stuff that offends people that's interesting.
And if you find that you're getting pushback, good.
Because remember, you only get flack when you're over the target.
All right, dear friend.
Please like this video.
Thank you for the very kind comments.
I read them.
They're incredible.
This is a turning point in our American political system.
We're going to be a part of it, and so are you.
So join us.
Be a part of this right now.
Tell me what you think.
Tell me what you believe.
I've got questions for you to answer.
I've got some thoughts.
Thank you so, so very much.
Please like this video.
Subscribe to the channel so you're notified of live streams and new videos.