Erika Kirk's and TPUSA's Epic PR Collapse Explained
|
Time
Text
I want to tell you this little anecdote of sorts.
I have a friend of mine who's kind of in the legitimate, well, strike that.
Did I say legitimate?
Oh my God, that was a mistake.
I meant heritage, conventional, old-fashioned, sock puppet kind of, you know, cable news newspaper.
It's going to be form of news.
Legitimate.
Can I say that?
Wow.
And I mentioned, I said, have you noticed all of the controversy around Erica Kirk?
Can you believe people coming out of the woodwork, looking at every aspect of her life?
Isn't that an interesting tutorial as to how independent investigations can parallel and supplement news?
And the person looked at me and said, what are you talking about?
Because Erica Kirk didn't appear on cable news shows, because they didn't veer away from her as America's sweetheart.
This individual had no idea of what I was talking about.
And I said, I'm trying to be fair, I said, you're in the news business.
Do you not understand how critical it is for you to understand what people are saying?
During the investigation of the Kennedy assassination, if you didn't know about the Zapruder film or people questioning the Warren report, you couldn't do your job addressing the issue of who actually was responsible in the dispatch of John Kennedy.
And again, they looked at me like, blew my mind.
Blew my mind.
So for those who might be in the conventional, old-fashioned, statist, heritage, sock puppet, proxy news media, the controversy around Erica Kirk is not really one about a clip or one post or one relationship.
It's about this thing called trust.
Critics argue that the public story that Erica has been involved in is not exactly what people are seeing is true.
They're not really, they're not, they're saying that the story has told about her, her past, her provenance, doesn't line up with the material they say exists online.
If ever, my friends, you had an opportunity to explain to your kids why they should never post anything online that's stupid, this is it.
The internet doesn't go away.
You see, Erica supporters argue that this kind of internet investigation is unfair and it's obsessive and often misleading.
And that clash is what turned this into a firestorm.
Now you can pick the particular allegation you find interesting.
There are folks who are talking about insurance and LLCs and it's fascinating.
But what I'm interested more in is the overarching issue, the total issue of how she went from America's sweetheart, so to speak, by virtue of her marriage to Charlie Kirk, who was America's sweetheart sort of as well.
This homecoming king and queen perfect marriage.
And now, by virtue of her positioning, her attitude, the eyes, the glares, the stagecraft, the lame.
Wow.
It goes to show you also how fast things work.
According to critics, we're going to call them critics.
According to critics, Erica presented herself publicly as someone who lived a very careful and faith-focused life before meeting Charlie Kirk.
No problem.
Remember, you get to say anything you want about yourself.
If you were Mother Teresa, probably a bad example if you know about Mother Teresa, but if you come across as some saintly, virtuous, you know, vestal virgin, you're going to be stuck with that.
The point to interviews that they're pointing to, rather, the interviews and talks and features where she said that during her five years in New York, she didn't date, stayed away from that lifestyle.
They say she described herself as avoiding dating culture and not drinking and focusing, focusing on her faith and her personal growth, whatever that means.
But that was the story.
Fine.
No problem.
The issue, critics say, is that they believe there is ample evidence, copious evidence, voluminous evidence, that conflicts significantly with that particular story.
They point to a reality television appearance that they say shows her on a date during that same New York period.
Okay, how important is that?
You tell me.
If it's not important, move on.
If it's sort of important, pay attention.
I'll let you assess that, you being the trier of fact.
I present the evidence or the issues.
You're the jury.
You decide.
But folks argue that even one clear example challenges the claim that she never dated there.
There's something about this.
You don't have to say things.
Nobody put a gun to your head, which may be a bad example, but nobody forced you to say something.
You know, supporters respond that one appearance doesn't tell the full story, which is true, and that people often speak, you know, kind of loosely about their past, kind of generalities and the like, without meaning every word literally.
I don't know who those people are.
When I talk about stuff, I tend to mean everything literally.
I mean, there's some kind of, there's this, there's fudging room and there's, you know, exaggerate, a little bit of bragging, you know, and puffery, but pretty much the facts have to remain the same.
Now, critics also say, again, these critics, critics also say that Erica has described herself as someone who doesn't drink and prefers a quiet, kind of low-key social setting and settings like that.
They argue that some clips and references suggest she did drink socially at times, which again, this is what they're saying.
I don't have any independent evidence of it, but that's what they're saying.
And if it is true, that's impeaching evidence, as we would say in evidence law.
Again, defenders say this proves nothing.
They argue that people change, people exaggerate, people kind of simplify their past when speaking publicly.
Okay.
You tell me.
Is it important to you if all of this is true?
Only you can tell me that.
I don't know.
I have a funny belief, though.
I am always impressed, well, not impressed, but scared by people who lie about things that don't matter.
I had a dear friend of mine years ago, his name was Gordon Soli, who's the greatest wrestling announcer ever.
And he said to me, some people would rather climb up a tree and lie than stand there and tell the truth.
Now, I'm not saying she's a liar, she's mendacious, I'm not saying that.
But I've also known people who lie about things that don't really matter.
And sometimes they get into this, when they speak, they get into the narrative, a kind of a fiction, what they want you to believe.
It's a story.
It's almost like a pitch meeting.
We're doing a movie about this woman.
And she, instead of saying, this is what I did in the past, instead she's saying, this is what I wish I did in the past.
This is what I would like you to believe I did in the past.
Again, nobody is forcing your hand.
Hell, sometimes it's better to come up and say, I was a debauched reprobate.
I was a hobo.
I used to ride the rails.
I was a felon.
I mean, it's your story.
You never hear people lying about being a felon, but the day is young.
Now, where the debate gets louder is around relationships.
Some online commentators claim that Erica had serious relationships before meeting Charlie Kirk.
What does that mean?
Well, it depends upon whether this jibes, or do you say jibes, with the idea of this narrative?
They point to articles and social media references where a boyfriend is mentioned as well as photos they interpret as, well, some would call them couple photos or even engagement style photos.
Isn't that interesting?
Now, from their point of view, from their point of view, this creates a large gap between saying, I was into dating and evidence that looks like long-term relationships.
Again, I keep saying this, you determine the significance of that, if true.
Supporters also push back hard on this.
They say that photos do not prove timelines.
That people can be close friends or casually dating without it meaning what critics claim.
And furthermore, many of these fine folks say that interpreting photos years later is a risky proposition and oftentimes wrong.
I said the other day, I commented there was a picture of Candace with Charlie Kirk.
And I said, these two really loved each other.
I meant as a friend, friendship.
I didn't mean romantic.
And people went crazy.
You're silent.
I said, I didn't mean anything wrong with it.
Since when is that wrong?
You don't think there's a part, you really think that Candace and Charlie were like, how are you?
How are you?
You're my friend.
You're my buddy.
Do you really think that?
I'm not saying there was anything romantic or sexual, but I'm saying you don't think there was any kind of an emotional bond above and beyond just regular friendship, collegial friendship and respect?
Come on.
There's nothing wrong with it.
It's not against the law.
And they also argue, by the way, that even if Erica did have serious relationships, that doesn't make her dishonest or mendacious or a liar or immoral.
And they've got a point.
What do you think?
You're the juror.
Now, another major part of the controversy, which is fascinating, is about social media accounts.
Critics, I'll call them critics, critics say that Erica's current Instagram account is not her first one and that an older account with more history appears to have been deleted.
Those deleted accounts are always interesting.
You know what I mean?
Always interesting.
They see this as suspicious and argue it looks like an attempt to clean up her online image after becoming more visible.
Now, is that against the law?
Of course not.
What do you think?
Defenders of Erica respond that people delete accounts all the time, especially when they become public figures, whenever they face harassment or threats or the like, or they start a new phase of their life.
Nothing wrong with that.
You think there's anything wrong with that?
I don't think anything was wrong with that.
You?
What do you think?
Now the disagreement keeps growing because each side reads intent differently.
Erica's critics see a pattern.
They say, deleted accounts, missing photos, changed the narratives.
They point to image management, image reconstruction, creating a new narrative.
Supporters of Erica seize normal behavior. under internet pressure and they say critics are connecting dots unnecessarily.
Dots that don't even belong together.
They may be even creating some new dots.
Now what's fascinating is that the discussion and the conversation and the give and take shifts from facts to motives, motivation.
Critics of Erica's say that if someone is presented as a moral role model, especially in faith-based spaces, which I think TPUSA was certainly qualified, then honesty about their past absolutely matters.
And they say the problem is not that Erica had a past, but that they believe she reshaped it to fit a cleaner image.
Imagine that.
Has that ever been done before?
Of course it has.
Does that in any way change anything?
No.
But they want to know.
Defenders of Erica say faith includes growth and forgiveness and that demanding a perfect or fully documented past is unfair.
It's unrealistic.
That's a good point.
What do you think?
Now some other commentators also raise questions about Erica's professional and business connections.
Now this is really interesting.
Remember, she now is the, what, the CEO, the head honcho of TPUSA, a hundred-plus million dollar mega corporation.
They point to business filings of small organizations and insurance listings and a variety of things all connected to her name that appear to have little public information.
Now this is where it gets very dangerous.
Remember, sometimes people will do things absolutely positively legally, but you just weigh in and say, hey, how come there's not more information?
There doesn't have to be more information.
This is completely done.
This comports with all applicable laws.
Maybe they don't understand it, so be very, very careful.
They frame this as another reason to ask questions.
You see, supporters counter that business filings alone prove nothing.
And that many small companies never become active or visible.
In fact, many people don't even know what is the norm.
You don't know what's accepted and the like.
Now the narrator in the video, or videos we've seen, there's a load of them.
They describe contacting people connected to those filings and getting strange reactions and hang-ups or refusals to talk.
Okay, that's interesting.
Critics will interpret that as suspicious.
Others argue that it's exactly how people react when all of a sudden they're bombarded, when they're sandbagged, what strangers call asking personal questions about private matters.
And a lot of these internet sleuths interested in getting ahead and becoming the next Geraldo Rivera or Horrendo Revolver, as somebody called him one time.
They may be a little bit rude and obstreperous.
Could happen.
Now as the debate continues, tone becomes a big issue.
Critics often frame their arguments as exposing lies and deception.
And supporters of Erica say that tone crosses easily into harassment and turns questions into attacks.
And this difference in tone fuels even more backlash and makes it harder to, in effect, separate facts from emotion.
And that's a great point.
What do you think?
Remember, what do you think?
Now at the center of all of this is a simple question that keeps buried and remains buried and it's kind of like just kind of discarded as some kind of drama, for lack of a better word.
Does Erica Kirk's public story fully match, listen to what I'm saying, fully match the public record?
And if it doesn't, Does that matter?
One side said yes, especially when someone is promoted as a moral exemplar, a moral example, a moral pole star.
The other side says, nah, it doesn't matter because people are allowed to simplify their past.
It's no big deal.
She's human.
It's not critical of what's going on.
And people shouldn't be punished forever for old versions of themselves.
People tend to kind of embellish or change or maybe are a little creative in their curriculum vitae.
It happens.
And that is why this controversy refuses to die.
It's not just about Erica Kirk.
That's what I keep telling you.
It's about how much the internet is allowed to dig into someone's life and how much consistency the public is owed and where the line is between, I guess you would say, between accountability and obsession.
That's exactly what's going on.
And that's what I find about this fascinating because these are new, new, uncharted territories.
Forget the old days of Geraldo and ABC reports and Brian Ross and 60 Minutes.
You're Bike Wallace.
This is it.
It's brand new.
And I kind of find it exciting.
Now, some people see this as a necessary correction.
Others see it as a warning sign, a warning sign of how quickly online audience can turn on someone.
You know how that is.
They'll go doxing and this and that.
And it happens.
But both sides claim to care about truth.
And they just disagree on what truth actually looks like, what it is, what it's formed as, and how truth should be handled.
That's kind of what this is about too, which is equally as fascinating.
Now, in the end, the reason this story keeps spreading is because it taps into bigger arguments, bigger arguments about identity, faith, honesty, and internet power.
And whether you think the critics are onto something or way out of bounds, all of that depends largely, largely in essence, on whether you believe public figures owe the internet a full and plenary explanation of their past.
Or whether you believe that growth means leaving part of that behind.
I mean, come on.
You never abnegate your ability to be a human being.
That's what people are saying.
And that's why it is controversial.
And that's why this is so critical.
And that is why the argument is not going away anytime soon.
And that's what's important to understand.
Now, let me see if I can kind of review this in pero-rate, kind of review what we're saying here.
There's the level of Erica Kirk, and you can go back, and I don't find going through each particular allegation to be that interesting.
Because, frankly, in the long run, it doesn't matter.
I don't think any of this thing matters.
Frankly, I think Erica Kirk is going to step down.
I don't think TPUSA is going to be around much longer.
And I think Charlie Kirk is going to be an asterisk cyanara because we are, as Gorbadal calls us, the United States of Amnesia.
I'm sorry to tell you that.
I believe this is going to be swept.
We're going to be talking about Venezuela and this and that and the midterms.
And we're going to be moving along.
This just doesn't hold anything.
When they killed Charlie, they killed TPUSA and they killed a huge recruitment, if you will, vehicle that would have been so wonderful for American conservative politics or religious politics or whatever you want to call it to advance.
With Charlie died, the future and the dreams, not of TPUSA, but of, again, a recruitment, kind of a AA team, kind of a minor league for future conservative leaders.
That's the sad part.
Next, I believe that Erica Kirk was handed this, and I don't think she had any idea what was going on.
I think they're going to be using her, and they're going to be having her sign.
And I hope to God somebody's watching out for her because they will hold her out, hang her out to dry.
And as people start going into looking at these organizations like 110 LLC and all of these other accusations, which forensic accountants and others are looking at, you're going to be finding a lot of people really going after this.
Now, there's this spirit of this.
Look at what's happening in Minnesota with the Somali learning or leaning or leering, I should say, centers.
And I'm not suggesting this is criminal or on that level, but there is this tsunami, this newly found fascination of going after financial fraud and the like, and they're going to be doing it regarding Erica.
So be careful.
And also, it's a matter of this legacy piece, this more important piece.
Don't lie to people.
Don't say something you're not.
Don't tell people.
Don't say, you know, if it's not true that you never dated, and I don't know anything about her private life, I don't even think it matters.
But if you are going to be the next Erica Kirk, learn from this and recognize that whatever you say is being documented.
Especially when you have absolutely exhibited some of the worst stagecraft ever in appearing before the people of the United States as the widow of one of the most beloved members of our society.
And this bellwether, this pole star, this, I don't know, not avatar, this leader in conservative, familial, Christian, religious politics, for lack of a better word.
So thank you for that.
Thank you for your kind words.
The questions you write are incredible.
I am not a Republican, not a Democrat, not a conservative, not a liberal.
I love to investigate and comment on and look at how investigations themselves are happening and what this means and what's happening and how people are, they're jumping on Candace for what she says.
Character assassinations, cancel culture.
It's not so much what is being advanced, it's what is being canceled or the fact that people are going because they're going crazy.
And as I mentioned in this last video, you've got Alex against Candace.
You've got Alex's lawyers turning on, Alex's lawyers turning on him because he's using, like many, many people do, a video that appears to be Caracas, but it's something three years ago and nobody knows.
And it's not because he's some MIC black rock shill, but you see what I'm saying?
It's this biolog.
It's everything is like, it's like drinking from a fire hose.
Everything is louder, bolder.
Everything is nuclear, nuclear, of or pertaining to a nucleo.
I say nuclear, but what do I know?
So thank you for this.
Thank you for this.
Please, a couple of things.
Number one, please like this video.
Like this video.
Liking is critical for me.
Number two, hit that little bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos.
And also subscribe to this channel.
I'm here to investigate and promulgate and disseminate the truth.
And while we're at it, my beloved wife is doing the same thing regarding the notion of child predation and child safety and keeping our children.
People think like children are children forever.
I don't have to remind you.
They get older.
And hurt people hurt people.
So if we can stop predation and harm now, we can prevent maybe the course of another generation going down a very dark, dark path.
So follow her at Lynn's Warriors and learn about what's happening to our children that nobody in the media, no one is discussing.
All right?
Now thank you for this.
I also have some questions following up, which I want you to look at, go through the questions, and be thorough, be brilliant, investigate.
Let us plumb the depths of all of the antecedent issues, the Abyssidarian undergirding, the issues of part of these expatiation vectors as we dissect so much of this labyrinthine, almost a, I keep saying it's like Mandelbrat's fractals.