A Few Thoughts on the Current Nonsense
This is something I really don't want to write about. I have no interest in commenting on culture war pundits. Unfortunately, I can't keep my mouth shut. I'm simply disgusted by what's happened after the Charlie Kirk assassination. More so by the government's effective weaponization and response to the murder, but very much by the myth making surrounding who Kirk was. While he was alive, I tried to pay as little attention to him and the alt-right echo-chamber he proliferated in. I saw him as the epitome of degeneracy with respect to political discourse in the United States. This is what I'd like to focus on in this post; just a few thoughts on what this guy actually was and how disappointing this is.
Who He Was
Let's set the record straight on what he was. Charlie Kirk was a conservative influencer. He was a very dogmatic evangelical fundamentalist who was essentially an apologist for Trump. These two sentences should make it evidently clear that he was not a serious thinker by any means.
Kirk successfully exploited the concept of "virality". His "debates" were facades; his entire objective was to "own the libs". He went from college to college, debating students far younger than him, then posted these on social media with ridiculous clickbait titles. These videos would then go viral, thanks to algorithmic boosting/amplification and the degenerative nature of incentives built into social media platforms. Content farms would then take clips from his campus interactions, creating a plethora of shit on the internet. You click on one of these videos and an avalanche of related videos with the same outrage attributes would flood your feed. Kirk was well aware of this funneling technique. There are very few instances of him actually engaging in critical discussion with a moderator and debate rules, his entire schtick was dominating the conversation, editing videos favorably to himself, and blasting this on the internet.
Kirk was not just on a political pilgrimage, he was on a religious crusade. He fused his political identity with his religious identity, like so many other conservatives. To be a Christian, is to be a conservative. This is crucial to understand, because he was clearly a Christian Nationalist. His rhetoric closely aligned with the "Seven Mountains Mandate". Many people are unfamiliar with this pernicious theology. The “Seven Mountains Mandate” (or “Seven Mountains Dominionism”) is a theological and cultural-strategic idea within Christian nationalist circles. It teaches that Christians should seek to gain influence or control over seven key spheres (or “mountains”) of society: typically government, education, media, arts/entertainment, religion, family, and business. It is associated with dominionist theology and is inherently authoritarian and theocratic. He platformed pastors like Doug Wilson at his events, and had serious support from other shit heads like Joel Webbon (among others). If you have had the fortune to not know who these people are, good for you. But you should be aware of people like this, and Kirk's connections to them. Wilson is literally the pastor of Pete Hegseth. This is not some hypothetical worry.
Taking a look into Kirk's background, Wiki tells us that he "was influenced by writings of Milton Friedman" in his early years. After this, began listening to Rush Limbaugh, before submitting essays to Breitbart news. Kirk was on the radicalized pipeline since he was a young child. It's unfortunate that Friedman has become a beacon in right-wing circles. But this is precisely what the right seeks; academic legitimacy. While simultaneously being dogmatically anti-intellectual, they want their own intellectuals to legitimate their bad ideas. Some of Friedmans writings unfortunately did that. Kirk likely was not reading Friedmans theories of consumption smoothing or anything economic, rather he was probably reading things like "Capitalism and Freedom", something not written for economists but rather for political purposes. This book, among others from Austrian economists, have become standard reading for the right-wing. It represents the fusion of Christianity and economics. Many Christians believe that "capitalism" is somehow "god ordained", and that unadulterated laissez faire capitalism is somehow a prerequisite for any form of freedom. Fucking mind blowing. Talk about never being able to have a nuanced discussion about economic policy. But this is the nature of the right-wing pipeline. This eventually led him to Limbaugh. I really don't think I need to say anything about this. He was one of the first people to radicalize workers to the right-wing during the early stages of talk-shows on radio. I can't imagine what that did to Kirks brain, listening to him as a high-schooler.
Therefore, he approached "debate" as any radicalized apologist would; seek dominance, not understanding. I don't use this word "apologist" haphazardly; he started with his conclusion, reasoning was just a performance. This is what apologists do. They do not seek discussion and debate as continual progression towards understanding, they see it as something you need to win at all costs. Hence, his ridiculous debate tactics. Even calling his performances a debate degrades the concept. He performed for his followers; he was a performer. He had zero intellectual virtue. But this is the disappointing part of this all; people actually thought what he was doing was debate. I shouldn't be surprised. The president can get up on a stage and say "they are eating the dogs" and people will actually fucking think this constitutes legit inquiry and discussion. This signals such a disgusting decline in American culture, it's hard to even think about. I am not going to waste my time dissecting his performances; plenty of other people have done that. He was pretty much the king of the Gish Gallop, Infodumping, Moving the Goalpost, and categorization (in the political sense of labeling people without arguing anything). I just want to reiterate the fact that apologists do not seek an open discussion. They want to dominate. This ties directly back to his dominion theology; some Christians take dominion to mean "shepherd", Kirk and his loyal band of Christian Nationalists seek the other interpretation, "dominance".
What he Represented
This ties back into the prior section, but I'd like to now just focus a bit more on TPUSA as an institution. As I mentioned earlier, he followed the Seven Mountains Mandate. His organization mirrored this theology.
| Mountain | TPUSA & Affiliate Strategies | Observations / Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Religion / Church / Faith Institutions |
|
Strong. Religion is both a moral anchor and mobilizing force. TPUSA Faith transforms churches into organizing hubs for political and cultural influence. |
| 2. Family |
|
Moderate → Strong. While not institutionalized, the family frame underpins all messaging, linking culture war to moral and generational survival. |
| 3. Education |
|
Very Strong. Education remains TPUSA’s deepest and most mature domain, forming the backbone of its generational strategy. |
| 4. Government / Law / Politics |
|
Extremely Strong. Government is treated as the decisive arena. TPUSA operates as a bridge between grassroots zeal and institutional power. |
| 5. Media / Information |
|
Strong to Dominant. Media is both pulpit and battlefield; TPUSA’s ecosystem ensures message saturation across platforms. |
| 6. Arts / Entertainment / Culture |
|
Moderate. Still emerging, but the fusion of activism and spectacle represents a significant cultural foothold. |
| 7. Business / Economy / Commerce |
|
Moderate. Less institutional but deeply integrated through funding, donor ecosystems, and ideological framing of capitalism. |
Integrated Alignment and Strategic Cohesion
- Multi-Mountain Synergy: The same personnel, language, and institutions operate across domains — media, education, and religion function as gateways into political control.
- Generational Architecture: Youth indoctrination through education and culture ensures continuity of worldview across decades.
- Faith–Politics Fusion: Religious rhetoric legitimizes political power; political victories reinforce religious identity.
- Culture as Vehicle: By aestheticizing activism — lights, music, influencers — TPUSA transforms ideological recruitment into entertainment.
- Economic Self-Sustainability: Fundraising, merchandising, and conference circuits make the movement economically independent and self-reinforcing.
- Institutional Ambition: Each “mountain” functions as both a target and tool — the long-term vision is full-spectrum cultural governance under a shared moral frame.
Illustrative Patterns and Examples
- TPUSA Faith Summits: Pastors trained to integrate civic activism into ministry, echoing Seven Mountains rhetoric of “taking territory.”
- Turning Point Academy: Prototype for faith-aligned education reform — a model for scaling influence into the schooling system, under the guise of "School Choice".
- Students for Trump: Demonstrates the electoral bridge from campus organizing to national politics.
- Turning Point Live & Kirk’s Media Platforms: Provide direct narrative control without reliance on mainstream outlets.
- Merchandise & Branding: “God, Family, Country” apparel encapsulates theology, economy, and identity in one commercial ecosystem.
Contrary to the nonsense "he was just someone who had different opinions", he was an institutional mouthpiece for major wealthy conservatives.
| Funding Source / Channel | Description, Examples, How It Works | Indicative Figures / Dates | Source Links |
|---|---|---|---|
| Founding & Seed Donors | Early support from major conservative donors and mentors that provided credibility, startup capital, and initial networks (e.g., Foster Friess; mentorship/support via Bill Montgomery). | 2012–2015 (founding phase) |
AAUP (Friess) Bill Montgomery |
| Conservative & Family Foundations | Recurring grants from aligned foundations (examples reported over various years): Ed Uihlein Family Foundation (Richard Uihlein), Rauner Family Foundation, Marcus Foundation, Bradley Foundation/Bradley Impact Fund, Foglia Family Foundation. | Examples: Uihlein ~$275k; Rauner ~$150k (select years reported) | InfluenceWatch |
| Donor-Advised Funds (“Dark Money”) | Use of intermediaries like DonorsTrust and Bradley Impact Fund enables large gifts while shielding original donor identity; commonly used across the movement to route major support. | DonorsTrust ~$906k (2019 example reported) |
Guardian (2021) Explainer |
| Concentration of Large Anonymous Donors | Reports indicate a significant share of the budget coming from a small set of very large (often anonymous) donors; anonymity preserves strategic flexibility and reduces reputational risk for backers. | ~Half of funding from ~10 donors (reported) | Turning Point Action |
| Overall Revenue Growth & Scale | Rapid scaling from early single-digit millions to a major national budget supporting media, events, staffing, and new verticals (Faith, Academy prototypes, expanded conferences). |
2019: $28.5M 2021: $55.8M 2024: $85M revenue / $81M expenses |
TPUSA (overview) ProPublica 990s |
| Assets, Liabilities & Financial Position | Nonprofit filings reflect accumulated assets and operational liabilities consistent with a scaled national organization; accepts non-cash gifts to optimize donor tax strategy. | 2024: ~$26.3M assets / ~$8.37M liabilities | ProPublica 990s |
| “Investor Prospectus” & Expansion Rounds | Formal fundraising campaigns to underwrite media build-out, events, and new arms (e.g., TPUSA Faith), signaling an aggressive multi-year scaling plan. | Prospectus target: ~$43M (reported) | TPUSA (overview) |
| Political Arm (501(c)(4)) & PAC | Turning Point Action (c4) and Turning Point PAC enable electoral activity and independent expenditures alongside the c3. Shared branding connects fundraising to election-cycle operations. |
FEC fine ~$18k (disclosure case) 2024: 1,000+ large PAC donations |
CREW (FEC fine) OpenSecrets PAC |
| Outside Spending & Election-Cycle Flows | Election-year giving routed via c4/PAC structures; donor disclosure varies by vehicle, with partial or delayed transparency typical for outside spending and issue advocacy. | Multiple cycles (2018–2024) | OpenSecrets (outside) |
| Non-Cash Gifts, Securities & Legacy Giving | Solicits appreciated securities, donor-advised gifts, estate bequests, retirement assets, and life-insurance beneficiary designations—broadening the pipeline beyond one-time cash. | Ongoing programs | TPUSA Donate |
| Grassroots, Small-Dollar & Merchandise | Digital fundraising, membership appeals, event ticketing, and branded merchandise; campus chapters and national conferences serve as recurring acquisition funnels for small-dollar donors. | Scaled via events & media | TPUSA Donate |
| Crisis & Peak-Attention Fundraising | High-salience moments (leadership news, political inflection points) trigger both large-donor pledges and grassroots surges; public examples include seven-figure gifts and rapid campaign spikes. | 2025: reported $1M pledge (Lynn Friess) | Guardian (2025) |
Turning Point USA operates as a youth-focused influence network financed primarily by a small circle of ultra-wealthy conservative donors and foundations. It provides those backers with a ready-made, high-visibility vehicle to shape culture and politics through media, education, and activism rather than through formal party structures. Billionaire-class funders (Uihlein, Friess, Bradley, Marcus, etc.) supply the capital. TPUSA converts that money into influencer infrastructure: charismatic figureheads, viral media, massive events, campus chapters, and faith-based mobilization. The arrangement gives donors outsized cultural and political leverage without requiring direct public exposure—hence the reliance on donor-advised funds and “dark money” conduits. TPUSA is essentially a privately financed influence engine designed to seed long-term ideological control across youth culture, education, religion, and politics, all under the banner of grassroots activism.
The Bullshit He and His Followers Pulled
This is what prompted me to write this post in the first place. The fact that there is a "professor watchlist" is fucking absurd. The right wing hates being called fascist, while they're enacting the fascist playbook. This watchlist probably isn't as consequential as the Red Scare McCarthyism back in the good ole days, but it nevertheless has the same effect and is inspired by the same bullshit. I took the liberty of looking at this list, identifying some of the professors. It's quite hilarious; anyone he didn't like was put on this list, and then his mindless followers would harass and even send death threats to these professors. What kind of person embodying "free speech" values would allow such nonsense? Obviously, someone who doesn't give a shit about free speech or the first amendment. I can simply find zero record of Charlie Kirk rebuking the government for cracking down on college protestors who, according to the first amendment, have constitutional rights to express their grievances with the government. Why is that you ask? Well, because they were criticizing Israel. Kirk was not only a Christian Nationalist, but a fervent Christian Zionist. What a great pairing. I can also find zero records of him rebuking the book bans in Florida, or any other example of state sanctioned repression of speech of Kirks political enemies. Why is that? Because he did not actually give a shit about free speech. Someone who is principled, by definition, would defend the principle even when the defense was of your enemies rights. He did no such thing, and this is what fucking kills me about the conservatives. I model myself as someone who does take the principle seriously, consistent with how Noam Chomsky practiced it throughout his life. When conservatives cry "free speech" they are literally just fucking bullshitting you.
Anyway, lets take a look at some of the people on this list:
I was originally pissed off about this when I found out that McCloskey was on the list. For those of you who don't know who she is, she is an OG economist. I studied he as an undergrad, and her books immensely helped me with my technical writing. Why is she on the list? Because she is transgender. Funny enough, I didn't even know that when studying her work. None of the transgender "ideology" was in her work. Just pure academic rigor. I quote "ideology" because this is what fucking right-wing people love to do; call everything they don't like "ideology". This is not an accident, it is deliberate. They have the truth, everything else is ideology. This is why they call it "transgenderism"' the "ism" at the end does heavy lifting. This infuriated me when I found out about this. What finally drove me to write was today, literally, when I found out about Mark Bray. He is a historian who studies Anti-Fascist movements; he is an expert in the Spanish Civil War and the history of radicalization. I found out about him through the Veterans Fighting Fascism, another amazing organization who identifies the problems with American veterans, and their massive susceptibility to fascist ideology. They were reporting on how he was more or less detained at an airport when trying to leave the fucking country that's now targeting people like him, thanks to NSPM-7; the government actually outlawing ideas it dislikes.
What about some of the other people on this list? Kevin m. Kruse is a great example of what motivates Kirk to put people on the list. He wrote a book, that's literally on my shelf, called "One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America". A fantastic book describing Post-WW2 backlash against the New Deal policies; how business infiltrated the church, enabling figures like Billy Graham etc. Who else? Allyson Shortle studies group identity in the context of American political behavior. One of her books "The Everyday Crusade: Christian Nationalism in American Politics", probably doesn't sit well with the Christian Nationalists at TPUSA. Another professor, Matthew Boedy, consistently spoke out against Charlie Kirks bullshit. He also wrote a book "The Seven Mountains Mandate: Exposing the Dangerous Plan to Christianize America and Destroy Democracy"; starting to see a pattern here? Tobin Miller Shearer, a historian of African American history, literally received death threats from Kirks minions. This is most certainly to advance their historical revisionism; as evidenced by Kirks association with PragerU. Another example of whitewashing history is their targeting of Timothy Messer-Kruse. Why is he on the list? Well, when the Ohio government mandated certain curriculum (so much for academic freedom), Kruse persisted in teaching it through a critical lens. Anything resembling "critical theory" is a big no no to conservatives, ergo he goes on the list. Never mind the fact that academic freedom was undercut. What about this Keith Feldman character? Well, wouldn't you know, he is highly critical of US involvement in Israel, and has written extensively into how this relationship has impacted American views on domestic issues. Therefore, he goes on the list.
Can we actually conclude, with a serious face, that someone who puts people he disagrees with on lists for his mindless minions to harass, is a free speech advocate? Why not engage with their writings. No, he had no intellectual virtue at all to do something like this.
The Bullshit he Influenced
This is simply the shit no one talks about. Kirk was an avid conspiracy theorist about covid, spewing tons of nonsense. This sort of bullshit culminates in people like Patrick Joseph White shooting up the CDC. Who knows how much of this nonsense he amplified. He propagated the Great Replacement Theory, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories, the Great Reset conspiracy of the World Economic Forum (global elites like Klaus Schwab, "Davos Crowd" orchestrating a New World Order and the restriction of freedom) framed as an eschatological threat end times nonsense (with other bullshit pastors like Jack Hibbs), overt resentment to the civil rights legislation and MLK, spiritual warfare nonsense pandering to Christian Nationalists (anti-wokeism), climate change conspiracy theories about "elitists" and "climate alarmism" (while literally taking money from oil companies), and tar-and-feathered academia as left-wing indoctrination facilities, dog whistling to white nationalists while maintaining plausible deniability by resorting to more acceptable conservative talking points like "fiscal responsibility" and "strong borders", under the guise of performative victimhood and "censorship" narratives reinforcing the persecution delusion that fuels radicalization. The genesis of his TPUSA began with the obvious bullshit of a "secular approach to politics"; then sure enough the bait-and-switch came and his true colors were revealed. If any conservative ever reads this post, just know this is why no one on the left takes you fucking serious. We understand how the phrase "fiscal responsibility" functions among your constituents. White nationalists and white supremacists literally resonated with the shit Kirk said. Wouldn't that be something you'd want to internally reflect upon? If I were an influencer and fucking fascists resonated with my talking points, I'd have serious reservations if I didn't identify as one of them. Kirk's rhetoric was predicated on massive escalation, he framed everything as "survival" of "western civilization"; suggesting that everyday policy debates are part of cosmic war or existential struggle. He emphasized secrecy, coverups, insider elites, shadowy forces (liberal) as weapons against "conservatives" (whoever he identified as a "true" conservative). Everything was a spiritual battle, he framed political foes as part of monolithic conspiratorial blocs. But here is the crucial point, Kirk rarely overtly said "I am a clown who believes these things". He was clever enough to hide behind the usual conservative talking points, while signaling to his more radical base his true intentions. I simply do not have the patience to dissect everything this shit head said; from his overt parroting or RT (Russian state propaganda) talking points, to defending everything Trump does, there is too much to discuss without throwing my laptop against the wall. Charlie Kirk was one of many right-wing pundits who radicalized a generation of conservatives, backed by spineless pools of conservative dark money. Through Turning Point USA, he normalized fringe ideas—climate denial, globalist paranoia, demographic panic—into mainstream youth conservatism. He played a significant hand in destroying the conservative party. Rush Limbaugh was looking up from Hell smiling at him.
Final Thoughts
I simply cannot understand how quickly people can become entrenched in such bullshit like the shut Kirk spewed. I remember years ago, a conversation with my mother, about how a certain influential person seemed legit mainly because of how confident they spoke their bullshit. Charlie Kirk was a great example of this phenomena. He was the absolute epitome of the Dunning Kruger effect. He spewed bullshit so confidently that people somehow believed him; because guess what, no one gives a shit about verifiable truth and sound reason, they just want to "own the Libs". The fucking irony of someone like Kirk calling universities indoctrination camps is hilarious. Seriously, could not be a greater example of the pot calling the kettle black. Kirk was a fundamentalist Christian, do I need to say anything more? The sheer propaganda, indoctrination techniques, and identity manipulation carried out by religious institutions and affiliates such as apologetics borders on cult like behavior. I know people who raise kids, who's first words are "Jesus". Christians literally have a phrase called the "4/14" window, referring to the age range of children between four and fourteen, considered to be a critical period for "spiritual formation", for them to find their "Christian identity". But child evangelism isn't "indoctrination", its just "soul saving". There's even a quote attributes to Jesuit priest St. Ignatius "Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man"; clearly they know what the fuck they are doing. The absurdity of calling a university education indoctrination is beyond me. Especially when you consider something like a Christian University. Kirks wife is currently attending one, apparently for biblical studies (Liberty University). And sure enough, as I fucking suspected, it's an evangelical indoctrination institution. You can always tell whether this is true, by looking at two things; how they teach their science and religion curriculum, and whether faculty is required to make a statement of faith. Let's start with science; creationism all over the curriculum; teaching the controversy. Now religion, absolutely zero critical scholarship; the bible is taken as the infallible word that must be defended (massive apologetic stance). Lastly, the statement of faith; a theological creed you must announce to keep your job, any deviation of the universities faith statement get's you fired. This is extremely common in "Christian higher education". Fake science skepticism, dogmatic religious teaching, and unassailable creeds faculty must adhere to. At Liberty, faculty isn't even allowed to speak to press without the universities approval. Absurd. Now, what does this tell us? I think it tells us that Kirk was mistaking the behavior of secular universities with his wife's university.
I could go on and on for days about his bullshit. But the real problem is what's occurred in the aftermath. I wonder if the free speech advocate is looking upon this situation, rebuking Trumps bullshit. Most likely not. If this were some other conservative activist, Kirk would probably have been on board with everything Trump is doing, just like how all the other conservative influencer spineless bastards are on board.
Comments
Post a Comment