The conservative insurgence

Charlie Kirk from TPUSA

There is a quiet war going on inside the right wing. It had been building up for quite a while. It might have been temporarily halted by the election of Donald Trump, but nonetheless the groundwork had been set.

It’s the most classic story in the book: a (mostly) youth movement endeavors to expose corruption in the establishment and challenge the status quo. Only this time it’s not some left-wingers with socialist ideals…

Nick Fuentes, the host of the nightly show America First, seems euphoric on his Dlive stream. He’s watching person after person ask damning questions to Charlie Kirk. The head of Turning Point USA deflects and cuts them off, but he seems to be faltering under the pressure.

The “groypers”, as he calls the young question-askers, are waging battle against Conservative Inc. There is no big spectacle needed, no donor-backed events. Nothing grandiose. Just some people asking questions.

How did this all start?

On October 22, two young men asked Charlie Kirk questions at Colorado State University. This was during an event for his Culture Wars tour, in which he hosted a Q&A section towards the end.

Charlie Kirk is the head of Turning Point USA, a conservative non-profit aimed at providing a political alternative in college campuses. Although TPUSA and other organizations portrays themselves as conservative , these two young men put that into question.

These questions were very different than the usual questions asked. They didn’t ask the usual questions about socialism vs capitalism. They asked profound questions that struck the very construct the mainstream conservative movement has created.

This was an opportunity that the groypers did not hesitate to make use of. Fuentes and other dissidents soon encouraged people to go to more of Charlie Kirk’s events and ask him more questions like these. Israel and and immigration were just the beginning.

A week after this event, the siege was on full force. At Ohio State University, most questions asked at the Q&A followed the same fashion as the original two. They questioned Charlie Kirk’s commitment to conservatism, ensuring the well-being of the American people, and more.

Among the most pressing questions were:

“What is your brand of conservatism actually doing to conserve Christian morality?”

“Given that Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty and stole material for their nuclear weapons program in the Apollo Incident, why are we still giving them so much foreign aid?”

“How long do we have to wait until child drag shows are pushed as American conservatism?”

Charlie Kirk and his defenders have attempted to brush off this intense criticism by labeling people like Fuentes as trolls. They are also trying to make people believe that Fuentes orchestrated an “infiltration” on those events. All this was nothing more than a troll attempting to cause disruption.

Some have also retorted to calling Fuentes and the groypers white nationalists and names of the sort. The Zionist Organization of America urged Twitter to remove Fuentes from Twitter, and many “conservative” pundits have denounced him.

Conservative Inc. seems to be in full retreat. At his UT Austin event, congressman Dan Crenshaw was grilled about his allegiance to free speech. The questioner brought up anti-BDS laws that states such as Florida and Texas have instituted.

He pointed out that these laws and inherently anti-free speech. Businesses having to sign a pledge that they will not boycott Israel just to be able to work with the government is absurd. So are laws that deem you an anti-Semite for questioning Jewish double allegiance and influence.

The questioner rightly asked Crenshaw to denounce these laws, but was met with yet another claim of anti-Semitism and hatred against Israel. So much was the pressure at this and a Daily Wire event that these events were either not broadcasted or the broadcast was taken down promptly.

Why is this important?

These dishonest tactics only further confirm the mainstream conservative movement’s weakness. If Charlie Kirk and Dan Crenshaw had engaged with those questions instead of evading and silencing them, the mask would fall off.

The mainstream conservative movement can’t engage with a concern such as conserving Christian morality because they themselves don’t hold that to be important. In fact, they don’t really hold conservative values to be important.

The quiet groyper insurgency attempts to reveal this by engaging in discourse with Conservative Inc. By asking critical questions, it encourages viewers to ask questions themselves. This strategy is also very optical, since the dissenters are being respectful and following the event’s rules.

The fact that Conservative Inc. can’t engage with these questions without resorting to the same tactics as the left (smearing campaigns, deflection, calling for deplatforming, etc.) shows their true colors. With people like Kirk, it’s all about open discourse and challenging any idea… as long as the questions follow the set narrative.

What this means for the conservative movement

Charlie Kirk posing with drag queen “Lady Maga”

People like Fuentes want to salvage the conservative movement. He himself argues that it has become a shell of its former self, announcing conservatism only on the surface, while fundamentally aligning with the left ideologically.

Fuentes is right. A conservative movement that doesn’t conserve anything isn’t a conservative movement. The right wing in the United States has followed a consistent strategy for decades now: cede ground and play from behind.

Modern-day conservatives are essentially former-day liberals. They say their ideology is different, but subscribe to the same fundamental beliefs: liberalism, liberty, and sense that history marches towards progress. They’re progressives themselves, just more moderate.

They’re playing the same game as the left, but have put themselves at a permanent disadvantage.

This is why the left gets away with bullying conservatives so much. They have no good response when being called racist, sexist, transphobic, and any other word ending in ist or phobic. And no wonder. They’re playing the same game as the left, but have put themselves at a permanent disadvantage.

Just take a look as recently as the 2008 election. Obama, a democrat, had some interesting policies on LGBT rights. He supported civil unions for gay people, but not full marriages. This was a liberal’s policy from less than a decade ago.

Nowadays people like Charlie Kirk wouldn’t even think of saying they don’t support gay marriage. Or LGBT causes in general. Charlie Kirk is the type of person to take a photo with drag queen Lady Maga. One of the biggest personalities of the right-wing movement is Milo Yiannopoulos, an openly gay man.

When you take this into consideration, the question of “How long do we have to wait until child drag shows are pushed as American conservatism” takes on a more ominous tone. Gay people being able to marry might not be evil, but a mother forcing her son to become a girl definitely is. And, unfortunately, this is what we’ve seen happen in recent times.

The truth of the matter is that, in its current state, the conservative movement will not be able to prevent things like drag queen story hour from becoming commonplace. They will not be able to prevent other children like James Younger from being abused by fanatical progressives for much longer. There is no good foundation in place for them to do so.

This is why the dissident right’s efforts are so important. Only a less permissive, more reactionary movement can deal with the impeding future. This generation is taking up the mantra of authentic conservatism and will reshape the conservative movement into a formidable force. Asking questions is just the beginning.

Might I say, an skeptic?

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store