Ben Shapiro laments that the left's attacks on White Christian men created in them a "feeling" that they're "an identity group of their own" with group interests. The committed Zionist complains that there are influencers who are "fomenting" and "catering" to this group solidarity. Shapiro says Charlie Kirk "forbade" this "Groyper mentality" from TPUSA but now "the door has been breached," as evidenced by students criticizing Israel at TPUSA's Q&A events. "Frankly, I think that TPUSA could do a better job of working with some of the personalities with whom it is currently working who are promoting this stuff," he says. (Translation: cancel Tucker Carlson.)

Ben Shapiro really posted this.

Ben Shapiro > Tucker Carlson

Can you tell which one is Dylan mulvaney & which is @ValentinaForUSA ?

Bill Maher introduces Nick Fuentes on his show and states he “would like to” beat him up. 🤣

You just got crushed, liar.

So easy to debunk— and you are beyond pathetic for trying this: 1) See email below: My CNN interview was booked BEFORE Charlie died and it was related to my book launch. We kept the interview, which took place about 20 days AFTER he had passed, and we told them in writing, multiple times that I wanted NO QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARLIE. Despite this, CNN was CNN and violated our request and asked about him once cameras were rolling. 2) You awarded an interview to WSJ about Charlie’s death, 4 days after he was gone and chose to pose outside of his public memorial site in high boots. We are not the same. 3) “Davidic” was Charlie’s word, not mine.

She doesn’t do that so the term is inapplicable to her unlike people getting money from say, Qatar.

So easy to debunk— and you are beyond pathetic for trying this: 1) See email below: My CNN interview was booked BEFORE Charlie died and it was related to my book launch. We kept the interview, which took place about 20 days AFTER he had passed, and we told them in writing, multiple times that I wanted NO QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARLIE. Despite this, CNN was CNN and violated our request and asked about him once cameras were rolling. 2) You awarded an interview to WSJ about Charlie’s death, 4 days after he was gone and chose to pose outside of his public memorial site in high boots. We are not the same. 3) “Davidic” was Charlie’s word, not mine.

When Candace first launched her so-called “Davidic” crusade to defend Charlie and “uncover the truth” behind his assassination, she accused me of being unfazed by his death and publicly condemned me for giving an interview to The Wall Street Journal a week later, calling my timing and tone “icky,” and insinuating that I—and TPUSA—were somehow exploiting Charlie’s death to advance our mission. (It should be noted that I was the only TPUSA contributor who declined ALL media for the first week.) Normal people don’t respond to death the way they did, she attested. But we responded in the only way Charlie would have wanted: (1) empowering law-enforcement allies like Kash Patel and Dan Bongino—two men Charlie himself advocated for to secure positions within this administration, to pursue justice for his killer; and (2) working tirelessly to ensure that Charlie’s message and legacy were amplified across the globe. Exactly what that WSJ article did. That was the beginning of Candace’s tirade against the very people Charlie called his closest friends and mentors. She’s stopped just short of outright accusing them of orchestrating his death, preferring instead to “just ask questions,” say “the vibes are off,” or otherwise insinuate what she didn’t have the courage (or legal standing) to claim directly, likely fearing another defamation lawsuit. Candace has said she was virtually incapacitated with grief in the days following Charlie’s death—that she couldn’t bear to speak to the media about it. Yet by her own later admission, this was false. While defending her incoherent CNN interview, she excused her erratic answers by saying it was recorded “a couple of days after Charlie’s death.” (She now says it was two weeks after the assassination.) I was icky and self-seeking for talking to the media a week after his death, to honor Charlie’s legacy, mind you. But when Candace jumps to do a CNN interview about conspiracies she started (not even honoring him) a “couple of days” after his death? She’s Charlie’s guardian angel. Cool. Makes sense! Since then, she’s been weaving strings of “evidence” connecting Charlie’s mentors and allies (e.g., “everyone at TPUSA is involved in a coverup”) to sinister motives, all while accusing them of mismanaging or profiting from his death. Candace, positioning herself as Charlie’s self-styled “David,” claims she’s only seeking truth. But it’s become increasingly clear that she’s projecting, doing precisely what she accuses us of doing: leveraging Charlie’s death for brand awareness and personal profit. Unlike David, however, Candace hasn’t slain a giant. She’s been sparring with a lightweight libtarded CNN reporter, and somehow still losing.

No to the groypers. No to cowards like Tucker Carlson, who normalize their trash. No to those who champion them.  No to demoralization. No to bigotry and anti-meritocratic horseshit. No to anti-Americanism. No.