In the political world, the resignation of Joe Kent from the Trump Administration as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center made waves this week as Kent cited the recent attacks on Iran, going so far as to say, “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” He also warned against “sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives.”
Joe Kent was a veteran who served eleven combat deployments and lost his first wife due to ISIS. He previously ran for Congress unsuccessfully in a campaign that had drama with Nick Fuentes. This stemmed from controversial associations that Kent had at the time and was paired with Fuentes’s open support of Kent during the campaign. Kent did denounce Fuentes in 2022 but has generally been well received on the right which garnered him a post in the second Trump Administration, where he worked under Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence.
In the immediate aftermath of the resignation, there was already debate over Kent and subsequent rumors that his resignation was getting out ahead of any termination. Allegedly, the FBI is investigating Kent for leaks and other reports that he had been sidelined prior to his resignation because of his alleged leaks. Whether these reports are true or not remains to be seen. From a political standpoint, the administration tarnishing his character to discredit him makes sense and happens all the time in high profile departures. It is the equivalent of a dramatic breakup.
If the allegations are true, then much of the subsequent behavior of Kent since the resignation would make much more sense. On the surface, there is much agreement to be had in the contents of the letter. The war with Iran was something that ought to have been avoided and was pressured by Zionist influence. Even Secretary Marco Rubio initially said so himself before walking back his statement. Saying these things in a resignation letter would immediately give him a base of support on his way out the door. The base is increasingly skeptical of Israel, and the youth are anti-Zionist.
Second, his appearance on Tucker Carlson wherein he soft-pedaled Candace Owens conspiracy theories that because Kirk was increasingly skeptical of Israel that somehow is connected to Tyler Robinson, homosexual, assassinated Kirk back in September. He establishes no connection between Robinson and Israel, only that “we’re not allowed to ask questions about that.” He said that there was linkage that they were not allowed to pursue but does not even imply what linkage there could have been between Kirk’s assassin and Mossad. Back in late October, the New York Times reported that Kent’s office was investigating the Kirk assassination. What is not clear is which came first: Candace Owen’s conspiracies or Joe Kent’s investigating. While some have posited that Kent leaked to Owens, the other possibility is that Kent was investigating based on Owen’s claims, as she did not wait even two weeks before turning Kirk’s death into a true-crime conspiracy. It is also further distasteful since Kent appeals to a personal, unverified posthumous anecdote of Kirk encouraging him to warn against war with Iran in the administration. “Last conversations with Charlie Kirk” have been generally exploitative by public figures.
The initial objection to Kent’s resignation that I had was that it was myopic and giving up power. In fact, he was ceding ground to the Zionists by resigning. Whatever influence he had at the time of his departure is now reduced to zero inside the administration. Even if he was being ignored by President Trump, the long game was still the preferable route. As Director of National Counterterrorism, he could have influenced other hiring decisions in the administration, allowing a depth of anti-Zionists to be built giving allies experience in the years to come. This experience would translate into credibility which could then be leveraged into future roles. Even as the Director of National Counterterrorism, Kent himself had an upward career trajectory. His military service record engenders sympathy upon first impression. Being that he is only 45, he had plenty of runway in his career. This job could serve as a stepping stone to future jobs in future administrations, like Director of National Intelligence, National Security Advisor, or even Secretary of War. He gave up power for online clout.
Entryism is the only viable path. Getting “our guys” into the positions of power takes years and comes without thanks or instant gratification. This often means people getting positions as Congressional staffers, Conservative think tanks, or even low-level positions in the Administration. These jobs do not exactly pay, but such positions can be leveraged upward to better jobs. Playing ball allows the establishment to be changed from within as the next generation assumes power. Politics is a marathon, not a sprint. Charlie Kirk believed in working within the process and TPUSA, despite its faults, is actively helping better candidates get elected. All these people will invoke Kirk’s name without emulating how he practiced politics.
Waking up the plebs through Tucker Carlson is not the solution. The plebs are not going to rise up and take back their country. That never happens. Change comes from the elites. Even plebiscites of ancient Rome were manipulated by the patricians. Building a network of counter-elites and relations with current elites is the only viable path for effectuating any change. If anything, low-IQ antisemitism drives the elites towards Zionism. Even the Austrian Painter lamented low-IQ antisemitism in his famous work.
The problem with Anti-Zionism on the right is not that they are wrong about the facts or Israeli influence in US foreign policy. They are generally correct on the issues, but the faction is increasingly being associated with retarded actors like Candace Owens. Then there is Nick Fuentes who is advocating against voting Republican party in favor of an anti-white, increasingly third-world Democrat party. The strategy of disengagement is doomed to fail and does nothing to build up a counter-elite. It also could be a reflection of his increasingly third-world audience. Thomas Massie despises Trump more than he cares about Epstein trafficking children since he is against charging urban youths as adults for committing sexual assaults. So, does he actually care about sex crime or is it just a convenient cudgel against Trump? Marjorie Taylor Greene gave up power to effectuate change. Megyn Kelly, who was always anti-Trump, defended Candace Owens to her own discredit. And Tucker Carlson has been all over the place to his own discredit. His overtures towards Islam have lent credence to him being influenced by foreign actors, but regardless, he does not have a positive vision. He pushes narratives but does not exactly have a coherent endgame or ideology, other than his ability to shift the Overton Window among older Republicans, but to what end? All this is to conclude that the faces of Anti-Zionism on the right are not very good. Anti-Zionists need better leaders who have a better strategy than podcasting.
Conclusion
In the end, the resignation of Joe Kent will be a political news story for a brief period of time, where Kent will be touted on the podcast circuit and people will champion his resignation as evidence against the war in Iran. That said, the story will fade, barring developments in the FBI investigation while his antics in soft-pedaling conspiracies undermine his credibility. What impact Kent could have had in the years to come was squandered. Perhaps he will start a podcast. Such letters might feel good in the moment but actually hurt the cause in the long-term. The American Right needs a better class of Anti-Zionism that emulates Pat Buchanan, not retards on the internet with podcasts.
5 Responses
Interesting article. It does not seem that the new right or whatever your want to call it has the organization or vision to conduct a long march through the institutions like the left has done. Also, since you mentioned Pat Buchanan as an example of doing it right, many might ask,”To what end?” His influence is miniscule in the overall scheme of things today only to be touted on those podcasts like the ones Kent might go on in his appearance tour. I largely agree with you, but I also think everyone is reeling from the blatant about face by Trump and MAGA enthusiasts. They no longer feel the need to even pay lip service to the maxims of the campaign trails. There were always signs of this being the outcome, but many, including myself, did not expect it to be this much of a slap in the face. I’m not sure what will bring together such a coalition like MAGA again, but you are absolutely correct in that we need better leaders. I’m just hard pressed to see where they come from these days.
Not sure why you believe the fall guy, Tyler Robinson, was the assassin of Charlie Kirk.
All you have to support your belief is a narrative provided by a very corrupt FedGov and a very corrupt JewsMedia.
I bring up Buchanan as more of something the online right should emulate, rather than lack message discipline. Most actually Right Wing podcasters aren’t encouraging long marches as they should. Certain figures are encouraging disengagement or outright unhinged behavior which makes the Zionist the “safer” partner in the eyes of the Admin. I get why people are jaded, especially over the Iran stuff. This past week alone, the Admin halted mRNA research and is planning to mandate that banks verify the citizenship status of their accounts in a move that would encourage self-deportations, so there are still good things happening that get drowned out by the podcast sphere.
I respectfully disagree with much of what you said in this article. Here are a few examples:
You said: “As Director of National Counterterrorism, he could have influenced other hiring decisions in the administration, allowing a depth of anti-Zionists to be built giving allies experience in the years to come.”
It’s unlikely that Kent had much influence over hiring decisions, even as Director of the NCTC.
Hiring for the administration is controlled by the Presidential Personnel Office, which is staffed by Israel-first neocons, who probably have the (((ADL))) vet applicants to make sure they are jew-approved.
Kent can have MUCH more influence over the political climate as a commentator free to voice his views, then he can as a complicit and silent official within the administration.
Already, Kent is having a huge impact, and many people are waking up.
You also said: “Even as the Director of National Counterterrorism, Kent himself had an upward career trajectory…Being that he is only 45, he had plenty of runway in his career. This job could serve as a stepping stone to future jobs in future administrations, like Director of National Intelligence, National Security Advisor, or even Secretary of War. He gave up power for online clout.”
Is “online clout” the reason he gave up power though?
Or did he give up power because his conscience is troubled by a foreign-controlled administration launching an unjust and unprovoked war of aggression against a foreign country?
Perhaps the slaughter of the 165 little schoolgirls by Tomahawk missile appalled Kent and made him unwilling to be complicit in the destruction of innocent lives.
Gaining power is important for any political movement, but not at any cost.
As it says in the Book of Mark: “”For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
Which brings me to my next point:
You said: “Entryism is the only viable path. Getting “our guys” into the positions of power takes years and comes without thanks or instant gratification. This often means people getting positions as Congressional staffers, Conservative think tanks, or even low-level positions in the Administration. These jobs do not exactly pay, but such positions can be leveraged upward to better jobs. Playing ball allows the establishment to be changed from within as the next generation assumes power.”
The problem with this strategy is that the entryists are likely to be corrupted by the establishment over time.
Will the entryists change the establishment, or will the establishment change the entryists?
The past several decades have shown that the latter is more likely.
There are many examples of politicians who went to Washington as patriotic outsiders intent on draining the swamp, and instead became corrupted by the swamp and turned into swamp creatures.
For example, Trent Lott started out as a defender of traditional Southern values when he arrived in Washington. By the time he resigned from office (to become a swamp lobbyist), he was a shill for zionism and big business. He even became a lobbyist for amnesty for illegal immigrants.
A more recent example is Dan Bongino. A year ago, before he became FBI Deputy Director, he was huffing and puffing and bragging that he would arrest all of Epstein’s accomplices. Then the moment he became FBI Deputy Director, something changed and he became a staunch defender of the Epstein Class. Now he’s back to podcasting, where he spends most of his time shilling for earthly imposter “israel”.
There are countless similar examples of politicians, government officials, and military officers who started out as patriots but became corrupted by the swamp.
Individuals who wish to rise in the swamp have to grovel to the (((synagogue of satan))).
There’s a reason why every prominent politician has been to the antichrist wall in jerusalem.
The few honorable exceptions (such as Thomas Massie) who refuse to grovel to the jewish lobby, are targeted by the jewish lobby for destruction. AIPAC is spending millions of dollars to destroy Massie.
The strategy of infiltrating patriots into the establishment and changing it from within is unlikely to work, because most of the patriot entryists will likely become corrupted over time. The allure of power and money is hard to resist, especially if you are operating undercover without a strong support network to keep you grounded and prevent you from compromising your morals.
“Charlie Kirk believed in working within the process and TPUSA, despite its faults, is actively helping better candidates get elected.”
As mentioned above, what usually happens is the better candidates get elected, and then quickly “go native” upon arriving in Washington DC, when they see how much power and wealth they can get by compromising their values and joining the swamp.
Remember the Tea Party from the Obama era? Lots of patriots won elections to Congress by claiming that they would drain the swamp and fight special interests. But the temptation of wealth and power was too strong, and these politicians quickly betrayed their voters and became swamp creatures.
“Waking up the plebs through Tucker Carlson is not the solution. The plebs are not going to rise up and take back their country. That never happens. Change comes from the elites.”
History has shown that this statement is not accurate.
The Russian revolution in 1917 wasn’t started by the elites. It happened because the Russian people were angry about food shortages (and millions of dead soldiers) caused by World War 1. The disgruntled and angry Russian populace was stirred up by agitators such as Lenin and Stalin and Trotsky.
I am not saying that the Russian revolution was a good thing. I am simply pointing out that it wasn’t caused by the elites.
Since Iran is in the news lately, it’s worth pointing out that the same is true of the Iranian revolution in 1979: it was caused by angry average people, not the elites who were overwhelmingly supportive of the Shah.
Another example is Hitler’s rise to power. The elites were overwhelmingly hostile toward the NSDAP until it became clear that the NSDAP were a viable political movement, at which point some of the elites started to hop on the bandwagon. Even then, the majority of elites opposed the NSDAP until Hitler became chancellor, at which point the elites began currying favor with the NSDAP to avoid being sent to a concentration camp.
“Building a network of counter-elites and relations with current elites is the only viable path for effectuating any change.”
As stated above, the big problem with entryism is that the entryists are likely to become corrupted by the establishment. The entryists who refuse to compromise and become corrupted will be identified by the establishment and pushed out of positions of influence.
I am NOT saying that we (patriots) shouldn’t try to get our people into positions of power.
It’s always good to have “our people” on the inside. There is nothing wrong with getting our people into positions of influence through entryism.
What I am saying is that solely relying on entryism as a strategy, is unlikely to be successful.
It’s fine to get our people into positions of power through entryism, but that alone is unlikely to be enough to turn the ship around.
The reason that entryism worked for the liberals/leftists, is because the jews function as the “command and control” cadre for the destruction of western civilization. So wherever the jews went into positions of influence, they brought leftism/liberalism with (((them))). And the jews are highly and tightly organized, and work together to achieve objectives. That is why entryism was a successful strategy for them.
“the faction is increasingly being associated with retarded actors like Candace Owens.”
Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson are having a very positive influence by awakening MANY people (especially young people) to the fact that western countries are controlled by the jewish lobby, and the jewish lobby is behind the destruction of western civilization.
Candace Owens has millions of subscribers and gets millions of views/listens on YouTube and other platforms. The same is true for Tucker, and to a lesser extent Fuentes.
We need as many prominent voices as possible to spread the truth about how the jews are behind the destruction of the west.
Waking up the public is what will change the course of events and the political climate.
The jewish lobby knows this, which is why (((they))) are so terrified of Tucker/Candace/Fuentes/etc, and are doing everything (((they))) can to destroy these truth-tellers.
Changing public opinion, especially now that it is working, is much more likely to effect the changes we want to see.
Tucker and Candace and Fuentes are very valuable players for our side, and hopefully Joe Kent will be as well.
The decades-long (((brainwashing))) of Americans finally seems to be breaking, and people are starting to wake up.
It is vital that we seize this moment and wake up as many people as possible.
THAT is the more viable strategy at this point in time.
As I mentioned above, there is nothing wrong with having our people in positions of influence. Entryists are useful for sabotaging the establishment system from within, for example by leaking information.
But changing public opinion is what will enable us to gain lasting and meaningful power, and save western civilization.
This is the 500 years old conflict about indulgences:
1. change the Roman Catholic Church from within
vs.
2. evangelize as much people as possible with the truth
Strategy 1 hasn’t worked for 500 years and strategy 2 also failed inside the strongholds of the RCC. In fact America was mostly settled by Christians being at odds with the respective church overloads (either catholic or protestant) from the homelands they emigrated from.
However the printing press changed the picture forever and we can track all the desperate measures throughout history to get the genie back into the bottle to control the narrative again. The medieval elites never succeeded in the longterm. The combination of printing bibles and geographical relocation changed the picture of Western religion forever. The “secularization” we are now seeing all over of the world is just all the clerical elites finally losing the game altogether, not actual loss of religion. Even South Americans getting two popes into office are leaving the “institution” now, they are just slower at it than everyone else.
That printing press of the third millennium is the Internet and we can already see how American big tech is desperately trying to get the genie back into the bottle. In the Eastern bloc Communism didn’t fell, because the opposition had their guys inside the communist parties. It fell, because one by one every previously productive member of society just opted out converting to doing the bare minimum. In the end everyone was aware of the charade, the masses became discontent with supply shortages and nobody believed a single thing the communist elites said anymore, even IF they said the truth. Many people from there relocated to the West.
It’s just inevitable that Western countries go through the same thing, as they are on the same trajectory. And if you really want to start over with no legacy baggage, some geographical relocation is necessary as well.