The US far right activist Charlie Kirk was a proponent of the baseless 'Great Replacement' conspiracy theory. It's the same theory that the Christchurch killer Brandon Tarrant wrote about in his 'manifesto'. But New Zealand supporters of Kirk have remained silent about that, as they have on many of the other extremist views of Kirk.
IN THE days following the death of American far right activist Charlie Kirk, New Zealand’s far-right ecosystem lit up with tributes. Social media feeds that are usually concerned with local grievances were suddenly awash with Kirk’s image, his slogans, and declarations of solidarity with his 'fight for freedom' and the importance of defending 'freedom of speech'. The tone was reverential, almost devotional. Kirk was framed as a fearless truth-teller who stood his ground against the evil designs of the left and against the tide of so-called 'woke' politics and globalist agendas.
According to Ashley Church, a Zionist and a regular commentator for Newstalk ZB and the NZ Herald: 'Kirk's values were pretty much in the centre of the political spectrum and represent the views of the vast majority of Kiwis and others in the west.'
What has been missing from these eulogies has been any acknowledgment of Kirk's right wing extremism. He was, for example, a vocal proponent of the baseless 'Great Replacement' conspiracy theory, which claims that Western populations are being deliberately supplanted by non-European immigrants. It's the same conspiracy theory that the Christchurch killer Brandon Tarrant wrote about in his so-called 'manifesto', 'The Great Replacement'.
Kirk also opposed abortion in all circumstances, rejected the legitimacy of transgender identities, and called for a halt to immigration from what he termed 'third world' countries. His rhetoric often blurred the line between populist conservatism and outright neo-fascism, and his media presence thrived on provocation.
He was also not a champion of free speech, as his supporters like the Free Speech Union continue to claim. Writing in The Nation Elizabeth Spiers observes:
'He created a professor watchlist explicitly designed to get academics fired who dared talk about the right’s usual assortment of verboten topics—anything to do with race or gender, in particular. He also offered the standard right-wing plaint about left-wing indoctrination in American universities, even as he went on campus tours trying to indoctrinate young people into his hard-right Christian nationalist worldview.'
Yet here in New Zealand, those details have been glossed over. The far right’s influencers and organisers have spoke of Kirk as a martyr for liberty, a man who 'told it like it is' and stood up for 'western values'. They have quoted him without context, omitting the parts where he called for banning mosques or where he framed multiculturalism as a threat to national survival. The narrative has been carefully constructed: Kirk as hero, not as far right ideologue.
That same curation was on display over the weekend, when Brian Tamaki, leader of Destiny Church, attended a far-right rally in London. The event, fronted by British neo-fascist Tommy Robinson, drew an estimated 100,000 people and featured speeches steeped in anti-Muslim sentiment, anti-migrant rhetoric, and calls for a return to an explicitly Christian national identity. Tamaki took the stage to denounce Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and other faiths as 'false' and to call for the banning of their places of worship.
The rally was not without violence—clashes with police left dozens injured—but in New Zealand’s far-right circles, the response was silence. No praise, no condemnation, no commentary at all. Nothing from Sean Plunket. Nothing from Ani O'Brien. Nothing from Bob McCoskrie. Nothing from Juliet Moses. Nothing from Rachel Stewart. Nothing from the Free Speech Union. The same voices that had been so quick to elevate Kirk’s legacy have had nothing to say about one of their own, standing shoulder to shoulder with some of Europe’s most notorious far-right figures.
That silence is telling. It is a reminder that the same exclusionary and hardline ideas are alive and well in New Zealand, to the extent that the Act Party leader David Seymour tried to make Parliament pay tribute to Kirk. Fortunately, the opposition parties blocked the move.
The selective outrage also reveals the priorities of the far right in New Zealand. It is not about consistent principles—free speech, religious liberty, or national sovereignty—but about narrative control. When extremism can be framed as heroic resistance, it is amplified. When it risks exposing uncomfortable truths about the movement’s own leaders, it is ignored.
This is not a new tactic. As far back as Nazi Germany, the far right has long relied on symbolic figures to rally support while downplaying or denying the more dangerous implications of their ideology. In Kirk, they think they have found a martyr whose death can be used to galvanise followers. In Tamaki, they see a figure whose actions might invite scrutiny they would rather avoid. (John Campbell's investigation of Brain Tamaki and Destiny Church is well worth a look).
But ignoring Tamaki’s participation in a rally that openly celebrated religious intolerance does more than protect the movement’s image—it normalises the very ideas they claim are being unfairly maligned. It sends a message to supporters that such views are acceptable, even if they are not publicly endorsed. And it allows the movement to continue presenting itself as a victim of censorship and persecution, rather than as an active promoter of an ugly politics that many would argue is neo-fascist.
The contrast between the effusive praise for Kirk and the silence on Tamaki is not just hypocrisy; it is a strategy. It is how the far right in New Zealand manages its image, shapes its narrative, and shields itself from accountability. But it is also a reminder that extremism is not just something that happens overseas. It is here, it is organised, and it is being quietly legitimised by those who know exactly when to speak—and when to say nothing at all. It's up to the rest of us to call it out and expose it for what it really is.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.