Was Charlie Kirk a Racist?

Was Charlie Kirk a Racist? The Real Focus on Standards, Not Hate

By Juan Fermin, nosocialism.com
Published: September 14, 2025

Once again, we see the mainstream media and their echo chambers relentlessly attacking Charlie Kirk, the late founder of Turning Point USA, for statements like his "moronic Black woman" remark or his questions about the competence of pilots and other professionals. These critics are missing the point entirely. Kirk wasn’t talking about race or "hating" Black people. His focus was on how affirmative action programs—such as those affecting the Secret Service—have lowered standards to meet quotas for Black individuals, women, or even members of the LGBT community. This isn’t about prejudice; it’s about merit.

Take his stance on transgender issues. Kirk’s main concern was advocating for a common-sense approach, arguing against automatically approving life-altering surgeries for 14-year-olds based solely on their word, especially given evidence that many later reconsider their decisions as adults. Again, this wasn’t about "hating" a group—it was about protecting young people from irreversible choices without proper reflection.

A perfect case in point is Boeing’s decision to hire engineers at a 50/50 gender ratio. Since the vast majority of engineers are men and only a tiny percentage of women rank at the top of their class, the company had to lower its hiring bar to meet this quota. The result? Boeing now faces more quality issues than ever—witness their space program’s struggle to keep pace with SpaceX and the troubling defects in recent plane designs. This is the kind of outcome Kirk warned about: prioritizing diversity over excellence erodes standards.

If Charlie Kirk truly hated Black people, as the mainstream media portrays, why did he have so many followers and speakers on his tours who were Black, Hispanic, Asian, and even members of the LGBT community? The reason is simple: they realized he didn’t hate anyone. He cared about everyone and wanted everyone to succeed—based on merit, not mandated quotas. His message resonated because it was about lifting standards for all, not tearing down any group.

Why The "Both Sides" Rhetoric Ignores the Left's Violent Extremism

The Asymmetrical Rage: Why The "Both Sides" Rhetoric Ignores the Left's Violent Extremism

The call for both sides to "tone down the rhetoric" is common, but a look at recent events reveals huge differences in how the political right and left respond to tragedy and conflict.

When George Floyd, a man with a criminal history including theft and drug dealing, was killed, the reaction from the left was extreme—entire cities saw riots, with buildings and businesses burned down. In contrast, when conservative icon Rush Limbaugh passed away, many on the left openly cheered his death, offering zero mourning or even simple respect. The election of President Trump for his first term triggered riots, with parts of Washington, D.C., including a church, set ablaze by the left. Look at the assassination of Charlie Kirk—social media is flooded with mockery and celebration of his death, and they’re still going!

Why? Outlets like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS portray Trump, Limbaugh, and Kirk as "Nazis," "bigots," "racists," or even "Hitler." Meanwhile, individuals like Floyd are labeled "innocent victims," despite their criminal records! So think about it: If Hitler and his Nazi regime murdered millions, does labeling someone a "would-be Hitler" justify extreme actions, including violence, against them? Then the same media says, "We would never condone violence!" Why not? If he’s Hitler, doesn’t he deserve to die?

Look at what they did with the Ukrainian girl knifed to death on a train. Sympathy is often directed not toward her family, but toward the "poor mentally ill man" who committed the act, highlighting a pattern of narrative focus. So the left views the criminal as the victim?

Republicans and those on the right tend to identify criminals as such—they are the bad guys! When news emerged of Biden’s terminal cancer diagnosis, the right’s response was way different—no taunting or mockery ensued. Instead, many expressed well-wishes and offered prayers, a civility absent when Rush Limbaugh suffered his first heart attack!

Now, with Charlie Kirk’s killing, where’s the chaos—burning cities, attacks on police, or looted stores? The right doesn’t do these things. We don’t resort to violence or destruction in response to political events, focusing instead on verbal condemnation or prayer. We get back to our lives.

The left’s response is literally like possessed demons, reveling in the suffering of a widow and her now fatherless kids. They justify their mockery by stating that Floyd was beaten to death—what! Did Kirk beat Floyd to death? Where is the logic? The man did nothing but invite others to debate. All he did was exercise free speech. Because he disagreed with some, he no longer deserved to live? How is this "both sides"? No, sorry—there’s only one side acting this way. And everyone can see which side it is.

So everyone now needs to decide. Do you stick with a group of people that obviously have a death culture, or do you choose life.

One final point: The left loves to say there’s actually more violence on the right than on the left, but that’s only because they "categorize" white supremacists as "extreme right" even though white supremacists are mostly KKK members—and the KKK was basically a Democrat-run organization. This historical twist lets them smear conservatives while ignoring the left’s own violent extremism.

Juan Fermin is a political analyst for NoSocialism.com, dedicated to exposing threats to freedom.