Charlie Kirk: Who Are the White Supremacists?
The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University has unleashed a torrent of accusations, with many on the left branding him a "white supremacist." This label, flung with abandon by outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and social media activists, ignores not only Kirk’s actual record but also the historical irony of tying him to white supremacy—a term closely associated with the Ku Klux Klan, a group founded by Democrats to oppose Republicans. Even more striking is the reality that Kirk’s movement, Turning Point USA (TPUSA), drew significant support from Black, Latino, and even LGBTQ+ individuals, groups traditionally vilified by the KKK. Why would these communities back a man supposedly steeped in hate? The answer lies in a deliberate mischaracterization driven by political agendas, not facts.
The KKK: A Democratic Legacy, Not a Republican One
The Ku Klux Klan, founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, was a product of Southern Democrats furious over Republican-led Reconstruction after the Civil War. The KKK’s early mission was to terrorize freed Black Americans and their Republican allies, who championed emancipation and civil rights. Historical records, including those from the Library of Congress, confirm the KKK’s ties to Democratic Party factions in the South, with figures like Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general and early Klan leader, aligned with Democratic resistance to Republican policies. By the 1920s, the KKK’s second wave saw it infiltrate Democratic politics further, notably at the 1924 Democratic National Convention, dubbed the “Klanbake” for its open Klan influence.
Fast forward to today, and the left conveniently ignores this history. Modern white supremacists, including neo-Nazi groups like Blood Tribe, are often labeled “far-right” by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Yet, as recently as September 2025, white supremacist leader Christopher Pohlhaus explicitly distanced himself from Kirk, writing, “In life Charlie Kirk was our enemy because he did whatever he could to undermine White collectivism”. The American Futurist, another neo-Nazi outlet, called Kirk a “moderate” who wasn’t “one of us” despite his death being politically weaponized. If Kirk was a white supremacist, why did actual white supremacists reject him so vehemently?
Charlie Kirk’s Diverse Support: A Contradiction to the Narrative
The claim that Kirk was a white supremacist crumbles further when you examine his supporters. Turning Point USA, which Kirk co-founded in 2012 at age 18, built a massive following among young conservatives, including significant numbers of Black, Latino, and even LGBTQ+ individuals—groups the KKK historically targeted. Why would these communities rally behind a man who supposedly “hated” them?
Black Supporters: TPUSA events, like its annual Young Black Leadership Summit, drew hundreds of Black conservatives. Figures like Chandler Crump, a Black activist who met Kirk at 14, praised him for treating young leaders as equals regardless of race: “He said it doesn’t matter if you are Black or white... He paid attention to us”. Kirk’s “Blexit” campaign, co-led with Candace Owens, encouraged Black Americans to leave the Democratic Party, resonating with thousands who attended TPUSA events. If Kirk were a white supremacist, why did Black youth wear MAGA hats and pack his rallies?
Latino Support: Kirk’s outreach extended to Latino communities, particularly in swing states like Arizona, where he helped flip the state for Trump in 2024. TPUSA’s Spanish-language initiatives and events like the AmericaFest conference featured Latino speakers and attendees, with Kirk emphasizing economic opportunity and family values over racial division. The KKK’s anti-immigrant, anti-Latino history stands in stark contrast to Kirk’s appeal to Hispanic conservatives, who saw him as a defender of their aspirations.
LGBTQ+ Supporters: While Kirk’s Christian conservative views led him to oppose same-sex marriage and gender-affirming care, calling them incompatible with his faith, he still engaged with LGBTQ+ individuals. Transgender conservative Blair White appeared on Kirk’s podcast, debating civilly despite disagreements. Other gay conservatives, like those in the Log Cabin Republicans, attended TPUSA events, drawn by Kirk’s focus on free speech and economic liberty. If Kirk were a KKK-style bigot, why would these individuals share stages with him or promote his events?
Why the Support? Kirk’s Appeal Beyond Race
Kirk’s draw wasn’t rooted in racial exclusion but in a broader conservative vision: individual liberty, free markets, and traditional values. His debates with college students—often liberal, often diverse—showcased his willingness to engage across divides. He didn’t shy away from tough topics, from immigration to gun rights, but framed them as policy disagreements, not personal hatred. His podcast, “The Charlie Kirk Show,” had millions of followers, including diverse listeners who valued his unapologetic stance against what he called “cultural Marxism”.
For Black and Latino supporters, Kirk’s message of economic empowerment and skepticism of progressive policies resonated. He criticized DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiatives as divisive, arguing they pitted groups against each other. Many in these communities, especially younger voters, agreed, seeing his push for meritocracy as a path to success. For some LGBTQ+ conservatives, Kirk’s emphasis on free speech and resistance to “woke” censorship outweighed disagreements on social issues. His events weren’t KKK rallies—they were packed with diverse faces chanting “USA!” and debating ideas.
The Smear Campaign: Why Call Kirk a White Supremacist?
So why the label? It’s a tactic. By equating Kirk with white supremacy, critics justify outrage—and sometimes violence. The SPLC branded TPUSA a purveyor of “white Christian supremacy” for its anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, yet Kirk’s diverse base and rejection by actual white supremacists contradict this. Mainstream media amplified the narrative: The Guardian called Kirk’s views “bigoted”, and posts on X celebrated his death as “karma” for “hate speech”. This mirrors a pattern—label conservatives as “Nazis” or “racists” to dehumanize them, as seen with Trump and Limbaugh.
The irony is that Kirk’s assassin, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, reportedly cited “hate speech” in his manifesto, echoing media talking points. By painting Kirk as a white supremacist, the left risks inciting the very violence they claim to oppose. Meanwhile, Kirk’s supporters—Black, Latino, LGBTQ+, and beyond—mourn a man who gave them a platform, not a noose.
Conclusion: A Legacy of Inclusion, Not Hate
Charlie Kirk was no saint. His rhetoric could be sharp, and his views on race, religion, and gender sparked fierce debate. But white supremacist? The KKK’s Democratic roots and their explicit rejection of Kirk expose the absurdity of the label. His diverse coalition—Black, Latino, LGBTQ+ conservatives who flocked to his events—proves he wasn’t the monster his critics claim. They supported him because he spoke to their hopes, not their fears. As America grapples with his death, let’s reject the smears and ask: If Kirk was such a “hater,” why did so many from the groups he supposedly despised stand by his side?
Juan Fermin is a political analyst for NoSocialism.com, dedicated to exposing threats to freedom.
Posted by Juan Fermin on September 15, 2025
