Charlie Kirk: Who Are the White Supremacists? Or Should I say, the KKK?

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

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.

The Great Shift: A Tale of Globalism’s Reckoning and the Triumph of American Resilience

Story by Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com

For over four decades, Donald J. Trump has stood as a relentless champion for American workers, sounding the alarm against the scourge of unfettered globalism that has gutted U.S. manufacturing and left entire communities in ruins. Since the 1980s, when he first took to platforms like The Oprah Winfrey Show to decry Japan’s currency manipulation and predatory trade practices, Trump has called for tariffs to level the playing field. He saw what others ignored: countries like China, India, and Japan were using cheap labor, environmental destruction, and outright theft of American intellectual property to drive U.S. companies out of markets. The cost? Millions of good-paying middle-class jobs vanished as factories relocated overseas, leaving behind a trail of shattered communities, ghost towns, and entire states hollowed out by globalist greed.

Look at Detroit, once the wealthiest city in the world in the 1950s, reduced to filing for bankruptcy by 2013. The Rust Belt—stretching from Ohio to Michigan to Pennsylvania—became a graveyard of forgotten dreams, with cities like Youngstown, Flint, and Gary, Indiana, fading into shadows of their former selves. This wasn’t a natural decline; it was a deliberate betrayal. Trade deals like NAFTA and China’s entry into the WTO opened the floodgates for foreign goods, while Chinese companies stole U.S. designs and patents, flooding markets with knockoff products that undercut American innovators. The result was a gutted middle class, abandoned factories, and communities left to rot—all while globalist elites and complicit politicians preached the virtues of “free trade.”

Yet, the naysayers who claim “manufacturing will never come back” are dead wrong. Even today, in 2025, over 570,000 Americans work in auto parts manufacturing, and nearly 1,200 auto parts companies still call Detroit home. These are not relics—they are proof of an industry that refuses to die. And now, Donald Trump is their defender, wielding the tool he’s championed since the Reagan era: tariffs.

Trump’s Tariff Crusade: A Vision Vindicated

From his 1988 critiques of Japan to his 2000 book The America We Deserve, Trump has argued that tariffs are the antidote to unfair trade. By 2016, he made tariffs a cornerstone of his campaign, proposing 45% duties on Chinese goods and 35% on Mexican imports to bring jobs home. In his first term (2017–2021), he delivered: 25% tariffs on steel, 10% on aluminum, and up to 25% on Chinese imports reshaped global supply chains, forcing companies to rethink offshoring. Now, in his second term as the 47th President, Trump’s vision is bearing fruit. Since January 20, 2025, he’s claimed over $5–10 trillion in new U.S. investments—Apple’s $500 billion in manufacturing and training, TSMC’s $100 billion in Arizona semiconductor plants, Saudi Arabia’s $600 billion pledge, and countless others. Skeptics quibble, claiming some investments were pre-existing or speculative, but even at the low end—say, $3 trillion—it’s a staggering leap beyond the paltry sums secured under Joe Biden, whose globalist policies left America’s heartland to wither.

These investments aren’t random; they’re the legacy of Trump’s first-term tariffs, which raised the cost of imports and incentivized domestic production. Apple’s shift to U.S. manufacturing began in response to 2018 tariffs on Chinese components. Hyundai and Posco Holdings, which recently announced U.S. investments, considered steel mills during Trump’s first term, only to shelve them amid pandemic uncertainty and Biden’s weak trade stance. Now, with Trump back and threatening universal tariffs of 10–20%—or 60% on China—companies are racing to build in America, from NVIDIA’s $500 billion AI infrastructure to Pratt Industries’ $5 billion for 5,000 Rust Belt jobs. Even Biden kept Trump’s tariffs, a silent admission of their power. Trump’s vision, forged over 35 years, is proving unstoppable: tariffs work.

The Media’s Inflation Lie: Markets, Not Tariffs, Set Prices

The media, however, refuses to celebrate this revival. Instead, outlets like MSN churn out hit pieces like “China Responds to Trump’s Trade Pressure with Countermeasures,” amplifying Beijing’s complaints while ignoring America’s gains. Their favorite scare tactic? Claiming Trump’s tariffs will ignite inflation, driving up costs for consumers. But this narrative crumbles under scrutiny. As I detailed in my article, “The Rise and Fall of Steel Prices” (nosocialism.com, April 2025), the market—not tariffs—ultimately determines prices. When Trump imposed 25% steel tariffs in 2018, prices spiked briefly as markets adjusted, but by 2019, steel prices began to fall, dropping below pre-tariff levels in many cases. Why? Because markets adapt. If consumers and businesses won’t pay inflated prices, producers lower costs or innovate to compete—exactly what happened with steel.

Far from fueling inflation, Trump’s first term saw lower overall inflation than the Obama or Biden administrations. Under Obama, inflation averaged 1.8% annually (2009–2017); under Biden, it surged to 5.7% at its peak in 2022, driven by supply chain chaos and energy costs. Trump’s first term? Inflation averaged just 1.9% (2017–2021), despite tariffs. The media’s silence on this is deafening. They’ll scream about tariffs but won’t mention the real inflation driver under Biden: the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline. In 2021, Biden’s decision to halt the pipeline sent oil prices soaring from $30 to $130 per barrel by 2022. Since everything in America—food, goods, you name it—moves by diesel, this fivefold spike rippled through the economy, jacking up costs for every consumer. Yet, MSN and their ilk never uttered a word about this inflationary disaster. Why? Because it doesn’t fit their globalist agenda.

The Real Betrayal: Why Were Our Communities Abandoned?

The media’s obsession with inflation myths and China’s talking points distracts from the real question: why were America’s communities allowed to die? The Rust Belt’s decline wasn’t inevitable—it was engineered. NAFTA, signed in 1994, opened the door for companies to flee to Mexico. China’s 2001 WTO entry unleashed a flood of cheap goods, backed by stolen U.S. designs and subsidized production. Currency manipulation and lax environmental rules gave foreign firms an unfair edge, while American workers paid the price. Entire towns—schools, businesses, families—were wiped out. Detroit went from the world’s richest city to a bankrupt shell. Gary, Indiana, once a steel powerhouse, became a symbol of decay. This was economic warfare, and our leaders did nothing.

Now, Trump is fighting back. His tariffs are a direct challenge to the globalist system that enriched corporations and foreign regimes at America’s expense. They’re a signal to companies: build here, hire here, or pay the price. And the world is responding. From Saudi Arabia’s $600 billion to France’s $20 billion in logistics to South Korea’s steel investments, foreign firms are pouring money into U.S. factories, data centers, and jobs. Domestic giants like Apple, NVIDIA, and IBM are doubling down, driven by tariffs, tax incentives, and the undeniable momentum of Trump’s vision.

A New Dawn for America’s Heartland

The naysayers can keep shouting that manufacturing is dead, that the Rust Belt is gone, that America can’t compete. But the truth is in the numbers: 570,000 Americans still work in auto parts manufacturing. Nearly 1,200 auto parts companies thrive in Detroit. These are the seeds of a revival, and Trump is their champion. Instead of parroting China’s complaints or peddling inflation scare stories, the media should be asking why our leaders let places like Detroit collapse. They should be investigating how globalist policies—NAFTA, WTO, unchecked IP theft—stripped away the middle class and left entire states to wither.

This is the great shift—a reckoning for globalism and a rebirth for American manufacturing. Trump’s tariffs, rooted in decades of conviction, are bringing jobs back, rebuilding communities, and restoring hope. Forget the media’s quibbling over whether it’s $5 trillion or $10 trillion in new investments; the number doesn’t matter as much as the reality. Factories are reopening. Jobs are returning. Towns are stirring. The era of globalism’s free ride is over, and America is building again. The Rust Belt is rising, and Trump is leading the charge—not just for Detroit, but for every forgotten corner of this great nation.

Trump’s Tariffs Are Winning—Don’t Believe the Mainstream Media’s Fearmongering

By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com April 26, 2025

The Guardian’s April 26, 2025, article by Adam Gabbatt paints a grim picture of President Trump’s second term, claiming polls show widespread disapproval of his tariffs and economic policies, with Americans labeling his administration “scary” and “chaotic.” This narrative, echoed across mainstream media, attributes fears of inflation and economic collapse to Trump’s trade policies. But a closer look reveals this as the same biased playbook the media has used against Trump for years—fearmongering and distortion while ignoring facts that don’t fit their agenda. The reality is that Trump’s tariffs are working, just as they did in his first term, and the U.S. is stronger for it.

The Guardian cites polls claiming 70% of Americans believe Trump’s tariffs will drive up inflation, with 64% disapproving of his handling of the issue. But this fear stems not from reality but from the media’s relentless drumbeat of doom-and-gloom predictions. During Trump’s first term, he imposed a 25% tariff on steel in 2018. Media outlets screamed that prices would skyrocket, yet the data tells a different story: steel prices rose briefly for less than a month before returning to pre-tariff levels within weeks. They remained stable for nearly two years, and even after a later spike, steel prices today are lower than when the tariffs were implemented. If tariffs were the inflation boogeyman the media claims, why didn’t we see sustained price surges then? The Guardian conveniently omits this history, preferring to stoke fear over facts.

'The media’s obsession with “global interconnectedness” overlooks the strategic benefits of reducing reliance on ... China'

The article also frames America’s supposed “isolation” as a dire consequence of Trump’s policies, lamenting a 20% drop in New York City hotel bookings and an 11.6% decline in international visitors in March 2025. But this narrative ignores a critical reality: the U.S. has the smallest percentage of its GDP dependent on trade among major economies—only about 27% in 2024, compared to 60% for Germany. Trade disruptions, while inconvenient for some sectors, are far from catastrophic for the U.S. economy. The media’s obsession with “global interconnectedness” overlooks the strategic benefits of reducing reliance on foreign nations, especially those like China, which the U.S. has a lopsided trade relationship with.

'The media also fails to mention that China needs the USA far more than the U.S. needs China'

Speaking of China, the Guardian and its ilk seem to take Beijing’s side at every turn, warning that tariffs will make goods like iPhones “astronomically” expensive if manufactured domestically. Yet a deep dive into the numbers debunks this myth. Producing an iPhone in the U.S. would increase costs by about $50–$100 per unit due to higher labor costs, not the $10,000 price tag fearmongered by critics. With iPhones already retailing for $1,000+, this marginal increase is hardly a dealbreaker for consumers, especially when weighed against the benefits of domestic production—like job creation and supply chain security. The media also fails to mention that China needs the U.S. far more than the U.S. needs China. In 2024, the U.S. accounted for 16.5% of China’s exports, while China made up only 3.5% of U.S. exports. This imbalance gives Trump leverage, which he’s using effectively to win the trade war—despite media claims to the contrary.

'The media frames Trump ... as reckless, never acknowledging the benefits of reducing ties with a bully ...'

The Guardian’s selective reporting extends to geopolitics. It ignores China’s aggressive actions in the South China Sea, where Beijing treats the region like its personal playground, militarizing reefs and harassing neighboring nations. This behavior has driven a massive military buildup in the region, with Japan developing advanced railgun technology and Vietnam, a former ally of China, pivoting to the U.S. and purchasing significant military assets in 2024. From a military perspective, decoupling from China isn’t isolation—it’s a strategic imperative to counter a growing threat. Yet the media frames Trump’s policies as reckless, never acknowledging the security benefits of reducing economic ties with a nation known to falsify its economic data and bully its neighbors.

'Trump’s tariffs are again strengthening U.S. manufacturing'

This bias isn’t new. The mainstream media has long used the same playbook to vilify Trump, from their coverage of the January 6th rioters—portrayed as terrorists while ignoring provocations by law enforcement—to their complicity in the lawfare against Trump, which has been exposed as a politically motivated sham. The Guardian’s article is just the latest chapter, amplifying fears of inflation and depression while ignoring evidence of Trump’s success. During his first term, tariffs revitalized American steel, with capacity utilization rising to 80% by 2019, a threshold for a financially viable domestic industry. Today, Trump’s tariffs are again strengthening U.S. manufacturing, with record tariff revenues of $2 billion daily in April 2025, according to posts on X, and consumer prices dropping for the first time since COVID.

'Americans aren’t scared of Trump—they’re scared of the media’s relentless fear campaign'

The Guardian wants you to believe Trump’s second term is a failure, but the data says otherwise. Inflation is down to 2.4%, oil prices have dropped 20%, and the Producer Price Index fell 0.4% in March 2025, beating forecasts. Americans aren’t scared of Trump—they’re scared of the media’s relentless fear campaign. It’s time to see through the bias and recognize that Trump’s tariffs are winning the trade war, securing America’s future, and proving that the U.S. can thrive without bending the knee to globalist dogma.