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.

Cash for Kids | The Medical Industry and Vulnerable Children

Cash for Kids | The Medical Industry and Vulnerable Children: A Critical Examination of Gender-Affirming Care Practices

The issue of gender-affirming care for minors, particularly those who have experienced trauma such as sexual assault, has sparked intense debate. Critics argue that the medical industry sometimes exploits vulnerable children by promoting irreversible gender-affirming treatments without adequately addressing underlying psychological issues. This perspective is highlighted in discussions like those on The Glenn Beck Program, where detransitioner Claire Abernathy shared her experience of being rushed into hormone therapy and surgery at age 14, following trauma from sexual assault and bullying. Below, we explore this complex issue, focusing on the concerns raised about the medical industry’s approach to gender dysphoria in children, the role of trauma, and the need for balanced, evidence-based care.

The Case of Claire Abernathy: A Detransitioner’s StoryClaire Abernathy’s story, as discussed on The Glenn Beck Program, illustrates the concerns of those who believe the medical industry may exploit vulnerable youth. Abernathy began identifying as transgender at age 12, following a sexual assault and severe bullying. She describes how adopting a trans identity provided a new social network and a way to distance herself from her trauma. However, when she sought help, her therapists and doctors—practicing at a well-funded children’s hospital—allegedly dismissed her trauma as irrelevant to her gender dysphoria. Her parents were told that without hormone therapy and surgery, she was at high risk of suicide, a claim that pressured them into consenting. By November 2018, Abernathy was on testosterone, and by June 2019, she had undergone surgery, all before completing high school.Abernathy later detransitioned, citing a lack of informed consent. She was not told about permanent side effects, such as infertility or the inability to breastfeed, nor was she informed that many children with gender dysphoria eventually desist if given time to process their feelings. Her experience raises questions about whether the medical industry, driven by ideology or profit, may be too quick to affirm a child’s gender identity without exploring underlying issues like trauma.The Medical Industry’s Role: Protocols and PressuresGender-affirming care for minors typically involves a combination of social transition (e.g., using preferred pronouns or names), puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and, in rare cases, surgeries. Organizations like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) set guidelines that emphasize affirming a patient’s self-identified gender, often citing reduced psychological distress and suicide risk. However, critics argue these guidelines are applied inconsistently, especially for vulnerable children.In Abernathy’s case, doctors allegedly ignored her history of sexual assault and bullying, focusing solely on her gender dysphoria. This aligns with concerns raised by psychiatrist Dr. Miriam Grossman, who argues that some medical professionals treat gender dysphoria as a standalone condition, neglecting co-occurring issues like trauma, depression, or anxiety. Grossman notes that adolescent psychiatric units may even “create transgender children” by affirming identities without thorough evaluation.The pressure to affirm can come from multiple sources: medical institutions, advocacy groups, and even social dynamics. Abernathy mentioned therapists recommended by peers who shared her identity, creating an echo chamber that discouraged skepticism. Parents, like Abernathy’s, are often framed as abusive for questioning rapid medical interventions, adding emotional coercion to the decision-making process. This dynamic raises ethical questions about whether the medical industry prioritizes patient outcomes or adheres to ideological trends.The Role of Trauma in Gender DysphoriaSexual assault and other traumas can profoundly impact a child’s sense of self, sometimes leading to gender dysphoria as a coping mechanism. Abernathy’s story suggests her trans identity was partly a way to “become a new person” untainted by her assault. Yet, her mother’s attempts to address the trauma were dismissed by doctors, who insisted it was unrelated to her gender identity.Research supports the link between trauma and gender dysphoria. A 2018 study in JAMA Surgery found that transgender youth are more likely to have experienced adverse childhood experiences, including sexual abuse, compared to cisgender peers. However, some medical protocols, like those endorsed by WPATH, prioritize affirmation over trauma-focused therapy, potentially overlooking root causes. Critics argue this approach risks misdiagnosis and irreversible harm, especially since studies, like a 2021 review in Frontiers in Psychiatry, show that up to 80% of prepubescent children with gender dysphoria may desist naturally by adulthood if not medically intervened.The Medical Industry’s Incentives: Profit and IdeologySkeptics of gender-affirming care point to financial and ideological incentives within the medical industry. Gender-affirming treatments, including hormones and surgeries, generate significant revenue. For example, a single course of puberty blockers can cost thousands of dollars annually, and surgeries like mastectomies or vaginoplasties can range from $10,000 to $50,000. Pharmaceutical companies benefit from lifelong hormone prescriptions, as highlighted by Dr. Grossman, who warns that some youth become “consumers of pharmaceuticals the rest of their life.”Ideologically, the push for affirmation may stem from advocacy groups and medical bodies like the American Academy of Pediatrics, which endorse early intervention despite limited long-term data. The WPATH Files, leaked in 2024, revealed internal concerns among WPATH members about the lack of evidence for pediatric gender-affirming care, yet public guidelines remain unchanged. This discrepancy suggests a disconnect between scientific caution and clinical practice, potentially driven by social pressures or fear of backlash.Ethical Concerns and the Need for ReformThe experiences of detransitioners like Abernathy highlight ethical lapses in gender-affirming care for minors. Key issues include:

• Informed Consent: Minors, especially those with trauma, may not fully understand the permanent consequences of treatments like hormones or surgery. Abernathy was not informed about infertility or the high rates of desistance among youth.
• Trauma-Informed Care: Failing to address underlying issues like sexual assault risks misdiagnosis. Trauma-focused therapies, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, could resolve dysphoria without medical intervention.
• Parental Rights: Parents are sometimes sidelined or pressured, as seen in Abernathy’s case, undermining family involvement in critical decisions.
• Long-Term Outcomes: Data on the long-term effects of pediatric gender-affirming care is sparse. A 2022 study in The Lancet found mixed mental health outcomes for youth on puberty blockers, with some showing no improvement in suicidality.

Critics, including former LGBT activist K. Yang, argue that the medical industry’s approach resembles “social engineering,” with children being nudged toward trans identities through schools, media, and healthcare settings. Yang, who once worked at an LGBT nonprofit, notes that the concept of a “trans child” was virtually unknown a decade ago, yet now, a 2019 CDC survey reported 1 in 50 high school students identifying as trans—a sharp rise attributed to cultural shifts rather than inherent prevalence.A Path Forward: Balancing Compassion and CautionTo address these concerns, reforms could include:

1. Mandatory Trauma Screening: Require comprehensive psychological evaluations to identify trauma or co-occurring conditions before any medical intervention.
2. Stricter Age Guidelines: Limit irreversible treatments like hormones and surgeries to those over 18, as some European countries like Sweden have done.
3. Enhanced Informed Consent: Ensure minors and parents are fully educated about risks, including infertility and desistance rates.
4. Support for Detransitioners: Provide resources for those who regret their transitions, addressing physical and psychological harm.

The medical industry must balance compassion for gender-dysphoric youth with rigorous, evidence-based care. While some children may benefit from gender-affirming treatments, cases like Claire Abernathy’s suggest that trauma survivors are particularly vulnerable to being rushed into irreversible decisions. By prioritizing holistic care and addressing underlying issues, the industry can better serve these children without exploiting their vulnerabilities.ConclusionThe story of Claire Abernathy, as shared on The Glenn Beck Program, underscores the need for scrutiny of the medical industry’s approach to gender-affirming care for minors, especially those with histories of sexual assault or trauma. While the industry claims to act in patients’ best interests, financial incentives, ideological pressures, and inadequate protocols may lead to harm. By fostering open debate, prioritizing trauma-informed care, and ensuring informed consent, we can protect vulnerable children from being taken advantage of while supporting their mental and physical well-being.Note: This article draws on Claire Abernathy’s interview on The Glenn Beck Program () and related discussions (,). For further details, see www.glennbeck.com/radio/glenn-interviews-detransitioner-deceived-doctors and www.glennbeck.com/detransitioner-theres-no-trans-child. Always approach such topics with critical thinking, as media sources may carry biases.