Let's Not Forget Who Charlie Kirk Really Was
By: Joan Walsh (The Nation)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The right-wing influencer did not deserve to die, and we shouldn't forget the many despicable things he said and did.
The murder of right-wing provocateur Charlie Kirk is a tragedy. But the response augurs even bigger tragedies for American politics. Even as Democrats and progressives rushed to lament the killing, the right rushed even faster to blame the left for its opposition to Donald Trump and his authoritarian movement, a movement backed to the hilt by Kirk's Turning Point USA.
Kirk had every right to his views and to the way that he expressed them, even if he did not support that right for other people. He founded the Professor Watchlist, committed to singling out academics he believed discriminated against conservative views, scholarship, and students, leading to threats against some of the instructors named. He regularly attacked the LGBTQ community, saying, "God's perfect law… [says gay people] shall be stoned to death." He claimed the Civil Rights Act was "a huge mistake," and called Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. "an awful person." He mocked the 2023 political assault on Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul, and even suggested someone should bail his assailant out of jail. Kirk even attempted to link Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to the assassination of his close friend and ally, State Senator Melissa Hortman.
Ironically—if that word is even possible to use in 2023—he said: "I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
Kirk said and did many despicable things, but he did not deserve to die. Now his death is being used by the right to call for the persecution of practically anyone to Kirk's left. "The left is the party of murder," X owner Elon Musk intoned on his Nazi-adjacent site. Wisconsin Representative Derrick Van Orden told reporters that the media, "every one of you," is responsible. "You are responsible for this, because you are echoing the horrifically horrible political violent rhetoric produced by the Democrat Party." Kate Miller, the wife of Stephen Miller, who recently called the Democratic Party "a domestic extremist organization," posted on Musk's site: "It's a real treat to see all these Liberals condemn political violence now. You called us Hitler. You called us Nazis. You called us Racists. You have blood on your hands."
President Donald Trump blamed "radical-left political violence," and promised to "find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and other political violence, including the organizations that fund and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country." All of this while Trump's FBI chief Kash Patel was embarrassing himself by first claiming a "subject" was in custody and then having to announce the man was interrogated and released. There is still no suspect in custody and no reliable account of a motive for Kirk's murder.
Liberals were not the only ones who disdained Kirk. Proud Boy leader Nick Fuentes had long feuded with him, and recently attacked him for supporting the war in Gaza and flip-flopping on the Epstein files. (Like Fuentes, Kirk once was outraged by the administration's failure to release them as promised; when Trump leaned on him and others he backed off, Kirk said Epstein was a dead issue.)
Many on the right are frustrated with Trump's coddling of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump's inability to end the siege of Gaza. Kirk was a diehard Israel hawk. A few days ago, Laura Loomer attacked him for criticizing Trump's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. There are many threads of right-wing thought that could have led a conservative to pick up a gun; by the way, they have most of the guns.
But instead of fighting back, many liberals seem to be trying to mollify the right-wing crackpots. Maybe the worst thing I've seen today is Ezra Klein's smarmy "Charlie Kirk practiced politics exactly the right way" in Thursday's New York Times. "He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him," Klein wrote. "He was one of the era's most effective practitioners of persuasion. A taste for disagreement is a virtue in a democracy. Liberalism could use more of his moxie and fearlessness."
Author Mark Harris said it better than I could on Bluesky: "You can write this only if, by virtue of your income, identity, or both, you are utterly removed from the consequences of politics. To pretend that the racist, misogynistic, anti-gay vileness that Kirk spent his life spreading is secondary to the fact that he spread it 'the right way' is appalling."
Klein is not the only one to pretend that Kirk was a gentleman and a scholar who was open to all views, took all comers, and because of his skill, generally wound up beating them in the public square. In fact, Kirk mostly debated people he set up and knew less than he did, and he often played their views for laughs. Just because he and Gavin Newsom had a nice conversation on the governor's podcast doesn't make him a role model for our sons left or right. He may well have been a fine friend and family man, but he was also a vicious troll.
Nevertheless, people are being punished for saying anything like that. The cowards at MSNBC fired long-time political analyst (and GOP President George W. Bush adviser) Matthew Dowd for expressing regret for Kirk's death but then adding, "I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions." After his firing, Dowd apologized: "Let me be clear, I in no way intended for my comments to blame Kirk for this horrendous attack." A Florida reporter was suspended after asking Representative Randy Fine if Kirk's murder changed his stance on campus-carry gun laws.
As I write, TheWall Street Journal is reporting that "transgender, anti-fascist ideology" was found inside what is believed to be the murder weapon. I'll want to see a lot more evidence before I believe that. And "transgender ideology" isn't a thing—let alone something that can be communicated on a bullet casing. The latest: The Salt Lake City FBI released photos of a person of interest. He seems to be wearing a shirt with a flag and a bald eagle, and he looks nothing like a transgender antifa activist to my eyes. We so far know nothing about who did this.
If it turns out that Kirk's murderer did voice some nominally progressive views, it's still the fact that 75 percent of political murders have come from the extremist right in the last decade, according to the ADL Center on Extremism.
The media will continue to "both sides" the issue. Democrats absolutely should not.
Soon Charlie Kirk will be a right wing saint, if he isnt already. Our mainstream media will be complicit in this.
He’s more deserving of that than the criminal drug addict george floyd,
Here we go..
And this is why bluesky is filled with progressives celebrating the murder and debating who they want to shoot next.
They just keep ramping up the rhetoric until it's "Kirk really was no different than a Nazi, and shooting Nazis is good, so...."
Meanwhile right wing lunatics will make a saint out of him.
Alive Charlie Kirk was an incredibly divisive figure. In death he is suddenly a beacon of what every American should strive to be.
How do you know that? Are you a member of Blue Sky? Is that where you go when you're not at Newstalkers?
Yes, I signed up to see what the progressive bubble would say in response to this It was a mistake. I spent too much time there yesterday reading absolutely horrible, putrid stuff. It's toxic.
There's plenty of screencaps floating around if you look for them. But prepare to be sickened.
OMG....keeping an eye on the opposition are ya? Funniest thing I've heard all day
Yeah, I like to know how people outside my usual sources think. Some people can't comprehend wanting to be exposed to diverse thought and it shows.
Much better than left wing lunatics making a saint out of George Floyd, with the exception that Kirk was not a druggie, robber and dealer.
I think many of them would be horrified to find out their worldview was not what they have been brainwashed to believe so many decades.
lol
I used to listen to Rush Limpballs so there ya go.
I turn on and listen/watch Fox or Newsmax often, to see waht the latest talking points will be. What I notice, is a completely different set of "News" stories than that of other networks. "News" is in quotes because Fox is admittedly by its' owner NOT News, and so often omitted are stories that put light upon Trump and his atrocious actions, as well as actual evidence that very often refute his comical if not so serious, false claims. The 'Right' is Wrong, for not sharing the 'Truth', and it is not shown by design. In conversations the 'right' will claim that the GOP and or Trump are correct, while unable to erect, a cognitive thought compilation to support their often silly, proclamation, all because opposing views are not shown on their station, therefore the views they wish not to hear, make them appear, like a horses rear, as they often don't know Jack, cause they only hear the Bovine excretion, which leads to the absent secretion, of the truth.
How does condemning the content of his speech equate to calling for his murder?
Possibly because as I type this, my room is vibrating from a kick ass stereo system I first started building in the late 80's.
So my version of StereoTyping is different than theirs, i guess/...
Are you kidding with that? There are all kinds of nuts out there that think they are David Koresh.
Didn't this article mention that about 75% of political inspired violence was committed by the 'right', or did I read that elsewhere ...?
Observing that nuts exist does not answer my question.
Charlie Kirk . . . was just a young American, a married father of two small children, who went onto college campus and gave speeches and debated and stood up for his beliefs. He held no office. He had no government power. He controlled no policy. He was just some guy who wasn’t afraid to get up on a stage and say, “This is what I believe.”
And somebody out there decided to kill him over it.
And now, he get's attacked for being "divisive" which means he didn't mindlessly parrot the creed of left wing elites.
Charlie Kirk has led Turning Points USA for 13 years.
Maybe I'll go back and dig up some of the video, and writing, that has appeared under that banner in the past 13 years. It should prove interesting.
Nothing as divisive as wanting to have clear debate with folks that don't agree with you. S/ Many folks would much rather ignore people that disagree with them and just stay in their bubble with like minded folks.
I ignore people who I don't particularly give a damn about.
Thanks for some insight into your thinking.
If I don't like someone I don;t pay them any attention. I act like they don't exist. Isn;t that better than being a 2-faced bitch? All sweet to their face and then turn around and call them every nasty name I can think of? I think my way is showing a better character
OK
you don;t have to agree with me. But I would rather be upfront and brutally honest with people than lie to them
Be nice if a few others took that path. In the meantime, we have constant hammering............FOR NOTHING!!
you got it!
I don't agree with you but I respect your opinion. I am more of a you can find common ground with almost anyone if you sit down for an honest discussion. And if you can't you will hopefully have a better understanding of where the person is coming from. That is my opinion.
I've tried this approach, often, and often, all it does is frustrate. People dig in when challenged, and I've not the patience to dig them all out, though without a doubt, if i'm in the mood to play, there will be much to say, and hey, it is my way, or the highway, or is it i'm high, and no way, or they're high(or at least should be( for thinking that way....
After reading your comment I will update mine. I am specifically talking about face to face, not internet. If we are talking internet I agree with what you have to say.
No, I’m sorry. That’s baloney. You don’t get to condemn voices on the left - from BlueSky to to the news networks - as being powerful, persuasive, and violent, and then turn around and pretend that Charlie Kirk was just a sweet boy from the neighborhood who humbly expressed innocuous, mainstream views and influenced no one.
I am going to condemn people who celebrate murder. Sorry if that offends you.
harlie Kirk was just a sweet boy from the neighborhood who humbly expressed innocuous, mainstream views and influenced no one
What are you talking about? Who said he didn't influence anyone? He goes to places and debates people, cordially, from I've seen. He tries to convince his audience of his views. And he was killed for it.
That you want to equate that with people who celebrate murder because they find a speaker divisive is bizarre.
Hopefully a lot of clips will surface into the mainstream media of Kirk espousing far right views, but I wont hold my breath.
We are going to see a whitewashing (forgive the pun) of Kirks views because the media feels a need to bow to Trump. We are pretty much screwed.
Charlie Kirks main kick was promoting white grievance. There are dozens of videos of him "debating" college students on the subject of race. Unfortunately 19 and 20 year olds are not always the best able to conduct such debates as they tend to not have any nuance to what they say. Kirk takes advantage of their passion for topics they are not quite able to articulate.
Not offended, just calling you on your BS. You were whining about him being called “divisive,” which he factually was. Then you went on to disingenuously portray him as less influential than he was.
Plenty of people are capable of saying terrible things with a smile. It doesn’t make the content of their speech any less offensive or divisive.
Another lie. You are projecting. You said he was killed for his speech, but factually, you do don’t know who killed him or why.
Not offended, just calling you on your BS.
Lol. No, you are just deflecting and running from your own words.
Every politician and pundit is divisive. Kool-Aid drinking progressives use it as a slur when talking about someone outside their cult. For any progressive to call him "divisive" is the height of hypocrisy. Do you imagine your opinions aren't divisive?
Then you went on to disingenuously portray him as less influential than he was.
That's a lie.
. It doesn’t make the content of their speech any less offensive or divisive.
Who cares if you find it "offensive?" Unless you think your subjective opinion about who is offensive somehow justifies murdering him? Then we have issues. Otherwise your opinion isn't relevant.
other lie. You are projecting. Y
Now that's another lie. I criticized people for celebrating his murder and you incoherently argued that I can't criticize people for celebrating a murder because your apparently delicate sensibilities were offended by something Kirk said.
I can be offended by a politician or speaker and neither want them killed nor condone people celebrating their murder. But I'm a more tolerant person I guess.
Just who here has celebrated his murder?
No one that I have seen.
He divided people who listened to him by trying to argue for the wrong side.
I didn't say anyone on this site did. Go on any other social media platform. The examples are legion.
He divided people who listened to him by trying to argue for the wrong side.
That applies to every single person who argues something. It's your opinion. People who disagree with you would say the exact same thing about you.
Not really. And especially not like him.
No, that’s the truth. I don’t need you to admit it, though.
You do. That’s why you brought it up.
Except they aren’t celebrating it, by and large. Not that I’ve seen. Although many are probably not sorry. There’s a difference.
As can I. Which is why asked you the question I asked up in 2.1.10.
Sure. Everyone you agree with isn't divisive. Those you disagree with are.
ou do. That’s why you brought it up.
What are you talking about? You brought it up. I responded. At least pay attention to what you wrote.
Except they aren’t celebrating it
you can deny reality all you want.
As can I.
Can you? Not the impression I get.
ow does condemning the content of his speech equate to calling for his murder?
That's a nice strawman
That’s made up.
Nope. The first mention of being offended came from you in 4.3.1.
You’ve given us nothing to accept or deny. Just an unsupported claim.
He shows them they are not as smart as they think they are. Many of them are downright ignorant for what they are so passionate about. It is great that someone tells them the inconvenient truth.
So you weren't talking about Kirk when you wrote "It doesn’t make the content of their speech any less offensive or divisive." Lol.
ou’ve given us nothing to accept or deny.
I'm not going to hold your hand and teach you how to look for things on the internet. Seriously, if you haven't come across evidence of progressives celebrating his death, you need to get out of whatever bubble you keep yourself in.
You are right, here is someone overcome with grief.
I bet you I am more familiar with Charlie Kirks "debates" than you are. Most of his debates are with people 10 years younger than him. The times I have seen him debate someone his own age or older he doesnt do nearly as well.
Good example of making a claim you actually have no clue about.
Funny, I have seen him wipe the floor with college professors.
names? so i can see what you are claiming
You really expect me to remember names?
You dont have to, but I dont really take your word for it.
Or, you could just google it.
LOL. How many Charlie Kirk debates have you seen?
What the f does that have to do with anything? If YOU are interested in watching kirk debate college professors then be proactive and look for yourself. Don’t rely on others.
Because I have seen Charlie Kirk debates. He's not that great. Today I was watching him on a show called Surrounded where the guest debates 20 people for a couple minutes each one by one. Kirk was debating 20 college students. At one point they were debating if Kamala Harris was chosen to be vice president because of DEI. Kirks argument was that "what did she ever do to make her qualified to be vice president?" saying she was chosen only because she was a black woman.
The college students held their own but they miss the best counters.
What did JD Vance ever do to make him qualified to be vice president? You could very well argue that Harris career was much more in line with a VP candidate that Vance's was. But even more importantly than that, the history of the vice presidents of the United States is filled with people who had no more qualifications than Kamala Harris. When Richard Nixon was chosen to be Eisenhowers vice president he had no more political experience than Harris did. Nixon was chosen because he was more anti-communist than Eisenhower , who was considered more moderate. Its fine, because Eisenhower had his reasons for picking Nixon, just as Biden had his reasons for picking Harris. Harris was every bit as qualified as Nixon, even though the reasons they were selected was different.
Colllege kids generally dont think to make such arguments, they relate everything to their own frame of reference.
Maybe kirk felt that way because biden specifically said he would pick a black woman for vp?
maybe he felt that way because of her dismal 2020 campaign?
whatever the reason, half the country agreed with him.
nothing you say here is material as to whether or not she was qualified to be vice president. There are no qualifications .
She was the Attorney General of the most populous state in the nation , for six years and then a US Senator for four years before being nominated to run for vice president. Vance's only political office experience was two years as a US Senator.
Oh, i didn’t realize that I was the one who said she wasn’t qualified. Silly me, i thought we were talking about why charlie kirk said that. Although after her dismal performance as vp i’d she wasn’t qualified at all.
You are quoting my response from 4.3.4. That comes after your comment, which I just quoted in 4.3.1. As I said, you brought it up.
Good, because you can’t even handle numbers on this page, and the concept of before and after.
Not my problem. You made a claim that you didn’t support and you expect others to do your work for you. Same shit, different day.
Are we supposed to know what’s happening in this picture?
I think the guy just won a keg of beer... or his divorce might have been finalized
Yes
You are really emptying the holster trying to dirty a dead man up aren't you? Not even 24 hours..
When was the Pelosi attacker's motivation actually definitively made public? Was it before or after this clip? This clip is from days after the assault. The source cited for DePape being motivated by right wing conspiracy theories is from 18 months year later.
And since I know you aren't a hypocrite, can you point me to all the posts you made attacking left wing politicians and pundits who mocked Rand Paul for being attacked?
By quoting him?
He took the Fifth
The point of showing all these quotes and clips from Charlie Kirk, who was far right , is to slightly forestall his sainthood. I dont care if you or Trump consider him a saint, but i dont want to see that bs perpetrated on the rest of the country.
oint of showing all these quotes and clips from Charlie Kirk, who was far right , is to slightly forestall his sainthood
Lol. However you want to justify what you are doing...
So you've already doctored one quote. In this one you are crediting him with knowledge I don't think he had when he spoke. Can you at least make your criticisms honest and in context?
If he didnt have knowledge then why was he speaking? You dont want to admit that Charlie Kirk was far right.
He opposed the Civil Rights Act 60 years after it was passed and implemented. Who the hell but an extremist does that?
and I didnt doctor anything.
He is speaking on the information he has in his possession. You don't have perfect knowledge of Charlie Kirk. You speak about him.
ou dont want to admit that Charlie Kirk was far right.
I don't care if he's "far right". It doesn't make his murder any less horrible, nor justify the widespread left wing cheering over it.
I don't think "far left" pundits should be murdered in cold blood and I wouldn't justify nor celebrate their murder if they were.
Shooting him was indefensible. Period.
nd I didnt doctor anything
Sorry, your source did.
Nobody here claimed it was.
Maybe the worst thing I've seen today is Ezra Klein's smarmy "Charlie Kirk practiced politics exactly the right way" in Thursday's New York Times. "He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him," Klein wrote. "He was one of the era's most effective practitioners of persuasion. A taste for disagreement is a virtue in a democracy. Liberalism could use more of his moxie and fearlessness."
That sure is terrible. It is not time to tell the truth, it is time to demonize someone that can't defend themselves. S/
They are so far out in the fringes they think Ezra Klein is a fascist. Even the most milquetoast nod to norms "he talked to people" is evidence of some great betrayal of progressivism.
Yep. Many people feel if they can't bully you to their way of thinking they can't learn anything from you so there is no reason to talk.
charlie kirk
CO-PILOT
Yes—Charlie Kirk did make a statement referencing the stoning of gay people, and it has been widely criticized as part of his anti-LGBTQ rhetoric.
According to multiple sources, including MSN News , Kirk said:
Yes—Charlie Kirk made a controversial remark in early 2024 that sparked widespread backlash. During a podcast discussion about airline diversity hiring practices, he said:
Let's see the video of that in context.. given the track record of dishonest manipulation of his quotes, I'll bet he was not calling for gays to be stoned.
I havent seen a video. He is quoted as saying that. if Gods law is perfect then Kirk seems to be approving the stoning.
Here's Kirk talking to a gay student welcoming him to the conservative movement. Not advocating he get stoned to death.
I havent seen a video. H
I looked for a bit. Can't find it anywhere. Given the sources who are citing all over the place since he got killed also tend to include the debunked claim he that me made a comment about all black women, I'm exceedingly skeptical it was used in a context that supported stoning people.
If I had to bet, it's used as a rebuttal to someone citing a biblical quote to justify something else and Kirk using it as a debating point to show what that leads to.
Charlie Kirk Calls For STONING GAYS TO DEATH | The Kyle Kulinski Show - YouTube
You have to sift through this to see Kirks own words but he seems to be saying that because there is a passage in the Bible, which is perfect, that says men who lay down with men should be stoned, well.....
No , he doesnt say gays should be stoned, he says Gods perfect law called for it.
I guess there is a slight assumption that uber Christian Charlie Kirk wouldnt quote the Bible passage unless he accepted it.
That's exactly what I thought happened. he's clearly citing that passage as a rebuttal to Ms. Rachel's referencing of following scriptures, as in "so you (Ms. Rachel) must believe this too. " It's a debating technique. No one operating in good faith can possible he calling for "stoning gays to death"
This misinformation campaign using out of context snippets against him is pathetic.
He says God's perfect law calls for the stoning of gays. I assume you think Charlie Kirk agrees that Gods law is perfect.
I'm not saying Charlie Kirk will stand on a street corner yelling gays should be stoned. He said it is Gods law.
If gays get stoned today , it is very likely the person doing it will be arrested and charged with attempted murder.
I spent another ten minutes looking for the original video and I can't find it. Did see this tweet which sums up my understanding of what he was doing from that video:
It's just dishonest to claim he's calling for gays to be stoned yet its been all over left wing media the last 24 hours.
I take Charlie Kirk at his word that he thinks God's law is perfect.
As I said , I dont think he would stand on a street corner demanding gays be stoned. If it was done at his direction he would be in prison.
I would just ask Charlie Kirk, who was a super Christian, if Gods law is "perfect" what does the passage call for?