US continues to go backward...

[Ryno]

Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling blacks’ and his views on gun control

The far-right commentator pulled no punches when discussing his bigoted views on current events

www.irishtimes.com

Charlie Kirk, the far-right commentator and ally of Donald Trump, was killed on Wednesday doing what he was known for throughout his career – making incendiary and sometimes racist and sexist comments to large audiences.

If it was current and controversial in US politics, chances are that Kirk was talking about it. On his podcasts, and on the podcasts of friends and adversaries – and especially on college campuses, where he would go to debate students – Kirk spent much of his adult life defending and articulating a worldview aligned with Trump and the Maga movement.

Accountable to no one but his audience, he did not shy away in his rhetoric from bigotry, intolerance, exclusion and stereotyping.

Here’s Kirk, in his own words. Many of his comments were documented by Media Matters for America, a progressive non-profit that tracks conservative media.

---

On race

“If I see a black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.”


– The Charlie Kirk Show, January 23rd, 2024

“If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, December 8th, 2022

“Happening all the time in urban America, prowling blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, May 19th, 2023

“If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because affirmative action?”


– The Charlie Kirk Show, January 3rd, 2024

“If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us ... You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, July 13th, 2023


On debate

“We record all of it so that we put [it] on the internet so people can see these ideas collide. When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.”

– Kirk discussing his work in an undated clip that circulated on X after his killing.


“Prove me wrong.”

– Kirk’s challenge to students to publicly debate him during the tour of colleges he was on when he was assassinated.

On gender, feminism and reproductive rights

“Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.”

– Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement on The Charlie Kirk Show, August 26th, 2025

“The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered.”

– Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded, published on September 8th, 2024

“We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, April 1st, 2024


On gun violence

“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. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

– Event organised by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on April 5th, 2023


On immigration

“America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, August 22nd, 2025

“The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, March 20th, 2024

“The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, March 1st, 2024

On Islam

“America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank: large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America.”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, April 30th, 2025

“We’ve been warning about the rise of Islam on the show, to great amount of backlash. We don’t care, that’s what we do here. And we said that Islam is not compatible with western civilisation.”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, June 24th, 2025

“Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.”

– Charlie Kirk social media post, September 8th, 2025

On religion

“There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, July 6th, 2022

Picking short parts out of longer interviews or debates. Here...

 

[jetman]

NYT (Published one day prior to Kirk death):

“There is now growing alarm among leading conservatives about Mr. Fuentes, who routinely tests the cultlike devotion of his young male fans by savaging their patriarchal figure, President Trump, for not being right-wing enough. In the process, he has emerged as one of the loudest voices on the right to turn on the president.”

Nick Fuentes: A White Nationalist Problem for the Right

For years, conservatives hoped that the notorious white nationalist would go away. Instead, Mr. Fuentes has gained more traction, even while opposing the president.

www.nytimes.com

View attachment 14099



So let me get this right…

The shooter was a Groyper: the super crazy Nazi/alt-right group led by Nick Fuentes that doesn't think the youth right is radical enough and should be more radical

Charlie Kirk is a more famous podcaster than Nick Fuentes.

Fuentes hates Kirk.

Both are from the Chicago suburbs.

Nick considered Kirk to be an adversary.

So it was one of Nick’s foot soldiers, that took out Kirk!!!

This is gang violence!! Except, instead of rappers, its podcasters

This post is going to age well.

 

[cowboyinexile]

This post is going to age well.

Paywall.

So what if this kid says he did it because Fuentes told him to send a message? I still think its too early to know what happened here but for all the MAGA talk about this means war on the left, where do they go if one of their generals had another general fragged?

 

[GratefulPoke]

And people say the DNC is bad with talking points.

The thing is, most of Kirks statements are on tape and I've watched them, in context. I would encourage people to do this for themselves.

Picking short parts out of longer interviews or debates. Here...

View attachment 14101

 

[steross]

I disagree with this article. The author focuses on schizophrenia and psychosis when depression is one of the main causes IMO. Hopelessness and suicide are two hallmarks of depression. People commit suicide because they are depressed for one reason or the other.

Plus the author tries to blame a litany of other items, such as "violent video games" whose link to acts of violence has been thoroughly debunked.

Depression obviously causes suicide. The association of depression with mass shootings as anything more than an association is as weak as the one with video games. I'd love to see the data you have that makes you consider it a main cause.

 

[steross]

Paywall.

So what if this kid says he did it because Fuentes told him to send a message? I still think its too early to know what happened here but for all the MAGA talk about this means war on the left, where do they go if one of their generals had another general fragged?

Nick Fuentes: A White Nationalist Problem for the Right

For years, conservatives hoped that the notorious white nationalist would go away. Instead, Mr. Fuentes has gained more traction, even while opposing the president.

www.nytimes.com

 

[PF5]

Picking short parts out of longer interviews or debates. Here...

View attachment 14101

Yeah, you already sent that one. I realize things can be taken out of context but I also realize some comments need no context to know what type of person you’re dealing with.
You agree with his comments, I don’t. I think they’re cruel and bigoted.

 

[Stillwater Townie]

Picking short parts out of longer interviews or debates. Here...

View attachment 14101

5. Charlie Kirk did read a passage from Leviticus that advocated for stoning gay people to death and called it 'God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters'. So, I don't think he would ever voice any oppostion to Christian Nationalist legislators who want to pass a bill to stone gays to death. Probably Kirk wouldn't welcome Jesus telling him, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

I wonder if Kirk called death for adulterers in the bible another one of God's perfect laws when it comes to sexual matters. But then I suppose he forgave Trump for indulging in adultery.

The controversial things Kirk said were too much of a distraction from conservative causes that may have as much as 50%+ support. I think Ben Shapiro said he wants to replace Kirk. I don't follow him much so don't know if he seeks to stir up needlessly divisive controveries as well. He is supposedly pro-Zionist, so that won't hurt with the Mossad.

 

[steross]

He was very good at allowing people he debated to fully express their thoughts. He rarely interrupted and seemed to show them a lot respect.
He however was an unbelievable debater and could articulate his thoughts better than most people. He also was very black and white and would not waver from his position. I can see how someone with a differing opinion could become angry listening to him.

If you are ready to cast someone who disagrees with him into the "just become angry" category, have you ever considered your own views could make you think more highly of him than his words and actions deserve?

Someone who never waivers from his position is not being an honorable person and is a dishonest debater. Unless your claim is that he is some sort of omniscient being, what you are saying is that even when wrong, he would battle the person to feel (and make his followers think) he is right.

 

[Polds4OSU]

Marine fired over anti-Charlie Kirk post, Hegseth says Pentagon 'tracking' military posts

Marine fired over anti-Charlie Kirk post, Hegseth says Pentagon 'tracking' military posts

The Pentagon is \

www.usatoday.com

 

[Polds4OSU]

Fox News host casually floats "involuntary lethal injection, just kill them" for homeless people. That's not hyperbole that is a direct quote.

John Curtis (@wartoothglass) on Threads

Fox News host casually floats "involuntary lethal injection, just kill them" for homeless people. That's not hyperbole that is a direct quote.

www.threads.com

 

[Propoke]

If you are ready to cast someone who disagrees with him into the "just become angry" category, have you ever considered your own views could make you think more highly of him than his words and actions deserve?

Someone who never waivers from his position is not being an honorable person and is a dishonest debater. Unless your claim is that he is some sort of omniscient being, what you are saying is that even when wrong, he would battle the person to feel (and make his followers think) he is right.

That is not at all what I said. I never inferred that he was infallible or an omniscient being. I never said his opinion was always right.

I think we can all agree Charlie was a very talented debater. When an ordinary person tries to debate someone of his ability it can be very frustrating and emotions can run high.

I didn’t agree with every take Charlie had, but it is very clear he was firm in his views and was very knowledgeable.

 

[JTOSU]

You’re not going to change some people’s minds. They’ve heard a few selected quotes that were taken out of context and given to them by liberal talking heads. They can’t be bothered to actually listen to his campus tours.

There are literally thousands of hours of Kirk debating people with differing opinions. I’m sure there are a few times he lost his temper, had a bad day or just misspoke. If you record anyone long enough you can pull a few statements out that look bad.

I do agree with you that too many will never admit they were wrong. Sometimes, when someone's point of view is challenged, it can feel uncomfortable or even threatening. In those moments, it's not uncommon for people to disengage or interpret things in ways that weren’t actually said.

If there’s a silver lining, it may be that some people are now seeing Kirk’s commentary in a fuller context and recognizing that they may have initially been influenced by incomplete sound bites or misleading sources. Just today, Stephen King tweeted out twice apologizing for his Kirk tweets and admitting he was wrong about an accusation he made about Kirk.

 

[Stillwater Townie]

That is not at all what I said. I never inferred that he was infallible or an omniscient being. I never said his opinion was always right.

I think we can all agree Charlie was a very talented debater. When an ordinary person tries to debate someone of his ability it can be very frustrating and emotions can run high.

I didn’t agree with every take Charlie had, but it is very clear he was firm in his views and was very knowledgeable.

Very knowledgeable? Ha, we might be surprised by how people with supposedly high IQs are so pitifully lacking in common sense and critical thinking skills, particularly in fields they have no training for. But in Kirk's case, I can't find anywhere he was smart in anything from the result of putting in the effort to obtain a college degree.

 

[steross]

That is not at all what I said. I never inferred that he was infallible or an omniscient being. I never said his opinion was always right.

I think we can all agree Charlie was a very talented debater. When an ordinary person tries to debate someone of his ability it can be very frustrating and emotions can run high.

I didn’t agree with every take Charlie had, but it is very clear he was firm in his views and was very knowledgeable.

You wrote this:

He also was very black and white and would not waver from his position.

That is what I responded to. Read my post again as I did not claim you said any of that. What I said is UNLESS an omniscient being he should not be “Black and white” and never wavering from a position. That isn’t a good debater, it is a showman. The few times I saw him he seemed more verbal bully than good debater. A good debater wins with ideas and also learns that some other ideas are better and compromises.

 

[steross]

He said that:
Kirk suggested that the Bible verse Leviticus 20:13, which endorses the execution of homosexuals, serves as “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

Then he (Kirk) added that people should have “just took care of” transgender people “the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s.” Let’s be clear about what that meant: the 1950s and 60s were not kind to transgender people. The “standard treatments” were lobotomy, shock therapy, and involuntary institutionalization. Police commissioners openly described queer people as “a cancer in the community” and promoted “vigilant detecting.” Violence was the norm.

Do you agree with those sentiments and think that they are polite and nonviolent?

Hyperbolic statements aren’t great but are so common now as to be fairly easy to ignore. But, IMHO,here is the real harm. When commentators like him spout racial “facts” that paint one race worse than another but exaggerate and/or avoid the real data.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1965992095790846303