I keep saying I’m going to leave this alone, but alas, here I am.
What exactly are we “educating ourselves” on when it comes to Charlie Kirk? What’s supposedly being taken out of context? Sure, context always matters — but when the same theme shows up EVERY SINGLE TIME, it’s not about clips. It’s about stated beliefs. I’m gon’ break it down in sections and type real slow so maybe y’all can catch it…
On Black Women
Kirk’s racist, misogynistic commentary has been aimed at countless Black women who are public figures — branding them “DEI hires” or “affirmative action picks.”
- Michelle Obama
- Joy Reid
- Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
BRILLIANT Black women holding multiple degrees. This framing is deliberate. It delegitimizes their merit, implying they only hold roles because they’re Black and women.
And let’s not forget the moment:
I’m sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified. – Charlie Kirk
It’s the recycled narrative we’ve heard for centuries: non-whites and/or women are “unqualified, only here because of affirmative action” — or worse, that they “slept their way to the top.” (Sound familiar? Exactly like the comments being made about Attorney Ferguson on Instagram right now by people defending Kirk. The script never changes.)
On Juneteenth
Kirk openly called Juneteenth a “phony holiday,” “anti-American,” and part of a “neo-segregationist agenda.”
WTF does that even mean? Is it supposed to be Jim Crow 2.0? Because let’s be clear: Juneteenth marks the day slavery ended. That’s not “anti-American” — it’s America trying to live up to its own promise.
So no, this isn’t about critiquing how many federal holidays we add. It’s about dismissing Black freedom as illegitimate.
On Crime and Blackness
Kirk has repeatedly tied Blackness to criminality. He’s used phrases like “prowling Blacks” and pushed narratives that equate being Black with being a threat.
He even minimized the injustice of the Exonerated 5, continuing to argue they weren’t wronged — despite the courts clearing them. That’s not “debate.” That’s clinging to stereotypes even when facts prove them wrong.
On Immigration
Again and again, Kirk preached his white replacement rhetoric:
Democrats want to change the demographics of America. – Charlie Kirk
Mind you, the demographics of America were Native American until colonization.
He cast immigrants — especially Black and brown ones — as “invaders” and criminals. He talked about them breaking into homes, raping women, stealing children. That’s not immigration policy; that’s fear-mongering.
On Christianity
And then there’s the “Christian” label he carried. To call that man a Christian is a slap in the face to the grace and humility of Christ.
Kirk claimed America is meant to be a Christian nation, that separation of church and state is made up. Except some of us actually paid attention in civics and history classes. Your forefathers literally excluded God and Christianity from the Constitution. They banned government from establishing a religion.
John Adams himself signed a treaty saying the U.S. “is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
Jefferson talked about a “wall of separation between church and state.”
Madison warned religion and politics corrupt each other when fused.
OOPS. They knew in the 1700s what would happen. Y’all want to play dumb in 2025.
And yes, those same men owned slaves while preaching liberty. Hypocrisy runs deep. But one thing is clear: they didn’t advocate religious dominance the way Kirk, MAGA, and modern Christian nationalists do.
The Pattern, Not the Clip
Let me play devil’s advocate: what if he didn’t mean for his words to be inflammatory?
It literally doesn’t matter. IT DOES NOT MATTER. His words were and continue to be weaponized by followers to argue for exclusion or punishment against people who are different or don’t agree with them. Every public figure has lines that look worse when clipped. But in this case, even when you restore context, the pattern still points to rhetoric that delegitimizes marginalized identities and frames them as threats. So yes, we are going to call a thing a thing.
On Mourning vs. Celebrating
And let me be clear: not mourning Charlie Kirk is not the same as celebrating his death. Let me say that again. Not mourning someone, anyone, anything like Charlie Kirk is not the same as celebrating their death.
Refusing to weep doesn’t mean I’m throwing a party. It means I recognize the harm he caused, the patterns he normalized, and the lives he impacted with his words. It means I won’t participate in the cycle of pretending a harmful legacy deserves reverence simply because someone is gone.
Grief is complicated. Some of us grieve the vile influence he had on this country more than anything. And that’s valid. Choosing silence, choosing distance, or choosing not to mourn is not cruelty — it’s boundary.
And if pointing back to his own words offends people? That’s telling. Those same words have been used to silence and punish others. Jimmy Kimmel was censored for remarks about Kirk’s death. Countless everyday people have lost jobs over less. Meanwhile, MAGA politicians are out here behaving like ravenous dogs — circling his memory, using his death to score political points, while glossing over the harm he actually caused.
Then add the kicker: he even received a military funeral. The same America that treated him like a culture warrior now folds him into a tradition of honor, as if his legacy wasn’t built on tearing others down.
Highlighting what he chose to say isn’t cruelty. It’s record-keeping. It’s refusing to let revisionist history paint him as harmless just because he’s no longer here to defend himself.
When Policy Becomes Praise
And as if to prove the point, a Florida Republican just filed House Bill 113, proposing that state colleges and universities rename campus roads after Charlie Kirk – or lose state funding.
(WFLX, Oct. 8, 2025)
Yes – roads.
This isn’t symbolic “honorary naming.” It’s a demand, enforced by money and power. State policy being used to force institutions to commemorate a man whose platform actively harmed the very students those colleges serve.
If your legacy is built on exclusion, your commemoration becomes propaganda. When memory gets legislated, that’s not democracy – it’s control.
Black women, especially, know what it means when the state starts naming things after those who stood against us. It’s not just tribute. It’s warning. And yes, these people are in a whole cult. But that’s a topic for another blog.
Final Word
So miss me with the “out of context” foolishness. The context is crystal clear.
Charlie Kirk built a career on delegitimizing, excluding, and weaponizing. That’s not free speech—it’s strategy. And now, his name being written into law shows exactly how normalized that strategy has become.
As a Black woman in America, I’m not surprised by who’s defending him. But I refuse to pretend we don’t see what’s right in front of us.
We see it.
We name it.
We call it a thing.
Discover more from Dear Black Grl
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dear Black Grl 