I don't agree with Charlie Kirk's positions on some issues and I do agree with him on others. I've watched a few dozen videos in the past week and I find him to be an energized debater with complex views on many subjects but also some hard lines. People on the political Left have unrelentingly called him a racist. Is that true? Check out this video, where you will see Charlie losing his patience with an actual racist and banishing him from the line.
Eli Steele (son of Shelby Steele) is "over it":
We are over black power
We are over white guilt
We are over white privilege
We are over respectability politics
We are over white fragility
We are over white-adjacent
We are over inclusivity/belonging
We are over BIPOC
We are over victimhood
We are over oppressor vs. oppressed
We are over cancel culture
We are over antisemitism
We are over cultural appropriation
We are over systemic racism
We are over Black Lives Matter
We are over DEI
We are over systems of oppression
We are over reparations
We are over Uncle Tom
We are over performative allyship
We are over ideology
We are individuals.
Who is Eli Steele?
[From Grok] Eli Steele is an award-winning American filmmaker, writer, and commentator known for his documentaries that critically examine race, identity, and social issues in the United States. Born around 1974, he is Black, Jewish, and deaf (relying on cochlear implants and lip-reading), and he lives in Los Angeles with his two children. He is the son of Shelby Steele, a prominent Black conservative author and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, with whom Eli has frequently collaborated on projects.Background and HeritageSteele's family history reflects resilience and diverse experiences: his paternal great-grandfather was born into American slavery, while his maternal grandmother escaped Nazi persecution in Europe before returning to rescue her family. These roots inform his perspective on identity and freedom, often framing his work around themes of individual agency over group-based ideologies.
I'm not over the modern versions of these things because I immediately recognized these things to be the grifts they are, performative grabs for money and power.
Michael Shellenberger, at Public:
"Why did they engage in so much dehumanization for so long? In large part, the reason is because Kirk challenged left wing mythology on gender, race and modern feminism. One cannot change one's sex through drugs, surgery or magical thinking. Kirk and other conservatives noted. There is no epidemic of police officers killing black men. In fact, the numbers declined dramatically from the 1970s to the birth of black lives matter. Black Americans commit crimes at numbers clearly disproportionate to their share of the population, and some research does, in fact, suggests that liberal, secular women report more mental health issues and lower life satisfaction than conservative, religious women who are more likely to be married and to have children.
The left cannot tolerate these challenges to its worldview, and so it resorts to censorship and silencing. The share of college students who support using violence to stop a campus speech rose from 24% to 34% between 2021 and 2025 poignantly, in April, Kirk himself posted on x about rising support for violence on the left. Assassination culture is spreading on the left. He noted, 48% of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. 55% said the same thing about Donald Trump.
In California. It's simply not good enough now for Democratic politicians like Newsom and news media outlets like the New York Times, who spent the last decade dehumanizing millions of their fellow citizens, including Trump and Kirk, to simply say that they shouldn't be killed. If they truly oppose political violence, they should apologize for their relentless false accusations of racism and bigotry, and they should try to make amends by humanizing conservatives.
The media Democrats and the wider left must stop portraying MAGA supporters who have Christian nationalist and conservative views as equivalent to Nazis and fascists through the use of loaded terms like "Far Right."
Let us all come together and condemn violence of any kind. Said former MSNBC commentator Dowd, in his apology. Well, if he really means that, then he and others at MSNBC, The New York Times, the Democratic Party, must go further and renounce their own demonization of Kirk, Trump and other conservatives, We have little confidence that the Left will apologize or change its behavior for many of the same reasons the Left dehumanized Kirk in the first place. The mainstream view of the left today, as represented by everyone from Democrats in Congress to the New York Times to NPR and PBS, is that Western civilization itself is corrupt and evil. The Democratic Party of the last roughly 12 years has lost any semblance of being a Liberal Party and has become an overtly illiberal radical Left one
From the Left's reaction to the assassination, more Americans and people around the world will see that the Left hated and still hates Kirk precisely because he loved Western civilization and fought to conserve it. If any Democrats and progressives really want to end political violence, they would stop encouraging fanaticism and instead embrace dialog and debate. They would go beyond simply writing articles, and instead go to colleges and universities and start having honest conversations about race, sex, gender and other issues essential to discussing it openly, if we were to move forward as a country.
They would stop accusing their political opponents of spreading hate or misinformation and instead listen to what they actually have to say. That's what is so important to our country, is to find our disagreements respectfully because when people stop talking, said, Kirk. That's when violence happens. Thanks for listening."
I'll start with this post by Mike Benz:
If one really wanted to diminish the importance of "race," one would not capitalize only one "race" but not others. But this is a minor skirmish. As I've written before, the very concept of "race" is a grift; the usage of the concept of "race" has never enhanced human flourishing. It only pits us against one another. It's time for all of us to wake up and abolish the use of "race." We can talk about each other perfectly well without use of the term "race," which, at best, serves as a proxy for other things.
Sheena Mason argues that "race" is not biologically real—she points to evidence showing extensive human migration and mixing, where traits like skin color do not reliably correlate with ancestry (e.g., two dark-skinned South Africans can be more genetically divergent than one is from a light-skinned Swede).
She argues that "race" serves to perpetuate racism, a hierarchical system that disguises itself as innate differences. She critiques both "anti-racist resistance" (which centers race in analysis, as seen in thinkers like Ibram X. Kendi) and "color-blindness" (which ignores race but still treats it as real) for inadvertently reinforcing racial categories.
For Mason, undoing racism requires dismantling the belief in race altogether. A central tool in her approach is the "racelessness translator," which "translates" race-based language into non-racial terms to reveal underlying issues (e.g., reframing "racial disparities in policy effects" as class-based inequities).
There is no such thing as "race," even though racism can still be found. There are people who will nevertheless assure us that "race" is a meaningful term and who discriminate against those of a particular "race." They should be prosecuted under civil rights laws. It's time for the rest of us to move on.
For more, see my previous post, "Race is like Astrology."
Corporate media outlets had to ponder for several days whether this brutal unprovoked attack was newsworthy.
Finally, some coverage under pressure from international news outlets. It just didn't fit the narrative.
