South African Christian Defends Charlie Kirk Against Media Hit Piece by Rebecca Davis
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Andrew Kolvet Responds to Jasmine Crockett's Attack During SPLC Hearing Before Jim Jordan's Judiciary Committee
5:46
Charlie Kirk Debates Affirmative Action and Crime Statistics With College Student on Constitutional Grounds
14:31
Glenn Beck Exposes Five Dangerous Lies Spread About Charlie Kirk and Their Origins
13:08
South African Christian Defends Charlie Kirk Against Media Hit Piece by Rebecca Davis
A South African Christian content creator StephanZA, dismantles a media article by Rebecca Davis that misrepresents Charlie Kirk's views and questions why South Africans mourned his passing. He argues that Davis takes Kirk's statements out of context, particularly regarding Martin Luther King Jr., the Civil Rights Act, and biblical teachings on marriage. The creator explains that Christian conservatives in South Africa connected with Kirk not because of shared national identity, but because of shared faith, making Kirk a brother in Christ worth defending over fellow South Africans who reject Christian values.
The South African media has proven itself unreliable when it comes to reporting facts, and Rebecca Davis's recent article about Charlie Kirk is no exception. While this content creator typically avoids targeting individual journalists, Davis's piece warrants a detailed response due to its numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
The situation with Charlie Kirk has moved beyond what South Africans can influence—it now rests in the American sphere. At church, the congregation prayed for Kirk's family and for America. The pastor tailored his entire service around what it means to be a man of God and the reality that believers will face persecution. Christians are warned from the beginning that they will be persecuted and killed, just as their savior was killed first. There's no way around this reality.
Understanding South Africa's Digital Divide
According to statistics from the Global Digital Report in 2024, more than a quarter of South Africans—around 26%—do not use the internet at all. Only 40% of South Africans use any form of social media, and more than three-quarters do not listen to podcasts. This digital divide is significant when considering the reach of these discussions.
Who Charlie Kirk Actually Was
Davis asks "who is Charlie Kirk?" and then proceeds to mischaracterize him. She suggests that while some viewed Kirk as conservative rather than right-wing, there's "no denying that some of his views were extreme." However, she fails to provide real examples of Kirk's extreme views. Instead, she offers examples completely taken out of context.
Charlie Kirk was as mainstream Christian conservative as you can get. The problem with Davis and those on the left is they have watered down Christianity to a more digestible version—something along the lines of "God loves everyone so much." But God hates sin, and as Christians, believers are called to hate and judge sin as well. The wrath of God is upon all those who do not repent of their sins. That's where Christians stand. There's nothing right-wing about Charlie Kirk—he represented mainstream Christian conservative values.
Martin Luther King Jr. and Historical Context
Davis cites Kirk's 2023 statement referring to Martin Luther King Jr. as "an awful and not a good person" as evidence of extreme views. However, Kirk wasn't wrong. Martin Luther King Jr. may have stood for good things, but as FBI papers have shown, he was involved in parties where people were raped, covered up sexual abuse, and participated in orgies. King was not a good man personally, even if he fought for the right of black people to be part of society—which was indeed good. Christians can acknowledge the positive aspects of King's civil rights work while recognizing his serious moral failings.
The Civil Rights Act Critique
Davis claims Kirk's criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act—which ended racial segregation in the US and prohibited discrimination based on race—was part of a campaign to discredit it. But here's what she leaves out: Kirk's critique of the Civil Rights Act wasn't that black people shouldn't have the right to vote or live in society. He supported those aspects. What he opposed was how the act created a permanent apparatus for the state to push socialism into society, where there would constantly be grievance legislation allowing the state to push affirmative action and other programs. That was the part he criticized—not black people's rights to vote and participate in society.
Jews and Cultural Marxism
Davis points out that Kirk "repeatedly referred to Jews as being the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas." The evidence is there—people like George Soros, who is Jewish, openly fund cultural Marxist ideas, think tanks, and similar organizations. Jews are behind much of this. If you examine university professors in America, the ones championing left-wing ideology are mostly Jews. This doesn't mean all Jews are bad—the creator supports Israel and has nothing against Jews. But one can simply observe that Jews are behind most of the cultural left-wing movements in society. That's absolutely true.
Biblical Marriage and Submission
Davis criticizes Kirk for urging "women to submit to their husbands." This is exactly what Paul instructs in the Bible: "Women, submit to your husbands as unto the Lord. Husbands, serve your wife as Christ served the church." If anything, the greater burden is placed on men. Husbands are instructed to serve their wives as Christ served the church. What did Christ do for the church? He died for it. So husbands are literally instructed to die for their wives, or at least be willing to do so.
There's nothing controversial about Kirk's statements. What he believed is mainstream Christian theology. Plenty of Christian women happily submit to their husbands because they understand it's not a value proposition but an order of leadership. If both people try to lead, the relationship falls apart. Based on the success rates of marriages throughout history, perhaps society should return to these biblical principles. The modern "girl boss" approach isn't leading to happier women—suicide rates among young women are the highest they've ever been worldwide. Divorce rates are higher than ever before. Maybe Kirk had a point.
Michelle Obama and DEI
Davis mentions Kirk's comments about Michelle Obama and other black women, claiming they demonstrate he believed these women "clearly don't have the brain processing power to be in the positions for their own merits." Kirk wasn't making that point about black women in general or black people in general. He was speaking specifically about Michelle Obama and several other individuals. If memory serves, he was reacting to a video where several black women were speaking out of turn, and he made the point that none of them actually deserved to be where they were—that without DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), they wouldn't be there.
This isn't saying that black people in general don't deserve their positions. There are plenty of black people who are incredibly intelligent and who deserve all the praise, merit, and success they have achieved. But when you have DEI, affirmative action, or similar programs, you end up with people in positions where they don't belong. This is fact. There's nothing wrong with what Kirk was saying—it's not a racist remark because he wasn't equating all black people. Having listened to some of Michelle Obama's statements, there's no other way to put it: she has said some remarkably unintelligent things. It's insane that Davis would try to make this out as some big gotcha about who Charlie Kirk actually was.
South Africa's Response
Davis shifts to discussing South African reactions, noting that the Iranian flag flew at half-mast to honor Kirk, and that bosses of certain local institutions and individuals who challenge leftist beliefs are also subject to fierce criticism. She acknowledges that Kirk's example proved the conservative voice must be heard and that well-founded arguments will prevail in a world where woke agendas are often imposed on young people.
The "Woke Agenda" Debate
Davis then attempts to retort by saying that in South Africa, arguments about woke agendas are solely the province of the exceptionally privileged and elite institutions. But outlets like hers are pushing this ideology. Just because most kids in South Africa don't go to university doesn't mean Christians shouldn't focus on fighting these ideas. The focus is necessary because left-wing activists are trying to indoctrinate a portion of young people in universities, and it's unacceptable. Christians must fight back against this evil.
Even if most South Africans aren't going to university and aren't getting indoctrinated in these left-wing propaganda centers, enough are attending that pushback is required. That's the point many people were making.
Davis goes on to explain how the transgender debate—which she finds "exhausting" because activists want to pretend men can be women—wouldn't even register in South Africa because the country doesn't even have toilets in many schools. She essentially argues that the "war on woke" is a waste of time and has nothing to do with South Africa.
Christianity in South Africa
Davis then discusses how South Africa is a majority Christian nation, with 64% believing that the Bible is the literal word of God and 76% affirming their belief in related statements. But that's exactly the point—Davis and those like her are outnumbered.
Here's the equalizer that Davis and other secular journalists will never understand about Christianity: While both Davis and this content creator are South African, if forced to choose who to defend and protect between her and a Christian conservative in America, the choice would be the Christian conservative in America every single time. Why? Because that person is a fellow brother or sister in Christ. Davis, as an unbeliever, represents the secular world and its values.
Christians want unbelievers to come to repentance so they can be counted as brothers and sisters in Christ. But as long as someone is not a fellow believer, they represent the evil of this world and are not worth defending in the same way. Christians must love everyone, but they can hate everything unbelievers stand for and everything they do.
Why Charlie Kirk Mattered to South African Christians
This is why Christian conservatives in South Africa were deeply impacted by Charlie Kirk's death. To them, they lost a brother in Christ. Davis might not understand this because she's too left-wing, self-absorbed, and narcissistic to grasp it. But to Christian conservatives, they lost a brother in Christ. That's why it mattered to them—not because of national identity, but because of shared faith that transcends borders.
