Of course, the purpose of clipping some of his words is to paint Charlie Kirk as a racist.

Yes. Charlie Kirk did say, “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”

He also said:

“The Civil Rights Act, yeah, let’s be clear. Created a beast and that beast has now turned into an anti-white weapon…if you have unapologetic ferocious anti-white racism then young whites are going to find some very radical positions and I don’t want that actually…that’s where a lot of young white men that we speak to on campus are at (end of their rope).

I sometimes have to bring them back in to free society like let’s calm down because they say everyone is against us and we need to create our own identity politics group. I actually don’t think that’s a good idea. I don’t think more tribalism is the answer to tribalism.”

Following is a comment by a reader amplifying this subject. These are NOT Charlie’s words.

Among other things, the Civil Rights Act was a linchpin in the slow but steady erosion of common law property rights and freedom of association rights.

While I personally oppose discrimination based on race, religion, or most other characteristics (see my examples, later), I believe boycotts were a more ethical and effective tool for achieving those ends, even if slower than legislative mandates.

Boycotts were working well anyway—if not quickly enough for the adherents of the Civil Rights Act. I hold that the Act gained broad acceptance *because* the idea of non-discrimination based on race, etc. had steadily growing popular support anyway.

This support grew somewhat more slowly in the Southern states but certainly more quickly in the Northern states.

The government, which claims to represent everyone—and certainly should not have the right to discriminate between citizens on most grounds in the provision of state services—has a different role than private businesses.

Private businesses, however, are distinct.

I’m not a leftist, but should a left-wing print shop be forced to print flyers promoting views they find abhorrent, such as anti-union slogans? I’d argue no; that should be up to the owner.

Similarly, should a women’s club be forced to admit men, or a men’s club be forced to admit women? I’d make the same argument: no, in both cases.

The precedent set by the Civil Rights Act, which prioritized expediency over principle, paved the way for further government interventions.

For example, anti-smoking laws forced bar and restaurant owners to first limit and then eliminate smoking in their own establishments.

It would have been better had those who wished non-smoking establishments simply worked with market-driven solutions like boycotts or the creation of non-smoking venues to address consumer preferences.

In other words, the Act was a tool of expediency, not principle, undermining the autonomy of private businesses in favor of rapid, state-enforced change.