For those of you who missed it, just a reminder: On the same day that Charlie Kirk was killed, Black Lives Matter compared physical violence to a normal bodily function.
In a post that’s since come down, the official Instagram account of the Black Lives Matter movement posted a reel from a 1983 movie in which a black character says that “all oppressed people have a right to violence.”
While the context was uncertain, the reel seemed to reference the murder of Iryna Zarutska by a mentally ill man on the Charlotte, North Carolina, light rail.
“I got that white girl. I got that white girl,” her alleged killer, Decarlos Brown Jr., can be heard saying in video released by the Charlotte Transit Authority.
This would have been, then, the perfect time for a bit of circumspection. Surprise of surprises, Black Lives Matter didn’t do that.
Instead, the BLM’s account decided to re-publish a reel from the moviesofcolour Instagram account, which describes its mission thusly: “Celebrating every facet of filmmaking by creators of colour and their representation on screen.”
The movie in question is 1983’s “Born in Flames,” an indie film by a radical feminist that depicts women’s resistance to a government run by men.
“We have a right to violence,” a character named Zella said in the clip.
Did rhetoric like this contribute to Charlie Kirk’s assassination?
“And I want to tell you something, it’s like the right to pee. You got to have the right place. You got to have the right time. You got to have the appropriate situation.
“And I’m absolutely convinced that this is it,” she added.
This was sick enough before Kirk was killed, mind you:
You can’t make this up.
The OFFICIAL Black Lives Matter account posted a video saying that “all oppressed people have a right to violence” in response to the murder of Iryna Zarutska. pic.twitter.com/g2ey77SGI0
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 10, 2025
The clip, like all Instagram Stories, stayed up for 24 hours before being automatically deleted, but that scarcely made it any better once Kirk was assassinated during an event at Utah Valley University just after it was posted.
Rest assured, in the days and weeks to come, we’ll see some permutation of this in order to justify what happened to Charlie Kirk. We’ve already seen the hedging in some of the “condolences” issued by people who didn’t agree with Kirk: stuff like “I don’t want to see anyone get killed, but…” or “I didn’t agree with him on anything, however…”
For once, some politicians and media are providing pushback to including these caveats to any sort of denunciation of Kirk’s killing.
Perhaps this gels into genuine sympathy. Or perhaps it goes the opposite way: The caveats disappear, and the left starts talking about Kirk as an odious human being simply because he stood up for what he believed in — and it didn’t fit their narrative.
Why wouldn’t they? After all, just days after video of Decarlos Brown Jr. saying, “I got that white girl. I got that white girl,” the official Black Lives Matter account on social media not only issued a clip saying that “all oppressed people have a right to violence,” they did it from a dystopian movie. It’s not too difficult to draw an inference from the clip that they view violence as a necessary thing — not even an evil. It’s like a bodily function; you’ve gotta let out the hate somehow, I suppose.
With priorities like that, are we at all surprised that Charlie Kirk is dead? The one thing that his murder and Iryna’s had in common is both were same the fruit of the same poisonous tree. Conservatives cannot let this be forgotten.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
