I am pleased to read that Charlie Kirk’s reputation is rotting as fast as his corpse. While he shouldn’t have been murdered, of course, he was a terrible person whose influence was built entirely on right-wing idiocy and fomenting hatred and contempt of women, immigrants, and brown people, and supporting a political agenda built on the same. I’m only surprised that it has taken this long for his legacy to be properly recognized.

Ten months since his assassination, Charlie Kirk’s name and likeness are still proliferating online. Just not the way the far-right activist would have wanted.

Audio of the gunshot that killed him has become a TikTok meme, as have ironic reposts of the apparent AI-slop song We Are Charlie Kirk, which was originally created as a posthumous tribute. He was the butt of a crude joke during the Netflix roast of the Hollywood star Kevin Hart in May. The next month, a viral tweet encouraged people to take “a shot” in his honor on Juneteenth. And a trend known as “Kirkification” has emerged, in which internet pranksters superimpose his face on to unlikely images, such as the Mona Lisa, a woman in a bikini, or Jeffrey Epstein.

This contemptuous, at times nihilistic humor marks a dramatic shift from the period immediately following Kirk’s death in September, in which conservatives sought to suppress criticism of the late Maga luminary. Hundreds of people were fired or otherwise disciplined for denouncing him (which has since resulted in several settlements over alleged first amendment violations).

Yeah, there was a ridiculous (and fortunately brief) phase in which the right-wing advocates of free speech harassed anyone who expressed their dislike of Kirk. Like, for example, this woman:

It was the afternoon of 13 September 2025, just a few days after Charlie Kirk had been killed by a sniper’s bullet on a college campus. Shortly after his assassination, Strebe had posted on her personal Facebook page: “Empathy is not owed to oppressors.” In comments underneath, she did not mince words. She called Kirk a racist, a sexist, an antisemite and the kind of person who wants to see gay people, like her own son, stoned to death. “I don’t feel bad,” she says, months later, speaking from her home. “I refuse to feel bad for this man, and the hateful things he stood for.”

She was fired for her honest and accurate opinion.

But now that vengeful attitude towards Kirk-critics is waning. Part of it, I suspect, is that Kirk’s popularity was always artificial, propped up by the wealthy supporters who funded his organization, and those props are being kicked out from under it by the rich maggots who no longer see any profit in idolizing a dead man. I also think that making Erika Kirk his successor was a major misstep — she’s a graceless, over-reaching wanna-be who is easily mocked. Just ask Druski.

Likewise, Erika Kirk is in an awkward position. She and her husband promoted traditional gender roles centered on women’s subservience. Now, she is tasked with leading a multimillion-dollar organization. She has also been memed, at times misogynistically, for her quick return to public life after Charlie’s death – another demonstration of Turning Point’s struggle to control the digital narrative.

Without broad buy-in of Erika at the helm, Turning Point is a weakened enterprise. As Leidig observed, under Charlie Kirk’s leadership, the group pushed its messaging through a calculated “top-down approach” – with a cohesive strategy, funding from prominent Republican operatives, and support from the White House. This is a sharp contrast with amorphous grassroots entities such as Fuentes’s acolytes, the Groypers, who have ascended in the vacuum left by Kirk.

That’s the bad news: Fuentes is even worse than Kirk ever was, but he is such a hideously overblown bigot that the billionaires who favor his ideas are going to be reluctant to openly support him.