Charlie Kirk

Source: Gage Skidmore

What was the mainstream British public’s reaction to the assassination of Charlie Kirk? First and foremost, to ask, “Who is Charlie Kirk?” Most normal Brits over the age of around 21 had never heard of the man; he was not particularly famous over here. As such, media organizations felt the need to provide readers with simple potted explanations of who he was—explanations that, pouring into a substantial informational vacuum, provided quite easy to lace throughout with lies and half-truths.

Personally, although I knew the name, all I really understood about Charlie is that he was some kind of conservative influencer or other who supported Donald Trump and had founded a youth organization called Turning Point USA. That’s a pathetic starting knowledge base but probably actually made me comparatively well-informed about the guy within a British context. Which, handily, rendered the average British person very easy indeed to manipulate upon the whole subject.

U.K. media profiles of Kirk following his shooting were informative up to a point, explaining the core basics of who he was, and left readers and viewers with a serviceable skeleton outline of Kirk’s career. But into this same outline, many mainstream sources could not then resist slipping various subjective value judgments and then pretending they were simple objective facts, when they clearly were not.

“It has already proved disarmingly easy for dishonest media outlets and activists to convince large numbers of readers and viewers that Kirk deserved it.”

Political Obituary
An obituary in Britain’s leading broadsheet The Times, for example, informed its largely Kirk-clueless middle-aged-and-above readers that “Kirk embraced the more extreme positions of the American right.” Really, like what? Shockingly, Kirk had started “a vigilante-style Professor Watchlist to ‘expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda.’” So what? The only valid criticism I can think of about Kirk here is that it would have been far less effort if he had only thought of compiling a list of those sixteen or so non-Marxist professors across America who didn’t act like this.

Worse, said The Times, Kirk “strayed into antisemitism.” How so? By saying things like:

“Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. It is true that some of the largest financiers [and champions] of left-wing, anti-white causes have been Jewish-Americans.”

It is indeed true: bodies and individuals like George Soros and the ADL, for example, who once famously adopted a “definition” of racism that was racist against white people. But again, it is easy to dupe British readers over this issue, because the vast majority of them haven’t really heard of George Soros, either, and to most the letters “ADL” mean little more than the name of an English burglar alarm company. Tell the average Yookay dweller that the ADL advocates flooding Western nations with black men, as some allege, and they would simply ask, “Why would a burglar alarm company want to do that? To drive up more custom from concerned householders?”

As far as I can tell from my own limited understanding of the man, Charlie Kirk was deeply pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist; so much so, Benjamin Netanyahu called him “a lionhearted friend of Israel” after he died. Earlier this year, Kirk wrote that “Jew-hate…rots the brain, reject it” and called Hamas “wild animals,” declaring himself firmly on the side of the IDF and Tel Aviv in the current war in Gaza.

Apparently, all he meant with his quote reproduced in The Times was that some malign Jews mean white people harm, not that most normal ones do. Which is perfectly true; some do. Even an avowed philosemite and “lionhearted friend of Israel” who was friends with Benjamin Netanyahu like Charlie Kirk said so.

Target Audience
The Times is a supposedly center-right newspaper, though. Britain’s outright left-wing press, like The Guardian, were far worse. Rather than simply sticking to condemning Kirk’s fatal elimination, the propaganda sheet’s editorial on the shooting seemed far more concerned with criticizing Donald Trump for attributing the crime to “radical left political violence” before any violent radical leftist had actually been arrested for it (that came a mere day or so later).

“Blaming political adversaries before a perpetrator has even been identified risks fuelling anger and attacks, to everyone’s cost,” the newspaper warned. If someone had shot Barack Obama in the neck, I’m sure The Guardian would have been highly restrained in not automatically blaming white-supremacist neo-Nazis for the act. “Let’s not be too hasty, it could have been a color-blind Black Panther,” we can just imagine the leader writers warning their readers before they jumped to any unwarranted conclusions.

The spread of political assassinations across America was a terrible thing, continued the editorial, as “women and people of color are particularly targeted” by them, like when Ilhan Omar was vaporized with a bazooka at a podium last year, and AOC incinerated with white phosphorous from a helicopter gunship while standing there innocently feeding the poor outside Congress.

A white man gets shot, and The Guardian bemoans the growing trend for this happening to black women, even though it hasn’t actually happened to any black women at all. I’m struggling to remember the last time a prominent non-white female politician or activist got assassinated in America. Kamala Harris frequently died on stage, but that’s a different matter. Could The Guardian quickly arrange for Benazir Bhutto to be given a posthumous U.S. passport just to back their pathetic thesis up?

Character Assassination
Obviously, being a national newspaper, subject to regulation from media watchdogs, The Guardian can’t just openly say to its readers, “The big white bastard deserved it!” so instead they ran with a “Charlie Kirk in His Own Evil Words”-type feature about his allegedly “bigoted views,” providing quotes intended to make their readers draw that same ungenerous conclusion for themselves. Evil quotes like what? Evil quotes like these, all of which I personally agree with, and I bet most of you do too:

“Happening all the time in urban America, prowling blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.”

“Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.”

“America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.”

“The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.”

“The Great Replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.”

“We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.”

None of which, in any way, calls for any actual violence to take place against anyone; just arrests, and implicit deportations. Meanwhile, here’s a post-shooting quote from a typically mentally well-balanced Scottish transgenderist—a group of hateful deviants The Guardian is perpetually presenting as being oppressed, vulnerable, and love-filled—typed out with false acrylic nails on alternative Twitter-for-libtards social media site Bluesky:

“Like, I’m glad that guy died but they’re going really hard on the ‘Ohhh this is a dark day for America’ about a guy I had never heard of till he was shot. Can we get JK Rowling next? Like, the UK would be unbearable about it but it’s for the greater good of trans people.”

So would be mass incarceration of them all in mental asylums, but perhaps I’d better be careful, that’s precisely the kind of “hateful rhetoric” that just got Charlie Kirk shot dead by the Forces of Love.

Cooking Up More Lies
The end result of such misleading reporting can be seen in the subsequent proliferation of posts such as those placed online by moronic celebrity Muslim TV chef Nadiya Hussain, who, as I have comprehensively demonstrated on this site previously, is a total fuckwit in thrall to self-pitying Islamo-leftist notions of perpetual victimhood. I sincerely doubt Nadiya had heard of Charlie before he got murdered; most of her instantly absorbed pseudo-information about him would have come from either biased lefty sources like The Guardian or biased Islamist ones like Intifada Today. Here is what Nadiya spewed out about him nonetheless:

“Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political ‘activist’ [with inverted commas, do note—in much the same way that Nadiya is ‘British’], was shot in the neck today and died. The internet screams, ‘graphic,’ ‘unwatchable,’ ‘unimaginable terror.’ For two years, Gaza has lived through horrors that no words can hold. Children carrying other children in bloodied backpacks. Bodies torn apart in buildings, shreds hanging. Brains on the floor. Burns too horrific to imagine. Horror upon horror. And this is what’s ‘too graphic’? A man who was a vocal Islamophobe and bigot who glorified violence. He celebrated shootings, cheered on aggression, and thrived on spreading hate. His life was a platform for division and fear. But here’s the question we can’t ignore: why is it that when white men die, the world mourns, and when 20,000 children do, silence fills the streets?”

Here’s another question: Why is it that when white men die, brown women, living in white men’s countries, feel that they are the true victims of the shooting? Maybe because they read that they were in sources like The Guardian and credulously believed it.

And as for “silence fills the streets,” only if she’s somehow managed to miss all those noisy pro-Palestine marches disrupting central London every weekend since October 2022. She should take her hijab off, it’s evidently blocking the access of all external sounds into her empty head.

And when, precisely, did Kirk “celebrate shootings” or “glorify violence”? Only in the main text of inaccurate Guardian editorials about him once again, I suppose. Being a Muslim, had she heard the equally incorrect opinions of Alastair Campbell to the effect that Kirk supposedly endorsed the stoning to death of homosexuals, perhaps Nadiya would have suddenly began championing Charlie instead.

“Note to self—especially amid tragic and potentially deeply polarising events, be careful about social media, mis- and disinformation,” Campbell subsequently apologized once his error had been exposed, which was certainly a first coming from Tony Blair’s former chief spin doctor. Can we hear you say sorry for helping cause the Iraq War by spreading total lies now, too?

The evidence seems conclusive. Due to the vast majority of British people’s (and indeed “British” people’s, like Nadiya Hussain) complete and utter ignorance about who Charlie Kirk was, and what he stood for, it has already proved disarmingly easy for dishonest media outlets and activists to convince large numbers of readers and viewers out there that Kirk deserved it.

Dead, at 31. Charlie Kirk, we hardly knew ye—literally.