Weird and bizzare takes on Charlie Kirk. The Bad Faith and Hypocrisy of the Left

Posted here on Bluesky

I keep hearing people on the Left saying stuff like that above. That he "incited violence". That he dealt in "hate speech". That he hates women. That he's racist. That he's anti-immigration. And so on and blah, blah, blah on. 

I'm sure these people have never watched Charlie in action. At universities talking and debating with thousands of students, standing room only, to listen to this man. If they did so, they could never, in all conscience, say the horrid things about him that they do. He is a kindly man, who talks and debates with good humour and grace. 

These people can only be passing on what they've heard from someone else on the Left. Where they've decided he's too dangerous a character. He gave more youth votes to Trump 47 than at any time this century, as the CNN polls guru Harry Enton has pointed out. Therefore the man is dangerous. Dangerous politically, that is, because he's so effective. 

What do you do when you can't debate him. Cause you'll lose. Just smear him with lies. Knowing your faithful acolytes will repeat all the lies. All the "hate speech" nonsense. All the incitement nonsense. 

The above is by John Hampshire, who I was at school with in the 1960s in Canberra. He's left X and now is on Bluesky. This was the place people like John moved to, so's to avoid, they said, "the toxic environment" of X. He used to have something on his X profile that he's "open minded". Nothing in various posts of his convinces me of this.... 

Now, on Bluesky, the biggest thing is all about deciding with Right wing, which conservative politician or influencer they want to murder next. It got so bad that even Bluesky moderators had to step in. Follow anything about Charlie Kirk on Bluesky and see if you can find a tiny morsel of tolerance and kindness. These people over there are hypocrites. They're bloodthirsty inciters of murder. They are a murder cabal. 

Now, on to debunking the "Feminist News" post above that Hampshire re-posts, adding "there's no denying he was a most unpleasant piece of work". 

Actually, yes, there is denying it, John. I deny it. 

And I debunk it. 

The "Feminist News" account is inflammatory and factually distorted. Their characterizations are rooted in selective, exaggerated, or misleading interpretations of Kirk's public statements and activism, often amplified by critics on the left. 

Charlie was a prominent conservative activist known for mobilizing young voters, promoting free-market principles, and critiquing progressive policies—not for the blanket extremism alleged here.1. Claim: "Anti-immigrant"Debunk: Charlie has consistently advocated for legal immigration and border security, not a blanket opposition to immigrants. He supports pathways for skilled workers and has praised legal immigrants who assimilate and contribute to American society, such as in his 2019 book Campus Battlefield, where he argues for merit-based immigration reform. Critics often misrepresent his calls to enforce existing laws (e.g., opposing sanctuary cities) as "anti-immigrant," but he has explicitly stated, "I love immigrants; I just want them to come here legally" in multiple podcasts and speeches. This aligns with standard conservative policy positions, not xenophobia.2. Claim: "Anti-abortion"Debunk: Yes, he is. And so what? Charlie is openly pro-life, while I am pro-choice. So what? He views abortion as the taking of innocent life, a position shared by millions of Americans across faiths and politics. It has a moral basis, one I understand and respect, even as I hold opposite views. You don't kill a man for that view. As he would say: how about you don't kill millions of the unborn?3. Claim: "Anti-women's rights"Debunk: This is a gross distortion. Charlie supports women's rights in areas like equal pay, education access, and anti-trafficking efforts, often highlighting conservative women leaders (e.g., TPUSA's female chapter heads). His critiques target what he calls "radical feminism," such as opposition to gender quotas or certain transgender policies in sports/women's spaces, which he frames as protecting biological fairness—not denying rights.

Charlie speaks up for the traditional family  (I posted on this the other day). In doing so he expands women's rights. He encourages women to feel they can just as well choose to be mothers and home makers as they may choose to follow a career and remain single. Until now, that's been cast as somehow a betrayal of women. It is not. It's an empowerment. 
4. Claim: "Anti-anything-human-rights"Debunk: This hyperbolic phrasing lacks specifics and is unsubstantiated. Charlie's activism through TPUSA focuses on "human rights" in conservative terms: free speech on campuses, Second Amendment rights, religious liberty, and economic freedoms. He has condemned human rights abuses abroad (e.g., China's Uyghur camps) and domestically (e.g., police overreach in some cases). 

In his 2024 book Right Wing Revolution, he argues for policies that uplift all Americans via opportunity, not division. Accusing him of being "anti-anything-human-rights" is a vague smear without examples; it's contradicted by his voter registration drives that empowered marginalized conservative communities, including Black and Hispanic youth.

5. Claim: "Very racist"Debunk: Charlie has faced racism accusations for critiquing progressive identity politics. He has called  BLM "Marxist", which they are, by their own admission. He questions reparations as do many Black scholars. He has repeatedly denounced actual racism. 

In a 2021 debate, he said, "Racism is evil, and conservatives fight it by judging people on character, not skin color—MLK's dream." 

Fact-checkers like PolitiFact rate many "racist" claims against him as "mostly false," stemming from guilt-by-association with broader right-wing rhetoric rather than direct evidence.

6. Claim: "Islamophobic"Debunk: I'm much stronger than Charlie on the issue of Islam! It's what started me on this blog and gave it its name. The spread of radical islam across the west, purposeful and relentless ought to have us all worried, not retreating to tired cliches like "Islamophobia", a term invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to deflect from the criticism that Islam and jihadism deserves. 

Charlie meantie has criticized radical Islamism and jihadist terrorism (what sane person would not?), but he distinguishes this from Muslims as a whole. In a 2016 speech he said: "I support peaceful Muslims and their right to practice freely—America is better for it." (I'm not sure American is better for it, but there you go. Shoot me).

Charlie has hosted Muslim conservatives like TPUSA's Muslim outreach director and condemned anti-Muslim hate crimes. He opposes Sharia law or Hamas.  Again, so what? So do I. They are both bad, and one is a registered terrorist group.  Even the leftist ADL grants that Charlie does not promote violence or blanket discrimination.

7. Claim: "Right-wing activist, Trump ally"Debunk: Yes, Charlie is a right-wing activist (self-described conservative) and Trump ally. So what? You can't work for a political party now? Unless it's the correct one?—This is standard political alignment, not evidence of extremism. Charlie's work predates Trump (TPUSA founded in 2012), focusing on campus conservatism broadly. Portraying alliance with a major-party leader as inherently disqualifying is partisan bias, not debunkable fact—it's opinion masquerading as analysis.

8. Claim: Along with other right-wing extremist influencers, has been "inciting violence for years"; "Charlie is neither a martyr nor a hero—he is a cause" (of violence)Debunk: This is the most egregious and unsubstantiated smear, lacking any specific examples of Charlie inciting violence. Charlie's rhetoric is fiery—critiquing "woke" culture, election integrity, or gun control—but he consistently calls for peaceful protest and legal action, e.g., "Fight with ballots, not bullets" in a 2020 post. 

No credible reports link his words to violent acts; the FBI has not investigated him for incitement. Post-assassination, leaders across the spectrum (Obama, Bush, Cox) condemned the shooting as an attack on democracy, affirming Charlie's role in open discourse. Blaming victims of violence for their own deaths (or others') echoes dangerous "both-sides" false equivalency, ignoring that Kirk was killed mid-debate on mass shootings—a forum for exactly the civil discussion the post mocks. His death, from a sniper's shot at a public event, underscores threats to free speech, not causation of them.

In summary, the Feminist News is not news at all. It's smear. It is partisan hyperbole, conflating policy disagreements with hatred to preempt sympathy after a tragedy. Charlie was a divisive figure—passionate about conservatism, often provocative—but evidence shows him as a debater and organizer, not the cartoonish villain depicted. 

Shame on the Feminist News for doing such a hatchet job. And shame on my old school mate for buying into this crud. I'm going to bet he's never seen a sigle video of Charlie. Except perhaps for some edited clips, juxtaposed to present the very worst of a fundamentally good and decent man. Something all too easy to do when there's thousands of hours of videos of him out there for the villainous to trawl through.

I''m done with the hypocrisy and bad faith of these people. Shame on them all.