On 18th September 2025, the Impartial Reporter published an opinion piece titled “The Global Doctrine of Fascism Is on the Rise“, written by Bernadette McAliskey. The article discusses political ideologies, the current state of global power structures, and controversially references the recent murder of American political commentator Charlie Kirk.
McAliskey’s article draws on broad themes of oppression, social manipulation, and political resistance, questioning the direction of modern Western society. It presents concerns around emerging global ideologies and the loss of democratic values, connecting various current events from around the world to a wider perceived threat of rising fascism.
However, the piece has drawn significant debate online, especially due to its portrayal of Charlie Kirk and the suggestion that his death is a reflection of deeper systemic issues, not simply an isolated, tragic event.
Our View
First, I want to make it clear that we are not a political website. We rarely publish political commentary, and we are not affiliated with any political or religious group. We believe everyone has a right to their own opinion, and that personal belief is a private matter.
This is simply an opinion article in response to the one published in the Impartial Reporter, and it’s something I felt compelled to write after reading the original article multiple times.
To be transparent: I had never heard of Bernadette McAliskey before reading her piece. I can’t comment on her personally, this response is strictly about the article she wrote. And in my honest opinion, it’s the biggest load of nonsense I’ve read regarding what happened to Charlie Kirk.
The article is filled with buzzwords, and putting terms like ‘free’, ‘following’, ‘right’ and ‘surrender’ in single quotation marks just makes it feel exaggerated, like an attempt to turn ordinary words into something sinister.
I didn’t know Charlie Kirk, but like many in the UK, the US, and elsewhere, I was aware of him. Simply put, he was a guy who debated anyone and everyone. Agree with him or not, his debates were usually respectful, and people were given a fair chance to speak.
There’s no right or wrong in a debate. Debates are about opinion, and no matter how passionately you speak, opinions are rarely changed, and that’s completely fine. As long as no laws are being broken, everyone is entitled to their viewpoint.
Articles like the one in the Impartial Reporter are exactly why younger people are drawn to figures like Charlie Kirk, because they encourage open conversation and the idea that we can agree to disagree without being labelled or dismissed.
In contrast, the McAliskey article seems to blame the world’s problems on those who hold differing views, which is ironic, because Charlie Kirk was known for allowing discussion, not shutting it down.
One part of the article even implies that we should feel sympathy for Kirk’s killer because he’s “barely an adult” and may face the death penalty. But this was clearly a premeditated murder, it was planned and carried out with intent. If you believe in the rule of law, then the killer should face the consequences, regardless of age.
I also struggled to understand what countries like Palestine, Sudan, Mali, and Haiti have to do with Charlie Kirk’s death. These are tragic global issues, yes, but referencing them here seems completely unrelated and confusing.
In the end, it’s clear that the article lacks real context about who Charlie Kirk was. Even McAliskey admits she didn’t know much about him, which makes the strong opinions expressed about him feel even more out of place.
Final Thoughts
In my opinion, the article was pure nonsense, filled with vague claims and disconnected ideas. And judging by the comments on social media, I’m not alone in thinking that.
To be clear once more: this is not a personal attack on Bernadette McAliskey. I don’t know her and can’t comment on her personally. This is strictly about the article she wrote, which, in my view, lacks balance, clarity, and any meaningful insight into the subject matter.
What Do You Think?
We’re curious, did you read the original article? What’s your take on it?
Do you think opinion pieces like this help or hurt public discussion?
Let us know in the comments on our Facebook page — we want to hear from you.
Note:
The Our View section reflects our opinion based on current reporting and available information at the time of publishing.
