By Noah Rothman
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
In fact, we know quite a bit about Charlie Kirk’s alleged
killer, and we’re going to learn a lot more about his motives and state of mind
at his arraignment later today.
Even before prosecutors weigh in, we know from Governor
Spencer Cox’s survey of the evidence against Tyler Robinson that he was
attracted to “leftist ideology.” We know from his high school friends that the suspect was “pretty left on
everything.” Indeed, even though “the rest of his family was very hard
Republican,” the purported gunman was “the only member of his family that was
really leftist.”
We can glean some inferences, too, from the messages
Robinson etched onto bullet shell casings. “Hey fascist! Catch!” is pretty
self-explanatory. “Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Bella ciao ciao ciao,” references an
anti-fascist anthem from the Second World War that became a Soviet hymn and has
enjoyed a second life as a leftist
protest song and the soundtrack to gaming videos on forums like TikTok. “Notices Bulges OwO
what’s this?” would be familiar to consumers of “online furry and role-play culture.” That has a special
resonance in this case, given Robinson’s reported romantic relationship with
his biologically male transgender roommate.
It’s essential to restate the facts for the benefit of an
audience that is not only skeptical toward them but is actively crafting an
alternative reality that its fabricators hope will bury the truth beneath an
impenetrable mountain of prevarications.
Yesterday, I wrote about what was then a sad attempt to
revise the historical record — an exercise that took the form of insisting, all
evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, that Robinson was, in fact, a
pro-Trump Republican. “Kirk’s apparent assassin seems to have been ultra-MAGA,
exploding the GOP/MAGA attempt to pin the blame for this tragedy on liberals,”
wrote onetime Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe. Indeed, Robinson was pegged as a “Groyper,” a disciple of the racist
podcaster and Charlie Kirk critic Nick Fuentes, by those who desperately wanted
it to be true.
Until last night, this could be chalked up to the
motivated reasoning that passes for political analysis on social media, when
this popular delusion migrated from the internet onto a network news broadcast.
In
a since-deleted social media post, the CBS Evening News warned that
Robinson’s motives were merely what the FBI just recently started calling
“nihilistic violent extremism.” The alleged shooter’s act may be attributable
to a growing trend in which experts contend that “violence isn’t tied to a
clear political ideology.” It’s a phenomenon similar to the child murders
committed by the Annunciation Catholic school shooter — both of whom were
associated with or adjacent to the online culture of “trans ideology,” so, of
course, their “motive remains elusive,” CBS anchor John
Dickerson mused. Their violence seems “not driven by an obvious political
ideology.”
Of course, this obfuscatory enterprise is still primarily
an online phenomenon. There, Robinson’s presumed Republicanism is rapidly
becoming an unquestioned article of faith.
As Heather Cox Richardson, one of Substack’s most popular
writers with a 2.8 million-strong subscriber base, insisted that “in fact, the
alleged shooter was not someone on the left.” Rather, he is “a young white man
from a Republican, gun enthusiast family, who appears to have embraced the far
right, disliking Kirk for being insufficiently radical.”
This campaign of misdirection is having its intended
effect. A YouGov poll published Sunday found that more respondents
believe Robinson was “a Republican” (24 percent) than “a Democrat” (21
percent). The correct answer is likely, in the conventional sense, “not sure”
(40 percent). But among self-described Democrats, more than 40 percent of
respondents identified Robinson as a GOP’er. Nearly 30 percent of young adults
under the age of 29 said the same.
It is not at all reassuring that the bloody work of an
individual who was radicalized online is now being run through that same
reality distortion field for the benefit of millions of Americans who prefer
their unreality to the observable world around us.
At first, the activist left insisted they could quantify political violence to the decimal point in the
effort to claim that the American right is the font from which all violence
springs. When that didn’t change the subject, they pivoted to insisting that it
doesn’t actually matter what the alleged killer believed when what he
believed became obvious. Now, this cohort increasingly contends that the
alleged murderer of a conservative icon, who virtually confessed his left-wing
sympathies in writing, was really a far-right wacko.
This is hallucinatory. It will contribute to the
delirium from which too many deranged and violent elements draw inspiration.
This campaign of mythmaking is, at the very least, reckless and irresponsible.
At worst, it knowingly contributes to the conditions that are encouraging
would-be left-wing political terrorists to act on their paranoia.
No comments:
Post a Comment